On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 15:01:13 +0100, Thomas Weber wrote:
> Just for the record: every single package Rafael itp'd is already in
> the archive as part of octave2.1-forge. Upstream decided to split this
> up, so we follow.
>
If the software is already packaged, then it doesn't need an ITP bug
i
* Luca Brivio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-02 20:28]:
> Alle 19:48, sab 1 marzo 2008, Christian Perrier ha scritto:
> > If someone cares to listen: when you think about ITPing each and every
> > piece of FLOSS that pops around: think about *helping* people who
> > maintain existing packages instea
Alle 19:48, sab 1 marzo 2008, Christian Perrier ha scritto:
> If someone cares to listen: when you think about ITPing each and every
> piece of FLOSS that pops around: think about *helping* people who
> maintain existing packages instead of adding even more noise to our
> noisy bunch of various cra
On 01/03/08 19:48 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> There seems to be some crazyness about packaging new stuff these
> days. That would be fine.if only our existing packages were well
> maintained.which, for many of them is certainly not true.
Just for the record: every single package Rafa
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 08:49:05PM +0100, Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Le Saturday 01 March 2008 19:48:50 Christian Perrier, vous avez écrit :
> > If someone cares to listen: when you think about ITPing each and every
> > piece of FLOSS that pops around: think about *help
On 11311 March 1977, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Hey, reading you I figured out that all newcomers are required to have
> contributions in Debian, which means *new packages*.
No, it doesn't mean new packages. It means contributions.
--
bye, Joerg
A.D. 1517:
Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 08:49:05PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> I figured out that all newcomers are required to have contributions in
> Debian, which means *new packages*.
Not at all. They must maintain at least one (but preferrably more)
packages (if they want to do packaging). They may be t
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 19:48:50 Christian Perrier, vous avez écrit :
> If someone cares to listen: when you think about ITPing each and every
> piece of FLOSS that pops around: think about *helping* people who
> maintain existing packages instead of adding even more noise to our
> noisy bunch of
Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
>
> That would defeat a lot of the purp
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> And/or creating a new mailing list, debian-itp, debian-devel-itp or
> whatever might be a good idea. Quite a big number of mails to the
> debian-devel mailing list are ITPs.
I also thought the same some time ago, on the other hand "development of
De
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 06:44:40PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> On Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 21:59:58 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Hi Rafael, all,
> >
> > Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROT
Hi,
On Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 21:59:58 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> Hi Rafael, all,
>
> Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
And/or creating a new mailing list, debian-itp, debian-devel-itp or
wh
* Paul Wise [Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:59:58 +0900]:
> Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
(Without entering to discuss the subject matter, just a clarification:
they could go to submit@ as usual, wit
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
> Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
That would defeat a lot of the purpose of the ITPs (like looking at the
descriptions, etc). I think we just have to dea
Hi Rafael, all,
Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
15 matches
Mail list logo
