On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:58:24AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I was acually meditating on Joerg's answer for the past two weeks, wondering
> that if my some of my packages are bullshit, I should look for another place
> to
> distribute them instead of letting them be a burden for everybody.
I
Hi all,
I was acually meditating on Joerg's answer for the past two weeks, wondering
that if my some of my packages are bullshit, I should look for another place to
distribute them instead of letting them be a burden for everybody.
Since he sent his anwer again, I will reply again. Let's hope it
Marc Haber writes:
> The ftp team has a history of strongly discouraging uploads that they
> don't feel like accepting (such as a package that would download
> eicar.com from the internet and place it in a defined place where other
> packages might find and use it) and of killing of packages on g
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 17:12:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:17:02AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> >
> > So what backports "priority" actually says is "my package is such a
> > bullshit that I don't want it ever released, but I am fine with putting
> > burden on t
Le Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:17:02AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>
> So what backports "priority" actually says is "my package is such a
> bullshit that I don't want it ever released, but I am fine with putting
> burden on the people keeping backports running instead". I think we have
> a way alr
> the addition of new suites has the disadvantage of dispersing our userbase.
> Here is a proposition that conserves the current flow of package migration for
> packages released in Stable, and that makes Testing the meeting point for all
> the packages.
> We could introduce a new priority level
6 matches
Mail list logo
