Andreas Tille writes:
> I would love to see another discussion here to reach more uniformity in
> Debian packaging and rise importance of DEP5 by recommending it in
> Debian Policy.
I would really support that. A recommendation does not mean that there
may be some exceptional cases where DEP5 is
Andreas Tille writes:
> I admit I'm astonished about this. From my point of view DEP5 was
> decided to be good packaging practice and I assumed that not changing to
> DEP5 would be a matter of "not important for me to spent my time on a
> DEP5 conversion". However, I'm reading Thorstens stateme
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 1:26:42 AM EST Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in a change to UpstreamMetadata in Wiki[1] Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>These fields must still be allowed, as not all packagers wish to use DEP
> 5.
>
> I admit I'm astonished about this. From my point of view DEP5 wa
Hi,
in a change to UpstreamMetadata in Wiki[1] Thorsten Glaser wrote:
These fields must still be allowed, as not all packagers wish to use DEP 5.
I admit I'm astonished about this. From my point of view DEP5 was
decided to be good packaging practice and I assumed that not changing to
DEP5 wo
Hi,
I confirm the summary seems fair and reasonable with one
question/proposal (see below in line).
Sam Hartman writes:
> * Exploring what current social conventions are around pushing to other
> people's repositories in the debian group on salsa and documenting
> them. This is more about
Simon McVittie writes:
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 at 20:40:43 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> My normal use of experimental does not involve maintaining unstable and
>> experimental branches simultaneously.
> ...
>> I know some people do more of a two-branch setup
>
> One common reason to need to use expe
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 10:45:49AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Thomas Goirand:
>> I don't think secure boot provides any benefit at all if you store the
>> kernel module signing key on the same machine.
>
> Generate the MOK certificate with EKU 1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16.1.2
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Christian Kastner
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org,
debian-scie...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: python-seaborn
Version : 0.9.0
Upstream Author : Michael Waskom
* URL : https://seab
Hello,
On Wed 06 Nov 2019 at 11:10AM -05, Sam Hartman wrote:
> * If you were involved enough that you can read the summary and say
> "Yeah, that's more or less what happened," please please do that. (If
> you think I got something wrong in the summary, then please say that too)
I read almost
TL;DR: I'd feel a lot more comfortable if a couple of people would
explicitly review wether I correctly captured the discussion in the
summary.
So, we've received a number of comments on aspects of the discussion.
That plus the original discussion leads me to believe we really are
interested in
On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 at 14:16:37 +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> Possibly also tmpfiles, but without an init system nothing would start
> the service and it would have to be invoked manually. Maintainer
> scripts might use it though to setup directories in /var/lib or similar
> locations.
Yes, that's rough
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 at 02:41:29 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> It does, it's specifically mentioned as a branch that will be
> rewinded. See the “Branch management for next and pu after a feature
> release” section.
gitworkflows(7) describes how git.git works, as an example of the workflow
of a par
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 at 20:40:43 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> My normal use of experimental does not involve maintaining unstable and
> experimental branches simultaneously.
...
> I know some people do more of a two-branch setup
One common reason to need to use experimental more actively is if your
13 matches
Mail list logo
