Hi,
following the various Bits from $foo this is a small mail to summarize
whats up with the DAMs.
Before anything else in this mail let us take the opportunity to say
thanks to all the Application Managers[1] and the members of the
Frontdesk out there doing the hard work. Without you the whole
Hi,
in the tradition of Bits[1] from the DAMs, started in January, we are
now sending another mail to inform you about recent decisions we made.
Topics in this mail
---
1. Handling of Accounts
2. The NM Process
3. New Accounts?
4. While we are at it, some other stuff too
5.
)
Andreas 'aba' Barth,
Kurt Roeckx,
Goswin Brederlow and
Joerg Jaspert,
doing the work for the move, and
FNB TU Darmstadt,
who kindly host our machine.
Now, for all the interested folks out there, some more information about
the archive, the release we want to do and how we intend
Hi
as already written long ago it was always planned to get amd64 on
security.debian.org to have the easiest possible way of official support
From the Debian Security Team.
This now finally happened, thanks to James Troup.
Note: This does *NOT* change anything with regard to inclusion of amd64
Hi,
Let's start with a citation of a part of the constitution,
Project Leaders Delegates Powers:
---+++---
8.1. Powers
The Project Leader's Delegates:
1. have powers delegated to them by the Project Leader;
2. may make certain decisions which the Leader may not make directly,
Hi
As you may have noticed, the beloved target of many flamewars, the
NEW queue [1] has been reduced to an average of less than 10
packages. Packages are processed within days, sometimes even within
hours.
In order to slow it right back down again, so you dont get used to it
too much, I decided
Jérôme Marant schrieb:
Is it currently possible to upload amd64 packages to ftp-master?
No.
Well. Yes. Of course you can upload. They just get rejected. :)
If not, is there any upload queue dedicated at them?
Nope.
Well. Yes (again). But only about 5 people are allowed to upload there,
plus
On 10480 March 1977, W. Borgert wrote:
I meantioned one solution. There is another possible one: source uploads.
And no, I don't think it would cause more breakages than nowdays because
uploading sources only doesn't meant packages have not been build on
our systems.
I couldn't agree more:
On 10487 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
I have reworked the whole packaging naming and would like all of you
again for comments:
WTH, what a thread. :) And its also *not* a flamewar. Is hell freezing? :)
Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
bin-to-source
Miles Bader schrieb:
I agree -lang- is probably better than locale/l10n/i18n for the reason
you state.
However, why not use the official language codes where available (keeping
the longname where there is no code)? They mean exactly what you want,
and are widely used in debian package names
On 10488 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hey, that looks ways better than the initial upload. Good work. :)
And with 5 sources left its also much less then what I suggested.
Thanks. I always try to incorporate suggestions. I could even go down to
one source package, that would be easiest
On 10488 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
allrunes dfsg
Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual allrunes files,
you see that it is
On 10488 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
software.
When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
else in Debian and completely unable to
On 10533 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hello fellow Debian developers,
let me explain shortly why I'll speak of Ubuntu on a Debian announce
[lalala]
Whatever one may think about Ubuntu, d-d-a is the wrong list for an
announcement about Ubuntu plans.
Announcements of development issues
On 10534 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Intuitively, I would not expect any standard to classify any of the
current derivatives as 'part of the Debian world'. We have very little
interaction with any of them.
And that's a pity.
But not *our* problem. *They* should do the work to get it
On 10535 March 1977, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves
anything?
Do you think a constandt flaming on public lists is funny? Do you think
it achieves anything?
There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and
Hi
Could we stop the flaming period? Like - forever? And come back to
normal development, making the best distribution on this small planet.
Please remember that we have a Code of Conduct for our lists, which
includes nice things like
# Do not use foul language;
# Try not to flame; it is not
On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
The charter for this list says: Announcements for developers.
The charter for -private reads
Private discussions among developers: only for issues that may not be
discussed on public lists. Anything sent there should be treated as
sensitive and not to
On 10539 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Congrats Jeroen van Wolfellaar, ftpmaster extraordinare, not afraid to take
on
the difficult cases (he also managed the REJECT on rte IRRC).
Nope, he didnt reject rte.
--
bye Joerg
16. What should you do if a security bug is discovered in one
On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
I've *never*
On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
of that is still true.
I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already
in main and does the same.
Two bads doesnt make one good, so we stay with one
On 10571 March 1977, Richard A. Nelson wrote:
Not only did you hijack these packages, and without *ANY* communication,
you missed tcl3270, ICU builds (for the non-US folk)...
You know that this package set was removed since march, so you
cant say much against him bringing it back?
--
bye
On 10571 March 1977, Richard A. Nelson wrote:
If you had the courtesy to contact me, as did the last person - who at
least followed procedure and issued an ITP, you would know this.
Tss, calm down, i absolutely do not care about this stupid package.
--
bye Joerg
Or write yourself a
On 10572 March 1977, Jari Aalto wrote:
To my understanding the only way to obtain the license information
for a package is to actually download it (or install it) and the
study the content of
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright
Yes.
Add new field to the debian/control (which would be
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
would it provide any automation or easier processing for the NEW
queue(ftpmasters)?
Nope.
--
bye Joerg
Naturally; worms that don't know what they are doing end up as
fish bait, instead of getting invited into weird math experiments.
--
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
You mean they check ever single time $RANDOM_PACKAGE enter NEW and don't
assume its correct until someone raises an objections?
Yes. And the big number of rejects due to incorrect debian/copyright
files (more than for technical reasons) shows that it is
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
I understand the general idea of a DFSG-free license but, for example,
if Clint uploads yet another zsh package bugfix, I'm not expecting him to have
it under a different license then the last 99 uploads. And if there was
a license change, you could
On 10572 March 1977, Kevin Mark wrote:
Only packages in NEW are checked, not every little bugfix upload. :)
I probably need one of these two at the moment: 1) sleep 2) caffine so I
mis-stated what NEW entails. It deals with initial uploads and other
situations(at least new upstream and other
Hi
as recently mentioned on planet and some debconf lists I made sites for
past DebConf events available again. They are now all organized on the
debconf.org main server, so its easy to find them.
Use debconfX.debconf.org to access them, starting with zero and at the
time of this writing going
Hi
This is a fairly generic request, but Im looking for Co-Maintainers for
all my packages that don't already have one.
You can find the list of my packages at
http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you are interested in helping with one of those - mail me *off-list*
and we discuss the way
On 10592 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
It looks approximately as though nothing has been examined since a month ago.
Now thats just wrong.
I have a backlog, yup, but that will clear itself again in a short
timeframe.
--
bye Joerg
[Talking about Social Contract]:
We will not
On 10592 March 1977, Gustavo Franco wrote:
If the ftpmasters are going to stop NEW processing for a while with or
without a special criteria, they should inform us through d-d-a or the
DPL if they think it will generate too much noise, like these threads.
If they did that i'm yet to hear
On 10597 March 1977, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Well, I won't try to convince you to prioritize the new binary packages
from known source package because last I heard (some 360 days ago), you
didn't need convincing. Assuming that those 40-some packages affected
are easier to process, it'd still
On 10595 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
There is a difference here though, this is my public process for expulsion,
No, this is a random flamewar on a random list and has *nothing* to do
with any actually running process anywhere.
and i believe i should have the right to be heard.
No mail in
On 10603 March 1977, A. Mennucc wrote:
[...]
Nice.
I hope we do manage to release in Dec 2005 (and I thank people who
work hard to this end).
We wont, im sure.
--
bye Joerg
exa Snow-Man: Please don't talk to me. You have demonstrated yourself
sufficiently. There is a serious
On 10603 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
I hope we do manage to release in Dec 2005 (and I thank people who
work hard to this end).
We wont, im sure.
Can you please elaborate on specific problems you think will not be
solved on time?
Hundreds of them.
PS: Please, don't send this kind of
On 10604 March 1977, Jérôme Marant wrote:
The simplest way I can see is to take the pristine tarball and rename
to foo-non-free of foo-non-dfsg, and to just install what was removed
from the modified tarball in main. However, the Emacs tarball is
18 megs big so I'm not sure ftp masters would
On 10605 March 1977, Nico Golde wrote:
what would be the appropriate way to handle large and old
debian changelog files.
Keep.
Is there a way to handle these changelog entries which bloat
the package and contain only information which are too old
to be useful or is it ok if for example
On 10605 March 1977, Nico Golde wrote:
* Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-26 20:31]:
A while ago Peter 'weasel' Palfrader wrote a nice little How (not) to
write copyright files[1]. Please read that *now*.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html
On 10605 March 1977, Florian Weimer wrote:
As *many* rejects out of the NEW-Queue[2] are still due to broken or
incomplete copyright-files - lets refresh that information.
Just for clarification, since there seems to be this increased
interest in copyright notices: Do developers need to
On 10606 March 1977, Henning Makholm wrote:
But is the Debian copyright file supposed to describe the source
package? Not according to my understanding; the source package already
includes the various upstream copyright messages in their original
positions.
We distribute the source, and the
On 10606 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
I am packaging a program for debian, and wrote a manpage and two patches
for making it compile with libwxwindows. I am not very interested in
being the author list: I would be a bit ashamed that my name would
appear more frequently that the author's
On 10611 March 1977, Jari Aalto wrote:
What happens to them? Where can I browse and download the dusted
packages that were put away? [1]
Depends on how old the package is. There is snapshot.debian.net and
archive.debian.org where the last only contains old releases.
--
bye Joerg
I think
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also, wuzzah's page says that it's Too young, only 0 of 10 days old.
i uploaded it to unstable on 17 Nov! What's going on?
Read the lists. :)
Testing scripts are dead since some time.
--
bye Joerg
pgpcQhsJMX3TZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi
A while ago the old Nagios Maintainer filed an O: for nagios. A group of
people, including myself, started an Alioth-Project for it and did some
work with the packaging.
Now we are at a point where we can consider an upload into the archive,
but I think it would be good to have some extra
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: dak
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a few others
* URL or Web page : http://cvs.debian.org/dak/?cvsroot=dak
* License : GPL
Description: Debian's archive maintenance scripts
This is a
On 10161 March 1977, William Ballard wrote:
Er, huh? I don't see what problem you are describing.
What *exactly* is the issue you have?
Packages that generate packages as output that have
dependencies the original package does not have.
The resulting output may be uninstallable.
The
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hi
Unfortunately we dont have the time the package needs, so help is
needed. Ideally you should know a bit of C and of Debian Packaging. You
should also know cdrecord/mkisofs and its friends and of course have a
cd burner at home to test stuff. :)
You do not need
On 10164 March 1977, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
Instead of doing all this by hand I can recommend my own package
debarchiver. The latest versions of it do this pretty good in
an automatic way.
Thanks. I'll add some information about it.
Maybe you want to add a link to the dak suite too. The one
On 10189 March 1977, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I thought about writing something like this myself. But I didn't,
because the logical answer would be check out
http://cvs.debian.org/dak/?cvsroot=dak and start working, and I won't
be able to do that...
And it is a mess to configure the first
On 10203 March 1977, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
It's now redirected to http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
The new page looks really clean and easy to read. Thanks to everyone
who participated in making it available. I like the Age column, but
I think it's still useful to know the actual date
On 10214 March 1977, Nico Golde wrote:
o Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^ Is the email address wrong?
There is no entry for
http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, as you are free to use whatever email as a maintainer.
Look at db.d.o if you want to look for logins.
--
bye Joerg
Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of those packages in the archive, mailfilter is the best IMHO. However, I
ended up *not* using it because it doesn't support ANDing of conditions
AFAICT (size 100k AND header spelling SUBJECT:).
Then maybe you should have a look at popsneaker. With
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, and a fast fix for the actual worm is to set MAXSIZE_ALLOW to
something smaller than 140k.
Erm. Its MAXSIZE_DENY for this, except one defines the virus senders
with some ALLOW rule before. Brrr. :)
--
bye Joerg
2.5 million B.C.: OOG the Open Source
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And no one is obliged to do all like James think. The package follow
the policy and doesn't have any point in policy talking about size
requeriments.
Policy is not everything that counts. Just because policy doesnt say
something it means it is good to
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More or less. Doesn't make sense include a depends of Emacs in
search-citeseer and the -el part depends of this. The better option is
split in two package each with your depends and needs.
No.
The sugestion of James is not right to include emacs
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where can I find '= 2.0-1.33-2' (or something around that number)?
It used to be an 'attic' (morgue I think it is called) on ftp-master.
This however only have files roughly two months back...
If it was a package then its available at
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joerg If it was a package then its available at
Joerg snapshot.debian.net
Is this web only (tried both ssh and ftp)?
Yes.
But apt-able if you want.
For every single day you need. Read its webpage. :)
--
bye Joerg
Christian bignachos: the
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a Depends,
Recommends, or Build-Depends relationship on a non-main
package), ...
Note, no mention of
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If not, why incitating people to get non-free stuff while you just can
provide a Gimp that can save GIF without LZW?
If it isnt already there - write a patch for it if you want that.
--
bye Joerg
A.D. 1492:
Christopher Columbus arrives in what he
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's the question of botched uploads. I think we've all accidentally
botched an upload one time or another, and having access to auric means
we can fix it without having to call on the ftpmasters for help.
It depends on whether the queue daemon
On 10622 March 1977, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
I'm trying to upload a new mailman package, but this is failing
utterly. Could someone please help me? Thanks in advance.
Wrong place where you asked. The problem is the : in your .changes
name. The match is: re_taint_free =
On 10636 March 1977, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
I don't think people will install unstable on production machines, so
don't see how that would be a problem.
Squid 3 is not release ready. And with current plans should not release
with etch.
Upload to experimental, not as new source.
--
bye
On 10636 March 1977, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Upload to experimental, not as new source.
Why not?
Just from what i read in the thread...
Since I'd like to make squid3 easily available to all those that want
to try the new features, without braking the existing squid package,
unstable is the
On 10730 March 1977, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
At the moment, should `pinentry' be added to the list of virtual
package names? If so, I'll file a wishlist bug against debian-policy.
Nope. If it can work as the pinentry thing then provide it. Thats it for you.
--
bye Joerg
I read the DUMP and
On 10730 March 1977, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
| All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
| arrange to create new ones if necessary. They should not use virtual
| package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
| packages) unless
On 10741 March 1977, Michael Banck wrote:
That would mean more work for the ftp-masters/ftp-assistants though, so
not sure.
Doesnt sound like much work from that, so should be ok.
--
bye Joerg
mrvn Anyone with a cdrw/dvdrw drive up for some crazy experiments? Ever
noticed how the
On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Both forbid to damage the reputation of the original author.
Free software gives you the right to change software but free software
definitely does _not_ give you the right to use the originam _name_ of the
software in case you apply incompatible
On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Reply-To and M-f-T set to my address, whoever answers please respect
this and let this thread die on -devel, its the wrong medium for this
discussion, thank you.
I am sorry, but I cannot believe that you like to make serious proposal
with the text
On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
[1]
http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
[2]
http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/mpeg1
On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If we did agree on continuing the mail exchange on a private base, there
youle be not problem, but unfortunately, you did send some lies in your mail
that need to be corrected first
Yeah.
Eduard Bloch has absolutely no clue and on the other
reassign 377109 ftp.debian.org
retitle 377109 RM: cdrtools -- RoM: non-free, license problems
thanks
Hi guys,
ok well, as JS stays with an interpretation of CDDL and GPL that the
whole world does not follow (all wrong, of course :) ), lets go and fix
this. The sane way is to remove cdrtools from
On 10168 March 1977, Scott James Remnant wrote:
= 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
It can be argued that these are already effectively build-essential due
to the high number of packages build-depending on them anyway.
I think it should be b-e, but with a versioned dep thats high
Doug Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suspect there will be enough people on both sides of this
issue. How about defaulting to non-verbose behavior, and having
a `-verbose' variant of all the BTS addresses (or even the
opposite). Then those who prefer to receive an acknowledgement
can
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-18
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: epiphany
Version : 0.2.1
Upstream Author : Giuseppe D'Aquì [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://epiphany.sourceforge.net/
* License :
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-20
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: kimagemapeditor
Version : 0.9.5
Upstream Author : Jan Schäfer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://kimagemapeditor.sourceforge.net/
* License
Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are several reasons not to do this.
Don't upload binaries at all.
Why?
The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package.
YOU should do that.
It will build in a clean chroot with proper build-depends.
With proper versions of all
Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The autobuilder will check the build-process of your package.
YOU should do that.
To err is human.
Yes. But that does not transform to Dont do it, i could make an error.
There are enough ways to test your Build-Depends.
And if you have an up2date
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't follow the discussion entirely, but at least at the beginning
people weren't sure there was a backup of the database. Please correct
me if I'm wrong.
I dont know if anyone else has something, but i sent tbm a postgresql
dump from 2002-07-20.
Mateusz Papiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hope you're right... I was waiting for DAM approval, and now
only my AM, perhaps, know what to do...
The AM, FrontDesk and everyone that reads debian-newmaint. :)
DAM stage is (more or less) easy to recover.
--
bye Joerg
A.D. 1517:
Martin Luther
Carlos Laviola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-newmaint-discuss is probably better.
Dead list according to lists.debian.org
--
bye Joerg
A.D. 1492:
Christopher Columbus arrives in what he believes to be India, but
which RMS informs him is actually GNU/India.
On 10350 March 1977, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
You may want to follow bug #311724, which is about exactly this issue.
Understood, but out of my hands; it appears to be a CDBS issue.
Yep, including this feature is a cdbs mistake. Using it is a maintainer mistake.
The last version of the
On 10352 March 1977, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
During one of the talks of Debconf (I think it was about shared library
packaging) there was a complaint that tracking upstreams SONAME changes
means that your library package will end up in NEW each time it really
changed.
And? Hows that bad?
On 10353 March 1977, Santiago Vila wrote:
we need to remove
from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages.
No, that's not true, we don't *need* to remove woody-to-sarge dummy
packages, as they are also woody-to-etch dummy packages.
We do not support that. No. So yes,
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hi People,
i now go and O: all the lg-* packages from the Linux Gazette.
That are about 111 packages right now, I wont upload them all just to
set the email address to the qa-group. :)
If someone wants to take them please consider the following points:
- They have
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hi
Orphaning ecb.
Description: Code browser for several languages for Emacs.
ECB is source code browser for Emacs. It is a global
minor-mode which displays a couple of windows that can
be used to browse directories, files and methods.
It supports method parsing
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hi
I now orphan doxymacs.
Description: E-lisp package for making doxygen usage easier under Emacs
The purpose of the doxymacs project is to create a LISP package that
will make using Doxygen from within {X}Emacs easier.
I upload a version fixing its bugs and
On 10381 March 1977, W. Borgert wrote:
as a conclusion of many discussions at DebConf5, I propose to
maintain all packages by teams.
No, thanks.
VI. The advantages of team maintenance outweigh the problem of
team maintenance overhead.
Not everywhere, no.
VII. Team maintainence helps
On 10392 March 1977, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Note: Im speaking *for me*, not anyone else in the team!
As you may have noticed, the beloved target of many flamewars, the
NEW queue [1] has been reduced to an average of less than 10
packages. Packages are processed within days,
On 10401 March 1977, Andreas Fester wrote:
Will w.d.org be a replacement for w.d.net?
Thats the intention of it.
With the latter leading to the same page once the migration is done?
That depends on the one who has it right now, but would be the best, yes.
--
bye Joerg
StevenK [Clint]: I'm
Sven Luther schrieb:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master
On 10431 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The
reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
NEW, not incoming.
I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are
licensed
with PHP
On 10432 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
It is cool that you filled the bug report for my package (php4-pear-log) but
I've found several more packages which are licensed with PHP License:
php-auth - 3.0
php-date - 3.0
php-db - 3.0
php-file - 3.0
php-html-template-it - 2.0
php-http -
On 10432 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
But now where you compiled the list I dont want to take the glory away
From you, so feel free to do it yourself. :)
I could just clone the original bugreport. What do you think?
Whatever you find more attractive. :)
--
bye Joerg
Linus: Wenn Darl
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hi
Orphaning this package now - the maintainer has no time to work on it
and agreed to the orphaning. If you want it: Fix the bugs, change
maintainer, upload a new version.
Description: SysV init runlevel configuration tool for the terminal
sysv-rc-conf provides
On 10454 March 1977, Ian Bruce wrote:
Returning to the original question: Does anybody know why the
uncompressed Packages file has disappeared from the unstable
archive?
Because relevant tools do not / should not use that file since years. It
was announced *long* ago to be in a few days, so
On 10469 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Rejected: source only uploads are not supported.
I can't see the rationale for rejecting source uploads, and they used to
be accepted in the past.
Because people then fuck up their packages even more.
No, they havent been accepted in the past.
Sven Luther wrote:
In fact I strongly suggest switching to source-only after Sarge is
released.
seconded, and ubuntu has proven that it is possible.
Ubuntu this, ubuntu that, ubuntu there, ...
EH, just because ubuntu did it its good? Then why a no to the drop
other arches - ubuntu only has 3
On 10231 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
- check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 10 kbytes of
documentation...) (what's the current opinion on that, anyway?)
Don't you think maintainers are big enough to know how to handle
On 10231 March 1977, David Schmitt wrote:
Collecting tidbits of
information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
that information public.
A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
package names, bugs closed, et al.
Nothing more can be done
1 - 100 of 815 matches
Mail list logo
