Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Jon Dowland j...@debian.org writes: Have any of these issues been a problem practically, yet? Or are they just potential problems for the future? I'm not sure if this counts as a practical problem in your view, but it is rather common for DMs to set the DMUA flag in an initial request for sponsorship. In my view this goes against the spirit of the DM system, since it is unlikely for a sponsor to be confident in the ability of a given person to handle a given package on the first upload. d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8762aycdi9.fsf@zancas.localnet
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
* Jon Dowland j...@debian.org [2012-06-10 20:52:30 CEST]: On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57:49PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: Hi, (Please send followup messages to -project.) The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field has a few issues we would like to address: Have any of these issues been a problem practically, yet? Or are they just potential problems for the future? There were a package where DMUA was added which I received for sponsoring, without any hint on it being added, neither in the sponsor request nor in the changelog. And I don't think it's uncommon to have it sneaked in like that. Enjoy, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120611120854.ga28...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads): (Please send followup messages to -project.) The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field has a few issues we would like to address: Your proposal simultaneously changes two things: - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM. This does involve changing the structure of the metadata. And I find it difficult to see what it would mean to list a DM as a Maintainer or an Uploader if they weren't supposed to be able to upload the package. - It is tied to the source package so can only be changed with a sourceful upload. This is slightly annoying but given that maintainership changes involve an upload too, it hardly seems fatal. Has this been a problem in practice ? - It allows DMs to grant permissions to other DMs. It is far from clear that forbidding this is the right thing to do. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20437.57572.743896.174...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
]] Ansgar Burchardt We plan to instead implement an interface where developers upload a signed command file to ftp-master to grant upload permissions instead, similar to dcut. This could end up looking similar to this: Could we have an expiration date associated with the grants? I might grant somebody rights to a package, but want it to expire within $period (or at least be subject to more aggressive QA/MIA checks than a normal DD), since I'll be tied to them in a way. Cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obopykrz@xoog.err.no
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Ansgar Burchardt dijo [Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57:49PM +0200]: Hi, (Please send followup messages to -project.) The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field has a few issues we would like to address: (...) Hi, Hmm, this looks interesting, and useful. I'd like to add a bit as a wishlist item: Having this DB easily queriable (i.e. a webpage where you can query by key to see all the packages uploadable by a given key). And just thinking about possible complications: I *hope* we don't see any such behaviour, but this format would allow a DD to censor a given DM's activity. If I send Deny actions with somebody's key, it ends up blocking that person until somebody else is convinced to send corresponding Allow commands. Of course, if we see any such behaviour (repeatedly?), I might be reprehended and maybe even locked out of sending requests to this subsystem. Thoughts on this? Finally, it's interesting to me (as keyring-maint) that you are specifying the fingerprint. Of course, it makes sense. But it can make key migration (i.e. a DM moving from a 1024D to a 4096R key, or reacting to a key being compromised) as a more difficult thing, as the new key would first have to be inserted by us into the live keyring and only then the old key denied and the new one allowed. I guess we could automate this procedure when performing the keyring push... Anyway, and modulo the time it takes to implement all the needed bits (and discussion), thanks for a nice new idea, and hope to see it go forward! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Hi, On 11.06.2012 17:26, Gunnar Wolf wrote: And just thinking about possible complications: I *hope* we don't see any such behaviour, but this format would allow a DD to censor a given DM's activity. If I send Deny actions with somebody's key, it ends up blocking that person until somebody else is convinced to send corresponding Allow commands. how is that different to the state being? Today, a DD needs to add a DMUA flag, and any DD can do another upload to revoke the DMUA flag again any time. Having that said, this might have happened some times in past, but I don't think we ever had that problem for real. Ansgar is not changing things here, we'd just lower the threshold to actually change something. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:40:16PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: Could we have an expiration date associated with the grants? I might grant somebody rights to a package, but want it to expire within $period (or at least be subject to more aggressive QA/MIA checks than a normal DD), since I'll be tied to them in a way. That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think that was the intention and presume it still is. There's a risk that someone will get DM status and then only care about a small handful of packages and so not bother to progress with NM. I think I've seen that a few times. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120611154817.GB2346@debian
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of
DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think
that was the intention and presume it still is.
I disagree that it is always the case. It might be a popular option (due
to the fact that we highly encourage NMs to go through DM first). BUt
there are many cases, at least according to my anecdotal evidence, of
people who are more than happy remaining DM. I don't think we should
make their life more miserable by ensuring they have to periodically
re-ask for the permission to upload.
After all, DM was also bout allowing people to do technical packaging
working in Debian, without asking them extra commitment, such as the
moral duty of following Debian politics that comes with being a full
project member. I think that's a very important use case to support.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think that was the intention and presume it still is. I disagree that it is always the case. It might be a popular option (due to the fact that we highly encourage NMs to go through DM first). BUt there are many cases, at least according to my anecdotal evidence, of people who are more than happy remaining DM. I don't think we should make their life more miserable by ensuring they have to periodically re-ask for the permission to upload. After all, DM was also bout allowing people to do technical packaging working in Debian, without asking them extra commitment, such as the moral duty of following Debian politics that comes with being a full project member. I think that's a very important use case to support. I do totally agree with zack here. Moreover, if a DM gets tired of having to resort to sponsoring for new sources/stuff that has to go to the NEW queue (or even the one who's tired is it's usual sponsor), it's the best reason for him/her to become a DD. Adding a timeframe might also mean a kind of pressure for some DMs who want to do things in a more quiet pace. My two cents, Lisandro. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ca+qpbz1+eszzd-ab8tn5wczjtvrfupqhmkz1b49ftxqtctz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:52:30 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field has a few issues we would like to address: Have any of these issues been a problem practically, yet? Or are they just potential problems for the future? [Ansgar] | - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not | possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM. Not sure if this actually counts as a problem but it means that the whole DM concept is -- at least in the eyes of the Debian Perl Group [0] -- not suited for packaging teams. Cheers, gregor [0] or its members as of late 2007/early 2008 when we discussed it -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: U2: Helter Skelter signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Hi, Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org writes: Hmm, this looks interesting, and useful. I'd like to add a bit as a wishlist item: Having this DB easily queriable (i.e. a webpage where you can query by key to see all the packages uploadable by a given key). I agree that the information should be easily available. We can export it to a static HTML page (with optional JS to sort by package or maintainer) and to deb822 format. In addition it will be available in the DD-accessible projectb copy on ries.d.o. And just thinking about possible complications: I *hope* we don't see any such behaviour, but this format would allow a DD to censor a given DM's activity. If I send Deny actions with somebody's key, it ends up blocking that person until somebody else is convinced to send corresponding Allow commands. Of course, if we see any such behaviour (repeatedly?), I might be reprehended and maybe even locked out of sending requests to this subsystem. Thoughts on this? As Arno said this is already a potential problem with the current interface, though I am not aware of any abuse. Blocking access to the command interface would be an option, but I hope we don't need it and would not implement it right away. Finally, it's interesting to me (as keyring-maint) that you are specifying the fingerprint. Of course, it makes sense. But it can make key migration (i.e. a DM moving from a 1024D to a 4096R key, or reacting to a key being compromised) as a more difficult thing, as the new key would first have to be inserted by us into the live keyring and only then the old key denied and the new one allowed. I guess we could automate this procedure when performing the keyring push... Using fingerprints avoids dak to have perform the name - fpr mapping without any interaction (which would probably have the same problems as we already have for people with multiple uids). Key migration is indeed a small problem as the key needs to be known to dak in order to grant upload permissions. So you can only move permissions after the new keyring is active, but maybe we could add a command to migrate between keys to make this easier. (Should this be restricted to keyring maintainers? Or only available for ftpmaster and keyring maintainers ping us[1]?) Ansgar [1] Which would be easier to implement as dak would not need to know who is a keyring maintainer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vftwtu8@deep-thought.43-1.org
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Hi, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: Could we have an expiration date associated with the grants? I might grant somebody rights to a package, but want it to expire within $period (or at least be subject to more aggressive QA/MIA checks than a normal DD), since I'll be tied to them in a way. I agree with zack that we shouldn't require DMs to periodically renew upload permissions for every package. We already require them to reconfirm their interest to stay DM annually. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871ullwtmn@deep-thought.43-1.org
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Hi, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ansgar Burchardt writes (Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads): Your proposal simultaneously changes two things: - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM. This does involve changing the structure of the metadata. And I find it difficult to see what it would mean to list a DM as a Maintainer or an Uploader if they weren't supposed to be able to upload the package. The same as it means for package without DM-Upload-Allowed or for non-D[DM]s: they maintain the package. See also gregoa's mail[1] why we would like to change this. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/06/msg00046.html - It is tied to the source package so can only be changed with a sourceful upload. This is slightly annoying but given that maintainership changes involve an upload too, it hardly seems fatal. Has this been a problem in practice ? I think this has been answered by Gerfried's[2] and David's[3] mails. [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/06/msg00038.html [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/06/msg00037.html - It allows DMs to grant permissions to other DMs. It is far from clear that forbidding this is the right thing to do. Why? In my understanding upload permissions for a (package, DM) should be granted by a DD once he is convinced that this specific DM is able to look after the given package. DMs were never supposed to grant this to other DMs. The fact that this is possible is an oversight in the initial DM specification. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wr3dvem7@deep-thought.43-1.org
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
* Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org, 2012-06-11, 21:12: I agree with zack that we shouldn't require DMs to periodically renew upload permissions for every package. We already require them to reconfirm their interest to stay DM annually. BTW, http://bugs.debian.org/debian-maintainers is full of open annual ping bugs, some of them older than 2 years! Does anybody still care about the pings? :| -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120611193100.ga7...@jwilk.net
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
]] Stefano Zacchiroli On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think that was the intention and presume it still is. I disagree that it is always the case. It might be a popular option (due to the fact that we highly encourage NMs to go through DM first). BUt there are many cases, at least according to my anecdotal evidence, of people who are more than happy remaining DM. I don't think we should make their life more miserable by ensuring they have to periodically re-ask for the permission to upload. Then make it contigent on the person having made an upload in the last three months or something sensible. Also, I don't think asking a DM to be reapproved yearly or every other year would be that onerous. (It's also the direction we're moving in for shell accounts on d.o as you know; people who don't use them will have to go through changes@db to reactivate their shell access.) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3zdy74l@xoog.err.no
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 09:35:06PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Then make it contigent on the person having made an upload in the last
three months or something sensible. Also, I don't think asking a DM to
be reapproved yearly or every other year would be that onerous.
(It's also the direction we're moving in for shell accounts on d.o as
you know; people who don't use them will have to go through changes@db
to reactivate their shell access.)
I'm totally in favor of required periodic self-assessments, but the key
there is self. In what you propose DMs should ask _others_ to maintain
upload access. That looks onerous, if only at the social level. The big
advantage in becoming DM is that you become autonomous, and with that
comes increased responsibility in what you do. Making the reconfirmation
dependent on others seems to go in the opposite direction.
If we want to avoid that DMs remain DMs by inertia, which is indeed a
worthwhile goal, then we should implement something similar to what we
have for DDs. By uploading (or voting, which however doesn't apply to
DMs) you won't get in the radar of WAT runs. And if we chose
reconfirmation as a way to go (for DDs as well), than they should be
self-reconfirmations.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
On 2012-06-11 17:18, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think that was the intention and presume it still is. I disagree that it is always the case. Indeed, the GR said, Individuals may apply to become a Debian Maintainer without being in the n-m queue, or having any intention of joining the n-m queue. It might be a popular option (due to the fact that we highly encourage NMs to go through DM first). However, the GR which passed also said, Individuals may apply to the n-m process, and pass through it without becoming a Debian maintainer at any point. and The initial relationship to the existing new-maintainer (n-m) procedure will be as an independent means of contributing to Debian. It is extremely disappointing to me (but not surprising) that some people even discourage potential new Debian members from joining, telling them that DM status should be enough for them. -- Moray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/469ac7835947560c853bb713e0ecb...@www.fraserallan.com
Re: The DM status and its recognition (was: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads)
Hi, On 11.06.2012 22:41, Moray Allan wrote: It is extremely disappointing to me (but not surprising) that some people even discourage potential new Debian members from joining, telling them that DM status should be enough for them. even more, becoming DM seems more and more understood as a suggested and advised procedure towards a full DD status. I do not think this is how the original endorsement was meant. Moreover, at least that's my impression from hanging around in Mentoring mailing lists and channels, many people (and by people I mean primarily developer not involved in sponsoring) also consider the DM status as a DD light version, advocated to people who are known as advanced packagers. However, this is not what DM upload permissions actually mean. They are committed to people who are supposed to maintain a single package all alone because they were proofing for a rather short period of time that they act responsible and trustworthy. Not more, not less. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: The DM status and its recognition (was: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads)
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote: even more, becoming DM seems more and more understood as a suggested and advised procedure towards a full DD status. I do not think this is how the original endorsement was meant. Moreover, at least that's my impression from hanging around in Mentoring mailing lists and channels, many people (and by people I mean primarily developer not involved in sponsoring) also consider the DM status as a DD light version, advocated to people who are known as advanced packagers. I did this several times on #-mentors and I'll do it again. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer The opening paragraphs: It is highly recommended to be a Debian Maintainer before applying to the Debian New Maintainers process to become an official Debian Developer. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New Member Process. http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint It is highly recommended that you become familiar with the role of Debian Maintainer and apply for this role before applying to become a Debian Developer. While these words do not mean DM status is needed *only* for prospective DDs, it is easy to imply that. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Ian Jackson wrote: - It allows DMs to grant permissions to other DMs. It is far from clear that forbidding this is the right thing to do. As far as I know, we did this intentionally. When a DM is the maintainer of a package, they should be able to move it to team maintenance without needing to find some DD who cares about the package, who may not exist. I've never heard of this being abused. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Ansgar Burchardt wrote: - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM. Isn't that the point of listing a DM in the field? Why would you want to list someone as a Maintainer and not allow them to upload a package? - It is tied to the source package so can only be changed with a sourceful upload. Which means that changes to it are reflected in the changelog, version control system, etc. Seems like a feature. How is this worse than needing a sourceful upload to add a DD to Maintainers? -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
Hi, On 12.06.2012 00:29, Joey Hess wrote: Ansgar Burchardt wrote: - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM. Isn't that the point of listing a DM in the field? Why would you want to list someone as a Maintainer and not allow them to upload a package? There are plenty of packages in Debian where the sponsored maintainer can't upload themselves at all. That's the rule not an exception. Yet they are and clearly should be listed as a (sole) maintainer of the package in question. It's their work, and that's how we appreciate that. Also, this is how they get bug notifications. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just to put some hard numbers against this to illustrate the scope of the sponsoring operation through the debian-mentors mailing list, various team mailing lists and also between individuals, some data from UDD on the current packages in sid: Total source packages:18790 Sponsored source packages including NMUs: 3141 Sponsored source packages excluding NMUs: 3036 So that's 16% of the source packages in the archive where the person who is signing off the changelog is not uploading their work but asking someone else to do it. Looking at the people rather than the packages: Total active DDs: 946 Total DMs in keyring: 178 Total sponsored people: 906 That is almost half the people who maintain packages in the archive do not have the ability to upload those packages themselves. As Arno pointed out, people being listed in Maintainer/Uploaders and not actually being able to upload their work directly to the archive is not unusual at all. Those for whom the entire package sponsorship/mentoring etc is a complete mystery might like to: See devref §7.5 http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond- pkging.html#newmaint See the list of packages looking for sponsors: http://mentors.debian.net/ http://bugs.debian.org/sponsorship-requests http://mentors.pault.ag/ Interact with some new maintainers and help them improve their packages and even help out by uploading things for them: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/ #debian-mentors on irc.debian.org / irc.oftc.net cheers Stuart Notes: 1. Sponsoring stats use the SQL from http://udd.debian.org/sponsorstats.cgi which includes a few team uploads in this because the changed-by address is not in the carnivore table (about 40 packages). Similarly some teams will be in the sponsored people list (about 3). 2. DMs and sponsored people are not disjoint sets as DMUA is per- package. - -- Stuart Prescott www.nanoNANOnano.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/Wj7gACgkQn+i4zXHF0aiicgCgsjiNdWOkwthC7ni+5etYG7Jg 9+QAnRBAkCA9/f3gllEmtz16g0evzrBy =oBdp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jr6344$lkp$1...@dough.gmane.org
