Hi Paul,
Le Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:12:42AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
README.Source would surely get my attention (as would README.Debian).
Acutally, I do not know what is missing from README.Debian to justify the
existence of this package. It runs a script each time a kernel
(Long answer, but I promise to limit my messages in this thread).
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
Yes. For the record, this day when Charles sent this mail, I was working
in NEW from early in the morning to about 9:00 at night. I don't want
thanks or even
Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
2013/9/3 Paul Wise p...@debian.org:
Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
Although this could be possible, a second upload would be needed
anyway
Paul Wise wrote:
Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
Why should we rush to let more broken stuff into the archive?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge,
Hey Charles,
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 05:43:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi Paul,
first of all, please let me clarify that the reason why I answered on our core
mailing list is not to fingerpoint if or not you are wrong, but becase this is
the only way I have to see if others agree to
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013, Luca Falavigna wrote:
2013/9/3 Paul Wise p...@debian.org:
Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
Although this could be
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013, Luca Falavigna wrote:
2013/9/3 Paul Wise p...@debian.org:
Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
and other bugs if there are DFSG
Hi!
On 09/02/2013 06:04 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It would have been nice if you'd done such an inspection before you uploaded
and wasted the ftp-team's time doing multiple reviews.
I fully agree. I don't think it's a bad thing at all to thoroughly
check the package, even for minor problems.
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 12:12:09AM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
I would like that the FTP team please refrain from giving cheap side
comments
Um..
or ask cheap questions in its rejection emails (have you noticed that the
ITP
bug was originally submitted as a
On 09/02/2013 07:38 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Adding to this. I know Paul personally very well and I don't think that
he'd maliciously reject a package.
I don't think so either.
Though what happens is that Charles is being frustrated because of the
current waiting time in the NEW
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:47:02AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 09/02/2013 07:38 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Adding to this. I know Paul personally very well and I don't think that
he'd maliciously reject a package.
I don't think so either.
Though what happens is that
On Monday, September 02, 2013 11:58:41 Charles Plessy wrote:
Answering on a broader audience because I think that there is really a drift
from ensuring archive integrity to massive and arbitrary top-down
nitpicking.
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:00:17AM +, Paul Richards Tagliamonte a écrit
:
On my phone, excuse the Cc and (I'm guessing HTML mail)
Hi, Charles.
On Sep 1, 2013 10:59 PM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Answering on a broader audience because I think that there is really a
drift
from ensuring archive integrity to massive and arbitrary top-down
nitpicking.
Le
14 matches
Mail list logo
