On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I'd be very unhappy about that. For one, I think using such suffix in a
field that forms part of users' everyday's life is, uhm, inappropriate
or disruptive. What do they care if the version is a NMU or not?
Hu? And +dfsg is
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I want a consistent versioning scheme, thus +nmuX for both native and
non-natives packages.
I'd be very unhappy about that. For one, I think using such suffix in a
field that forms part of users' everyday's life is, uhm, inappropriate
or
On 25/04/08 at 10:59 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
thanks for starting an initiative to make NMs more useful and accepted!
For now I just have two procedural remarks.
On Thursday 24 April 2008 21:42, Bas Wijnen wrote:
[0] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep0/
[1]
On 25/04/08 at 18:32 +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
What about introducing a special case regarding the waiting
period before uploading an NMU for security bugs? There are
often cases in which we already have a patch handy to fix a
security issue but still wait a few days on the maintainers
On Saturday 26 April 2008 02:07, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
I'd prefer the security team did not delay fixes at all by default.
Exceptions for specific maintainers, transitions or other reasons
are fine too of course.
For stable and testing, I agree.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:42:59PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
This DEP is available on the Debian Wiki[1].
The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX, where X is a
counter starting at 1.
The above was added to the DEP to match dch but dch only uses that format
for native NMUs
(reply-to set to debian-devel only)
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, James Vega wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:42:59PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
This DEP is available on the Debian Wiki[1].
The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX, where X is a
counter starting at 1.
The
Hi,
thanks for starting an initiative to make NMs more useful and accepted!
For now I just have two procedural remarks.
On Thursday 24 April 2008 21:42, Bas Wijnen wrote:
[0] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep0/
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/NmuDep
Why isnt the second URL
Hi Bas,
* Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-24 23:34]:
We (Bas Wijnen, Lucas Nussbaum) worked on a Debian Enhancement
Proposal[0] on the policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads
(NMUs).
The main purpose of the proposal is:
* to explicitely allow fixing bugs of severity lower
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about introducing a special case regarding the waiting
period before uploading an NMU for security bugs? There are
often cases in which we already have a patch handy to fix a
security issue but still wait a few
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
I'd prefer the security team did not delay fixes at all by default.
Exceptions for specific maintainers, transitions or other reasons
are fine too of course.
For stable and testing, I agree. However, for unstable and
experimental the maintainer should be
Hi,
We (Bas Wijnen, Lucas Nussbaum) worked on a Debian Enhancement
Proposal[0] on the policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads
(NMUs).
The main purpose of the proposal is:
* to explicitely allow fixing bugs of severity lower than important in
NMUs.
* to encourage the use of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
