Hi Paul,
Le Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:12:42AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
>
> README.Source would surely get my attention (as would README.Debian).
Acutally, I do not know what is missing from README.Debian to justify the
existence of this package. It runs a script each time a kernel pack
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Tue, 03 Sep 2013, Luca Falavigna wrote:
>> 2013/9/3 Paul Wise :
>> > Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
>> > packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
>> > and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
>>
>
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> 2013/9/3 Paul Wise :
> > Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
> > packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
> > and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
>
> Although this could be possible,
Hey Charles,
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 05:43:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> first of all, please let me clarify that the reason why I answered on our core
> mailing list is not to fingerpoint if or not you are wrong, but becase this is
> the only way I have to see if others agree
Paul Wise wrote:
>Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
>packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
>and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
Why should we rush to let more broken stuff into the archive?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge,
2013/9/3 Paul Wise :
> Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
> packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
> and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
Although this could be possible, a second upload would be needed
anyway (hopefully in a
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Never mind. My current problem is that I have no idea which current
> package to contact to ask for a inclusion. It is not important enough
> to be included in packages such as util-linux and few (no?) system/devel
> packages already have
Reading Charles' mail I had a thought; how about accepting buggy
packages (unless the issues make them non-distributable) and file RC
and other bugs if there are DFSG or other issues?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
Le 02/09/2013 06:12, Paul R. Tagliamonte a écrit :
> Respectfully - when we add micro (under Size 100 packages) the amount of
> metadata added to every mirror and every users machine is almost as much as
> the package contents.
>
> This is a very common request (make sure this really needs to be
(Long answer, but I promise to limit my messages in this thread).
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
>
> Yes. For the record, this day when Charles sent this mail, I was working
> in NEW from early in the morning to about 9:00 at night. I don't want
> thanks or e
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:47:02AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 09/02/2013 07:38 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > Adding to this. I know Paul personally very well and I don't think that
> > he'd maliciously reject a package.
>
> I don't think so either.
>
> Though what happens is tha
On 09/02/2013 07:38 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Adding to this. I know Paul personally very well and I don't think that
> he'd maliciously reject a package.
I don't think so either.
Though what happens is that Charles is being frustrated because of the
current waiting time in the NEW q
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 12:12:09AM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> > I would like that the FTP team please refrain from giving cheap side
> > comments
>
> Um..
>
> > or ask cheap questions in its rejection emails (have you noticed that the
> ITP
> > bug was originally submitted
Hi!
On 09/02/2013 06:04 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It would have been nice if you'd done such an inspection before you uploaded
and wasted the ftp-team's time doing multiple reviews.
I fully agree. I don't think it's a bad thing at all to thoroughly
check the package, even for minor problems.
On my phone, excuse the Cc and (I'm guessing HTML mail)
Hi, Charles.
On Sep 1, 2013 10:59 PM, "Charles Plessy" wrote:
>
> Answering on a broader audience because I think that there is really a
drift
> from ensuring archive integrity to massive and arbitrary top-down
nitpicking.
>
> Le Mon, Sep 0
On Monday, September 02, 2013 11:58:41 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Answering on a broader audience because I think that there is really a drift
> from ensuring archive integrity to massive and arbitrary top-down
> nitpicking.
> Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:00:17AM +, Paul Richards Tagliamonte a écrit
Answering on a broader audience because I think that there is really a drift
from ensuring archive integrity to massive and arbitrary top-down nitpicking.
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:00:17AM +, Paul Richards Tagliamonte a écrit :
>
> Hello, maintainer,
>
> I'm sorry, but I've rejected your pa
17 matches
Mail list logo
