On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
httpd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:43:56AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 16:43:56 Ron Johnson, vous avez écrit :
I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a
little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages
people actually care about and use.
I say we drop every WM DE except GNOME,
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 05:20:28PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 16:43:56 Ron Johnson, vous avez écrit :
I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a
little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages
people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/08 10:14, David Nusinow wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:43:56AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock
On Saturday 1 March 2008 17:20, Romain Beauxis wrote:
It is also pointed out that there are central places, like security fixes,
where having too many packages leads to too much work. Sure, but again,
it's not related to choice, but to the overall size of the distribution.
Here again, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/08 10:38, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
Who makes the decision as to how much redundancy is too much? And
is it crap just because it's redundant?
For example, is micro-httpd redundant crap? There are no bug
reports, so how much Security
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 17:37:40 David Nusinow, vous avez écrit :
Basically, a package has bugs because the maintainer or upstream is not
reponsive/available/..., not because there are too much *choice*.
Um. No. We have lots of people. We also have lots of software. If we lose
some of the
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 17:44:01 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit :
On Saturday 1 March 2008 17:20, Romain Beauxis wrote:
It is also pointed out that there are central places, like security
fixes, where having too many packages leads to too much work. Sure, but
again, it's not related to
On fredagen den 29 februari 2008, William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Even there, it looks very much like other very small webservers,
such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd,
mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do better than
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package,
and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO.
A package description is intended for the administrator to choose which of
a set of
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 18:57:47 +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Now, unless we decide to, Debian is not meant to refuse any *new* package.
Sure it is.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any reason why a Debian should spend resources to maintain
things that are not good enough for Debian?
Debian isn't being asked to do any such thing. I've been thinking
about doing this for a long time, one of
On Fri, February 29, 2008 03:02, William Pitcock wrote:
Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
httpd options, etc.
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:16 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Fri, February 29, 2008 03:02, William Pitcock wrote:
Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
options for the same thing
On Fri, February 29, 2008 12:41, William Pitcock wrote:
But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
recruiting new DDs.
I have no intent of stopping you to create any third party repositories.
Sure
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, William Pitcock wrote:
But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
recruiting new DDs.
Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
Please don't!
Kind regards
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, William Pitcock wrote:
But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
recruiting new DDs.
Lets
I created an updated description. Please see below.
One thing i forgot to mention earlier was the feature of logging the http
requests
directly to a mysql-database.
I'm not quite sure, but I think this feature is not supported by most other
webservers.
Description: small http server
Monkey is
Le Friday 29 February 2008 11:16:04 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit :
There are several costs associated with having yet another package doing
the same thing:
* For the project in general, it costs archive and Packages file space,
build time, QA efforts just to name a few;
You're mixing
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600]:
Clearly these packages are different enough to somebody if they are
going to the effort of packaging them. Perhaps they have a superior
configuration format or some other non-notable feature.
But if you are worried about the QA
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600]:
But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
recruiting new DDs.
Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
The main
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
unsupported.d.n could be the right place for packages that are not
good enough for Debian (yet).
Is there any reason why a Debian should spend resources to maintain
things that are not good enough for Debian? For the not good enough
_yet_ there is
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
recruiting new DDs.
Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
One reason why I prefer Debian
* Sebastian Krause:
I like Debian *because* there are so many choices in the main
repository and I don't have to worry if a package is actually
well-supported when I install it,
Sorry, you are kidding yourself if you actually believe that. Software
and packaging quality vary greatly across
Guus Sliepen dijo [Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:08PM +0100]:
Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The
objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure
webserver.
Although it is very small and does not need much system resources, it
has a
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Guus Sliepen dijo [Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:08PM +0100]:
Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The
objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure
webserver.
Although it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/08 20:02, William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
[snip]
Even there, it looks very much like other very small webservers,
such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd,
mini-httpd or
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many options
for the same thing
No, Debian is *about* having a *good*, free operating system.
Having lots of choices is a side effect of Debian's organization, it's not
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thorsten Schmale [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: monkey
Version : 0.9.2
Upstream Author : Eduardo Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://monkeyd.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description :
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 03:51:38PM +0100, Thorsten Schmale wrote:
* Package name: monkey
Description : monkey is a small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Don't include the name of the package in the short description. Also,
HTTP/1.1 protocol is more something for the long
32 matches
Mail list logo
