On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> I know you're not (unless w/permission, submitter, or maintainer, etc)
> supposed to close bugs.. but what about things like changing subjects..
> merging.. changing severity levels..
QA work in the BTS, helping triage, classify and tag bugs is usually
wel
If this is covered in policy/packaging manual/developers reference please
point me to the relevant section.
Section 10 in the developer's reference doesn't really answer my question.
anyhow..
I know you're not (unless w/permission, submitter, or maintainer, etc)
supposed to close bugs.. but what
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> I know you're not (unless w/permission, submitter, or maintainer, etc)
> supposed to close bugs.. but what about things like changing subjects..
> merging.. changing severity levels..
QA work in the BTS, helping triage, classify and tag bugs is usually
we
> > If an AM becomes unable to
> > process an applicant within a reasonable reasonable response time (say
> > two weeks of overhead beyond delays the fault of the applicant) then the
> > applicant should be returned to the AM queue. It's not right that one AM
>
> Why is it a problem if an applica
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> What bothers me most about the delays in the NM queue are their
> capriciousness. I got through the process relatively quickly (about three
> months or so, a fair time), but others have no such luck. And it is luck,
> not [always] lack trying o
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:23:57AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:03:58PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> >
> > > You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM process.
> >
> > You hav
comments inline.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:16:56PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:36:50 -0600, "Christian T. Steigies" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:54:31PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> >You want to start a flamewar before you a
If this is covered in policy/packaging manual/developers reference please
point me to the relevant section.
Section 10 in the developer's reference doesn't really answer my question.
anyhow..
I know you're not (unless w/permission, submitter, or maintainer, etc)
supposed to close bugs.. but what
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:15:43AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 03:14:29PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > How do you handel zour gpg keys when you build on debian machines?
> > I would want to build my packages on a debian machine but would not
> > want to ha
> You must have heard many times by now that Debian is a volunteer effort, and
> things are done on a time-available basis.
Of course we all know this. But the question is really one of bottlenecking,
not of not enough available time of Debian as a whole.
The whole reason that Debian exists (IMO)
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> If it takes a year to complete my application, I will quit. I have a number
> of other projects I'd like to do - Project Gutenberg, GCC, several free
> software projects of my own. It's not worth hanging around a year for a
> project to accept me
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:10:36PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:03:55PM -, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> >
> > I am convinced the DAM approval is this kind of bureaucratical decision
> > which can not improve Debian work's quality of any maintaners (it means
> > unof
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:16:49PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> debian/rules binary properly builds the source tree, and makes
> debian/dict-vera.deb and debian/vera.deb. When I run either
> dpkg-buildpackage or debuild, it fails with the message:
>
> dpkg-genchanges: not including original
> > If an AM becomes unable to
> > process an applicant within a reasonable reasonable response time (say
> > two weeks of overhead beyond delays the fault of the applicant) then the
> > applicant should be returned to the AM queue. It's not right that one AM
>
> Why is it a problem if an applic
I just build a big package on gluck.d.o and want to upload it to
incoming. But dupload does not like that and says:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/www.winehq.com/%7Eovek/source$ dupload -t ftp-master
wine_0.0.20001222-2_i386.changes
dupload fatal error: Nothing known about host ftp-master
at /usr/bin/duplo
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> What bothers me most about the delays in the NM queue are their
> capriciousness. I got through the process relatively quickly (about three
> months or so, a fair time), but others have no such luck. And it is luck,
> not [always] lack trying
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:23:57AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:03:58PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> >
> > > You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM process.
> >
> > You ha
comments inline.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:16:56PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:36:50 -0600, "Christian T. Steigies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:54:31PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> >You want to start a flamewar before you are
I am modifying the vera source package to make both the vera and
dict-vera binary packages.
debian/rules binary properly builds the source tree, and makes
debian/dict-vera.deb and debian/vera.deb. When I run either
dpkg-buildpackage or debuild, it fails with the message:
dpkg-genchang
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:15:43AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 03:14:29PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > How do you handel zour gpg keys when you build on debian machines?
> > I would want to build my packages on a debian machine but would not
> > want to h
At Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:36:50 -0600, "Christian T. Steigies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:54:31PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
>You want to start a flamewar before you are a dd? Thats neat, but I
>don't take it.
>
>> PS: Bah, what is a year of waiting in a human
> You must have heard many times by now that Debian is a volunteer effort, and
> things are done on a time-available basis.
Of course we all know this. But the question is really one of bottlenecking,
not of not enough available time of Debian as a whole.
The whole reason that Debian exists (IMO
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> If it takes a year to complete my application, I will quit. I have a number
> of other projects I'd like to do - Project Gutenberg, GCC, several free
> software projects of my own. It's not worth hanging around a year for a
> project to accept m
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:10:36PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:03:55PM -, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> >
> > I am convinced the DAM approval is this kind of bureaucratical decision
> > which can not improve Debian work's quality of any maintaners (it means
> > uno
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:16:49PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> debian/rules binary properly builds the source tree, and makes
> debian/dict-vera.deb and debian/vera.deb. When I run either
> dpkg-buildpackage or debuild, it fails with the message:
>
> dpkg-genchanges: not including origina
I just build a big package on gluck.d.o and want to upload it to
incoming. But dupload does not like that and says:
andreas@gluck:~/www.winehq.com/%7Eovek/source$ dupload -t ftp-master
wine_0.0.20001222-2_i386.changes
dupload fatal error: Nothing known about host ftp-master
at /usr/bin/dupload
I am modifying the vera source package to make both the vera and
dict-vera binary packages.
debian/rules binary properly builds the source tree, and makes
debian/dict-vera.deb and debian/vera.deb. When I run either
dpkg-buildpackage or debuild, it fails with the message:
dpkg-genchan
At Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:36:50 -0600, "Christian T. Steigies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:54:31PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
>You want to start a flamewar before you are a dd? Thats neat, but I
>don't take it.
>
>> PS: Bah, what is a year of waiting in a human
> You want to start a flamewar before you are a dd? Thats neat, but I don't
> take it.
I don't think anyone wants to start a flamewar, but there is a middle
ground between "just wait" and "the new maintainer process is hopeless".
If James is unable to keep up with the demands of processing applic
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:54:31PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> Either being an official Debian developper has any sense or not. If it's
> the latter then Debian better stop wasting time with this theatre *now*.
> If it does make sense to be a Debian developper (I sure do hope it does!)
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> And to repeat what many people said, you can help debian without having an
> account, you can fix bugs, send in patches (not bugreports, but fixes...),
> trace down problems, even get sponsored uploads. What more do you need to
> help improve deb
* Ganesan Rajagopal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010112 20:56]:
> {short description}. OpenSLP actually needs three packages, openslpd,
> libopenslp0 and libopenslp-dev. Do I need to send separate ITPs for each
> package or can I send in a single ITP for OpenSLP?
Send a single ITP since
> You want to start a flamewar before you are a dd? Thats neat, but I don't
> take it.
I don't think anyone wants to start a flamewar, but there is a middle
ground between "just wait" and "the new maintainer process is hopeless".
If James is unable to keep up with the demands of processing appli
Hi,
I have recently joined the new maintainer program. I intend to package
OpenSLP (http://www.openslp.org), a free implementation of the IETF Service
Location Protocol (BSD style license).
wnpp says I should send a wishlist bug with subject ITP: {package-name} --
{short description}. OpenSLP a
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:03:58PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> > You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM process.
>
> You have read Kafka, haven't you? I don't remember whether the guards
A little.
> were say
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:54:31PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> Either being an official Debian developper has any sense or not. If it's
> the latter then Debian better stop wasting time with this theatre *now*.
> If it does make sense to be a Debian developper (I sure do hope it does!)
> > I am convinced the DAM approval is this kind of bureaucratical decision
> > which
> > can not improve Debian work's quality of any maintaners (it means unofficial
> > maintaners in this case). Personally I have stopped to investigate reasons
> > of
> > this situation and rules which are nec
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Does this mean I can never become a maintainer?
Just wait here
*t
Tomas Pospisek
SourcePole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
http://sou
Mike Markley wrote:
> AFAIK, yes, a binary package missing on a certain arch will keep the whole
> thing out of testing.
I see this applies to non-free packages. Since autobuilders
don't bother with non-free packages AFAICT, they will almost
never get out of unstable. This is probably the case
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> And to repeat what many people said, you can help debian without having an
> account, you can fix bugs, send in patches (not bugreports, but fixes...),
> trace down problems, even get sponsored uploads. What more do you need to
> help improve de
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM process.
You have read Kafka, haven't you? I don't remember whether the guards
were saying something about Debian being behind those closed doors?
Just another DAMned waiting at th
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:29:06PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010112 09:33]:
> > the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
> > from doing so because it's a difficult thing to get every
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:18:31AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM process.
>
I'd thought that waiting for more than a year to become a maintainer
required some patience, but thanks anyway for the tip :)
I've been asking this
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:10:36PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Does this mean I can never become a maintainer? I believe that
> I have demonstrated my knowledge of debian's policy and skills with
> the packages that I've done.
You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM proces
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:03:55PM -, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
>
> I am convinced the DAM approval is this kind of bureaucratical decision which
> can not improve Debian work's quality of any maintaners (it means unofficial
> maintaners in this case). Personally I have stopped to investigat
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 03:14:29PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> How do you handel zour gpg keys when you build on debian machines?
> I would want to build my packages on a debian machine but would not
> want to have my gpg key on a machine out there.
You don't have your keys on the debian mac
How do you handel zour gpg keys when you build on debian machines?
I would want to build my packages on a debian machine but would not
want to have my gpg key on a machine out there.
> > > It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application.
> > > I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but
> > > the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
> > > from doing so because it's a difficult thing to get every upload
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:25:39PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> But that doesn't help wondering people very much, we only get subscribed
> to debian-private *after* DAM approval, right? (And I didn't see any
> archive...)
There is an archive of debian-private available to maintainers.
For obvious re
* Ganesan Rajagopal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010112 20:56]:
> {short description}. OpenSLP actually needs three packages, openslpd,
> libopenslp0 and libopenslp-dev. Do I need to send separate ITPs for each
> package or can I send in a single ITP for OpenSLP?
Send a single ITP since
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:33:11AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application.
> > I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but
> > the fact that I do
Hi,
I have recently joined the new maintainer program. I intend to package
OpenSLP (http://www.openslp.org), a free implementation of the IETF Service
Location Protocol (BSD style license).
wnpp says I should send a wishlist bug with subject ITP: {package-name} --
{short description}. OpenSLP
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:03:58PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> > You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM process.
>
> You have read Kafka, haven't you? I don't remember whether the guards
A little.
> were sa
> > I am convinced the DAM approval is this kind of bureaucratical decision which
> > can not improve Debian work's quality of any maintaners (it means unofficial
> > maintaners in this case). Personally I have stopped to investigate reasons of
> > this situation and rules which are neccesary
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Does this mean I can never become a maintainer?
Just wait here
*t
Tomas Pospisek
SourcePole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
http://so
Mike Markley wrote:
> AFAIK, yes, a binary package missing on a certain arch will keep the whole
> thing out of testing.
I see this applies to non-free packages. Since autobuilders
don't bother with non-free packages AFAICT, they will almost
never get out of unstable. This is probably the cas
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM process.
You have read Kafka, haven't you? I don't remember whether the guards
were saying something about Debian being behind those closed doors?
Just another DAMned waiting at t
Joey Hess:
> Hmm. If you run chrmod in the postinst, you will clobber any different
> permissions that the user has set with statoverride.
Well, I remove the statoverride (previously suidmanager stuff) in the postrm
as well, so I need to re-instate them there.
> I think it may work to examine dp
* Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010112 09:33]:
> the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
> from doing so because it's a difficult thing to get every upload sponsored.
I'm sure someone here would be willing to sponsor you
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:29:06PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010112 09:33]:
> > the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
> > from doing so because it's a difficult thing to get every
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:18:31AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM process.
>
I'd thought that waiting for more than a year to become a maintainer
required some patience, but thanks anyway for the tip :)
I've been asking thi
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:10:36PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Does this mean I can never become a maintainer? I believe that
> I have demonstrated my knowledge of debian's policy and skills with
> the packages that I've done.
You have not yet proven your patience, which is next in the DAM proce
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:03:55PM -, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
>
> I am convinced the DAM approval is this kind of bureaucratical decision which
> can not improve Debian work's quality of any maintaners (it means unofficial
> maintaners in this case). Personally I have stopped to investiga
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 03:14:29PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> How do you handel zour gpg keys when you build on debian machines?
> I would want to build my packages on a debian machine but would not
> want to have my gpg key on a machine out there.
You don't have your keys on the debian ma
How do you handel zour gpg keys when you build on debian machines?
I would want to build my packages on a debian machine but would not
want to have my gpg key on a machine out there.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
> > > It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application.
> > > I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but
> > > the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
> > > from doing so because it's a difficult thing to get every upl
Hi Julian,
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:40:38AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> When James has an opportunity. He's been unable to do so recently for
> personal reasons but will be back on track soon. (Details were posted
> to -private.)
>
Thanks for the information. I had been wondering why there
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:33:11AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application.
> I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but
> the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
> from
Hi,
Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was wondering how this works. Suppose a package foo version 1.0-1 is
> in sid (for ar archs) without rc bugs for 13 days and on the 13th day a
> package 1.0-2 is uploaded to sid. Will then still 1.0-1 go into woody
> the next day, or won't 1.0-1 be
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:25:39PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> But that doesn't help wondering people very much, we only get subscribed
> to debian-private *after* DAM approval, right? (And I didn't see any
> archive...)
There is an archive of debian-private available to maintainers.
For obvious r
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:33:11AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application.
> > I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but
> > the fact that I d
Hi peter!
You wrote:
> Well, what I'm curious about is why only 1.2 is in testing, 1.4 was in
> woody since a couple of months before testing was introduced.
I was wondering how this works. Suppose a package foo version 1.0-1 is
in sid (for ar archs) without rc bugs for 13 days and on the 13th d
Hi,
It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application.
I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but
the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
from doing so because it's a difficult thing to get every upload sponsored.
How doe
Joey Hess:
> Hmm. If you run chrmod in the postinst, you will clobber any different
> permissions that the user has set with statoverride.
Well, I remove the statoverride (previously suidmanager stuff) in the postrm
as well, so I need to re-instate them there.
> I think it may work to examine d
* Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010112 09:33]:
> the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
> from doing so because it's a difficult thing to get every upload sponsored.
I'm sure someone here would be willing to sponsor you
Hi Julian,
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:40:38AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> When James has an opportunity. He's been unable to do so recently for
> personal reasons but will be back on track soon. (Details were posted
> to -private.)
>
Thanks for the information. I had been wondering why ther
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:33:11AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application.
> I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but
> the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
> fro
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:37:02AM +0100, peter karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake forth:
> Well, what I'm curious about is why only 1.2 is in testing, 1.4 was in
> woody since a couple of months before testing was introduced.
For the rollout of testing, all packages were reverted to their potato
Hi,
Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was wondering how this works. Suppose a package foo version 1.0-1 is
> in sid (for ar archs) without rc bugs for 13 days and on the 13th day a
> package 1.0-2 is uploaded to sid. Will then still 1.0-1 go into woody
> the next day, or won't 1.0-1 b
peter karlsson wrote:
> A program I packaged (jwhois, I am taking over maintainership of it
> officially with its new version as well) uses suidmanager, but since it
> creates a group on installation, it cannot have the setgid bit in the
> package; can I still do my chmod'ing in postinst, and just
Hi peter!
You wrote:
> Well, what I'm curious about is why only 1.2 is in testing, 1.4 was in
> woody since a couple of months before testing was introduced.
I was wondering how this works. Suppose a package foo version 1.0-1 is
in sid (for ar archs) without rc bugs for 13 days and on the 13th
Hi,
It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application.
I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but
the fact that I don't have a debian account effectively prevents me
from doing so because it's a difficult thing to get every upload sponsored.
How do
Tollef Fog Heen:
> So, unless it's dependant on other buggy packages, or you get any RC
> bugs, it will go into testing.
Well, what I'm curious about is why only 1.2 is in testing, 1.4 was in
woody since a couple of months before testing was introduced.
Does this stuff require that the package i
* peter karlsson
| 2.0 is from November last year, and should be good enough to have
| gone into testing, why hasn't it?
Dunno, but you can check the status on
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~ajt/update_excuses.html , as you
probably know.
| (2.0.1 fixes the only
| bugreport on it and was release
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:37:02AM +0100, peter karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake forth:
> Well, what I'm curious about is why only 1.2 is in testing, 1.4 was in
> woody since a couple of months before testing was introduced.
For the rollout of testing, all packages were reverted to their potat
peter karlsson wrote:
> A program I packaged (jwhois, I am taking over maintainership of it
> officially with its new version as well) uses suidmanager, but since it
> creates a group on installation, it cannot have the setgid bit in the
> package; can I still do my chmod'ing in postinst, and just
86 matches
Mail list logo
