Hi Lucas,
As you know I agree with you on most aspects.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I find third-party reviews
and ACKs a good way to reinforce the feeling that the orphaning is the
right thing to do.
Absolutely.
Note that it's often users who
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Why not start with a without objection standard and see how it works?
The without objection approach would require a reasonable delay for people to
raise objections (some say two months). The ACK/NACK approach allows to reach
a
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan the
package.
Orphaning the package it not the final outcome. The goal is to get packages
salvaged. See the two activities explained here:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
If someone notices that a package is in need of greater attention, but
cannot commit to attending it themselves, it's important that the
packages is marked at least as needing help.
I understand the entire point here is to mark
Hi,
I'm wondering, before a package will be orphaned is it possible/
needful the owner to ask for help or to express the reasons?
Regards
gnugr
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:52:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
priority that the problems are
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: pcalendar
Version: 3.3.0
Upstream Author: Mar'yan Rachynskyy mr...@users.sourceforge.net
URL: http://linuxorg.sourceforge.net/
License: GPL-3+
Description: application to
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:09:55PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
the package into a better maintained state.
Lucas' proposal discussed in this thread is about adding a lightweight
procedure to mark obviously
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:05:40PM +, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
When fixing non important bugs, or improving the package quality, like
switching to format 3 source, arranging the rules file, and so on, I fear
it will be very difficult to find a sponsor for these nmus.
Having 3/1 (1/0?)
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:20:39 +0700
Ivan Shmakov oneing...@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
[…]
Check if the package contains a shell script which supports
translated output strings — such packages should Depend: gettext-base
rather than drop the
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
No, it makes the process based on *consensus*, which is a minimum
requirement.
It also means that the salvager has to do more work.
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And the
ACKs are about agreeing on marking a
On 10/26/2012 01:09 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And
the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned. That's
the easy part. The salvaging part goes via the existing ITA procedure.
That's the hard part. Regards, Bart
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes:
I think that sufficient DDs will review the ITOs. Note that most work is
already done by the ITO submitter. Sponsoring a package at mentors
(review
other peoples work) is, in my opinion, much more work than reading an ITO
and
sending an ACK.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 04:12:03PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/26/2012 01:09 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention.
And the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned.
That's the easy part. The salvaging part goes via the
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes:
I think that sufficient DDs will review the ITOs. Note that most work is
already done by the ITO submitter. Sponsoring a package at mentors
(review
other peoples work) is, in my
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:48:18AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
why would it hurt
to bake in a worst-case scenario with no acks or nacks? (I can accept
defaulting to no too, after a timeout, as long as there's one. I would
find the result pointless and silly, but at least it puts an end to it,
On 2012-10-18 10:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi,
[...]
If the relevant RC bugs in the affected packages are not dealt with
/before/ Friday the 26th of Oct., the packages will be removed from
testing. Note that dealt with may also include downgrading a
severity-inflated bug or fixing
Dmitry Smirnov writes:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: pcalendar
Version: 3.3.0
Upstream Author: Mar'yan Rachynskyy mr...@users.sourceforge.net
URL: http://linuxorg.sourceforge.net/
License: GPL-3+
Hi Alberto,
Thanks for your reply.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:59:52 Alberto Luaces wrote:
Hi, this software is already packaged,
(http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/pcalendar.html)
Indeed it is, sorry for the noise.
It was already revealed to me so I closed the ITP.
I've searched for ovulation and
Hi,
while Lucas did his best to summarize the outcome from the last thread
in a fairly constructive and consensual way, it turned out that too many
people have too many opinions here on this matter.
Having clearly in mind, that seeking consensus by way of a General
Resolution for something
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:46:41PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
What do you think? Does this sound like a fair compromise everyone
could live with?
Voting is almost never a way to reach consensus. Rather, it acknowledges
that consensus has not been reached and side-steps further constructive
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:54:19PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I don't think we're nowhere near the need of it in this specific case.
s/don't//
obviously :)
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack
On 26.10.2012 13:54, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But I urge you to reconsider proposing a GR. It is a heavy
weight tool, that should be used as a last resort.
So far I agree. I didn't say I'll propose on - JFTR. I said I'll
consider that and asked for opinions - like yours :)
--
with kind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 02:13, Peter Miller a écrit :
It may be possible to address both concerns in a different way.
1. Implement PPAs. The code is open source, get it working first,
and enhance it later.
2. DDs and DMs upload source-only to their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 08:35, vangelis mouhtsis a écrit :
Hi, I'm wondering, before a package will be orphaned is it
possible/ needful the owner to ask for help or to express the
reasons?
Regards gnugr
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
Look for RFH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote: AIUI, with the current
proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be orphaned, the
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Why not start with a without objection standard and see how it
works?
The without objection approach would require a reasonable delay for
people to
raise objections (some say two months).
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard
and
fast objective thing. It's
On 26.10.2012 01:13, Peter Miller wrote:
It may be possible to address both concerns in a different way.
1. Implement PPAs. The code is open source, get it working first,
and
enhance it later.
2. DDs and DMs upload source-only to their individual PPA(s). The
PPA
build farm builds the
Hi all,
The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense to
also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and not
wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian to check wnpp for RFH,
RFA or O. Maybe having these bugs in the face of people interested in
the
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
I respect
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote: AIUI, with the current
proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be
On Friday, October 26, 2012 01:40:26 PM Bart Martens wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote: AIUI, with the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
Hi all,
The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense
to also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and
not wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian to
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:17:13AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Well, that's what I was trying to get at: I think your method puts too
many barriers in the way of someone who wants to take over an effectively
abandoned package. It also requires *more*
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
Ivan Shmakov oneing...@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
[…]
To note is that Source: gnunet has contrib/report.sh, which calls
gettext(1), but it doesn't seem to be propagated to any of the
binaries currently depending
Russ Allbery writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages):
I think orphaned packages are one of our best opportunities to attract new
developers, rather than serving as an additional obligation for existing
developers. [etc.]
Thanks for that excellent analysis.
Bart Martens writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages - skipping pointless delay):
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
3. Wait for objections
For how long ? The proposal includes collecting ACKs so that any pointless
delay can be
* Thibaut Paumard thib...@debian.org [121026 15:54]:
I don't see a reason to move it away from wnpp: its great to have a
central place for that information, but I agree it is useful to have
the info forwarded to other places (such as the PTS, and perhaps the
package's own bug page).
Having a
Great stuff, thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026160652.GC20294@debian
On Vi, 26 oct 12, 15:38:03, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alevt.html:
problems
How many non-DDs/DMs do you think are aware of the PTS? My guess is: not
that many. IMVHO the BTS is much more visible, especially to users who
do
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:39:52PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Vi, 26 oct 12, 15:38:03, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alevt.html:
problems
How many non-DDs/DMs do you think are aware of the PTS? My guess is: not
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:38:03PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense
to also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and
not wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
An immediate solution would probably be to 'affects package' so
the bugs at least shows up on the package's bug page. Maybe the BTS
could/should do this automatically?
Doing affects automatically isn't really something that the BTS itself
should
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
adoption will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
package as its new maintainer. The
On 10/26/2012 05:07 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
People interested in salvaging an unmaintained package are discouraged by the
current procedures. The new procedure is meant to add a lightweight procedure
to mark unmaintained packages as orphaned, so that anyone interested can adopt
them without
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
*) we have consensus that we are in need of such a rule set - which ever
it may be
*) we have three orthogonally different ideas:
a) Bart's approach which was reformulated and proposed by Lucas in
this thread [1]
b) Mine - which was
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:56:02 Bart Martens wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:06:57AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
If bug was unanswered for let's say two months the package is free to
orphan
Some prefer no delay, some prefer one month, some prefer two months. I
originally wanted one
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:40:26 Bart Martens wrote:
So why not agree now that the maintainer can veto the process?
Because this would raise the question how long should we wait for the
maintainer to object or to remain silent. In obvious cases, for example
when the package has clearly not
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:51:57 Ian Jackson wrote:
I still think that the right standard is no objection rather than
collecting some explicit number of acks. In particular I don't think
any number of acks ought to override a nack from the existing
maintainer.
Indeed. I think lack of enough
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
adoption will continue to mean
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think this is where language is
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:33:27PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
We already orphan packages without the maintainer's consent, and it's
already called orphaning.
Salvaging is still undefined
No, it is not. The definition was clear from the first use of the term.
Stop trying to redefine it.
When will there be in debian installer for Debian and wubi as Ubuntu?
Attentively Ricardo Obando, from Chile.
Take a look:
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
Cheers!
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Ricardo Obando
ricardo.kyu...@hotmail.comwrote:
When will there be in debian installer for Debian and wubi as Ubuntu?
Attentively Ricardo Obando, from Chile.
--
William Vera | bi...@billy.mx
Systems
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:33:27PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
We already orphan packages without the maintainer's consent, and it's
already called orphaning.
Salvaging is still undefined
No, it is not. The definition was clear from
Hi Zack,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:19:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:19:37PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the package
with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
2) sleep
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
[...]
All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
reject what
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmaintained
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
So in sum, I'm broadly in favor of Lucas's patch, except:
- A single nack is evidence of a lack of consensus. If consensus can't be
achieved, it should be referred to the TC instead of making a political
mess of things
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
willing to take over maintainership of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:54:25 +1100
Source: xpra
Binary: xpra python-wimpiggy
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.7.1+dfsg-1~exp0
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Python Applications Packaging Team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:44:51 +0100
Source: ettercap
Binary: ettercap-common ettercap-text-only ettercap-graphical
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1:0.7.5-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Barak A. Pearlmutter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:11:11 +0200
Source: exim4
Binary: exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light exim4 exim4-daemon-heavy
exim4-daemon-custom eximon4 exim4-dbg exim4-daemon-light-dbg
exim4-daemon-heavy-dbg exim4-daemon-custom-dbg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:32:00 +0700
Source: flvmeta
Binary: flvmeta
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.1.0-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Neutron Soutmun neo.neut...@gmail.com
Changed-By: Neutron Soutmun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:09:56 +0200
Source: nvidia-settings
Binary: nvidia-settings libxnvctrl0 libxnvctrl-dev
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 304.60-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian NVIDIA Maintainers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Source: scite
Binary: scite
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 3.2.3-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael Vogt m...@debian.org
Changed-By: Antonio Valentino
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:11:53 +0200
Source: netcfg
Binary: netcfg netcfg-static
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.99
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-b...@lists.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:23:08 +0200
Source: php5
Binary: php5 php5-common libapache2-mod-php5 libapache2-mod-php5filter php5-cgi
php5-cli php5-fpm libphp5-embed php5-dev php5-dbg php-pear php5-curl
php5-enchant php5-gd php5-gmp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:34:37 UTC
Source: tor
Binary: tor tor-dbg tor-geoipdb
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 0.2.3.24-rc-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org
Changed-By: Peter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:31:08 UTC
Source: tor
Binary: tor tor-dbg tor-geoipdb
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 0.2.4.5-alpha-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org
Changed-By:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:38:15 +0200
Source: fglrx-driver
Binary: fglrx-driver libfglrx libfglrx-amdxvba1 libxvbaw-dev libgl1-fglrx-glx
fglrx-glx fglrx-glx-ia32 libfglrx-ia32 fglrx-modules-dkms fglrx-source
fglrx-control
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:25:21 +0200
Source: libcaptcha-recaptcha-perl
Binary: libcaptcha-recaptcha-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.97-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Perl Group
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:58:58 +0100
Source: request-tracker4
Binary: request-tracker4 rt4-clients rt4-fcgi rt4-apache2 rt4-db-postgresql
rt4-db-mysql rt4-db-sqlite
Architecture: source all
Version: 4.0.7-2
Distribution: unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:17:58 -0500
Source: r-base
Binary: r-base r-base-core r-base-dev r-mathlib r-base-html r-doc-pdf
r-doc-html r-doc-info r-recommended r-base-core-dbg
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 2.15.2-1
Distribution:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:45:37 +0100
Source: ettercap
Binary: ettercap-common ettercap-text-only ettercap-graphical
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1:0.7.5-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Barak A. Pearlmutter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:58:56 +0200
Source: pcsc-lite
Binary: pcscd libpcsclite-dev libpcsclite-dbg libpcsclite1
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.8.6-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ludovic Rousseau
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:21:07 +0200
Source: texstudio
Binary: texstudio texstudio-dbg
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.3+debian-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Tom Jampen t...@cryptography.ch
Changed-By: Tom Jampen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:50:42 +0200
Source: cyrus-imapd-2.4
Binary: cyrus-common-2.4 cyrus-doc-2.4 cyrus-imapd-2.4 cyrus-pop3d-2.4
cyrus-admin-2.4 cyrus-murder-2.4 cyrus-replication-2.4 cyrus-nntpd-2.4
cyrus-clients-2.4 cyrus-dev-2.4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:06:11 +0200
Source: cyrus-sasl2
Binary: sasl2-bin cyrus-sasl2-doc libsasl2-2 libsasl2-modules
libsasl2-modules-ldap libsasl2-modules-otp libsasl2-modules-sql
libsasl2-modules-gssapi-mit libsasl2-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:05:34 +0200
Source: php5
Binary: php5 php5-common libapache2-mod-php5 libapache2-mod-php5filter php5-cgi
php5-cli php5-fpm libphp5-embed php5-dev php5-dbg php-pear php5-curl
php5-enchant php5-gd php5-gmp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:08:25 +0100
Source: freedoom
Binary: freedm freedoom
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.8~beta1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Games Team pkg-games-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:03:26 +0100
Source: glibc-doc-reference
Binary: glibc-doc-reference
Architecture: all source
Version: 2.16-0experimental1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: GNU Libc Maintainers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:28:06 +
Source: eglibc
Binary: libc-bin libc-dev-bin glibc-doc eglibc-source locales locales-all nscd
multiarch-support libc6 libc6-dev libc6-dbg libc6-prof libc6-pic libc6-udeb
libc6.1 libc6.1-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:04:37 +0200
Source: gnome-settings-daemon
Binary: gnome-settings-daemon gnome-settings-daemon-dev
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 3.4.2+git20120925.a4c817-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:39:21 -0500
Source: rpart
Binary: r-cran-rpart
Architecture: source i386
Version: 4.0-1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Dirk Eddelbuettel e...@debian.org
Changed-By: Dirk Eddelbuettel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:53:42 +0200
Source: meta-gnome3
Binary: gnome-core gnome gnome-desktop-environment gnome-platform-devel
gnome-core-devel gnome-devel gnome-dbg gnome-api-docs
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 1:3.4+5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:38:17 +0200
Source: iceape
Binary: iceape iceape-browser iceape-dbg iceape-chatzilla iceape-l10n-all
iceape-l10n-be iceape-l10n-ca iceape-l10n-cs iceape-l10n-de iceape-l10n-en-gb
iceape-l10n-es-ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:08:29 -0500
Source: drupal7
Binary: drupal7
Architecture: source all
Version: 7.14-1.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Luigi Gangitano lu...@debian.org
Changed-By: Gunnar Wolf gw...@debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:59:14 +0200
Source: apt-show-versions
Binary: apt-show-versions
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.20
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Christoph Martin christoph.mar...@uni-mainz.de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:41:43 +0200
Source: libgnupg-interface-perl
Binary: libgnupg-interface-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.46-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Perl Group
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:54:01 +0200
Source: network-manager
Binary: network-manager network-manager-dev libnm-glib4 libnm-glib-dev
libnm-glib-vpn1 libnm-glib-vpn-dev libnm-util2 libnm-util-dev
network-manager-dbg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:50:15 +0200
Source: network-manager-applet
Binary: network-manager-gnome libnm-gtk0 libnm-gtk-common libnm-gtk-dev
Architecture: source amd64 all
Version: 0.9.6.4-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:04:11 +0200
Source: network-manager-openvpn
Binary: network-manager-openvpn network-manager-openvpn-gnome
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.9.6.0-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Utopia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:16:16 +0200
Source: network-manager-pptp
Binary: network-manager-pptp network-manager-pptp-gnome
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.9.6.0-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Utopia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:15:06 +0200
Source: fife
Binary: python-fife
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.3.3+r3-1.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Games Team pkg-games-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Changed-By:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:20:41 +0200
Source: network-manager-vpnc
Binary: network-manager-vpnc network-manager-vpnc-gnome
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.9.6.0-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Utopia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:56:11 +1100
Source: asterisk-chan-capi
Binary: asterisk-chan-capi
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.1.6-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian VoIP Team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:53:05 -0400
Source: haskell-dbus
Binary: libghc-dbus-dev libghc-dbus-prof libghc-dbus-doc
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 0.10.3-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Haskell Group
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
