On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 09:05:50AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:01:15PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:00:46PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > >a) more friendly
> >
> > Please check the facts. The "initial email" which started this
>
> P
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:01:15PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:00:46PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >a) more friendly
>
> Please check the facts. The "initial email" which started this
Please do
s/initial email/first email read by the majority of readers/
T
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:00:46PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>a) more friendly
Please check the facts. The "initial email" which started this
discussion was not really the one in -devel but this one:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837614#19
I think that's friendly enough
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:38:37PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
> What I find disturbing is that we really think that shaming the
> maintainer would be a better approach.
I also consider the time of all involved persons (bug reporter,
maintainer, posters and readers on this list) well better s
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> sorry, I don't share you view that this might be funny. You are known to make
> issues RC issues like the missing build-indep/build-arch targets. I think the
> RC severity of such reports is at least questionable.
No, that's not
On 14.09.2016 00:11, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:31:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 13.09.2016 18:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether there's consensus that you agree with, it's an RC bug
>>> to
>>> not build within the same release, and has been
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:31:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 13.09.2016 18:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of whether there's consensus that you agree with, it's an RC bug
> > to
> > not build within the same release, and has been for several releases now.
>
> so the solutio
On 13.09.2016 18:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 2016-09-13 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>> You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it?
>>
>> I added the tag because I couldn't reproduce the issue in unstable where
>> we build o
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:38:37PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Help from the bug submitter would be surely welcome.
No, not in this case.
If the maintainer does not start his package builder of choice to
verify that what is reported (FTBFS in testing) is in fact true, and
instead tags the bu
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 19:38 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> On 13.09.2016 18:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On 2016-09-13 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> >> On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >>> You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it?
> >>
> >> I added the tag
On 13.09.2016 18:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 2016-09-13 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>> You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it?
>>
>> I added the tag because I couldn't reproduce the issue in unstable where
>> we build o
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:28:26PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Are you implying that the issue is known and is transient (aka fixed
> in unstable, pending migration to testing) or the fact is that the
> package cannot be built in testing and you don't care even when that
> becomes stable a
On 2016-09-13 at 12:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 2016-09-13 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>
>> On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>
>>> You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it?
>>
>> I added the tag because I couldn't reproduce the issue in unstable
>> wher
On 2016-09-13 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it?
I added the tag because I couldn't reproduce the issue in unstable
where
we build our packages. It's great that it's reproducible in testin
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:55:18PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> I will not participate further in this discussion on -devel, so please
> do not CC me.
Ok, I'll respect that, so you will have to read this in -devel (if you
want to read at all).
> Thanks for publicly shaming me, makes me
Hello,
On 13 September 2016 at 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>
> Dear Santiago,
>
> Thanks for publicly shaming me, makes me feel much better about your
> bugreports.
>
> On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it?
>
> I added
Dear Santiago,
Thanks for publicly shaming me, makes me feel much better about your
bugreports.
On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it?
I added the tag because I couldn't reproduce the issue in unstable where
we build our packages
17 matches
Mail list logo
