Hi,
btw, thank you all (tech-ctte) for helping in resolving this! Much
appreciated.
On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Personally, I don't think runit-run's behavior here is what's intended to
> be allowed under Policy. IMHO, if the question is "do you want to install
> this pac
AFAICT the case was quite clear, so whats left to do here?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
reassign 618885 debian-policy
thanks
Hi Roberto, hi policy maintainers!
On Freitag, 29. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Regardless, policy states the following in section 6.8:
>
> 5. The conffiles and any backup files (~-files, #*# files, %-files,
> .dpkg-{old,new,tmp}, etc.) are remov
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2014, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > it's not realistic for a porter to continously test startup
> > scripts for thousands of packages.
> It's reasonable to semi-continuously test installation scripts for
> thousands of packages -- that's what piuparts does, and we have
> s
Hi,
On Freitag, 17. Januar 2014, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Indeed. Early on in my original development of piuparts I realised
> that testing, in a chroot, code that starts arbitrary daemons is a bad
> idea in oh so many ways. I haven't followed piuparts development in
> recent years, so I don't know
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:05:46PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> The reaction to every single instance of someone finding it a pain to
> maintain sysvinit support should not be "as a reminder, the TC has a
> giant hammer and will hit you with it". The reaction should be "are
> there people willing
reassign 846002 tech-ctte
thanks
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:58:03AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Control: Severity -1 normal
src:blends 0.6.93 uploaded on 09 Apr 2016 introduced a new binary
package, blends-dev, with "priority: important", causing it to be
installed on *all* systems by debootstr
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:34:56PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> I am quite angry about this: You basically opened this bug by stating
> that you will do an NMU within 4-5 days, but you already knew that you
> would not have time to discuss the bug before you planned this to happen.
I didnt knew t
control: reassign -1 tech-ctte
control: retitle -1 blends-tasks must not be priority:important
thanks
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:43:18AM -0600, Don Armstrong wrote:
> if either of you disagree (or anyone else on the CTTE
> disagrees) and still want the CTTE to resolve this (slowly), feel free
> to
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:15:26PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > Can you explain why the TC is so reluctant to depose or overrule
> > maintainers ?
>
> Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job. If
> I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:45:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> * Holger does not like the look of presenting tasks as they
> where half a year ago.
wrong.
> * The conflict with policy seems artificial to me
wrong.
> and I have the
> bad feeling Holger intends to hire people advoc
Thanks, Phil.
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:18:23AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> It makes the "what do you want to install?" menu slightly worse by
> introducing some more befuddling options to it. It was already dire
> though.
exactly.
> Before this…
[...]
> So, this was already a disaster area
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 06:27:46PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But more importantly, we need to not show that page at all. I would like
> to suggest a first screen:
>
> Install packages for a:
>
> [X] standard desktop
> [ ] standard server
> [ ] minimal server
> [ ] Show me more optio
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:16:50PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Again: the installer is there to test for 6 months now, but if it is
> inacceptably bad: why are there no complaints?
the complaints have been there for months, you just choose to consider
them invalid. some people dont like to repea
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:16:01PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Would it be a sensible compromise to reassign this bug to d-i tagging it
> RC for buster to make sure a Blends menu will exist in the buster
> installer.
besides what Tollef already said about the severity I think a fresh new bug is
Hi,
Ansgar, thanks a lot for doing this!
On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 06:06:28PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> So, I went through all reproducible build failures in unstable without
> notes and added notes for differences caused by building in merged-/usr
> vs non-merged-/usr packages. Together wi
On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 10:21:50PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> gzip, icecc and mailagent were most recently built for buster on
> 2018-11-08, which might be long enough ago that the buster chroot was
> not merged-/usr?
right. I triggered their builds and now they are all shown as unreproducible
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:21:11PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Your figure of ~80 packages counts only packages which went through a
> reproducible-builds rebuild. We later learned only a part of the archive
> got rebuilt since the bad debootstrap backport.
wrong, sigh.
--
cheers,
Ho
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 09:58:09PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > We later learned only a part of the archive got rebuilt since the bad
> > debootstrap backport.
> Yes, some packages were not yet rebuilt in testing, but having them
> rebuilt in unstable is enough.
looking at https://tests.repr
Hi Sean and the rest of the tech-ctte!
1st, thanks for preparing this BoF!
In general I liked what I read, I just have a question or maybe two...
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 01:37:10PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> **Proposal 2**: Explicitly delegate the mediation task for solving
> social conflict b
Hi Marga,
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:58:51PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > which of the three options does the tech-ctte (roughly) prefer?
> This is a great question and I hope we'll find the answer to this during the
> BoF.
:))
> > > Allow design work
> > > -
> > > **Pr
21 matches
Mail list logo
