Salut!
Le Vendredi 22 Juillet 2005 20:46, David Dumortier a écrit :
je suis en train de faire un patch pour les sources d'un paquet (squid)
et je dois créer un nouveau répertoire dans /var/run.
Après quelques recherches je ne suis pas sur de l'endroit où je dois
faire ça,
Salut!
Le Lundi 13 Février 2006 15:28, Clément Stenac a écrit :
Je pense que c'est justement le coeur du problème. Pas de problème pour
que les firmware soient dispo dans la section X, du moment que X est
accessible à l'install (CD officiel et d-i peut le mettre dans
sources.list),
Le Mardi 14 Février 2006 15:18, Sven Luther a écrit :
C'est une illusions, tout ces choses sont du software, et doivent donc etre
libre pour etre dans main. De plus, ces documents n'apportent pas vraiment
quelque chose a la fonctionalite de emacs, et devrait donc etre supprime du
package
Le Mercredi 15 Février 2006 11:33, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
Excusez moi de mon ignorance, mais il y a quelque chose que je ne comprend
pas vraiment.
Quelle est la différence entre mettre un texte d'une interview, dont
l'en-tête demande de ne pas modifier le corps du texte, et mettre le texte
Le Mercredi 15 Février 2006 12:01, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
Je ne demande pas ça en l'air, je me demande où précisement vous pouvez à
l'aide des textes fondateurs de debian, faire la différence entre ces
deux fichiers textes et déclarer que le premier est non libre car on ne
peut le
Le Mercredi 15 Février 2006 12:12, vous avez écrit :
La GPL en tant que tel, est non libre, bien sur, on peut cependant la
distribuer car il ne s'agit pas d'un document en soit, mais uniquement de
la licence pour d'autre documents et logiciels.
Je suis curieux de connaître ce raisonnement...
Le Mercredi 15 Février 2006 16:40, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
Mon exemple sur la GPL est bien sur une belle partie de fesses pour
mouches, le but était simplement d'arriver à la conclusion que celui
d'emacs ne l'est pas moins!
Ah ? Parce que les textes d'emacs sont des textes légaux
Le Mercredi 15 Février 2006 18:04, Sven Luther a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:55:22PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Ainsi, un paquet DFSG comatible devrait avoir les en-tête de chaque
fichier source précisant que le fichier est sous licence GPL, mais en en
aucun cas le texte de la
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 08:56, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
Scribit Thomas Huriaux dies 22/05/2006 hora 01:03:
nous avons au fil du temps établi une série de choix (qu'il serait
trop long de documenter)
La l10n serait-elle de la magie noire ? Depuis quand la complexité
d'un
sujet
Le Friday 23 November 2007 14:58:55 Pierre Habouzit, vous avez écrit :
Non dans Debian par contre (et là c'est pas une boutade) la discussion
ne mène pas à grand chose. Show the code. Montre un PoC et ça a des
chances de bouger. Si tu ne fais que discuter ça ira nulle part.
Ca je suis
Le Friday 23 November 2007 13:35:54 Dominique Dumont, vous avez écrit :
Il serait peut-être plus réaliste d'envisager une phase de transition
où un système pourrait démarrer avec init-classique et init-ng (même
en mode dégradé).
Oui, mais la dernière fois que j'ai regardé cela, c'était avec
Le Friday 15 August 2008 09:38:21 Charles Plessy, vous avez écrit :
Je suppose que ce que voulait dire le journaliste, c'est qu'il y a un
champ « License » dans le fichier « spec » des paquets RPM, alors qu'il
n'y en a pas dans le ficher « control » des paquets Debian.
Ce que je pense surtout
Le Saturday 16 August 2008 22:28:39 Steve Langasek, vous avez écrit :
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Friday 15 August 2008 09:38:21 Charles Plessy, vous avez écrit :
Je suppose que ce que voulait dire le journaliste, c'est qu'il y a un
champ « License
Le Friday 05 September 2008 15:03:47 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
Le vendredi 05 septembre 2008 à 13:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
Voila pourquoi, en l'absence de traductions usuelles, n'ayant absolument
jamais entendu quelqu'un utiliser autre chose que Live CD, je vois
Le lundi 5 octobre 2009 11:47:42, Obey Arthur Liu a écrit :
tout à fait d'accord là-dessus : ça fait deux ans que je suis unstable,
et à part quelques petites frustrations ponctuelles, souvent corrigées
illico,
unstable est tout à fait utilisable, et suit de près les versions amont.
On
Le Mardi 6 Décembre 2005 02:50, Joe Smith a écrit :
Now it is useless for users where the bottleneck is on their end.
Well, it can also be usefull in case of a broken mirror can't it?
Romain
--
Not even the dog
That piss against the wall of Babylon,
Shall escape his judgement
Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 08:48, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
For those following along at home, it seems klik is some sort of
gateway to install Debian packages on various non-Debian distributions.
I imagine it's an ftp frontend to alien.
Well..
In fact, it is a scripted version of apt that can
Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 09:57, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
No where in his web page is written that in fact klik is a refactoring of
actual debian packages.
Ok I was wrong it is written in small at the end:
Thanks to debian for the software compilation and packaging.
Romain
--
Satan
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: php-getid3
Version : 1.7.5
Upstream Author : James Heinrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.getid3.org/
* License : GPL
Description : PHP4 script that extracts
Le Mercredi 8 Février 2006 22:14, Daniel Baumann a écrit :
I'm working on the rest of the helix-tools and real-player too. I'm in
contact with Real to fix the helix-player license and to get an
acceptable license for real-player for its inclusion into non-free.
Unfortunately, such things take
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: geekast
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Frédéric Logier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://gna.org/projects/geekast/
* License : GPL
Description : GNOME interface
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: peercast
Version : 0.1211+svn
Upstream Author : PeerCast Team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.peercast.org
* License : GPL
Description : P2P audio and video
On Friday 05 May 2006 11:24, Daniel Stone wrote:
It seems to me that Ubuntu is getting alot more out of their friendship
with Debian, than Debian gets out of Ubuntu. Anyone have comments on
this? Please correct me if I'm wrong, and examples would be great.
Does Debian get lots of
Hi all!
On Monday 15 May 2006 14:15, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
this is a dream. This also need that the application is able to deal
with the fact that it has configuration for the 32 and 64 bits version
coexisting cleanly.
True. Did I say that it would be trivial?
Or even a
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 17:53, Gabor Gombas wrote:
However, you can take this idea further: provided you have multiarched
binaries, you could create a small file system using FUSE that generates
such a wrapper on-the-fly based on the requested file name, and you
could mount this file system as
Hi!
Le Dimanche 21 Mai 2006 19:34, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
PS: Yeah I'm a bit pissed of that we only have people criticizing when we
do great things.
I know I shouldn't, but I was really upset by your answer.
I'm happy that people speak up and claim their fear with this licence, and
Hi!
On Monday 22 May 2006 13:35, you wrote:
They won't sue us for distributing Java. If they do, all we have to do
is point the Judge to the press coverage of this change of license, and
to the fact that Debian was mentioned as one of the distributors asked
to please distribute Java.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: dotclear
Version : 1.2.1
Upstream Author : Olivier Meunier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.dotclear.net/
* License : GPL
Description : simple and powerfull blog
Le Jeudi 29 Septembre 2005 01:20, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Can libstdc++ be built against uclibc? You're going to have a hard time
basing a Debian port on uclibc without it.
Hi all!
It may be a stupid question, but I'm wondering if it would be usefull to use
uclibc++[1] instead of libstdc++.
Le Jeudi 29 Septembre 2005 19:41, vous avez écrit :
I saw this library today... I'm not so sure if it will solve the
question, as it's still alpha... Did anybody used it in a production
environment?
Well, I knew the existence of this library from the openwrt[1] distribution.
Maybe you can ask
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: kshutdown
Version : 0.6.0
Upstream Author : Konrad Twardowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://kshutdown.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : An advanced
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: waste
Version : 1.5b3
Upstream Author : Waste Team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://waste.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : Software product
Le Vendredi 13 Mai 2005 12:18, vous avez écrit :
I took a quick look at the code and found it may require DFSG actions.
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1view=
auto that arrays are either the GPL license itself, backdoor code (who
knows, I didn't try to
it into the debian distribution.
I'm looking forward for your answers,
Romain Beauxis
--
If you are the big tree,
We are the small axe,
Ready to cut you down,
Sharpen to cut you down
pgpWVhwlGWmb9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
If it where used I would suggest replacing it with
#include /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL (or a file inside the source)
and patch to make it use plain text instead of crypted data.
Yep in fact it was used as it said, by using the -L switch for both wastesrv
and the admin command
Package: wnpp
Followup-For: Bug #294397
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
I had already tried to package it few mounths ago, for my first try...
So that was not that clean.. ;)
Now I'm restarting from scratch, and I will do the following packages:
-- mediabox404-web: package with all
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: ptunnel
Version : 0.61
Upstream Author : Daniel Stoedle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.cs.uit.no/~daniels/PingTunnel/
* License : BSD like
Description : Send
Le Friday 20 March 2009 02:06:37 Ben Finney, vous avez écrit :
Is this the right way to spend developer time? as far as I see it,
developer time is our most valuable resource, and should not be
treated as such.
Certainly, the time of people is valuable. I would like to see a
format that
Le Friday 20 March 2009 10:58:53 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 08:28 +, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
If anyone wants to actually try working with copyright files for one of
those bigger packages, Mike O'Connor helpfulyl just opened #520485 to
track one of
Le Friday 20 March 2009 12:55:05 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
If that's too much effort for your, get a co-maintainer or a different
package.
Fine. Do you have co-maintainers on sale?
It is not about co-maintaining, but about co-reviewing which is a totally
different task.
Romain
Le Friday 20 March 2009 13:07:44 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
It is not about co-maintaining, but about co-reviewing which is a totally
different task.
Do you really think we can find an unlimited amount of volunteers
willing to continuously read thousands of files to find the list
Le Friday 20 March 2009 14:18:22 Mike Hommey, vous avez écrit :
This idea of a public reviewing page for NEWly uploaded packages really
looked appealing to me.
On the other hand, when you look at projets such as Mozilla or Webkit,
there are people already doing that upstream, or ensuring
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:38:34 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
But do you think this is possible ?
Sure. Resolving this sort of thing is the point of the Policy process,
after all, and we have a clear authority that does the enforcement
(ftp-master), so it seems likely that we can reach a
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:12:02 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
Maybe the best resolution to this is to have a broader discussion that
leads to a rewording of Policy 12.5 that makes the requirements explicit,
with ftp-master buy-in on what the requirements are?
on the same page and everyone
Le Friday 20 March 2009 15:54:14 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
Not sure what else you expect someone to respond with apart from throwing
their hands up and conceding that we should adopt policy to conform with
peoples wish to avoid additional work.
You know, if you get some agressive answers
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:55:29 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, vous avez écrit :
Since the vast majority of the packages fall into a regular copyright and
licensing, this would also mean overload the policy with stuff that is
only relevant in a very small number of cases in proportion.
If
Le Saturday 21 March 2009 15:42:35 Manoj Srivastava, vous avez écrit :
Now, it might be perfectly fine for the ftp team to impose such
restrictions on packages, and create their own policy; but please at
least say so, and do not hide being hand waving of either copyright law
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 14:45:18 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
Could you provide a use case or two to help clarify things? The main
one I see is for an end user to look at a packages copyright file and
say 'yes, I can use it for $foo', which is a case that's detracted from
in the
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process.
I agree. I fail
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems
the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation
for it.
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 11:08:28 Stefano Zacchiroli, vous avez écrit :
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:11:03AM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
Most of the time this is the case. But, if you upload a large, complex
package, that might get passed by for a while so that several small,
easy
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:18:46 Mike O'Connor, vous avez écrit :
I have several very small ocaml packages waiting in NEW for several weeks
now. I am upstream on these packages, and, honnestly, it takes few
minutes to check them (only 3 files of code in tarball).
Of course, keep in
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
There was clearly a need for those GR, so raisong the number of
seconders would just have the consequence to prevent us from voting on
important topics.
FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either
Le Monday 06 April 2009 08:18:33 Lionel Elie Mamane, vous avez écrit :
My reasoning is that a package that has had only team uploads for
three years is a package where effectively no human is taking charge
for maintaining it, just as a package that has had only NMU uploads in
three years; I'd
Le Monday 06 April 2009 09:32:14 Matthew Johnson, vous avez écrit :
Don't we have some install paths that still depend on LILO?
Yes: /boot on LVM is the main one.
We _certainly_ shouldn't throw it out if there are _known_ situations
for which it's required.
By all means print large
that the changelog is named after
the team, it seems to be equivalent to the real world on behalf of the XXX
team.
A correct semantics could then be:
$PACKAGE ($VERSION) unstable; urgency=low
[ Romain Beauxis ]
* Did a very bad thing
-- Package Team package-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org
, to ensure the whole is consistent; and I expect the trailer
line to tell me who did that work.
Couldn't this also be a line in the changelog ?
This is not a standard but this is done in many cases:
[ Romain Beauxis ]
* Upload to $TARGET
Romain
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ
Le Tuesday 07 April 2009 22:59:00 Sebastien Delafond, vous avez écrit :
On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote:
While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is
important for jruby...
to have 2 versions of jruby available ? I guess so you can at least, for
instance, try the new
Hi !
Le Wednesday 22 April 2009 09:07:58 Jan Wagner, vous avez écrit :
I've requested a slot at DebConf to discuss this into detail, though
feel free to start a discussion already on debian-devel.
sorry for coming around with another issue. While reading your comment
without giving
Le Wednesday 22 April 2009 12:35:12 Raphael Geissert, vous avez écrit :
[Dropping -release and -volatile]
Jan Wagner wrote:
Hi Romain,
On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Romain Beauxis wrote:
However, I wonder if this would need yet another archive, or just an
update of a policy, either
Le Wednesday 22 April 2009 18:52:48 Raphael Geissert, vous avez écrit :
I gave this example precisely because mediawiki upstream release
management is one of the most serious I know in webapps. And even though
they fix issues with care, and their code is surely very good, then this
ends up
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org
* Package name: xmlm
Version : 1.0.1
Upstream Author : Daniel C. Bünzli
* URL : http://erratique.ch/software/xmlm
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: OCaml
Description : OCaml
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org
* Package name: audex
Version : 0.71b2
Upstream Author : Marco Nelles au...@maniatek.de
* URL : http://opensource.maniatek.de/cgi-bin/audex/audex/index.html
* License : GPL2
Le lundi 10 août 2009 09:58:04, Jonathan Yu a écrit :
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:33:58AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote:
The dh_make template for
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 04:59:09, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release, by
forbidding the too old
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 23:22:45, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
But there could be another use of this field, which would fit into the
test- driven workflow. What about a tool that displays the changes in
the policy based on the declared supported
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:09:09, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org (12/08/2009):
Is it foolish to propose this as a lintian check ? Hey, standards
version is outdated, here are the changes that ought to be done
checks/standards-version.desc
Please, pretty
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:31:40, Paul Wise a écrit :
Please file a bug (and patch) against lintian, I doubt the lintian
maintainers would have a problem with this as long as it is
implemented sanely.
Ok. Are the .desc files processed in any way ?
I looked at lintian's source and could find any
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 01:13:44, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:31:40, Paul Wise a écrit :
Please file a bug (and patch) against lintian, I doubt the lintian
maintainers would have a problem with this as long as it is
implemented sanely.
Ok. Are the .desc files processed
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:48:13, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
That makes a difference in the sense that it helps to improve the
workflow by putting as much information as possible in the same place.
Oh, for Pete's sake, just run zless on the file lintian already
reports for you. If
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: transfermii
Version : 0.3.1
Upstream Author : Arnaud Ysmal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.stacktic.org/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : mii
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Samuel Mimram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: ocaml-ao
Version : 0.1.6
Upstream Author : the Savonet Team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://savonet.sf.net/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: OCaml
Description :
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 14:11, Maik Merten a écrit :
Fortunately not. We have free MPEG-4 decoders, thanks.
I don't consider this to be true.
Can you give a source supporting your theory?
Well, check for mpeg4 decoders in main archive..
I think you are missunderstanding his point, because
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 14:46, Maik Merten a écrit :
Romain Beauxis schrieb:
Well, check for mpeg4 decoders in main archive..
I think you are missunderstanding his point, because a patent is not
directly related to the freeness of the code.
If we were to remove all software
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 16:10, Maik Merten a écrit :
If somehow possible the WHATWG should adopt a free format and I think
it's in the best interest of Debian to bringing this to the WHATWG's
attention.
I don't agree, you'll always have the threat of an abusing patent that claims
that some
Le mercredi 28 mars 2007 09:31, Michal Čihař a écrit :
Same here, tried encrypted first, it failed (see bellow), then
unencrypted and it worked fine.
Precisly the same issue here.
It has been reported to work on mutt, and it failed here with kmail.
Is the crypt+sign mail format standard ?
Le mercredi 28 mars 2007 15:16, Andreas Tille a écrit :
I'm obviousely hit by two broken MUAs (pine, mailx) and not
willing to spend more then 10 minutes just to send my vote.
Plus kmail I think.
Romain
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: spip
Version : 1.9.2b
Upstream Author : SPIP Development Team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.spip.net/ and
http://trac.rezo.net/trac/spip/
* License
Hi !
Le Saturday 26 May 2007 13:03:09 Moritz Muehlenhoff, vous avez écrit :
This was already in the archive and has been removed mostly for
it's poor security track record. Re-introducing it is a very
bad idea.
I've been trought the previous spip bugs, and it seems that missing
Le Tuesday 21 October 2008 13:10:28 Peter Clifton, vous avez écrit :
Having no source-code for firmware is hardly that different to having a
completely open-source driver which does un-told magic by poking
un-documented registers in a complex chip. Think Intel graphics before
they released
Le Tuesday 21 October 2008 22:28:31 Lennart Sorensen, vous avez écrit :
If I recall well, one of the origin of the GNU fondation was the fact
that having free drivers alowed one to actually *fix* issues he may have
with his *own* hardware. Then, the very same reasoning can apply to
binary
Le Saturday 25 October 2008 10:56:56 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you please elaborate here? The DFSG does not require us to have or
ship source code for non-program works, and if documentation is being
rejected on the basis of a *source*
Le Saturday 25 October 2008 18:36:33 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and
understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce,
distribute and *modify*, I completely fails
Le Wednesday 29 October 2008 11:17:57 Norbert Preining, vous avez écrit :
Anyone with a decent intelligent approach would ask the list masters,
admins, whoever, and NOT post again on debian-devel.
I think that Charles meant that, even though someone makes a naive request for
which you -- and I
Le Friday 28 November 2008 23:57:09 Holger Levsen, vous avez écrit :
On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
for things like
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: liq-contrib
Version : 08.11
Upstream Author : The Savonet Team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://savonet.sf.net/
* License : GPL v2+
Programming Lang: liquidsoap
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 09:55:24 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
Steve M. Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There's a load
of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
The NEW queue is constantly being processed. Unfortunately it
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:07:51 Cyril Brulebois, vous avez écrit :
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] (03/12/2008):
I've always wondered why it is not possible to add meta information to
an upload.
[…]
In these cases, it would be nice to add an annotation to give hints
about
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 13:34:06 Lucas Nussbaum, vous avez écrit :
That's not true. We imposed that reviewing step to ourselves, and, if
it's doing more harm (by slowing down development and annoying
contributors) than good (by detecting mistakes and improving Debian's
overall quality),
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 14:36:39 Miriam Ruiz, vous avez écrit :
If people feel that a reviewing service is needed, we could split
that out of NEW processing and have a separate service (or just use
debian-mentors@ and http://mentors.debian.net).
Yup, I agree with you. I think that
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 16:33:15 Martin Wuertele, vous avez écrit :
Quality checks could be done later and this would ease the whole process
while keeping a focus where it is important.
I completely disagree. It's a welcome benefit if packages of inferior
quality are prevented from
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 22:15:50 Joerg Jaspert, vous avez écrit :
Packages that only add new binary components are already sorted above
packages that have completly new source, to decrease their time in the
queue, as their checks are much faster done than a complete source
review. But
Le Sunday 14 December 2008 21:19:35 Andreas Barth, vous avez écrit :
FD will be a mess, but as I've previously posted, I believe that means
that we fail to override a delegate decision and hence the release of
lenny proceeds.
Though I agree with that, voting for option 4 is even more
Le Monday 15 December 2008 10:36:50 Robert Millan, vous avez écrit :
With these hopefully solid plans in place for the release, we feel the
need to acknowledge that there is an ongoing vote whose outcome could
potentially disrupt them.
Luk is referring to 11 bugs in linux-2.6 which all
Le Monday 15 December 2008 23:19:55 Bastian Venthur, vous avez écrit :
Note that forking+stable'izing Sid is what Ubuntu does every six months.
Is that important? Unstable is frozen for nearly 1/2 year now, that's a
problem we should try to solve if we don't want to degrade ourselves to
a
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 00:29:21 Didier Raboud, vous avez écrit :
You can't get both recent *and* stabilized software. For a solid release
to be done, one needs to hold new improvements for a while.
Yes. But there is a bunch of non-DD people that strongly want to use Debian
and prefer
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
just missed it.)
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:52:55 Romain Beauxis, vous avez écrit :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html, no?
I don't read shorten in this link, only start.
Woops, sorry I misread discussion with vote.
The problem with this quote is that it was used to justify
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 14:55:29 Didier Raboud, vous avez écrit :
I think that the three existing flavours of debian already provide more
than is needed to offer comfort for both users with stability needs and
users with desire for new software.
Actually, I would agree if you consider
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 20:30:22 Thomas Viehmann, vous avez écrit :
But while you bring it up: I want a Debian where every Developer can
cough up a minimal commitment to help with releasing. That is what Have
you fixed an RC bug today is about?. If all developers had fixed one RC
bug in
1 - 100 of 880 matches
Mail list logo
