On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
The problem with Debian's processes is not that they are too slow,
but that they are full of people who only degrade Debian.
I agree with the concern. But the reason is twofold. On one hand we
might have lost our ability to select
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:24:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:13:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
But all of that said, it still needs trusted people to review the
packages, which is where we've traditionally started to have scaling
problems.
This is
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Hence I would more welcome one of the following alternative outcomes:
1) drop FD *and* integrate the current FD people into DAM; it looks
like accepting new members is the main part of DAM activities
anyhow, so why
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 18:26:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Imagine a process where we only require 5 recommendation emails from
existing DDs. First, it is obvious that different requirements would
apply to those recommendations, than to the current advocate emails:
since the applicant
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Julien Cristau wrote:
(also, on the topic of people who are ready when they enter NM go
through it fast,
https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=samuel.thibault%40ens-lyon.org
)
Oh, I had missed that Samuel had become a DD. That's great. Congrats.
/me wonders
On 24/06/09 at 11:45 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
(also, on the topic of people who are ready when they enter NM go
through it fast,
https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=samuel.thibault%40ens-lyon.org)
Describing people like Samuel Thibault or Chris Lamb as people who are
ready when they
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Describing people like Samuel Thibault or Chris Lamb as people who are
ready when they enter NM, and therefore implying that if you take more
than 6 months, it's because you were not ready, is just insulting for
all the other applicants who were
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:43:55PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
If the FD doesn't have the power to decide whether to accept somebody or not,
what is the point of it reviewing candidacies, specially if later the DAM
will review it anyway?
The FD's responsibility, as a 'New Maintainer
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But as things stand nowadays, I wouldn't be happy with that outcome,
given that DAM is more understaffed than FD (2 people vs 4), with
Joerg also involved in another time-consuming role (ftpmaster).
Actually, that's not
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
NM process:
- the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates,
...
This *might*
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:39:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Hence I would more welcome one of the following alternative outcomes:
1) drop FD *and* integrate the
On 24/06/09 at 14:41 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
Lucas, for what I understand, you have been reading (or at least receiving)
the FD email for some months now [1], from even before Bern were promoted
to FD. The goal was helping with some FD tasks without being FD. What
were those tasks?
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
That I can definitely agree is a concern, and it would be very nice to
figure out a way to find project consensus on what should and
shouldn't go into the debian/copyright file.
Or, more importantly, an actual consistent policy (with rationale) from
the
Hello,
Just to confirm a few things.
Frans wrote:
Your link clearly shows that Samuel's focus has never been on package
maintenance, so maybe he's never felt the need to be a DD, or at least
did not see it as a priority.
That is very true. I actually told my AM that what I really appreciate
Hi, I am trying to gather a list of licenses for all the software
packages that came with a Debian distro (this is are older packages,
not from the current releases). I was wondering what the best way
would be for me to get the license of each package as it pertains to
that specific version in the
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:18:02AM -0500, Dori wrote:
I was hoping it would be embedded within the .deb files but apparently
it is not.
Every official Debian package ships with a file
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright which details the license and
copyright information.
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
AFAICT there might be something wrong there, since Samuel wasn't
mentioned
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:21:48PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs
that used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”),
but AFAICT there might be
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
AFAICT there might be something wrong there,
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The second type, the one I believe Frans is referring to, is sent
manually. It takes a lot of work and effort to create it (looking up
the required information, copying and pasting the relevant sections
from the relevant mails, doing some
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But as things stand nowadays, I wouldn't be happy with that outcome,
given that DAM is more understaffed than FD (2 people vs 4), with
Joerg also involved in another time-consuming role (ftpmaster).
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
FD has mainly two people: Wouter and me. Christoph Berg helps out
sometimes, but has more than enough to do with DAM work. There is no
other FD - they either stepped down or disappeared completely from
Debian.
Would be great to know where FD
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Frans Popelen...@planet.nl wrote:
OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's
intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can
find quickly is from early 2007 [2].
I always found it very useful as most DDs don't
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:20PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Chris Lamb and Samuel Thibault both applied very late. Much too late.
Before they applied, several people have been wondering why they
weren't DDs yet. I'm not sure why they didn't apply earlier, but the
fact that our NM process
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi,
I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
project during the past x months?
I think the AM could provide a summary for that mail, after all, the
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
That I can definitely agree is a concern, and it would be very nice
to figure out a way to find project consensus on what should and
shouldn't go into the debian/copyright file.
Or, more importantly, an
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:45:35PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's
intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can
find quickly is from early 2007 [2].
I always found it very useful as most DDs don't follow
On 11790 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Then NEW. Nothing out of the ordinary here: NEW delays are often raised
on -devel@ (see [1] for example), and it's apparently considered normal
to wait 2 or more weeks before one's package gets reviewed. Since this
often blocks other works, it is a
Julien BLACHE wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi,
I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
project during the past x months?
I think the AM could provide a summary for
On 11790 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
rare situations. That never seemed like a difficult wait to me.
Ack. Same for adding debug packages and similar things like soname bumps.
Those are all simple additions of binary
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
Same thing applies for FD and AMs btw. Lucas indeed spent a few hours on doing
the regular FD tasks, but went away then. If you're
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (24/06/2009):
I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent
there actually include the names of new maintainers.
If you don't think, then check?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/04/msg00054.html
Excerpt:
| Weekly Summary
On 24/06/09 at 22:53 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
Same thing applies for FD and AMs btw. Lucas indeed spent a few hours on doing
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
The problem with Debian's processes is not that they are too slow,
but that they are full of people who only degrade Debian.
I agree with the concern. But the reason is twofold. On one hand we
might
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:07:13PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (24/06/2009):
I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent
there actually include the names of new maintainers.
If you don't think, then check?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't register at all with me.
Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
congratulating new
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't register at all with me.
Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
We *happily* accept everyone as trainee that does not get a NO from the
existing team[1] and let them do trainee work. Have 5 til 10 hours a
week? Can deal with the points written down in [2]? Mail us.
Hi Joerg,
You never
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
enforce project consensus provided that it doesn't strike them as
legally dangerous or otherwise seriously problematic. I would rather
have a consensus than a
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
For instance, it was unclear in the DEP5 discussion if we only need to
list the license, or if we have to indicate which files they were
found in (as it is done in the example provided on the latest
published guildeline, see the URL below). Can we have
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive and
that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual files
is unnecessary if you have all of the licenses accounted for (and
potentially
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't register at all
43 matches
Mail list logo
