On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:25:24PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > 2) We would be very limited in what checks we could actually do on new
> > packages. If we look too closely at packages, we stop being a
> > distributor, and start being a publisher. I'm not sure that we want to
> > move towards
Hi Scott,
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:43:33PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As long as there are people involved, a certain amount of it is
> inevitable. Putting it in the requirements is bowing to reality. The
> FTP Team sometimes has to make unpopular decisions and it's inevitable
> that
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 08:13:37PM +0100, Alexis Murzeau wrote:
> If it's just about legal risk, couldn't the responsibility of the
> right to redistribute of the uploaded software be moved on the
> uploader instead ?
> So the uploader takes the responsibility of any redistribution of the
>
Hi debian-project and ftpmaster folks,
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 01:37:59PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> - cope well with flames in response to your decisions
> - after training, comfortable with being on the other end of the
> ftpmaster@ alias, which receives a huge volume of
>
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 07:09:18PM +, seydi mouhamadou moustapha ndiaye
wrote:
> I'm a student in computer engineering field from africa and I look for a
> mentor who can help me to accurate my computer skills mainly on coding.
>
That's fantastic, it's really good to see new people
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:51:18PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for suggestions; I discovered "apt update" through
> a Google search.
>
I've submitted a patch against the release notes to explicitly mention
this:
Hi there,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:17:27PM +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> 在 2016年11月20日星期日 SGT 下午12:08:04，您写道：
> > For what it's worth, there's also git-cvsimport(1) and
> > git-cvsexportcommit(1) that can be used if someone really wants to
> > contribute and doesn't want to touch cvs itself.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:17:03AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick
of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unless I hear
non-IANAL objection until the next upstream release due on august 11
(and I'm BCCing the DPL
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:11:08PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 15/07/15 at 19:37 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Press and articles
--
Quite a bit of press and general Debian outreach in the last few weeks:
* Debian Jessie book preface [0]
[0] http://www.linux
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 01:25:42PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Sytse Sijbrandij sy...@gitlab.com writes:
Awesome that you are considering to move to Git.
Note that this is not “moving to Git”. A great deal of Debian
development is already done using Git, and that's not going to be
directly
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
No, the ctte did not say that. We had a flamewar about that
interpretation before.
That was almost word by word from
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
about the apt pinning solution.
3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:23:19PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 14:46 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
wheezy/etc to jessie will give
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Andrey Rahmatullin:
I know. So? If the first email of a non-DD gets delayed for a few hours,
that's an acceptable price to pay IMHO.
Nothing about delays wasn't mentioned in your previous email
Moderating (some) emails
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 02:13:20PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Dienstag, 11. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I'd be willing to help out.
So would I.
me too, should this road be chosen.
Excellent. In that case, my position is now meh :)
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:12:20PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:10:13PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:53:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
57dd4d7c-3e92
announcement?
See the debian-devel archives from mid-Fenruary 2014. According to Neil
McGovern, the code name shall be zurg.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00905.html
While that was in no way official, at the time it kindof struck a chord,
so I'd like us to just go
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Neil McGovern writes (Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
coupling):
Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it
would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this
manual
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:43:13PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
Whelp, that wasn't meant to happen. Apologies for the
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:53:36PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e
[ ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system
[ ] Choice 2: Support alternative init
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:56:25AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
This essentially is a reintroduction of the package runit-run, which
was added to Debian end of 2002, and removed on request of the release
team end of 2010, with the package name changed. Since then, a backward
compatibility
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:03:05PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Yeah, but Md is an arsehole anyway and requires printf to be
a /bin/sh builtin instead of just adding /usr/bin to $PATH,
especially now that the initrd mounts /usr already anyway,
and CTTE decided to rather offend me than Md
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:15:17PM +0400, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
I'm not a Debian developer, just a Debian user, and I want to say that I was
happy to see XFCE being the default DE. Just because it's small, classic and
neutral DE - which GNOME 3 definitely isn't. I think XFCE is a better
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:43:15AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Sune Vuorela wrote:
The way is to put your time/money where your mouth is and provide the
code. Asking others to do all the work is not the way forward in OSS.
I highly doubt you can call _me_ someone who does not do work in
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:49:52AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
So, do I understand well that it's your view that just linking with
AGPLv3 make it mandatory to re-license using AGPLv3? Is there such a
clause in the AGPLv3 license?
No, it's required to re-licence it to AGPLv3, or an AGPLv3
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:29:11AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Some upstreams have a testing branch of there software and a
release branch. It's sometimes useful to have people test the
version in from the testing branch, and having it available in
Debian makes it easier for people to test it.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:25:42PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Timo Juhani Lindfors timo.lindf...@iki.fi, 2013-04-22, 13:22:
Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then
all good for you and for Debian.
Was there
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 04/24/2013 10:39 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage
that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your
package?
I don't think anyone ever
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:00AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 04/25/2013 12:10 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very
little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package.
I'm not the one claiming that using echo and cat
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:58:33PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
But for new packages, where Canonical is striking out on its own
to deliver significant new functionality and the folks working on these
packages are not DDs, there's a clear pragmatic
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:22:14PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
So, transitions could be avoided in a social way. No need for a freeze.
Let's see how well that works - look at the very first message in this
thread.
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
It is not. You can't reasonably install things from experimental rather
than unstable by default, nor is there a flag for this really should be
in unstable if not for badly managed release
I'm getting rather annoyed by this
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:48:13PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
It is unreasonable to tell the users and upstreams that Debian is
going to keep users on a known inferior version by default for a long
time
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 06:50:51PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
Instead the next suggestion was documenting this issue in the Wheey
errata [2], but I don't see network- manager or wicd mentioned there,
nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] for Wheezy.
I'm guessing that's because no one
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:39:44PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
On 27.02.2013 00:50, Chris Knadle wrote:
When this was brought up in the bug report, the response was
network-manager
can be installed, then disabled, but how to do that wasn't documented
anywhere in the network-manager
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:55:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Of course there was a reason for introducing testing. And I did not
propose it to go away either. It should stay for packages marked as
being part of unstable at freeze time. Probably a separate repo for
frozen unstable is needed.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 03:55:22AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Wouldn't it be more simple to just choose a name and we would never ever
have to talk about it again, and never ever have to process any of such
unblocks?
Sure thing: The next release after Jessie will be called Thomas. [0]
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:28:57PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
It is truth that there's a general movement inside RedHat to fuck-up
everything. You are right, I should have mention that more clearly :
it's not only about Lennart and systemd guys, and I should take the
blame for not
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:15:55AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I actually don't really take it very seriously, it just helps
to waiting while things are building ... :)
I actually agree it's pointless (because it's very unlikely
that there will be any outcome), but I also find it fun.
I'm
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:32:16PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 23, 2012, at 03:06 PM, YunQiang Su wrote:
you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it?
I think there are a lot of good reasons to do source-only uploads, even when
you should be building locally
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:37:42PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
The version in testing has a known security vulnerability, which was
fixed by upstream in their newer upstream release. I sent a more
stripped debdiff to make the review easier. Removing Windows/MacOS
changes and auto-generated
tags 692614 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692619 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692624 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692625 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692627 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692628 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692629 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692630 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692631 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692613 + wheezy-ignore
tags 692615 +
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:58:45PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org, 2012-11-16, 15:46:
These bugs aren't gonna get fixed in time - tagging ignore
appropriately.
Excellent. Now Mr Crockford can say that his license is good enough
for Debian.
No he can't.
Neil
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 06:54:23AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Benjamin Drung (bdr...@debian.org):
Am Donnerstag, den 08.11.2012, 20:35 + schrieb Jon Dowland:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:29:02PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hm, I filed two unblock requests after that
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:09:51PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
Unblocks and Freeze Policy
--
...
We're also reducing the acceptance criteria [RM:POLICY] - we're now only
going
to accept:
...
Which policy
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:18:55PM +, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:40:18PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Which policy applies to #685913 (and all the other open unblocks)? The
policy announced at the beginning of the freeze or the current policy?
…or the time the unblock was
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0400, W. Anderson wrote:
It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any
other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect,
give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has
for many years
.
Thanks,
Neil
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 04:34:35PM -0600, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hence, I consider this bug serious and thus RC, and am reassigning to evince.
Feel free to pop it over to tech-ctte if you don't agree.
Thanks,
Neil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ
severity 658139 serious
reassign 658139 evince
tags 658139 + patch
retitle 658139 missing mime entry
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 12:09:27AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
It does seem quite annoying. Have you considered asking the release
team whether they would be inclined to agree that this bug
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 06:13:43PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
can we somehome make $subject a target for the *next* release?
Hi,
Please consider making this a release goal when we call for them after
the release.
Thanks,
Neil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 04:22:58PM -0600, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Ansgar has been experimenting with .deb sizes to make the packages
needed for a minimal desktop installation fit in the first CD. It looks
like that's doable by switching to xz compression for the involved
binaries. Would
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 02:49:54PM +0200, Philipp Schafft wrote:
PS: Release wasn't helpful in this case as well. They tell me they have
no opinion and are not interested in getting this fixed for stable (was
asking *before* freeze). I'm not mad on anyone of them personally, just
I don't think
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 05:33:41PM +, The Fungi wrote:
On 2012-06-27 11:11:12 -0600 (-0600), Holger Levsen wrote:
what??? -v please.
[...]
Presumably a reference to http://bugs.debian.org/674634 .
Given the timing, probably also due to my reply to the short thread
starting at:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:08:53PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
As mentioned in the last mail we sent to d-d-a (and several at
various points before that) if you have serious concerns that
important updates to your package won't be included in the release,
the correct approach is to talk to
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote:
Will stuff already in the NEW queue not being really new packages (I mean
things like source or binary package renames) be given some special
consideration regarding the freeze?
Hi,
Anything in the NEW queue will not count
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 03:13:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Is this the right time to do it?
No, we're about to freeze. I would try and dig out the discussion from
last time, when we were about to freeze, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
If you want to do this, then please look at it during
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Moritz Mühlenhoff j...@inutil.org writes:
There're other blockers beside systemd to KFreeBSD being a full Debian
port, e.g. the lack of KMS in Xorg. Even the guy who gave a talk von
FreeBSD at last year's DebConf didn't use
Hi all,
One of the events at DebConf that I'm running is a 'Ask the Leader'
session. This is a town hall meeting event, where you have the
opportunity to ask the DPL anything you want!
To make sure we have enough questions on a broad range of topics, I'd
like to get some prepared questions
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Sprint
--
We feel it would be useful for the Release Team as a whole to get
together to think about what the plans are for the next release. As
such, we're planning a sprint to meet in person. Details will follow
once diaries
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:50:39PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2/ The discussion is also about better supporting testing using t-p-u more
extensively to bring important fixes (or important new upstream versions)
that are blocked in unstable. It would be unreasonable to ask Debian
developers
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:27:10AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Why would it be the release team's responsibility to cherry-pick from
anywhere? It is the maintainer's responsibility to prepare packages that
are suitable for the next stable release. I don't see why this would
change.
Hi
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Retrospective
-
The first thing we would like to do is to consider how the previous
release went. We'd like to know what went well, what went badly, and
what to improve for the next release.
Once again, we will use
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:12:09PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, April 04, 2011 12:05:09 PM Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:38:18AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
One thing that the release team already is improving is communication,
[snip]
The other thing
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:38:18AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
One thing that the release team already is improving is communication,
[snip]
The other thing that has potential to be improved is the freezing.
[snip]
I also note a lack of replies to feedb...@release.debian.org - these
mails are
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 08:47:49PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Neil
McGovern wrote:
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. You may rank options equally (as
long as all choices X you make are 1 or 2).
Please make
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 07:20:14PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 10/05/2010 02:34 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
Then mail the ballot to: gr_nonpackag...@vote.debian.org.
This means it shouldn't be sent to secret...@debian.org. I'm re-attaching
the ballot below, with a Reply-To set
Well, it seems that other people haven't taken an interest in the bug,
and we've now frozen, again.
As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of
August for the removal of the package unless there's significant
progress to fixing the issue.
Neil
--
liw the hacklab room is
Hi,
With regards to #554788, is there a chance that this could be fixed, or
even replied to? I really would rather not remove courier from testing.
Neil
--
enrico What is a sane place to look for washing machines around Manchester?
mhy enrico: the canals :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
pkg-clamav-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Bcc:
Subject: ClamAV supportability in stable releases
Reply-To:
Hi,
The release team have been asked to remove ClamAV from testing (and
hence the next stable release. See bug #587058.
The issue seems to be that it's not supportable in stable due to
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:48:11AM +0100, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Description : advanced Python shell
This Python shell permits to work in a more productive way with Python
interpreter providing features not yet implemented in standard IDLE.
This short and long description need quite a
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:36:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
package will be built in a clean chroot; among other
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:32:17PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Would it be time to start looking at LVM snapshops + sbuild perhaps?
we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
if we can
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages will be removed.
Would it be
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:46:25AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
doesn't matter. GCC-4.5 won't be the default for squeeze. if the GCC-4.5
release is done before the squeeze freeze, then it will be uploaded to
unstable and enabled to build for architectures where it doesn't show
regressions
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
Full ack, and I even like /usr/share/www. It's easy to understand and
pretty unprobable that we'd have a package called www in the archive
some day needing this location.
Sorry, I have to disagree with this approach. We would
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:25:51PM +0100, Penny Leach wrote:
The problem we've come across is how to handle migrations. If we have a
moodle package, that depends on moodle-mysql | moodle-pgsql, then package
managers that just install the first dependency, could cause a situation,
for example,
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 02:48:56PM +0100, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
Should the web configuration be enabled by default? Assume apache2, and
add configuration to /etc/apache2/conf.d/munin.conf?
Have a read of
http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/ch-httpd.html
Neil
--
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 15:36 +0100, Chris Jackson a écrit :
Well, /etc needs to be on /, since otherwise you can't get to fstab to
mount it, and generally things like /etc/hostname will be different, so,
while I
-DRAFT.sgml?view=log
Comments appreciated, I'd like to get these all in and integrated by end
of August, to push to the policy team for inclusion.
Thanks,
Neil McGovern
--
automake: the emo of Debian software. You just don't understand me.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Giving a standard interface to reviewers is a laudable goal, but I do not see
reviewers except in elaborate scenarios about security. Therefore I will not
trade a real benefit for a hypothetical one, even if both are neglectible.
Hi all,
Just to re-iterate from a release team PoV, this could really do with
fixing.
(for d-d readers, this is a awesome bug, where dbus upgrades kill X)
This is holding up xcb-util, which is holding up python-visual, which is
preventing the removal (finally!) of GTK 1
Thanks,
Neil
--
pixie
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 01:50:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Just to re-iterate from a release team PoV, this could really do with
fixing.
(for d-d readers, this is a awesome bug, where dbus upgrades kill X)
This is holding up xcb-util, which is holding up python-visual, which
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:12:04PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
icewm
linpopup
wmclockmon
cheops
codebreaker
gaby
dbmix
gcrontab
gbuffy
gcvs
gcx
geg
gman
gps
gqcam
gtkpool
libjsw
i2e
mah-jong
mbrowse
predict
xemacs21
swami
xoscope
xscorch
All removed
ledcontrol
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:53:58PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
That would be premature. As I understand it, we're waiting on (and I'm
actively soliciting) input for other purposes of the information in the
‘debian/copyright’ file; not least from the legal counsel at SPI.
I could be wrong, but
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
