Re: Bug#507189: asterisk: Depends on libc-client2007b which is not in unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:06:37AM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote: On Saturday 29 November 2008 10:28:44 Ben Hutchings wrote: libc-client2007b has been replaced by libc-client2007d in unstable. Thanks Ben. As you state this only effects sid, not lenny which is (maybe) good for the rdepends. Jonas, Are you intending for libc-client2007d to migrate to lenny? Your change log indicates that this maybe an important release. However I haven't seen any discussion on debian-release nor any coordination with the rdepends. No, I have no plans to special-case uw-imap 2007d regarding the freeze of Lenny. A security update contains virtually all of the contents of that new release. If not you upload makes life difficult for the rdepends as we can no longer upload any proposed lenny changes via unstable. I believe this to be a general complication of a long freeze period. And I believe it better to have such complication for developers at large than burdening the release team with requests for special-casing to bring Lenny in sync with Sid. On the other hand, I do not see any problem in allowing newest uw-imap into Lenny - now that release team is bothered about this issue after all. If release do not want the Sid released package into Lenny, but instead would want a specially crafted package only containing upstream changes and not any possible updates to the cdbs packaging routines, then I see no point in spending time on that: there is already a security update like that. Has the ABI/API actually changed that has necessitated a new -dev package and lib package. No. Historically, the uw-imap package was licensed requiring indication of any derivative work in the naming of the files (as I interpreted it), which is the reason for the current libname-based-on-package-version scheme. License since changed, but I did not get around to changing the naming scheme before the freeze. It is worth noting that the very shared library is a Debian-specific thing, discourages upstream. So there is no upstream soname, it is purely Debian-specific. As related security issue is that Alpine, using same codebase, uses its own duplicate of the code instead of the shared library offered as libc-clientXXX.so (its predecessor, the non-free pine, was patched to link against our libc-client library, but I have so far failed to convince the maintainer of alpine to the benefits of sharing code). As you maybe aware a new -dev package means that all rdepends must be changed and reloaded, whilst just a change in the lib package allows for binNMU. Yes, I believe I do understand the issue of rdepends here. Could I ask you to coordinate with the rdepends and discuss/ file bugs for what you see as the way forward for integration with uw-imap. As I do not intend to bump the version in Lenny, I fail to see the need for coordination here. Please help me see the light if I somehow miss your point - I _do_ want to cooperate. :-) Kind regards, - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkkybr4ACgkQn7DbMsAkQLgj5gCfevdYIv3cCdvdBE0zSppBs0lV 9UkAn3ofMb2Eo/kbPKyCcSLQgsJYTtYe =FSNK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#254208: Still valid!
Just checked today. I will no more test : I purged the system from this packages given the time without fix. Any gparted looks nicer. Why not orphan this package? -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#507288: mails to $pkg@p.d.o should also be send to Uploaders:
On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: package: package.qa.debian.org severity: wishlist Hi, currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed in maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so. I really think that the only way to solve that in a definitive way would be: 1/ Improve PTS' mail handling (it still has some rough edges) 2/ Strongly encourage people to subscribe to their packages on the PTS 3/ Make all services send mail to the PTS, and stop sending mail directly to maintainers/uploaders -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#507288: mails to $pkg@p.d.o should also be send to Uploaders:
On 30/11/08 at 10:49 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: package: package.qa.debian.org severity: wishlist Hi, currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed in maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so. I really think that the only way to solve that in a definitive way would be: 1/ Improve PTS' mail handling (it still has some rough edges) Like what? Minor UI annoyances: the fact that, when you subscribe to 10 packages in one email, you get 10 emails in reply, that you each have to confirm separately [that was the case some time ago, not sure if it's still the case]. More generally, it's currently not easy to have a team subscribed to all its packages. Maybe we could have a way to automatically subscribe someone (team or developer) to a set of packages, using the same keywords. Something simple, like a cron script run daily, that would take a list of emails, and would subscribe each email to each package for which the mail is in Maintainer or Uploaders. (The list of emails could be managed by the qa group). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#507288: mails to $pkg@p.d.o should also be send to Uploaders:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: package: package.qa.debian.org severity: wishlist Hi, currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed in maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so. I really think that the only way to solve that in a definitive way would be: 1/ Improve PTS' mail handling (it still has some rough edges) Like what? 2/ Strongly encourage people to subscribe to their packages on the PTS 3/ Make all services send mail to the PTS, and stop sending mail directly to maintainers/uploaders I mostly agree with Lucas… Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be auto-subscribed and that we should simplify the situation by having all services mail directly the PTS. And after that we can reevaluate the situation. Feel free to start the discussion with ftpmasters and bugmasters, those are the two most important services that would let us generalize this principle. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#507288: mails to $pkg@p.d.o should also be send to Uploaders:
Hi, On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be auto-subscribed and that we should simplify the situation by having all services mail directly the PTS. And after that we can reevaluate the situation. Feel free to start the discussion with ftpmasters and bugmasters, those are the two most important services that would let us generalize this principle. I do not understand, what I should discuss with ftpmasters and bugmasters here. Really. Can you repeat please? There was some enlightment in this thread, but not enough so that I understand why this cannot simply be done in the PTS. regards, Holger P.S.: no need to cc: me on this (or any other QA) bug. pgp8eAfxU2OLY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#507288: mails to $pkg@p.d.o should also be send to Uploaders:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 08:27:19PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed in Just to be sure: did you really mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? They are two different things. AFAICT the latter is handled by the PTS, the former is not. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#507288: mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should also be send to Uploaders:
On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 13:50 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed in maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so. This does the wrong thing if the maintainer is a mailing list and Uploaders are the people who do the uploads, doesn't it? I generally want to get such mail only once, via the mailing list. So how about doing this only if maintainer does not match @lists\.(alioth\.)?debian\.org$? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production: A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#507288: mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should also be send to Uploaders:
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 13:50 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed in maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so. This does the wrong thing if the maintainer is a mailing list and Uploaders are the people who do the uploads, doesn't it? I generally want to get such mail only once, via the mailing list. So how about doing this only if maintainer does not match @lists\.(alioth\.)?debian\.org$? I'm not sure if that would solve everyone's possible problem (there may be non-debian.org maintainer lists), but it would definitely solve mine. All of my maintainer mailing lists are hosted at debian.org. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#507288: mails to $pkg@p.d.o should also be send to Uploaders:
Hi, On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be auto-subscribed and that we should simplify the situation by having all services mail directly the PTS. And after that we can reevaluate the situation. Feel free to start the discussion with ftpmasters and bugmasters, those are the two most important services that would let us generalize this principle. I do not understand, what I should discuss with ftpmasters and bugmasters here. Really. Can you repeat please? There was some enlightment in this thread, but not enough so that I understand why this cannot simply be done in the PTS. Currently Dak and debbugs mail directly the Maintainer and send a copy to the PTS. Other services mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this one also mails the Maintainer and send a copy the PTS. You ask to modify the PTS to mail the Uploaders and I respond that it's not a wise choice because nobody can disable the mails sent directly to the maintainer. If we can get the Dak and debbugs to mail only the PTS, then we can code the PTS to auto-subscribe either the Maintainer or all the Uploaders (or both) and leave the choice to each team (or each member) to override the default configuration. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
