Serge,
It's looking like to me that you don't understand why Daniel is unhappy
about the situation. I'll try hereby to explain, in the hope to restore
sanity in communication. Please don't take anything personally, this
message doesn't aim at pointing finger at anyone. I really do think
there's
Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com
Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
maintainer. We'll proceed from there.
seems these words are not worth anything.
instead, Serge uploaded a new version (through
On 25 July 2014 15:28, Daniel Baumann
daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net wrote:
Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com
Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
maintainer. We'll proceed from there.
Quoting Daniel Baumann (daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net):
Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com
Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
maintainer. We'll proceed from there.
seems these words
Hi,
On 07/25/2014 16:28, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com
Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
maintainer. We'll proceed from there.
seems these words are not worth
On 07/25/2014 11:12 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
ps. not sure why leader is added to the CC.
It's quite obvious: there's bad behavior here, and Daniel wants to warn
(rightly) the DPL about it. I would suggest that you quit your very
condescending / borderline-insulting tone to start with, this
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:39:27AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Have the FTP masters decided in the favor of Serge's maintenance and
want Daniel out?
The package in NEW. It was OK for the archive. It was accepted. It's
not the ftpteam's job to figure out how to coordinate or question every
Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org):
Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
at least surprising. It's also very surprising to see the package just
As Daniel said we had an agreement. He
Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 18:23:38 schrieb Serge Hallyn:
Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org):
Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
at least surprising. It's also very surprising to
Dimitri,
Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 16:12:41 schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov:
On 25 July 2014 15:28, Daniel Baumann
daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net wrote:
Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com
Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
which Daniel will
Quoting Martin Steigerwald (mar...@lichtvoll.de):
Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 18:23:38 schrieb Serge Hallyn:
Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org):
Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
On 16 July 2014 19:30, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for this message.
On 07/17/2014 01:00 AM, Paul Richards Tagliamonte wrote:
Issues with 0.20:
The -dev package situation is still broken. Either properly split your
libraries or drop the -dev. Please see the
Dimitri,
it doesn't make sense to discuss this any further since the original
*technical* things behind it have changed *since* the time when
cgmanager have been uploaded the first time. Just let Serge and me
handle it from here, it will be alright (for both of us).
Thanks,
Daniel
--
Hi Paul,
Thanks for this message.
On 07/17/2014 01:00 AM, Paul Richards Tagliamonte wrote:
Hello, folks; (this mail is going to both of y'all)
It's clear there's an overlap in who the rightful maintainer is. dba got here
first, but serge holds the ITP (basically the mutex in this race
On 07/16/2014 08:30 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Please provide a clear and motivated reason about rejecting that can
make sense for Daniel and his sponsor, so that the next upload attempt
is successful, which would save time and effort for everyone.
this is not needed from ftp-master anymore,
My experience with upstream trying to do Debian packaging isn't great.
Often, they only care about a single package, know it's upstream source,
but don't perform well on the packaging side. I don't think what you've
wrote above is a good point of argumentation.
Uh, thanks.
Anyway, I'll be
[editing to only reply to parts]
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:30:26AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I'm sorry if this sounds not so cool, but I'm not sure I get this.
Ansgar wrote that there should be a -dev package (on which Daniel wrote
back that he thought it'd be micro-packaging, which is
On 07/17/2014 02:39 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
My experience with upstream trying to do Debian packaging isn't great.
Often, they only care about a single package, know it's upstream source,
but don't perform well on the packaging side. I don't think what you've
wrote above is a good point of
18 matches
Mail list logo
