On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:35:59PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 23:03 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 09:01 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 21:44 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are slowly starting to prepare for the 7.5 point
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 05:13:41PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi all,
I've committed a draft announcement to
svn.d.o/publicity/announcements/en/2014/20140420.wml - can I have
translations/reviews within the next 2 days please?
Hia,
I've been asked to add a sentence to this about any
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 05:13:41PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi all,
I've committed a draft announcement to
svn.d.o/publicity/announcements/en/2014/20140420.wml - can I have
translations/reviews within the next 2 days please?
Hia,
I've been asked to add a sentence to this about any
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:35:59PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 23:03 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 09:01 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 21:44 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are slowly starting to prepare for the 7.5 point
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:35:59PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 23:03 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 09:01 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 21:44 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are slowly starting to prepare for the 7.5 point
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:27:17AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 14.04.2014, 00:00 + schrieb devo...@vote.debian.org:
The winners are:
Option 1 Lucas Nussbaum
congrats, and all the best for the next term.
(Also congrats to Neil for getting a very good result
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:12:12AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
Is this the upstream Debian wants to base its life on?
According to the technical committee, and the lack of support for the
GR, the answer is yes.
If you don't like this answer, please put effort into doing the work to
provide
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:15:46PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
A way around that would be to use time-limited delegations *only*.
Q: What do the candidates think of that idea? If you agree it'd be good,
would do you engage in doing so for the duration of your term?
I think that there's
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:21:06AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
assume that a package maintainer is active but is doing a bad job
regarding our standards (things like ignoring problems in stable, breaking
backwards compatibility for no good reason,
Hi Brian,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:54:50PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
I know this has been raised in elections past, but any thoughts on the
current one-year DPL terms, and unlimited terms allowed? If thoughts
are geared toward change do you have any plans to actively try to
change the
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:03:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Do you think it's appropriate for these organizers to use Debian's name in
seeking local sponsorship without consulting the DPL?
Sorry for not being clearer, but no. I think that a central repository
and/or sponsors
Hi Enrico,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:26:01AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
1. a team that works well and in a sustainable way, and how a DPL can
bring thankfulness and appreciation;
I think that most of our teams work well and are sustainable. The level
of sustainability can sometimes teeter
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:25:02AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 15:29 +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Because as long as we document it, it's very hard to claim that
non-free is not part of Debian, when
Hi Josselin,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:57:59AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What is your stance on disruptive members in the committee?
I would prefer TC to work with each other constructively, but I also
recognise that this isn't always possible when it comes to a
controversial decision.
Hi Gunnar,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:55:35PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
So, back to the case: What's your take on this issue? How much can one
part of the Debian universe of subprojects expect the money it
generated be available for its future? Should we set a clear number?
On the specific
Hi Thomas,
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:07:39PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Though, it is my understanding that those who are capable of doing the
work are too busy. So what is your plan? Is using Debian money for
sponsoring that work one of the things you would do? If yes, up to what
amount
Hi Paul,
Slightly re-arranging the question order, if that's ok.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:42:43PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Please share your thoughts on the SC and DFSG, in particular:
Which items of the DFSG should apply to which types of works?
How do you currently determine which files
Hi Lucas,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:27:52PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
In your rebuttal, you are quite critical of the idea of a board.
You raise concerns about the risk of creating a cabal, and about
transparency and democratic accountability.
I fully agree that those concerns are valid
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:23:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Please imagine a Debian without the DPL position. How would it be
better, how would it be worse, how would things work differently,
would it be desirable?
Hi Paul,
I think there's a couple of aspects to this, one from an external
Hi Ana!
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:21:20AM +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote:
DebConf is one of the biggest expenses of Debian, every year we look
for sponsorship and we had (and have) sponsors who were sponsoring
DebConf as a way of giving their annual donation to Debian and
not necessarily
Hi Paul,
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 05:43:25PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
To the candidates,
Which packages from Debian contrib/non-free do you use or have installed?
On my laptop, I have: firmware-realtek, icc-profiles, intel-microcode, skype
and steam from non-free, and flashplugin-nonfree,
On 21 Mar 2014, at 14:42, Filippo Rusconi lopi...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:10:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:44:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While I understand the question, I'm not sure this is very relevant.
Yes, Debian is about
On 21 Mar 2014, at 14:37, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:27:11PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:44:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
However, Debian is not a cult.
Indeed not. We are a clan. Which inspires my next question.
Hi Hector,
On 14 Mar 2014, at 13:25, Hector Oron zu...@debian.org wrote:
Hello DPL candidates,
First of all congratulations for your nominations. I have several
questions for you, I hope you do not mind to reply:
Thanks for your question, it’s good to see a DSA member engaging with the
Hi Sylvestre,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:58:07AM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
* Are you allowed by your employer to work during the week on DPL tasks
or is it something that you are going to do on your free time?
A bit of both. Collabora allows for a certain percentage of time to be
spent
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:11:27PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Contrary to what Lars says, I think there is a clear difference
between these two approaches. ISTM that Lucas is much more hands-on
and (for example) and takes much more of a close interest in the
processes adopted by teams, than
Hi Lars,
Thanks for kicking off the questions this year!
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:49:41PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
For all DPL candidates:
We have a number of delegated teams. How detailed should the
delegations be?
I've written my view of the constitution in quite a detailed post
On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote:
There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP
masters will accept a particular package
For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up on
#283578, and associated mails to
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]:
So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify
paragraph 3 read as follows, instead:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:19:07PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
ol
liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within the
Hi Wouter,
On 8 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading
After some consideration, I accept this amendment.
Thank you very much :)
Amendment B
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 06:47:24PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
Please make sure that nominations are sent to (or cc:'d to)
debian-vote, and are cryptographically signed.
Hi Kurt,
I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election.
Dear DSA, until the
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole
Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of
being a whole
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi all,
This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
to propose a Debian code of conduct.
So I've put up a vote page with my
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
==
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:19:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct):
Wouter, are you going to accept Neil's amendment, or should I
create 2 options?
Wouter, please don't accept Neil's second amendment (the one
disallowing modification by the
Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in
another mail.
Neil
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:53:48PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in
another mail.
And here's those amendments.
Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading
Justification: I think that it's better to keep the CoC
Hi Jakub,
On 4 Mar 2014, at 17:40, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages are
not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views of our
mailing
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 09:44:38PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
* April 12th/13th
* April 19th/20th (Easter)
* April 26th/27th
* May 3rd/4th
Please reply before the 15th of March with your preferred date(s).
These are all fine by me.
Neil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:25:28PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Each channel that has the group @debian-ops in it's access list receives
a /mode +b *!*@*.tor-irc.oftc.net. Those who are registered can ask
nickserv to provide them with a unique cloak tied to their account, with
/msg nickserv
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 09:44:38PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
* April 12th/13th
* April 19th/20th (Easter)
* April 26th/27th
* May 3rd/4th
Please reply before the 15th of March with your preferred date(s).
These are all fine by me.
Neil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 09:44:38PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
* April 12th/13th
* April 19th/20th (Easter)
* April 26th/27th
* May 3rd/4th
Please reply before the 15th of March with your preferred date(s).
These are all fine by me.
Neil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 2 Mar 2014, at 13:36, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:17:12AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm very wary about passing resolutions which require work from future
persons unidentified. Presumeably it would need a person who is a) keen
on the desktop system
Hi Matthew,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:01PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Degraded operation with some init systems is tolerable, so long as
the degradation is no worse than what the Debian project would
consider a tolerable (non-RC) bug even if it were affecting all
users. So the
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:50:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
In my proposal, the casting voter gets to choose between A and B and
there less incentive to manipulate the system by voting FD.
I'm just wondering, what was the purpose behind treating FD as a special
case in the first place? Could
Hi all,
Over the past few weeks, we've seen a number of issues with certain
people connecting over TOR, and repeatedly sending various inappropriate
comments to a number of IRC channels in the #debian* namespace,
including #debian-ctte and #debian-women.
Unfortunately, from a OFTC network point
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:37:08PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:31:12PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
[0] Can we haz a release name?
Sure. It's Debian 8.0, zurg. [0]
Neil
[0] Note
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:45:12PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
On 19 February 2014 15:28, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
are you aware that media are already quoting your blogpost as official
announcement of next Debian codename?
Nah, wasn't aware =) I blame Neil, I thought he
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
[0] Can we haz a release name?
Sure. It's Debian 8.0, zurg. [0]
Neil
[0] Note: may be a lie.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:48:04PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
For IRC it's a bit more difficult, because we do not long our IRC
channels by default (or at least I'm not aware we do), with the
exception of meetings run with the help of meetbot. That means that it
would be rather difficult
Hi Wouter,
Thanks for all your work on helping bring this together so far, but I
think this ballot is troubling on a number of reasons.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:42:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I personally would defer to the Debian press team to decide whether they
feel we should make a public statement at this time. I think we're still
in the middle of our process, which I understand that a lot of people
outside the
The Debian Projecthttp://www.debian.org/
Updated Debian 7: 7.4 released pr...@debian.org
February 8th, 2014 http://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140208
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
Hi Josselin,
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Neil
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
Hi Josselin,
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Neil
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Don,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:05:18AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound
patches to enable interoperation, even if it results in degraded
operation.
Did
Hi Don,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:05:18AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init
systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound
patches to enable interoperation, even if it results in degraded
operation.
Did
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change
how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would
certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
That
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.
Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
than
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change
how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would
certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
That
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.
Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
than
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:01:28PM +, Ofek Rakesh wrote:
Is this meant as Debian keyring as in
1. http://keyring.debian.org/
or
2. /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg but not in
/usr/share/keyrings/debian-maintainers.gpg ?
It's the former, I believe. Well, more precicely:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:50:27AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Our standard time intervals lead to us looking at point releases for
both stable and oldstable during February.
The weekend of the 1st / 2nd February is FOSDEM, so probably best avoided. :-)
How are people fixed for:
8th /
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:39:55PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
should have come from
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:39:55PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
should have come from
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:50:27AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Our standard time intervals lead to us looking at point releases for
both stable and oldstable during February.
The weekend of the 1st / 2nd February is FOSDEM, so probably best avoided. :-)
How are people fixed for:
8th /
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:50:27AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Our standard time intervals lead to us looking at point releases for
both stable and oldstable during February.
The weekend of the 1st / 2nd February is FOSDEM, so probably best avoided. :-)
How are people fixed for:
8th /
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 01:23:42PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'd like to note that the discussion on this delegation was inconclusive
on a couple of points:
1) it does not include anything about defining rules for NMU delays.
The last time the NMU policy was changed was in 2011. The
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Furthermore, I don't think this delegation declaration is
constitutionally appropriate. The policy editors are, primarily,
maintainers of a package.
Indeed, there's potentially an issue here that the constitution states
(8.3)
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
should have come from the TC, not the DPL.
Dear Secretary, what do you think?
Hia,
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
should have come from the TC, not the DPL.
Dear Secretary, what do you think?
Hia,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 18:47, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
However, I think it's the best available approach that balances our ideals
as a project against the opportunities offered by a new init system. This
approach does permit full use of new init system features for jessie
except for
On 30 Dec 2013, at 18:47, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
However, I think it's the best available approach that balances our ideals
as a project against the opportunities offered by a new init system. This
approach does permit full use of new init system features for jessie
except for
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:39:01PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
[ Adding press@ if they wish to comment on the proposal. ]
Le 16/12/2013 11:44, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
On Lu, 16 dec 13, 15:22:07, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Thoughts?
Why not change the links to use the 'current'[1]
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 09:21:35PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~xi/papers/stack-sosp13.pdf
Thoughts anyone?
See the thread on -security starting at
52900522.9040...@affinityvision.com.au
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:27:03AM -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
I take issue with this. I find this attitude really crappy. I'd strongly
invite you to reconsider this tone and belief.
I invite you to jump back down
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:23:33PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Also, why have people been shying back from GRs like they are a
plague? They are a good, and _the_, way to ask the people that
make up Debian for their opinion. As someone else said in one of
these threads: they don’t eat babies.
package evince
unarchive 658139
found 658139 3.8.3-2
thanks
It looks like the latest package upload did not ack the NMU. Which means
this bug is back.
Neil
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 11:37:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
I have uploaded an NMU which fixes this bug to delayed/7. The diff for
the
package evince
unarchive 658139
found 658139 3.8.3-2
thanks
It looks like the latest package upload did not ack the NMU. Which means
this bug is back.
Neil
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 11:37:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
I have uploaded an NMU which fixes this bug to delayed/7. The diff for
the
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:45:11PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
icedove 17.0.8-1~deb7u1 should be part of stable proper with the
upcoming 7.2 point release, and may be copied to testing if 17.0.8-1 0
doesn’t migrate in the mean time.
It doesn't seem to actually be migrating due
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:48:26PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
We in Debian Edu are basicly done with our new version of Debian Edu
based on Wheezy, and are drafting our release announcement on
URL: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/ReleaseNotes/Wheezy .
Excellent, good to hear :)
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 02:18:40PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Philipp Kern pkern at debian.org writes:
I absolutely do not want to see anything related to ruby on my
systems.
How is that relevant for Debian?
SC#4 and not forcing bad things on users.
Fantastic. In that case I
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:29:08PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 07:52:33PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
I don't really understand it myself as server packages and their
dependencies tend to be stable and I tend to want the latest versions of
dovecot, unbound etc..
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:41:58AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
The challenge was: who is willing to do the work. Your answer is: me,
but only everyone else helps.
That doesn't answer the challenge at all.
It's hard enough to get maintainers to fix bugs in current stable
(backporting can
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:14:25AM +0200, Balint Reczey wrote:
Hi All,
On 08/26/2013 09:31 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Di 20 Aug 2013 02:04:40 CEST Charles Plessy wrote:
Altogether, it is a lot of work, but if we have enough people for
doing it, think that it would be
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 06:11:35PM -0400, Paul Henning wrote:
Nope, not gonna do that. He can come right out and deny it himself, so it's
on record. He's had weeks to do it and except for one personal reply has
been tight lipped about it. Furthermore, I'm curious how that sabotage got
by for
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:02:03PM +0200, Nicolas Patrois wrote:
Today (07-14-2013), updating intel-microcode completely blocks
aptitude (and dpkg as well).
Hi,
For info, this does not occur using apt-get on a Thinkpad X220.
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:02:03PM +0200, Nicolas Patrois wrote:
Today (07-14-2013), updating intel-microcode completely blocks
aptitude (and dpkg as well).
Hi,
For info, this does not occur using apt-get on a Thinkpad X220.
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 08:40:33AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
I recommend to accept Brian Gupta as a non-uploading Debian Developer.
+1, Brian has been fantastic in various circles. He's exactly the sort
of person who Debian should have!
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:35:26PM +0200, Raphael Geissert wrote:
If people start asking for the non-disclosure of their messages in
other languages or any other way that prevents an automated process
then it is their problem. They would be fighting against their own
desire.
It's really not
Hi Jay,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:18:05AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
The release team has not yet found the time to reply to my message of
May 6 on when they will be ready to think about the tiff transition or
whether my plans for the transition are okay. (It is not my intention
to be
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 09:49:41AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
I'm at loss with what to do with #710047. (random freeze since wheezy)
For info, I'm also experiencing this. I'm having quite a bit of trouble
tracking it down, though I *suspect* at the moment it may have something
to do with the
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 04:32:47PM +0530, Praveen A wrote:
Many were curious on diaspora about the change[1]. There is no
rationale given in release news[2] about this change. Was there some
major change in this release or did we change the version scheme? Any
pointers would be welcome.
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:17:32PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Neil McGovern 2013-06-17 20130617111457.gg22...@halon.org.uk
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 04:32:47PM +0530, Praveen A wrote:
Many were curious on diaspora about the change[1]. There is no
rationale given in release news[2
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:04:23PM +0200, Michal Kitta wrote:
Wheezy freezes sometimes by web browsing or by scrolling down
documents in libreoffice. Never the same problem with other
debian-based distro or with squeeze.
I believe I'm experiencing the same/similar issues on my Thinkpad
Hi Jay,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:18:05AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
The release team has not yet found the time to reply to my message of
May 6 on when they will be ready to think about the tiff transition or
whether my plans for the transition are okay. (It is not my intention
to be
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 08:08:17AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 12/06/13 00:02, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2013-06-11 23:50:01 +0200 (+0200), Daniel Pocock wrote:
Something that doesn't have these limitations:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2487#section-7
[...]
That basically just
301 - 400 of 1882 matches
Mail list logo
