Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>Now, does the autobuilder get moved to another machine, or do I just put on
>>my scary face when adding people to the authorised uploaders list?
>
>
> If you are using i386: umlbuilder
>
> That way you need an uml exploit and a root exploit to use the uml
> exploi
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>Now, does the autobuilder get moved to another machine, or do I just put on
>>my scary face when adding people to the authorised uploaders list?
>
>
> If you are using i386: umlbuilder
>
> That way you need an uml exploit and a root exploit to use the uml
> exploi
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:05:08PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > > package I sponsor. I want to know if they are not able to send me a
> > > > package that will build properly. I want to work with them and be
> > >
> > > Since
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:05:08PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > > package I sponsor. I want to know if they are not able to send me a
> > > > package that will build properly. I want to work with them and be
> > >
> > > Since
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:05:08PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > package I sponsor. I want to know if they are not able to send me a
> > > package that will build properly. I want to work with them and be
> >
> > Since you only get packages for sponsorship which have built
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:05:08PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > package I sponsor. I want to know if they are not able to send me a
> > > package that will build properly. I want to work with them and be
> >
> > Since you only get packages for sponsorship which have built
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > package I sponsor. I want to know if they are not able to send me a
> > package that will build properly. I want to work with them and be
>
> Since you only get packages for sponsorship which have built in a clean sid
> chroot out of my system, you can be fairly sure of t
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > package I sponsor. I want to know if they are not able to send me a
> > package that will build properly. I want to work with them and be
>
> Since you only get packages for sponsorship which have built in a clean sid
> chroot out of my system, you can be fairly sure of t
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:21:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > So, comments, brickbats, acclaim, whatever. Throw it at me.
> >
> > Well I don't think that this system as described would be of any use to
> > me. I want to ma
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:05AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > > It'll probably be more timely and less bandwidth intensive to track
> > > -changes...
> > Well, I mostly have Packages/Sources for unstable available. In my book, I
> > prefer
> >
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:39:31AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 06:42:42PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:08:34AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > > Maybe you could also reuse / build upon rene from the dak suite. (Maybe
> > > it's not
> >
> >
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:21:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > So, comments, brickbats, acclaim, whatever. Throw it at me.
> >
> > Well I don't think that this system as described would be of any use to
> > me. I want to ma
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:05AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > > It'll probably be more timely and less bandwidth intensive to track -changes...
> > Well, I mostly have Packages/Sources for unstable available. In my book, I prefer
> > parsing thos
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:05AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > It'll probably be more timely and less bandwidth intensive to track
> > -changes...
> Well, I mostly have Packages/Sources for unstable available. In my book, I
> prefer
> parsing those over automatically processing email. Also,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 06:42:42PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:08:34AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Maybe you could also reuse / build upon rene from the dak suite. (Maybe
> > it's not
>
> That's the problem with the FTP masters naming everything after women -
>
Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> >4) Automatically removing packages once they've been uploaded seems to be a
>> >general winner.
>> Couldn't you just reference packages.d.o (or a local Packages/Sources file)?
>Sorry, I don't understand this. Are you suggesting that I scan an updated
>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:39:31AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 06:42:42PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:08:34AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > > Maybe you could also reuse / build upon rene from the dak suite. (Maybe it's not
> >
> > That's
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:08:34AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >2) Download tracking, both by count and "yes I'll upload this" via web
> >browser. I'm still up in the air about whether there will be apt-getable
> >resources, or whether pre-built bina
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:05AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > It'll probably be more timely and less bandwidth intensive to track -changes...
> Well, I mostly have Packages/Sources for unstable available. In my book, I prefer
> parsing those over automatically processing email. Also, it does
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 06:42:42PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:08:34AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Maybe you could also reuse / build upon rene from the dak suite. (Maybe it's not
>
> That's the problem with the FTP masters naming everything after women -
> nobo
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:21:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > So, comments, brickbats, acclaim, whatever. Throw it at me.
>
> Well I don't think that this system as described would be of any use to
> me. I want to maintain a close relationship with the people whose
A wor
Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> >4) Automatically removing packages once they've been uploaded seems to be a
>> >general winner.
>> Couldn't you just reference packages.d.o (or a local Packages/Sources file)?
>Sorry, I don't understand this. Are you suggesting that I scan an updated
>
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:08:34AM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >2) Download tracking, both by count and "yes I'll upload this" via web
> >browser. I'm still up in the air about whether there will be apt-getable
> >resources, or whether pre-built bina
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:21:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > So, comments, brickbats, acclaim, whatever. Throw it at me.
>
> Well I don't think that this system as described would be of any use to
> me. I want to maintain a close relationship with the people whose
A wor
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> So, comments, brickbats, acclaim, whatever. Throw it at me.
Well I don't think that this system as described would be of any use to
me. I want to maintain a close relationship with the people whose
package I sponsor. I want to know if they are not able to send me a
package
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> So, comments, brickbats, acclaim, whatever. Throw it at me.
Well I don't think that this system as described would be of any use to
me. I want to maintain a close relationship with the people whose
package I sponsor. I want to know if they are not able to send me a
package
Hi.
Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>2) Download tracking, both by count and "yes I'll upload this" via web
>browser. I'm still up in the air about whether there will be apt-getable
>resources, or whether pre-built binary debs will be accessable. I don't
>particularly want to be a gene
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:22:22AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2004 19.52, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> > > AM after it has been verified, and che
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:45:00AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > The final question I'd like feedback on is this: how many sponsors
> > would consider pointing their sponsees to this service, rather than
> > whatever methods you're using now? The benefits are that other
> > sponsors might occ
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>There are many people who got a signature by a DD's key who are not applying
>for DDship, probably never will, and who probably should not be able to
>upload to your queue. Getting a signature is just a confirmation of identity,
>afte
On Tuesday 17 February 2004 19.52, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> > AM after it has been verified, and checking the signature on the dsc
> > files against it sounds good to. And the keyring would be us
Hi.
Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>2) Download tracking, both by count and "yes I'll upload this" via web
>browser. I'm still up in the air about whether there will be apt-getable
>resources, or whether pre-built binary debs will be accessable. I don't
>particularly want to be a gene
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:22:22AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2004 19.52, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> > > AM after it has been verified, and chec
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:45:00AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > The final question I'd like feedback on is this: how many sponsors
> > would consider pointing their sponsees to this service, rather than
> > whatever methods you're using now? The benefits are that other
> > sponsors might occ
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>There are many people who got a signature by a DD's key who are not applying
>for DDship, probably never will, and who probably should not be able to
>upload to your queue. Getting a signature is just a confirmation of identity,
>afte
On Tuesday 17 February 2004 19.52, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> > AM after it has been verified, and checking the signature on the dsc
> > files against it sounds good to. And the keyring would be us
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 07:11:08PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Prompted by a comment made by one of my potential sponsees, I've been
> > > reworking my semi-automated sponsorship queue from a "helps me" thing to a
> > > "could help lots of
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >>
> >>>Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> >>>AM after it has been verified, and checking the s
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 07:11:08PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Prompted by a comment made by one of my potential sponsees, I've been
> > > reworking my semi-automated sponsorship queue from a "helps me" thing to a
> > > "could help lots of
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 07:11:08PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Prompted by a comment made by one of my potential sponsees, I've been
> > reworking my semi-automated sponsorship queue from a "helps me" thing to a
> > "could help lots of people" thing. The comment was along the lines of
>
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >>
> >>>Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> >>>AM after it has been verified, and checking the s
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>
>>>Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
>>>AM after it has been verified, and checking the signature on the dsc
>>>files against it sounds good to. And t
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> > AM after it has been verified, and checking the signature on the dsc
> > files against it sounds good to. And the keyring would be usefull for
> >
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> AM after it has been verified, and checking the signature on the dsc
> files against it sounds good to. And the keyring would be usefull for
> other purposes too.
Why not just check if the key is
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 07:11:08PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Prompted by a comment made by one of my potential sponsees, I've been
> > reworking my semi-automated sponsorship queue from a "helps me" thing to a
> > "could help lots of people" thing. The comment was along the lines of
>
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prompted by a comment made by one of my potential sponsees, I've been
> reworking my semi-automated sponsorship queue from a "helps me" thing to a
> "could help lots of people" thing. The comment was along the lines of
> "wouldn't it be cool if we coul
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>
>>>Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
>>>AM after it has been verified, and checking the signature on the dsc
>>>files against it sounds good to. And t
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> > AM after it has been verified, and checking the signature on the dsc
> > files against it sounds good to. And the keyring would be usefull for
> >
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Having a new-maintainer keyring, to which keys could get added by any
> AM after it has been verified, and checking the signature on the dsc
> files against it sounds good to. And the keyring would be usefull for
> other purposes too.
Why not just check if the key is
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prompted by a comment made by one of my potential sponsees, I've been
> reworking my semi-automated sponsorship queue from a "helps me" thing to a
> "could help lots of people" thing. The comment was along the lines of
> "wouldn't it be cool if we coul
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:57:55PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> The final question I'd like feedback on is this: how many sponsors
> would consider pointing their sponsees to this service, rather than
> whatever methods you're using now? The benefits are that other
> sponsors might occasional
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:57:55PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> The final question I'd like feedback on is this: how many sponsors
> would consider pointing their sponsees to this service, rather than
> whatever methods you're using now? The benefits are that other
> sponsors might occasional
Prompted by a comment made by one of my potential sponsees, I've been
reworking my semi-automated sponsorship queue from a "helps me" thing to a
"could help lots of people" thing. The comment was along the lines of
"wouldn't it be cool if we could remove the SPOF of sponsors, and have a
group of p
Prompted by a comment made by one of my potential sponsees, I've been
reworking my semi-automated sponsorship queue from a "helps me" thing to a
"could help lots of people" thing. The comment was along the lines of
"wouldn't it be cool if we could remove the SPOF of sponsors, and have a
group of p
54 matches
Mail list logo
