The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1232 (new: 10)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 204 (new: 1)
Total number of packages reque
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:03 PM Simon Richter wrote:
> Another important argument is that it creates a dependency on
> third-party commercial CDNs, and their *continued* sponsorship.
This dependency on external providers is unavoidable, Debian
definitely cannot afford to run our own CDN at the sca
Hi,
On 04.09.21 22:12, Hideki Yamane wrote:
The TLS layer is not part of the security model, so we'd be teaching
users to look for the wrong thing, kind of like the "encrypted with SSL"
badges on web pages in the 90ies.
Is there any strong reason to use HTTP than HTTPS now?
The strongest
* Michael Stone [2021-09-09 09:05]:
Because the controversy concerning changing the default is over
whether it's reasonable for someone using auto-apt-proxy to have to
manage additional configuration settings.
Ah, I understand your point now and I agree.
It would be an inconvenience, yes, not
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 02:54:21PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
* Michael Stone [2021-09-09 08:32]:
I'm honestly not sure who the target audience for auto-apt-proxy
is--apparently someone who has an infrastructure including a
proxy, possibly the ability to set dns records, etc., but can't
chang
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Luca Boccassi
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, cypher...@ubuntu.com,
paul...@debian.org, ivan...@ubuntu.com, supe...@gmail.com
* Package name: tpm2-tss-engine
Version : 1.1.0
Upstream Author : Fraunhofer SIT, Intel, Wind River a
* Michael Stone [2021-09-09 08:32]:
I'm honestly not sure who the target audience for auto-apt-proxy
is--apparently someone who has an infrastructure including a
proxy, possibly the ability to set dns records, etc., but can't
change defaults at install time or via some sort of runtime
configu
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 11:54:44AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
Why can't auto-apt-proxy ask this as a debconf question? I also like
auto-apt-proxy but I agree with this, someone needing auto-apt-proxy should be
able to change the default as well.
I don't really see why adding another debcon
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 08:36:28AM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
* Michael Stone [2021-09-08 19:12]:
Why not simply automate setting it at install time using preseed?
I'm honestly not sure who the target audience for auto-apt-proxy
is--apparently someone who has an infrastructure including a prox
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 04:45:35AM +, Paul Wise wrote:
>...
> That seems like a bug in the test cases, they shouldn't be testing the
> build time environment like that, since it could differ from the
> runtime environment.
These are usually not the tests of dnspython.
dnspython even has some
On Thu, 2021-09-09 at 00:59 -0500, Zebediah Figura wrote:
> Unfortunately, no. We have no way of knowing the caller.
Can the PE loading mechanism do something like inject a fake dlopen
function available only in the Wine namespace that just passes the Wine
namespace to the dlmopen function? Or th
11 matches
Mail list logo
