Hi,
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Owner: Arnaud Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: bzr-plugin-webserve
> Version : web interface for bazaar-ng
> Upstream Author : Goffredo Baroncelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 September 2006 02:11, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > It is really unfortunate that the regulation of moderation is hidden
> > under a "privacy" menu in Mailman. Maybe the most straightforward mean
> > to slove this in the future would be to make the
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Unfortunately, I haven't seen much support for my position yet - most
> responses are in the line of "if you don't want to be flamed, don't set
> the mailinglist to moderated". I remain at "flaming your fellows never
> helps the project, making requests
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 07:08, Joseph Smidt wrote:
> I know I am in for an argument, but I think it is a good
> question. I'm sure many of you have read Mark's blog:
> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/56. It says 76% of Debian
> users run unstable and probably a fair fraction o
Joseph Smidt wrote:
> I know I am in for an argument, but I think it is a good
> question. I'm sure many of you have read Mark's blog:
> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/56. It says 76% of Debian
> users run unstable and probably a fair fraction of the rest run testing.
Those numbe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
>
>
> I think we all really love running unstable. It is very fun because
> it is exciting and sometimes unpredictible. Debian, in my opinion,
> appeals to an ambitiuos crowd who is willing to take risks and is
> not afraid to explore the inner w
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:21:54PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> it's not the first time such a question is raised, I did that
>> recently enough, for a foo-package I don't even remember (some
>> python messages that bounced to me). that is completely i
I know I am in for an argument, but I think it is a good
question. I'm sure many of you have read Mark's blog:
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/56. It says 76% of Debian
users run unstable and probably a fair fraction of the rest run testing.
Isn't it a cause of stress tr
Our users who currently use stable in various mission critical and
other destabalization-averse environments (basically everyone who
isn't a single desktop user) need and want stable releases which are
supported by the very capable security and stable release teams.
Our stable releases fill a nich
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 22:08 -0600, Joseph Smidt wrote:
> 1. Those who maintain Debian love unstable. It is the OS that offers the
> most freedom. Maintaining a Stable and Oldstable seem to distract from the
> focus of an ever evolving Unstable. I have an email from a developer I
> will not name
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ruben Dario Ponticelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: qsa-x11-opensource
Version : 1.2.1
Upstream Author : TrollTech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.trolltech.com/product
Package: wnpp
Followup-For: Bug #181276
Owner: Ruben Dario Ponticelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: qsa-x11-free
Version : 1.1.4
Upstream Author : TrollTech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : ftp://ftp.trolltech.com/pub/qsa/
*
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 02:11, Charles Plessy wrote:
> It is really unfortunate that the regulation of moderation is hidden
> under a "privacy" menu in Mailman. Maybe the most straightforward mean
> to slove this in the future would be to make the new lists unmoderated
> by default?
Or ask th
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 02:07, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 10 September 2006 01:46, Debian-project Secretary wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Oops. Sorry.
pgpogZFg9RR6Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Le Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:09:26AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> Why are you even in a position that such mistakes are
> possible? Why is the recipient of the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> moderated at all?
>
Hi all,
It happens because it is the default behaviour when you :
- Request t
On Sunday 10 September 2006 01:46, Debian-project Secretary wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
b7af2494-93e2-490e-9312-85647b0928b3
[ 1 ] Choice 1: Amend the constitution [needs 3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Further discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anyt
Minor point: the package name should not contain any upper case
letters :-)
> 5.6.7. `Package'
>
>
> The name of the binary package.
>
> Package names must consist only of lower case letters (`a-z'), digits
> (`0-9'), plus (`+') and minus (`-') signs, and period
(Added debian-gtk-gnome to the lists.)
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 01:24:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Now that the gnome-2 version of gnucash has migrated into testing, I'm
> orphaning them. There are still a tiny number of packages that rely
> on them, so they should not be peremptorily
Package: wnpp
Owner: Niko Tyni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: request-tracker3.6
Version : 3.6.1
Upstream Author : Jesse Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bestpractical.com/rt/
* License : GPL v2
Programming Lang: Perl
Descri
For a while I have been maintaining the gnome-1 libraries, because
gnucash was the last big package which required them.
When I uploaded the gnome-2 version of gnucash into unstable, I filed
RFAs for these libraries.
Now that the gnome-2 version of gnucash has migrated into testing, I'm
orphan
On Monday 11 September 2006 19:17, Frank Küster wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > On Sep 11, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> That's the version in testing, but the source package in sid also has
> >> all that's needed to get it in again, unless there's a hard-to-see
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:09:16 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The other alternative discussed on IRC was to make /usr/lib/libfl.so
> a linker script, à la libc.so. I think the below should be
> sufficient, giving you PIC code when shared linking is requested by
> the linker and n
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> There is a /etc/init.d/udev script provided by the udev package, but as
>> it
>> seems no entity cares to start it at boot time to populate the /dev
>> directory. Are there any good reasons for udev not to call update-rc.d from
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Sep 11, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> That's the version in testing, but the source package in sid also has
>> all that's needed to get it in again, unless there's a hard-to-see
>> subtle error.
> Like the update-rc.d bug discussed here i
On Sep 11, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's the version in testing, but the source package in sid also has
> all that's needed to get it in again, unless there's a hard-to-see
> subtle error.
Like the update-rc.d bug discussed here in the last few days.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 09:14 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Are you saying stupid people can't make honest mistakes? I
> would think that these are not mutually exclusive characterizations.
> As for determining intelligence of an action, I would much rather
> call a spade a spade. It i
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> There is a /etc/init.d/udev script provided by the udev package, but as
> it
> seems no entity cares to start it at boot time to populate the /dev
> directory. Are there any good reasons for udev not to call update-rc.d from
> its post
[please keep me in cc: for i am not subscribed to the 'debian-devel' list]
Hello list, I think it's time to show you... this: http://cdbs.ueberalles.net
It's an online gallery with all CDBS rules files used in Debian packages.
There's a FAQ on the site which can answer some obvious answers but, a
Hello,
There is a /etc/init.d/udev script provided by the udev package, but as
it
seems no entity cares to start it at boot time to populate the /dev
directory. Are there any good reasons for udev not to call update-rc.d from
its postinst to install the necessary symlinks in place ? Nex
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's not the first time such a question is raised, I did that recently
> enough, for a foo-package I don't even remember (some python messages
> that bounced to me). that is completely inadequate, and whitelisting
> any @bugs.debian.org From address
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:59:35 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 21:22 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:26:52PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > > Any maintainer doing suc
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:26:52 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
>> > following reason for rejecting your request:
>> >
>> > "No reason given"
>> Any maint
Le lun 11 septembre 2006 15:36, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> * Pierre Habouzit
>
> | I've already stated it, and I do it again: I do consider ok that
> | the Maintainer field of some co-maintained package is a list, that
> | really makes sense, but *that* list should never ever use
> | sender-based
Package: wnpp
Owner: Arnaud Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: bzr-plugin-webserve
Version : web interface for bazaar-ng
Upstream Author : Goffredo Baroncelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://goffredo-baroncelli.homelinux.net/bazaar/bazaa
* Pierre Habouzit
| I've already stated it, and I do it again: I do consider ok that the
| Maintainer field of some co-maintained package is a list, that really
| makes sense, but *that* list should never ever use sender-based
| moderation.
Does this mean you don't consider using [EMAIL PROTE
Le lun 11 septembre 2006 10:59, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 21:22 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:26:52PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > > Any maintainer doing such a braindead stupi
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:59:35AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> It's your right to have such an opinion, but it's not the question at
> hand. The point I raised is: is it appropriate to assume that a fellow
> maintainer is "braindead" or "stupid", or rather assume that he made an
> honest mistak
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Adam Cecile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: createrepo
Version : 0.4.6
Upstream Author : Duke University <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://linux.duke.edu/projects/metadata/
* License : GPL
Description : generat
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:22:08AM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2006, 21:22 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > For my part, I find it pretty offensive that a mailing list that's set as
> > the maintainer of a package would have mail filters configured this way in
> > the first
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 21:22 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:26:52PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > Any maintainer doing such a braindead stupid thing - do not wonder if I
> > > reject your package without any
Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2006, 21:22 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> For my part, I find it pretty offensive that a mailing list that's set as
> the maintainer of a package would have mail filters configured this way in
> the first place. For the samba packaging team, for instance, I've taken
> pains
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libxml-libxml-xpathcontext-perl
Version : 0.07
Upstream Author : Ilya Martynov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Petr Pajas <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/~pajas/XML-
42 matches
Mail list logo
