Quoting Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Gunnar Wolf dijo [Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:29:30PM -0500]:
Hi,
(...)
GAH!
Sorry... Please ignore this mail.
I felt I researched thoroughly on coin's status, didn't it? Well, yes,
but I didn't pay attention that there are two different source
packages:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Peter Cordes wrote:
> Any suggestions/comments? I'd be surprised if I'm the first person to
> think of this, but I didn't see anything that suggested it anywhere.
One suggestion: for some people, it makes sense to use the `apt-move'
package after downloading the .debs. Apt
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> * Jason Gunthorpe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000326 08:45]:
> >[...]
> >ORBS - 314
> > Comparing connections it is found that 3970 out of 40236 connection
> > attempts would have been blocked. This can be roughly considered to be
> > 3970 emails bl
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> c) *eventually* there will be a debconf server(right word?) which network
> admins can install. This will have the answers stored in it and then when
> boxes need to know an asnwer, they query debconf and it queries the server.
> This way, you can
Frederic,
I think that easier config is a worthy goal. I have long mused about how
to teach a single tool about the myriad config files. But I'm too lazy to
actually write one.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Seth Cohn wrote :
> > >So, yes, why reinvent the wheel, if there are all
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> My current problem with apt-move is that it wants to delete every
> single deb file I have (instead of only those that have never
> versions on hand). Also, it makes completely empty Packages.gz
> files for me.
I dunno about the first, but I have se
Hi,
I've not received anything via debian-devel-digest since Friday, yet
there are new messages visible via the web.
Can someone check if the digesting mechanism is broken?
-S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
What's up with webmin?
In the archives of debian-devel, I see at least
three threads that started with a message from someone
proposing to package webmin, and quickly followed by
Jaldhar H. Vyas claiming that he is working on it.
However, I can't find webmin at packages.debian.org.
In J
What gives?
Saturday: digikam 4:5.9.0-1 is marked for autoremoval from testing on
2019-08-26
Sunday: digikam REMOVED from testing
-S
--- Begin Message ---
FYI: The status of the digikam source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 4:5.9.0-1
Current version
It would be lovely to get this enabled! It's a pain point for me also, on
occasion.
-Steve
Oh. I did use Eller -- but the architecture is listed as mipsel. I need
mips64el
On August 21, 2022 10:54:44 p.m. CDT, Sebastiaan Couwenberg
wrote:
>On 8/22/22 05:36, Steven Robbins wrote:
>> The list at https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi suggests all available
>> machines
>> are "buildd" an
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 8:42:29 PM CST Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > Lintian is full of opinions. For example, I often get:
> >
> > W: python-pysnmp4-doc: extra-license-file
> > usr/share/doc/python-pysnmp4-doc/html/_sources/license.txt
>
> That is not an opinion, it is
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:15:08 AM CST Ian Jackson wrote:
> But when a submitter disagrees with a REJECT, and asks for a review,
> IMO submitter is entitled to a longer explanation, and there should
> explicitly be an opportunity for other ftpmasters to agree or dissent.
That would be nice. I
On Friday, March 2, 2018 6:00:57 AM CST Gert Wollny wrote:
> I'd like to make a proposal how
> transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to
> review packages could be improved.
I have an orthogonal proposal to enhance efficiency: stop re-examining each
new SOVERSION of a
On Friday, March 2, 2018 6:15:54 AM CST Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I'm not involved with the ftp master team in any way, except I
> occasionally make them do work by uploading things that go to thew NEW
> queue. In the past decade ago, the NEW processing has almost always
> been fast, and when it has
On Friday, March 2, 2018 11:07:39 PM CST Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, March 02, 2018 09:44:04 PM Steve Robbins wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:15:08 AM CST Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > But when a submitter disagrees with a REJECT, and asks for a review,
> > >
Or: change the mechanism to avoid a trip through NEW for simple cases that
Chris outlined: new binary or soname bump. Reserve NEW for truly new things.
On March 5, 2018 9:00:06 AM CST, "W. Martin Borgert" wrote:
>Quoting Chris Lamb :
>>> In many cases, there is an issue open about the new bina
>
>On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:22:22AM -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
>> Or: change the mechanism to avoid a trip through NEW for simple cases
>that Chris outlined: new binary or soname bump. Reserve NEW for truly
>new things.
>
>Can you describe an algorithm that can destingu
I think the suggestion of randomized spot checking is meant to replace - not
add - to the present system of checking that penalizes uploads of existing
source but new binaries. So human resources should not be the issue.
I would imagine that the packages currently being selected are not arbitr
anual.
On March 7, 2018 7:03:54 PM EST, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>Steve Robbins dijo [Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 01:15:35PM -0600]:
>> (...)
>> To me, one of the puzzling aspects is why the FTP policy work has
>been so
>> secretive. The release team has a mailing list, tech committee ha
Is there a button or query that will show all projects that list me as
uploader? I'm looking for the same list I get on the PTS packages overview
page.
Thanks
Steve
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Thanks James. But I think your suggestion will lead me to the projects one at
a time. I'm looking for a view on salsa of all such projects.
On March 10, 2018 5:31:10 PM EST, James McCoy wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 04:30:56PM -0500, Steve Robbins wrote:
>> Is there a b
In the last upload of googletest -- December 2016 -- I successfully used "gbp
buildpackage". Today, with zero changes, it fails to actually do the build:
it skips from configuration to running tests.
The rules file [1] is, I think, pretty simple: there are overrides for
dh_auto_configure , _t
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 1:36:50 PM CDT Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Which version of debhelper are you building with?
11.2
> The cmake support was
> recently broken and just fixed in debhelper 11.2.1, so make sure you get
> that.
Thanks for the tip! I'll upgrade and try again.
-Steve
s
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 4:05:27 PM CDT Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> But I think if we had that philosophy, we
> wouldn't ever remove anything until identified security concerns force
> it out.
I don't see anything wrong with that philosophy.
Assuming someone is willing to maintain a package and it i
Hi,
I would like to update the googletest salsa repo [1] with upstream 1.8.1. So
I downloaded the tarball and ran "gbp import-orig" on it. That appeared to
work, but "gbp buildpackage" fails with
dpkg-source: error: aborting due to unexpected upstream changes ...
from the diffs, my guess i
On Monday, October 1, 2018 10:35:01 PM CDT Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> I think you have configured your git to auto convert the line ending
> when commit.
>
> In the pristine-tar tarball,
> $ file googletest-release-1.8.1/googlemock/msvc/2005/gmock.sln
> googletest-release-1.8.1/googlemock/msvc/2005/g
Hi,
Thanks to all! I have gotten past the issue and created a build now.
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:59:54 AM CDT Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think you should not set any of these options. I disagree with the
> discussion in that article surrounding the suggestion to use
> core.autocrlf=input.
On Friday, August 4, 2017 12:35:04 PM CDT Paul Wise wrote:
> Windows viruses in Debian email packages
>
>
> Sometimes[6] upstreams of email related packages include live Windows
> viruses/malware in their test corpus, either by accident or on purpose,
>
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files"
> unfortunatley does not meet the high standards we strive for within Debian.
That is odd. It has been accepted for over 16 years. What has changed?
On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:46:00 PM CST Steve Robbins wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files"
> > unfortunatley does not meet th
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:26:31 AM CST Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 23:46:00 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the rejection but &qu
Hi Ian,
As a preface to my comments: I am *only* complaining about collecting
copyright notices. I agree that collecting together a comprehensive license
statement(s) is necessary. The caveats of Russ Alberry [1] aside, these are
two distinct tasks in my eyes.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/de
On Sunday, December 10, 2017 8:09:16 PM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> However, I just wanted to add that whilst I can understand the frustration
> of your package being rejected after spending some time in NEW, it would
> be unfair to characterise that as "leaving" or neglecting it. Attributing
> malice
On Sunday, December 10, 2017 8:09:16 PM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> I would also point out that regardless of the merits of some particular
> interpretation, if a perceived violation of it was potentially discovered,
> it does not seem a terribly logical defense that "it is been like that
> for some t
On Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:11:20 PM CST gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:44:52 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> > However, the consensus voiced in this thread (as was the case of the same
> > in 2016) is that while license summarizing (which can include, if the
Ben Finney writes:
> Simon McVittie writes:
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 at 23:10:51 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > expecting to find “complete copyright holder information” such
> > > that we can be confident it *is* complete, solely in the upstream source
> > > is a folly, in my experience.
> >
> >
37 matches
Mail list logo
