Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On 2016-12-10 06:54 +1030, Ron wrote: > So I've now orphaned this package, and he has my blessing and sympathy > for being responsible for whatever happens with it from here. I haven't > filed a WNPP bug for that as we don't need to offer it to someone random. OK. Cheers. Warm potato accepted

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 06:54:17 +1030 Ron wrote: > You then had the gall to angrily insist that while you thought he might > be a better maintainer than me, it was still my responsibility to do the > work to fix all the obvious things that others had missed in their fork > (which he

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ole Streicher writes: > On 09.12.2016 08:37, Philip Hands wrote: >>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Philip Hands wrote: It could be much improved by making it more obvious that the heading is a heading. Even if we're unable to stop headings having a checkbox, we could

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

> "Colin" == Colin Watson writes: Colin> As a maintainer who has sometimes had cause to do similar Colin> things, I'm concerned at the standard being applied here. Colin> Could you perhaps review the history around groff 1.18.1.1 -> Colin> 1.20 for

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:13:48PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > What I see as fundamental difference here was your use of #196762 as a single > point of contact for the problem you were facing with groff 1.19, in which > you > explained, commented and followed up on what the problem

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Le vendredi, 9 décembre 2016, 15.03:14 h CET Colin Watson a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:58:10AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > However, the time at which Debian has last synced with upstream does > > matter. > > Six years is a long time. > > Moreover, I believe that the standard you've

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:58:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le vendredi, 9 décembre 2016, 04.55:20 h CET Ron a écrit : > > > If you haven't yet, I urge you to use our standard interface to report > > > such > > > bugs; please make sure issues like this one are public on our bugtracker,

Bug#841294: global maintainer : Draft ballot

With the precious help of Phil and Sam, here comes a draft ballot. It is attached to this mail, and has been committed to the TC's git repository [0]. It contains the following ballot options: > - Option A - Reaffirm Ron Lee as 'global' maintainer (§6.1.2) > - Option B - Declare Wookey as

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On 2016-12-08 17:03 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Sorry missed this in all yesterday's mail. > Wookey, Vincent, Punit: would any of you be willing to receive the 'global' > package maintainer hat? (which would of course come with the possibility to > share and change the maintainer status

Re: Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On 2016-12-08 17:33 +, Wookey wrote: > On 2016-12-08 23:32 +1030, Ron wrote: > > But it also outputs a .htaccess enabling execution in the directory > > where the output is generated, whether you want to use it from there > > or not (and adds a second CGI, and a bunch of jquery doing AJAX

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes: Didier> That code is now in Debian (experimental), so yes, I do Didier> expect you to act in good faith and report bugs you see. You Didier> are obviously quite versed in how 'global' works, and that's Didier>

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Hi all, Please forgive me one more comment. Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:31:05 +1030, Ron wrote: > ... and it may well be that this has actually happened now with > upstream's decision to drop all support for providing a secure > system CGI of any form that people can use for this. The upstream > code is

December 2016 TC meeting is at 'Thu Dec 22 18:00:00 UTC 2016'

The December Debian Technical Committee Meeting will happen at date -d 'Thu Dec 22 18:00:00 UTC 2016' in #debian-ctte on irc.debian.org The meetings.ics file [0] and the agenda were updated accordingly in git; please make any necessary changes. The meeting poll has also been

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Hi, 2016-12-09 18:26 GMT+09:00 Philip Hands : > > open(PIPE, "-|") || exec '@globalpath@', '--result=ctags-xid', > > $flags, $pattern; > > Is it not the case that this last line forks and execs global, passing > $pattern as a parameter to global's -e option, and that

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Le vendredi, 9 décembre 2016, 04.55:20 h CET Ron a écrit : > > If you haven't yet, I urge you to use our standard interface to report > > such > > bugs; please make sure issues like this one are public on our bugtracker, > > with correct found/notfound version markers. > > Do you really want

Re: Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On 2016-12-09 11:58 +0900, Shigio YAMAGUCHI wrote: > Hello all, > 2016 19:05:55 +, Wookey wrote: > > The .cgi scripts are generated from .in files which are correctly > > parameterised with @PERLPATH@ and @GLOBALPATH@ etc. Upstream > > unhelpfully ships pre-generated versions with the above

Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Hi Shigio, Thanks for getting involved. Shigio YAMAGUCHI writes: > Hello all, > > 2016 23:32:44 +1030, Ron wrote: >> open(PIPE, '@globalpath@' . " --result=ctags-xid $flags $pattern |"); >> >> Which for those who don't speak it, is perl for "anyone can execute >> arbitrary

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On 09.12.2016 08:37, Philip Hands wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Philip Hands wrote: >>> It could be much improved by making it more obvious that the heading is >>> a heading. Even if we're unable to stop headings having a checkbox, we >>> could change the text and the hierarchy slightly to be