On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 13:40:34 +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 04:04:49AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Once you do that I'll be happy to work with you just as I would any
> > > other group approaching changing/renewing/creating a delegation.
>
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 07:27:30 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Martina" == Martina Ferrari writes:
> Martina> The main conclusion from that is that yes, some of things
> Martina> expressed in the proposal require a delegation, I agree!
> Martina> Perhaps, the disconnection lies in
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 14:11:22 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> > Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> > otherwise.
>
> what
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 00:35:23 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of
> >services
> > like Github it would pass.
I very much doubt that, TBH, but…
> >He proposed the
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 23:59:09 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 7/26/19 4:40 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> > Personally I see no reason to mandate such a change, with policy only
> > recommending / preferring the proposed changes. Furthermore I accept
> > that the policy should strongly recommend
On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 00:49:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> ##
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to obtain
> the actual form for modification. There are many such ways --
Hi!
On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 15:19:18 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Summary:
>
> Debian would like to sign, jointly with SPI, a letter stating that we
> do not intend to apply for EANs. A draft of the letter is below.
> === draft letter ===
[…]
>4. Debian do not anticpate this situation
Hi!
On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:02:49 -0400, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> In returning my attention to current Debian packaging practices and
> conventions I took my first serious look at good old DEP5, and brought
> the debian/copyright file for my first-ever package, xtrs[1], into
> conformance
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 09:59:20 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:50:19AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > The truth is that even though the constitution grants _some_ powers to
> > the DPL, they are in general not used, because IMO the project would
> >
Hi!
So how about this perhaps-no-so-crazy idea:
We are getting close to the deadline, and very gratefully no one has
nominated themselves for DPL. Happily it also feels there's less interest
year over year for the position, and the process. But I fear some people
will get restless and panic
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 19:20:36 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely.
>
> This is the obviously right solution.
It is not only not obviously right to me, instead it seems obvious
it carries a set of
[ M-F-T and Reply-To set to debian-vote@l.d.o. ]
Hi!
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
for sponsors now.
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 01:01:44 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature
[ M-F-T set to debian-vote@l.d.o, not seeking sponsors yet see below. ]
Hi!
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
been made to reach consensus (failing §6.3(6)), because the TC seems
to have been
On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 22:37:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
I think that the current policy maintenance approach is too
bureaucratic and relies too little on the technical judgement of the
policy editors. I would like to see
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 21:26:18 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2013-03-26, Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org wrote:
TL;DR: we've been invited to participate into GNOME Outreach Program for
Women and I'd like to accept the invitation. To maximize impact, though,
we need mentors and topics
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 10:29:13 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
The source package control files and some of their derivatives are
currently
used to document the URL of the home page of the work that is packaged
(upstream). However, this
Hi!
On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 13:57:49 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload
packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field
has a few issues we would like to address:
- It applies to all DMs listed as
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 10:27:20 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Guillem Jover wrote:
Could you also update dak's README to point to:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/git/dak.git
instead of the obsolete bzr repo?
Last time I asked it was still in use for the arch
Hi,
Could you also update dak's README to point to:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/git/dak.git
instead of the obsolete bzr repo?
thanks,
guillem
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 12:32:18 -0800, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Guillem Jover skrev:
For specs I would add a new syntax, which could be used by everyone
equally, even Debian could start using it if desired. Do launchpad specs
have a numeric value or are just strings?
They are just strings
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 16:43:19 -0800, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Guillem Jover skrev:
which are wrong, ugly or may need a central registration place to avoid
collisions either in the mnemonic or the alternative closure syntax.
Probably the cleanest one is the Closes Ubuntu: approach.
While
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 01:59:52 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:11:01AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
foo (1.0-2naibed2) quux; urgency=low, origin=naibed
foo (1.0-2naibed1) quux; urgency=low, origin=naibed
foo (1.0-2) unstable; urgency=high
Neat.
Thanks
Hi,
Right now there's no clean way for a Debian derivative to close bugs
specific to their distro in a changelog entry and then distinguish
those from Debian bugs.
I'd like that developers from derivatives would get involved in this
discussion so that we can get a general solution for everyone,
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 08:11:01 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]. I'm attaching
a PoC patch with those change to dpkg. Probably we'd not want to
output the Origin field in the default mode (assuming Debian or local),
instead of the current implementation which outputs Origin: debian.
Hmm
24 matches
Mail list logo
