Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
>> to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
>
> I recently was very mistaken about the proper way to deal with a
>
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
> to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
I recently was very mistaken about the proper way to deal with a
confusing (to me) solib change, combined with a mistaken upl
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[automatic NEW processing for split or renamed binary packages, and
occasionally a bug report and removal from the archive of a badly named
package]
> I could live with that if it means a lot more packages don't get stuck
> in NEW. But maybe that i
|| On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:31:55 +0100
|| Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
gvb> How often does it actualy happen that ftp-master rejects the name of a
gvb> package? Did anyone have that happen to him/her when adding a new deb
gvb> to old source ever?
>>
>> This is not the only prob
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> || On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:37:49 +0100
> || Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> gvb> Then the maintainer gets a bugreport saying they should
> gvb> Replace/Conflict/Provide the silly name. Also ftp-mster could get an
> gvb> automatic no
|| On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:37:49 +0100
|| Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
gvb> Then the maintainer gets a bugreport saying they should
gvb> Replace/Conflict/Provide the silly name. Also ftp-mster could get an
gvb> automatic notice about new debs and a 3 day window to veto it or
gvb
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 01:40 -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 01:06 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 07:39 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wro
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How often does it actualy happen that ftp-master rejects the name of a
> package? Did anyone have that happen to him/her when adding a new deb
> to old source ever?
There have been discussions about library renaming in the last couple of
weeks, an
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 01:06 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 07:39 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > >> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:28:25 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think ftp-master already has a more complex prioritizing than
>that. Adding a new kernel images deb tends to be real fast (with
>exceptions), adding a new deb to old source reasonable fast and
>completly new sour
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 07:39 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [snip]
> >> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [snip]
>> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some U.S. government
>> agency about the new deb, add an override entry into th
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> || On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:56:20 +0100
> || Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Why not automate the NEW queue for packages with prior source versions
>>> in the archive? Worst case ftp-master has to remove a deb with silly
>>>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:28:25PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
> > rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some U.S. government
> agency about the new deb, add an override entry into the db. The only
Could you flesh that out a littl
|| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:56:20 +0100
|| Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not automate the NEW queue for packages with prior source versions
>> in the archive? Worst case ftp-master has to remove a deb with silly
>> name from archive and kick the DD for it.
>>
>> Corre
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:28:25PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
> > rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
> > busy and that approving these packages is very important and respons
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello.
>
> Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
> rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
> busy and that approving these packages is very important and responsible
> tas
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
Any comments on that?
No further comments but an addition. I think there are some easy
tasks to *remove* packages like #283015 (or rather #282891). If
the situation is such simple as in this case the bug should not really
stand open for 60 days
19 matches
Mail list logo
