Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce
* Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 14:54 -0500]: > This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles > somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK. Sorry sweetie, I'm not a boy and have no pickle to compare. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 20:23 +0100]: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joerg Jaspert writes: > >> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote: > >>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting > >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/01/msg9.html I > >>> may lose posting permissions as well. > >> You should lose -private rights, as you clearly cant follow its rule to > >> not leak. > > I don't understand. Martin's email did not mention -private. Do you > > mean to say that this decision was made as the result of discussion on > > -private? > > No, but the decision was only published in a posting to -private. The > whole point of Joey's mail was to make the act of revoking posting > permissions public (which I support, though I'm not too happy about the > way it was done) It's not possible for those of us not on -private to figure out what's going on, really, but is it possible that it wasn't made public in an effort to protect Andrew's privacy? Were I a listmaster, that would've been one of my considerations, regardless of what he'd done to justify the ban. I think it's potentially important that the rest of us know some disciplinary action has been taken, but I can't say that it's relevant to, say, his future employers. (M-F-T: set to -project, *please* reply there.) -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debbugs tangent (was Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing)
* Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:22 09:14 -0800]: > (debbugs's strong point is handling a small > number of bugs on *lots* of different packages; I find it somewhat > difficult to follow when dealing with a *lot* of bugs on a single > package.) OT for this thread, but: do you notice this even with usertags/user categories? I'd be curious to hear suggestions for improvements. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
* Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:22 08:10 +0100]: > > > Bureaucracy is often designed to do lots of things "better" and it often > > > doesn't achieve them. It creates needless hassle, more 'paperwork', and > > > has very few benefits besides making people feel like they've done > > > something useful when they haven't. > > > > You are saying that requiring people to find co-maintainers is > > "bureaucracy"? Someone I know well recently got co-maintainers for > > three of his packages by posting a single message to debian-devel. > > I think that what Erinn wants to say is more that *forcing* (or > putting pressure on) maintainers to find co-maintainers would be > "bureaucracy". If something makes people's lives complicated for no gain and makes them jump through hoops to get the same exact thing done, I consider it bureaucracy. This rule would qualify under that definition. > I think that she will however agree that *encouraging* co-maintenance > for "key" or "important" packages (which is a very vague definition) > is one of the ways to go. But she will probably be able to say it by > herself: I'm just interpreting Not necessarily. I would encourage team maintenance on either exceptionally large packages (or groups of small packages) or packages where the maintainer is unable to handle the amount of work (bug reports, constant upstream releases, etc.) Conversely, I might also encourage single-person maintenance on packages with ineffective teams (see Andrew Suffield's mail about this; he basically covers this territory.) The fact that a package is important (note: not referring to Priority here) is not indicative of the amount of work necessary, nor is it indicative of the amount of time and expertise a given maintainer has for it. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
* Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:21 17:32 +0100]: > Erinn Clark wrote: > > There are plenty of people who are maintaining packages alone > > that are doing an excellent job > > True. However, the issue in question is whether or not it would be > better if they maintained in teams. > > > Forcing team maintenance on people would result in very few > > technical enhancements for such maintainers > > How do you know? I would expect most packages to benefit. Every > person brings different expertise to the table. For maintainers who are doing a lot of good work, there's simply not enough to justify more people. Once there's already a certain level of efficiency, adding another person is not going to increase it, and will likely decrease it. I can't see the point of enforcing this as a rule, which, luckily, was not proposed by Lars. > > It just seems to me like telling responsible DDs who've done a > > stellar job that they need a babysitter is a bit... insulting. > > This is not a fair characterization of what the introduction of > a two-maintainer rule would be doing. No one should be insulted > by general rule changes designed to make Debian work better. Bureaucracy is often designed to do lots of things "better" and it often doesn't achieve them. It creates needless hassle, more 'paperwork', and has very few benefits besides making people feel like they've done something useful when they haven't. Of course, we're both starting from entirely different premises (yours that all packages are better maintained by more than one person, mine that this is not universally true and can be worse in some cases) so there's probably not a lot of wiggle room for agreement here. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
* Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:21 12:23 +0100]: > I don't think that it is ridiculous to require that every package have a > team behind it---i.e., at least two maintainers. First, if someone can't > find ONE other person willing to be named as a co-maintainer of a given > package then I would seriously doubt that that package (or that person) > is an asset to Debian. I disagree. There are plenty of people who are maintaining packages alone that are doing an excellent job, they just don't happen to get shout-outs on the -qa list. Quite a lot of people in Debian are responsible enough to go it alone as well as to know when it's time to pass the torch. Forcing team maintenance on people would result in very few technical enhancements for such maintainers and would probably engender quite a bit of resentment (nevermind the fact that they'd likely resist altogether). It just seems to me like telling responsible DDs who've done a stellar job that they need a babysitter is a bit... insulting. > Second, putting packages in the custody of a > team makes it easy for a tired maintainer to relinquish control. Is that always true though? For example, I can see how that could benefit some of the more isolated members of Debian who aren't in constant communication with other developers, but the ones who are -- half of the time they just say "anyone want this package?" and that's about all there is to it. > Team maintainership is working very well for some other distributions. That may be true, but it's not a good argument for forcing such a situation in Debian. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
* Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:11 19:43 -0500]: [...] Oops, this was meant for -project. Apologies for the noise. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:11 16:32 -0800]: > On Saturday 10 December 2005 12:07 pm, Josh Rehman wrote: > > > As for being warned, I was told that because my discussion was about > > ubuntu I should stop. Because I felt my discussion was not about > > ubuntu, I did not feel that I should have to stop. > > So you deliberately show newbie arrogance, get called on it, then complain? > Dude, you got what you deserved, now you're just embarrassing yourself with > how much you and most 13 year olds on AOL have in common. Paul, While it was kind of you to take time out of your busy schedule to berate Josh (I mean, I know -user needs a lot of attention from you...) could you please drop it? And FYI everyone else: Paul is not, to my knowledge, a regular in #debian, lest you be afraid this kind of behavior is tolerated in there. :) -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd administration
* Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 12:45 -0500]: > * Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 17:48 +0100]: > > Le vendredi 09 d?cembre 2005 ? 12:07 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit : > > > Ingo's burnt a fair number of bridges wrt buildd issues; I'm sorry, > > > but I don't really care if volunteers decline to work with people who're > > > obnoxious and rude. > > > > Why would it make his work not good for our use? The buildd.net software > > is obviously much superior to buildd.debian.org, but it hasn't been > > integrated; the fact his author is Ingo Juergesmann shouldn't matter. > > Where is the buildd.net software located? I poked around on the site but > I couldn't find it except for the update-buildd.net script. (Replying to myself after getting an answer on IRC from Ingo...) The short summary to my answer is that buildd.net software is not publicly available, which may explain at least part of the reason it's not integrated. This was apparently explained in some other buildd thread, but I'm not sure which one or where to look. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd administration
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 13:27 -0600]: > I'm surprised you think raising ones voice civilly in concern > about a problem area in Debian is not playing nicely with others. Is > your contention that some volunteers are so much more equal than > others that no voices may ever be raised in concern about their (lack > of) performance ever again? I just don't think encouraging flames is going to result in clever solutions, which are, to me, far more interesting. One can voice their concerns all day long and at the end of the day that is all they will have achieved. Whooptee doo. But no, I am not trying to regulate free speech, if that's what you mean. :) > so I am forced to come to the conclusion that you must equate any dissent > as not playing nice. Aww. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd administration
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 12:47 -0600]: > Err, so if a NM candidate speaks as openly as some DD's do, > they get threatened with having their applications cancelled because > of them speaking their minds? What is this, a munich beer hall in > 1933? Isn't the point of NM to "weed out" people before they become problematic DDs? My impression was that this applied to overall personality / how well you play with others, as well as technical ability. Surely flaming people on mailing lists as a way to get things done is not something people want to encourage in NMs... right? Wouldn't Debian want to find people who can think of new and inventive ways to achieve goals rather than resorting to these measures? Especially since they *don't work*. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd administration
* Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 17:48 +0100]: > Le vendredi 09 d?cembre 2005 ? 12:07 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit : > > Ingo's burnt a fair number of bridges wrt buildd issues; I'm sorry, > > but I don't really care if volunteers decline to work with people who're > > obnoxious and rude. > > Why would it make his work not good for our use? The buildd.net software > is obviously much superior to buildd.debian.org, but it hasn't been > integrated; the fact his author is Ingo Juergesmann shouldn't matter. Where is the buildd.net software located? I poked around on the site but I couldn't find it except for the update-buildd.net script. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:11:23 18:40 +0100]: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:34:41 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar > >Just to provide some statistics about dpkg-sig usage, as I got curious > >about it too: > > > >In the archive, 525 out of 283283 .deb's are dpkg-sig'd (0.19%). There > >are 8 distinct keys used for those 525 .deb's, seven of which correspond > >to DD's[1]. > > So, most of the DD's do not care about security at all. Why does > Debian have a reputation of being so secure? Yet just today you filed a bug (#340403) for documentation to be included in the package since you were unable to explain dpkg-sig's strengths. How is it possible for you to claim something is more secure when you don't understand it well enough to say how it's different? -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I am still on the keyring. With my old key.
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:11:23 11:07 +0100]: > What are you trying to do instead? If you might have noticed, we have > _just_ _another_ ftpmaster situation _right_ _now_, and from handling > of #339686 by a member of the DPL team I don't get the impression that > the DPL team actually cares. What bug number did you mean? > In fact, how can the message of "we don't care about security if it's > ftpmaster breaking security features" be more official than by the > downgrade of that bug to wishlist by a DPL team member? What? -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable
* Dave Carrigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:11:16 07:33 -0800]: > I am quite sure that there are Debian *users* out there that have legacy > code that only builds under gcc 2.95 (or more likely g++ 2.95) and they > haven't ported it to a newer C compiler because there is no business > case for it. I fit this use case -- I work with embedded devices and as a result, sometimes older versions of software are necessary. However, it's usually not just gcc alone, it's glibc et al as well. The solution isn't to keep gcc 2.95 around indefinitely; it's for people to use debootstrap and chroots. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lyx
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:09:23 18:11 -0300]: > From memory, lyx is a major mess that FTBFS with gcc4 in very horripilant > ways, uses yada, and is otherwise NMU-unfriendly IMHO. But it has been some > time since I tried to build it. The build system has been changed to debhelper. > It is also outdated (1.3.6 is available upstream since July, 16th). Maybe > the new upstream version has better code and will compile cleanly with gcc > 4. The new upload will be 1.3.6. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lyx
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:09:23 11:19 -0700]: > > lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't > been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy > for such packages? Hi Thomas, AIUI, there are lyx packages ready, but there was a problem with the build-deps. I recommend not NMUing just yet, since I believe this will be sorted out shortly. If lyx isn't uploaded by Tuesday, I will have someone sponsor an upload, since I'm still listed as a co-maintainer, though I no longer have anything to do with the package. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#292183: ITP: gtkpizza -- Pizza takeaway managment program written in gtk
* Guglielmo Dapavo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:01:25 17:08 +0100]: > Description : Pizza takeaway managment program written in gtk ^ management. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
* Fernanda Giroleti Weiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:12:02 12:28 -0200]: > I'll paste here a part of a message from Hellen on Debian-women mailing > list. I'm sure you will read and think a little bit about. > > "It is also the type of discussion that deterred me > from becoming involved in Debian for some time." > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2004/12/msg00011.html Just to clarify, this was in reference to the manner of discussion, not the topic at hand. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
