Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org):
> Christian and Cyril, what are your thoughts on this? Do you think that if
> we come up with a patch implementing the above, we could get it in
> stretch? What would be the last delay to come up with such a patch?
From my own POV, I'm too far from
Quoting Axel Beckert (a...@debian.org):
Hi,
Don Armstrong wrote:
2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed
that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude
development and restore Manuel Fernandez Montecelo's commit access
Quoting Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no):
It can't indeed be worse than the current situation anyway.
I see where the proposal is coming from, but I'd like to ask you to hold
off on it a little bit. I've mailed Daniel and asked him to comment on
the bug, so hopefully we can have his input
Quoting Axel Beckert (a...@debian.org):
In the long run I'd like to see even more people working on Aptitude.
But for that, a possessive lead developer or power games are quite
hindering. IMHO one of the reasons Aptitude's development stalled
again are those power games we've seen. So I'd
For the record, debian-ctte can have the same spam cleaning operation
than any Debian list.
Anyone can report any mail in Debian mailing lists as spam. For
instance, the following:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/03/msg1.html
has a Report as spam button on the upper right corner.
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):
If you have any question for -boot@, please send a mail there. If you
want some input from either Christian or me, please cc us to ensure we
don't miss that mail.
And, FWIW, though I *am* in some way following the -ctte list
(including the giant
Quoting Michael Gilbert (mgilb...@debian.org):
We went back and forth on this in IRC a little bit. The difficulty is
that unless you're going to delegate to some other entity the ability to
decide when the TC can hold private discussions (which I don't think would
be very practical), the
Quoting Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com):
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:36:14 +0100, Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
- Lintian doesn't warn about missing build-* targets yet, so many
maintainers are not aware that their package are affected by this issue.
Is this still true ?
Quoting Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On 6/9/05, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some people have argued this does against all established practices in
such matter. Others have argued that the way to install a system is a
very specific way and that, after all, the password
(and not in -devel, at least for the first round)
Now that's kind of bizarre. You're planning to go to -devel *after*
having gone to the technical committee? I guess you're not actually
expecting the technical committee to make a ruling on it, or you're just
going to ignore it if it's
(2nd try as I ignored that posting to the -ctte list is restricted to
subscribers)
Dear Technical Commitee,
The shadow package maintenance team is left with an issue which seems
quite controversial (even inside the team...:-)).
See http://bugs.debian.org/304350 for details.
In short, shadow
11 matches
Mail list logo
