Op zaterdag 23 maart 2013 16:07:48 schreef Limao Luo:
> Orphan request:
> xflux [1] does not follow the AUR package guideline that specifically
> says not to use $startdir.
I sent a new email, just to be sure. The maintainer seems to be active
since i see packages updated in 2013-03.
>
> Delete
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/23/2013 10:23 PM, Don deJuan wrote:
>
> From a non TU's perspective D.R. was the only one who could
> publicly state why greysky should not be a TU, and the rest of the
> sheeple just followed the "old and grumpy" man, at least that is
> "public
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 11 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 78 packages missing signoffs
* 2 packages older than 14 day
Don deJuan wrote:
>> There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
>> result.
>> Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
>> made up their minds.
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
the objections
On 24 March 2013 04:42, Xyne wrote:
> If a TU has an objection that he cannot support publicly then something is
> very
> wrong. The application process should not be some mysterious black box of
> negative, baseless opinions. If a TU would rather keep an objection to himself
> than risk offendin
I unsubscribed from the ML so I'm not 100 % sure that this message
will nest itself under Xyne's reply[1]. I would appear to be a
polarizing force based on the votes; I wouldn't be comfortable joining
the TU group given the more or less 50/50 split reflected in the data.
To my supporters, I'd lik
Hello,
I renamed packages bzr-svn to bzr-svn-plugin and bzr-git to
bzr-git-plugin. Could you kindly remove the old packages bzr-git and
bzr-svn, please?
Best regards
Atomisirsi
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Atomisirsi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I renamed packages bzr-svn to bzr-svn-plugin and bzr-git to
> bzr-git-plugin. Could you kindly remove the old packages bzr-git and
> bzr-svn, please?
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Atomisirsi
>
All merged, thx. Please include links to the p
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Xyne wrote:
> Don deJuan wrote:
>
>>> There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
>>> result.
>>> Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
>>> made up their minds.
>
> Objections were raised and then count
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with
>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the
>> issues and reconsider them i
On 25 March 2013 03:30, Xyne wrote:
> Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>
>>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
>>> that
>>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
>>> with
>>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion p
On 24/03/13 12:30 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>
>>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
>>> that
>>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
>>> with
>>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion peri
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based
> on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection
> process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a
> matter of public safe
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
you give me some creed.
I find your argument to have no basis in fact and to be
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Eric Waller wrote:
> I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
> no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
> professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
> you give me some cre
Hi,
Please remove package lcov-svn (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lcov-svn/)
which I just uploaded... Before realising I had the VCS name wrong; the
correct package is lcov-cvs :)
Thanks,
Niels Martignène
On 25 March 2013 03:56, Niels Martignène wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please remove package lcov-svn (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lcov-svn/)
> which I just uploaded... Before realising I had the VCS name wrong; the
> correct package is lcov-cvs :)
>
> Thanks,
> Niels Martignène
Removed, thanks.
Please disown https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-coro
=> current maintainer has not updated package in over 1 year
=> upstream has updated through 5 releases in mean time
=> maintainer has many packages flagged out of date
--brian
s/1 year/2 years/
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Please disown https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-coro
>
> => current maintainer has not updated package in over 1 year
> => upstream has updated through 5 releases in mean time
> => maintainer has many packages flagged
Please disown https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-extutils-cchecker
=> current maintainer has not updated package in over 2 years
=> upstream has updated through 2 releases in mean time
=> maintainer has many packages flagged out of date
--brian
On 2013-03-25 06:57, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Please disown https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-extutils-cchecker
>
> => current maintainer has not updated package in over 2 years
> => upstream has updated through 2 releases in mean time
> => maintainer has many packages flagged out of
On 2013-03-25 06:10, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Please disown https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-coro
>
> => current maintainer has not updated package in over 1 year
> => upstream has updated through 5 releases in mean time
> => maintainer has many packages flagged out of date
>
> --b
22 matches
Mail list logo
