On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reason why a Debian should spend resources to maintain
> things that are not good enough for Debian?
Debian isn't being asked to do any such thing. I've been thinking
about doing this for a long time, one of
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 18:57:47 +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Now, unless we decide to, Debian is not meant to refuse any *new* package.
Sure it is.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package,
> > > and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO.
> > A package description is intended for the administrator to choose which of
> > a set o
On fredagen den 29 februari 2008, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers,
> > such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd,
> > mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do bette
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 17:44:01 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit :
> On Saturday 1 March 2008 17:20, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > It is also pointed out that there are central places, like security
> > fixes, where having too many packages leads to too much work. Sure, but
> > again, it's not relat
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 17:37:40 David Nusinow, vous avez écrit :
> > Basically, a package has bugs because the maintainer or upstream is not
> > reponsive/available/..., not because there are too much *choice*.
>
> Um. No. We have lots of people. We also have lots of software. If we lose
> some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/08 10:38, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>
> Who makes the decision as to how much redundancy is too much? And
> is it crap just because it's redundant?
>
> For example, is micro-httpd redundant crap? There are no bug
> reports, so how much Sec
On Saturday 1 March 2008 17:20, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> It is also pointed out that there are central places, like security fixes,
> where having too many packages leads to too much work. Sure, but again,
> it's not related to choice, but to the overall size of the distribution.
> Here again, the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/08 10:14, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:43:56AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, Willi
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 05:20:28PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Saturday 01 March 2008 16:43:56 Ron Johnson, vous avez écrit :
> > > I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a
> > > little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages
> > > peopl
Le Saturday 01 March 2008 16:43:56 Ron Johnson, vous avez écrit :
> > I wish we had some more of this sort of thinking in our own project and a
> > little less of yours. Maybe then we'd have fewer bugs in the packages
> > people actually care about and use.
>
> I say we drop every WM & DE except GN
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:43:56AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> >> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than oth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/08 06:51, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
>> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
>> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing betwee
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
> options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
> httpd o
* Sebastian Krause:
> I like Debian *because* there are so many choices in the main
> repository and I don't have to worry if a package is actually
> well-supported when I install it,
Sorry, you are kidding yourself if you actually believe that. Software
and packaging quality vary greatly across
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
> create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
> recruiting new DDs.
>
> Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
One reason why I prefer Debi
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
unsupported.d.n could be the right place for packages that are "not
good enough for Debian (yet)".
Is there any reason why a Debian should spend resources to maintain
things that are not good enough for Debian? For the "not good enough
_yet_" there is exp
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600]:
> But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
> create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
> recruiting new DDs.
>
> Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
>
> The
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600]:
> Clearly these packages are different enough to somebody if they are
> going to the effort of packaging them. Perhaps they have a superior
> configuration format or some other non-notable feature.
>
> But if you are worried about the Q
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 10:33 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> But the user should not have to install 10 small HTTP servers just to
> know what's the goddamn difference. That's extremely unhelpful from
> us. We should tell the prospective user at a first glance why he wants
> one httpd over another.
William Pitcock dijo [Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600]:
> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
> options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
> httpd opti
I created an updated description. Please see below.
One thing i forgot to mention earlier was the feature of logging the http
requests
directly to a mysql-database.
I'm not quite sure, but I think this feature is not supported by most other
webservers.
Description: small http server
Monkey is
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, William Pitcock wrote:
>
> > But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
> > create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
> > recruiting new DDs.
> >
Le Friday 29 February 2008 11:16:04 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit :
> There are several costs associated with having yet another package doing
> the same thing:
> * For the project in general, it costs archive and Packages file space,
> build time, QA efforts just to name a few;
You're mixing d
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, William Pitcock wrote:
But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
recruiting new DDs.
Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
Please don't!
Kind regards
On Fri, February 29, 2008 12:41, William Pitcock wrote:
> But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
> create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
> recruiting new DDs.
I have no intent of stopping you to create any third party repositories.
> Sur
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:16 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Fri, February 29, 2008 03:02, William Pitcock wrote:
> > Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
> > like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
> > options for the same
On Fri, February 29, 2008 03:02, William Pitcock wrote:
> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
> options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
> httpd options, e
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many options
> for the same thing
No, Debian is *about* having a *good*, free operating system.
Having lots of choices is a side effect of Debian's organization, it's not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/08 20:02, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
[snip]
>> Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers,
>> such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd,
>> mini-ht
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Guus Sliepen dijo [Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:08PM +0100]:
> > > Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The
> > > objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure
> > > webserver.
> > > Althou
Guus Sliepen dijo [Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:08PM +0100]:
> > Monkey is a Web Server written in C based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol. The
> > objective is to develop a fast, efficient, small and easy to configure
> > webserver.
> > Although it is very small and does not need much system resources, it
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 03:51:38PM +0100, Thorsten Schmale wrote:
> * Package name: monkey
> Description : monkey is a small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol
Don't include the name of the package in the short description. Also,
"HTTP/1.1 protocol" is more something for the long
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thorsten Schmale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: monkey
Version : 0.9.2
Upstream Author : Eduardo Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://monkeyd.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description
34 matches
Mail list logo
