Orphaning discus (need help)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I am orphaning the package "discus". However, I no longer have a GPG key in the keyring as it was revoked because of a GPG bug involving 4096-bit keys. So I need someone to help with getting it marked as orphaned. This message is signed with my old key if anyone still has it in their personal keyring. CC me on replies as I am no longer subscribed to debian-devel. Thank you, Ron -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFEt1jPvIDyz5w0JcRAtOFAJ9BGekINbzykjsrPr/P9TLq4/yhHwCdGT8E OgDYkSKV13dykBUcdGXETCA= =soUY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dinstall problem?
Julian Gilbey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > And just drop a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to do it ;-) Yup, already done. Although the developers-reference says to mail the .changes file (section 10.4, last paragraph.) Ron pgp40OK6BEjSO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dinstall problem?
Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote: > It doesn't appear to be available for i386. > The p.d.o CGI probably only looks at i386 packages. "silo" doesn't show up > either, eg. That explains it! Ok, now I can sleep better. :) > 93713 is closed, though: it's the build-depends bug which was also closed > in -3. Yup, and herein lies my mistake. I said to close an already closed bug (doh!) What I REALLY meant to do was close #93109, I'll take care of that later. Had I bothered to notice the bug was under a DIFFERENT number, that would have been ok. Ohh well, not the end of the world... > HTH. Yup, thanks. Ron pgpqGgJ4jZ5Y9.pgp Description: PGP signature
dinstall problem?
hello; One of my packages, uptime-applet, seems to have vanished. Or has it? Apparently something went wrong during the dinstall and I never got an email saying "INSTALLED" like usual. Looking on auric, I see the package IS there (uptime-applet_0.2.0-4) in the pool. However using the CGI search on packages.debian.org does not show it (package isn't found). The package was duploaded (to unstable) on April 20th. There is also an open bug against uptime-applet that 0.2.0-4 closes, but it is still open... I looked at the changes file and don't see anything wrong and I don't suspect there is since it IS in the pool. Can anyone shead some light on this? TIA, Ron pgpsiaN30XF9H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or > do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I > see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable". I don't know.. IMO unstable is often more stable then any rathat release! I don't care personally what it's called as long as it works. You are right they want it to be called "stable". > Why is is this basic distinction so hard to explain to people? Testing > and reliability take time. During that time, new features are going to > show up in various parts of the system. Along with those new features > come compatibility and reliability problems. You can either have the new > features, or you can have a tested, stable, reliable *system*. *YOU* > *CAN'T* *HAVE* *BOTH*. I don't know why it's impossible to get it through their thick skulls, but it is. When I finally upgraded to potato it was because I needed a newer kernel to work with two pieces of hardware that was unsupported by 2.0 and also to add software compatilbity with Tru64 UNIX. I was also using serveral things, ipmaq to name one, that were semi broken with slink and a 2.2 kernel. Currently the stable release cycle seems to be about every 14 months, which is far too long to keep up with %25 of new hardware. I don't care to have the absolute most bleeding edge. OTO I don't want to upgrade a server, to support new/additional hardware, to something that is *known* to be unstable. So we end up with a loose-loose situation... JMO, Ron
Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Slink is called `stable' for a reason. It's not obsolete for people who > just want a stable distribution. > > Of course, it is obsolete for people who want a nice GNOME (or especially > KDE) environment, or those who own Athlons or other hardware the kernel > provides, etc, etc. > > It seems that the number of those to whom slink is useful outweighs the > number of those to whom it isn't. I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who were turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I personally got around this by running potato (unstable then), but most people don't WANT to run unstable! IMO to be the greatest use to the users the release cycle should be about every ~6 months. If it can't be done then there needs to be more maintainers/devlopers so it can. Again, all JMO. Ron
