Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would. If I ever get a message like that, I would be
> grateful -- It'll allow me to add yet another obnoxious auto-reply to
> my spam filters.
Well, thanks for the feedback.
> Rest assured you shall never get email from me, or any official
> posiiton I
Hi, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there is
> unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does the work.
> This has been discussed over and over with the same result each time
> (i.e., no action).
Two answers:
(a) Before I do
香港国际商务网：http://www.richful-hk.com
企业会员超过16万、Alexa网络评估为全球中型门户网站！
免费发布：企业供求、商贸采购、投资招商、广告互换、友情链接！
★网站服务内容★
政府招商引资、招商信息发布、企业供求发布、商贸信息发布、公司资讯查询、
公司上市安排、银行开户服务、香港广告宣传、国际商务服务、中港物流服务。
香港公司注册、海外公司注册、上海公司注册、深圳公司注册、合资公司办理、
中外商
On Thu, 15 May 2003 05:27, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> It is a shame that such a simple scuffle on-list has sent you packing.
Someone who gives up so easily would never last.
Everyone gets flamed on occasion, if you can't deal with it you can't survive
on a popular mailing list. The Internet is not
On Thu, 15 May 2003 07:17, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> "Hello. My spam protection system is unsure about your message. Since
> you're reading this, your email isn't spam ;-) -- please either sign your
> emails to me, or send a short confirmation to the address -abqux
> at so that and your mails will
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:10:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This is an excellent point. Testing users do not expect updates from
> > securit.debian.org, so there is no reason that they need to be kept
> > there.
>
> Not put
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:58:36PM -0500, Kevin Kreamer wrote:
> Another question: does Debian provide to developers access to
> machines on all 11 arches for building packages?
Practically speaking, no. Shells are available on many architectures
for developer use, but not all of them provide ch
On Thu, 15 May 2003 01:53:41 +0200, Björn Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Testing is a release tool. Not a distribution for random end users
>> to run.
> That is rather different from what is written on the web site:
> "For basic, user-oriented information about
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:06:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:12:08AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > If it just comes down to applying patches, and doing the rebuilds then
> > > it seems to be the kind of job a small team could manage; unless I'm
> > > missi
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Take the harden package, or create something similar: a package that
> conflicts with all versions of packages with known security holes.
Why not just /fix/ the holes? Is uploading a package with a well known
patch _really_ that hard?
C
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> This is an excellent point. Testing users do not expect updates from
> securit.debian.org, so there is no reason that they need to be kept there.
Not putting them there, means not taking advantage of the buildds
that automatically
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So where does that leave us? If none of the people who are in a
> position to approve packages for inclusion in testing or
> testing-security are willing to commit resources to doing so, it seems
> the only other option that could have an effect is to s
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:12:08AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > If it just comes down to applying patches, and doing the rebuilds then
> > it seems to be the kind of job a small team could manage; unless I'm
> > missing something?
> So far nobody has lifted a finger as far as I know, thou
retitle 184552 ITA: jade -- James Clark's DSSSL Engine
retitle 171072 ITA: openjade -- Implementation of the DSSSL language
retitle 170867 ITA: opensp -- OpenJade group's SGML parsing tools
thanks
Jade is orphaned, and the current maintainer of openjade/opensp, Chad Miller,
filed an RFA for those
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> If no one will step forward to do even this, then surely this service must
> not be considered particularly valuable.
Indeed. I am tempted to do it myself, but I don't currently use
testing..
--
see shy jo
pgp7DigvDPeLQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Thank you for the kind reply, Michael.
I apparently do not understand how to properly retitle a bug yet. I
have been lurking, so I will examine the numerous examples to grok
the proper method. I fear I went off half-cocked at the first
attempt.
I lurk on d-announce, d-devel-announce, d-mentors, d
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:24:08AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> What about having a dummy package "testing-security", consisting of
> nothing but a huge list of versioned conflicts (and perhaps a few hints in
> /usr/share/doc/ about how to setup a mixed stable/testing or
> testing/unstable apt so
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So here's an alternative that would actually work:
>
> Take the harden package, or create something similar: a package that
> conflicts with all versions of packages with known security holes. Note
> that harden currently does not track
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:20:08AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 12:42 AM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >The idea being discussed, as I understand it, is to have fewer security
> >vulnerabilities in 'testing'. The only sane way to accomplish this is to
> >fix the bugs
On Wednesday 14 May 2003 04:53 pm, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> What's worse, saying testing is not for public use means there is _no_
> place to get updates, since unstable is obviously not an option for end
> users. This makes Debian the only linux distribution I know of that
> completely eschews soft
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:22:27AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:02:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is a far cry from ``Do not touch l10n files''.
>
> Hey, this was the subject, I had to get it short. My original post
> contained the following paragrap
Simon Huggins wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:25:49AM +0200, Héctor García Álvarez wrote:
> > El mar, 13 de 05 de 2003 a las 18:11, Joey Hess escribió:
> > > Tor Slettnes
> > I am the maintainer for those packages and I'm not MIA for the moment.
> > Please check your list again.
> >
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 06:01:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What if the maintainer of a is slow in responding? and a-beta,
> delta, gamma et al have been created by others in his absence?
What if the administrator doesn't install the fixed version of
a, but goes straight to install
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Testing is a release tool. Not a distribution for random end
> users to run.
That is rather different from what is written on the web site:
"For basic, user-oriented information about the testing distribution, please
see the Debian FAQ." (/devel/testing)
"testing
On Thu, 15 May 2003 01:08:07 +0200, Björn Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
>> Debian will always be for whoever the people contributing to Debian
>> are willing/want it to be for. No more, no less.
> Naturally, since it's free software. But saying "Debian is what we
> ma
Really cool script. Thanks for doing it.
However, the output is redundant in many cases. For example,
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=gnome-terminal
repeats the same information for libgnome, gnome-vfs2, and other
packages a number of times. This would seem simple to fix: just
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Chris Leishman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there
> > is unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does
> > the work.
> > This has been discussed ov
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> So let me make the following modest strawman proposal. Let us posit
> the existence of a new distribution, which for now I'll name
> "testing-x86".
I suggested the same thing a few weeks ago, with little reaction. Nice to see
someone else got the same idea.
I'd volunteer t
On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:22:53 -0700, Keegan Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wednesday 14 May 2003 11:05 am, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2003 09:36:57 -0700, Keegan Quinn
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> The only solution I think is if dpkg were to take over
>> >> responsibilit
I demand that Adam Heath may or may not have written...
> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
>> so maybe it was actually only filed in my brain (which has no web
>> interface) ...
> We need a bug system for developer's brains.
Agreed...
$ mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s "Misplacement of apost
Don Armstrong wrote:
> Debian will always be for whoever the people contributing to Debian
> are willing/want it to be for. No more, no less.
Naturally, since it's free software. But saying "Debian is what we make it"
doesn't answer the question what you _want_ it to be, only what has been done.
On Wed, 14 May 2003 23:17:07 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> FWIW, if they are only sent in reply to "spam status dubious"
>>> messages, I wouldn't call them obnoxious.
>>
>> I am not sure I understand. If such a message is sent to me, I
>> cert
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:53:31PM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
>
> > Then people can bitch and moan about package X not being available and
> > can do something to fix it (eg. finally start doing security updates
> > for testing). Or they can just put up with it. But e
On Wed, 14 May 2003 22:15:28 +0200, Björn Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2003 15:16:38 +0200, Björn Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > This brings back the question I never got an answer for: Who is
>> > Debian for?
>>
>> Isn't is obvious? M
On Wed, 14 May 2003 23:57:48 +0300, Chris Leishman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> We'd be better off going back to just turning unstable into frozen
> when we're near a release and getting rid of testing entirely. That
> way people won't be running a distribution you claim they shouldn't
> be, unti
On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 12:42 AM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
The idea being discussed, as I understand it, is to have fewer security
vulnerabilities in 'testing'. The only sane way to accomplish this is
to
fix the bugs. There has been a disproportionate amount of strategizing
around this simpl
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:02:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> This is no different from code: if I maintian software, and I
> may not understand all the complexities of the package in question,
> but when I think I discover a problem, I send a notice to the
> upistream (coder,
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:10:18AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> So perhaps the replacement is a better way of doing it. Then the
> question is whether you replace it with a dummy empty one, or a
> essentially identical working one, except containing a very loud
> warning.
Replacement has it
On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 12:36 AM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Removing a package from the archive is not very useful as a security
measure. Most users who want the package will already have it
installed,
and it is those users who are most exposed. It's not unusual for a
vulnerability to exist f
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Björn Stenberg wrote:
>Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>On Wed, 14 May 2003 15:16:38 +0200, Björn Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> This brings back the question I never got an answer for: Who is
>>> Debian for?
>>
>> Isn't is obvious? Me, of course.
>
> The question is seriou
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:24:03PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> "Pre-plans" in this case means that two people (one DD and one NM) have
> been talking about it "seriously." So, if you want to shoot the idea
> down, go ahead, no harm done :) And if someone else is thinking about
> picking up the b
Thanks to all who replied to my recent question on this subject.
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With glibc I'd use
> iconv --from=SRC-ENCODING --to=DST-ENCODING//TRANSLIT
> if it is acceptable to change the length of strings. This will replace
> e.g. the Euro-Symbol with "
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:14:20PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there is
> > unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does the
> > work.
>
> Of course, but it's still important to discuss
Hi,
I sent something like this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], since he's supposed to
be our donations coordinator (at least, that's what I read at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2002/debian-devel-announce-200207/msg1.html),
but haven't heard from him in a week. Not that I think he's igno
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> FWIW, if they are only sent in reply to "spam status dubious" messages,
>> I wouldn't call them obnoxious.
>
> I am not sure I understand. If such a message is sent to me, I
> certainly find them obnoxious.
That's why I said "I". Personal tastes differ, but
Hi, Clay Crouch wrote:
> Five percent failure, eh? Try zero percent, with zero false positives.
This may be a stupid question, but how do you KNOW that you have zero
false positives (i.e. mail classified as spam which isn't) if you redirect
it to /dev/null?
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Consu
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:53:31PM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> Then people can bitch and moan about package X not being available and
> can do something to fix it (eg. finally start doing security updates
> for testing). Or they can just put up with it. But either way, their
> box wont be
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there is
> unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does the work.
Of course, but it's still important to discuss what should be done. "Show me
the code" is only a useful response if anyone in
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:18:22PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that users would react rather negatively to having packages
> > (ones that they use) effectively disappear from their system, but the
> > only way to be certain is to experiment
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 10:57 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
That assumption is both false and absurd. Testing has exactly two
advantages over unstable--1) all dependencies are satisfied and 2)
known
rc bugs don't propagate to testing. In all other respects unstable is
better. (Security problems
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there
is
unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does the
work.
This has been discussed over and over with the same result each time
(i.e.,
no action
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 08:15 PM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
- If the build is successful, it's available for apt-getting from
testing-updates; otherwise the maintainer gets a helpful ;-) email.
I'm just curious why the updates couldn't just go straight into testing
itself. It's not as if th
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 06:03 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
So, I guess I'll be filing with ftp.d.o to have the vulnerable Samba
package removed from testing.
And I guess this was the point I was trying to suggest. I feel that if
there is no other solution ready (eg. there is no fixed package
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> IIRC, the debian-devel mailing list has always been a no-nonsense forum.
> Honestly, the anti-spam technique you employ is very simple, but also
> very draconic, in-flexible, and rude. It is far better to set up some
> sort of cookie handshake autorespo
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:34:02AM -0800, Fielder George Dowding wrote:
Hi,
> As a result of the lack of action on Mr. Take's part regarding these
> outstanding bug reports, the Defoma package has been listed as
> orphaned (#180188) before the critical bug (#181749) was submitted.
> I am attempt
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-05-14
Severity: normal
Due to lack of interest in the gtimer package, I am requesting an
adopter. The application is fairly useful, but could use some
improvements, the biggest one being a preference dialog box to set up a
preferred HTML browser instead o
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:07:16AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
[vulnerable packages like samba are distributed in testing]
>> Actually - I didn't suggest this. I suggested there should be some
>> consensus on what to do about security problems in testin
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:07:16AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> I can't just start doing it. For one this is the sort of issue that
> needs a bit of consensus and input from the people actually in charge
> of the process. It's not like just submitting a patch or uploading a
> new package.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2003 15:16:38 +0200, Björn Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > This brings back the question I never got an answer for: Who is
> > Debian for?
>
> Isn't is obvious? Me, of course. Y'all are working to provide
> a stable environment for my machine
On Wed, 14 May 2003 20:50:28 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [...]
>> Heck, there are parts of the code for packages that I maintain that
>> I may not totally understand; but I am still responsible for the
>> pac
Hello Adam,
>> The one to fix the ::Scan issue *must* rename the existing Scan
>> method to Scan_internal(or some such), and make a new Scan that
>> matches the old api signature, and calls Scan_internal in a loop.
>
> Why doesn't change the code to check the return value?
I've sent a patch to tr
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:14:53AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I'm sorry, I am on a public terminal, and can't quite remember where I
read it - But testing should always be close to a releasable state.
That assumption is both false and absurd. Testing has exactly two
advantages over unstable--1) all
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:10:08PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
> I truly didn't expect to be attacked on my first post. I also truly
> didn't expect to be further lambasted from all quarters for responding
> to them.
IIRC, the debian-devel mailing list has always been a no-nonsense forum.
Honestly,
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Clay Crouch wrote:
> Folks,
>
> My most humble apologies.
Doubt that. You haven't changed your ways.
> It has become quite clear that the culture that the DD community
> shares has evolved in my absence. My absence disallowed me to
> evolve with it. The culture you now enjo
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:10:08PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
> It has become quite clear that the culture that the DD community
> shares has evolved in my absence. My absence disallowed me to
> evolve with it. The culture you now enjoy is not the one I left.
Eh? Culture? Look, your anti-spam mea
On Wednesday 14 May 2003 11:05 am, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2003 09:36:57 -0700, Keegan Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> The only solution I think is if dpkg were to take over
> >> responsibility for deleting configuration files, so that the postrm
> >> script doesn't have to wo
On Wed, 14 May 2003 19:25:20 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:22:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Silly? My, we must have a chip on our choulder. Equally silly as
>> non-maintainers having delusions of control over what gets shipped
>> with a packa
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:31:53AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 06:35:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Yes, but this is not something that is clearly said. Many people run
> > testing without even being aware that there may be security issues, or
> > more precisely, t
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> so maybe it was actually only filed in my
> brain (which has no web interface) ...
We need a bug system for developer's brains.
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:27:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
[...]
> P.S. To the extent that the DDTP gives the package maintainer veto
> rights, it seems pretty clear that at least initially the DDTP
> believed that the package maintainer was ultimately responsible.
> Given comments and the ten
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> Heck, there are parts of the code for packages that I maintain
> that I may not totally understand; but I am still responsible for
> the package. When there are things I think the upstream has done
> incorrectly, I
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:15:04PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This is documented prominently on the website. If people do not look
> > before they leap, there is little we can do.
>
> Sure we can. We can consider the lack of security updates for testing to
> be a
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:27:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:07:29PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> >
> > Your engagement for the quality of your package is really great. Only, I
> > think that you are not responsible of the translation. I know that there is
> > a lac
On Wed, 14 May 2003 19:17:50 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:18:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> As a package developer I hold veto powers over anything shipped in
>> my package, since it is my signature that goes with it, and I
On Wed, 14 May 2003 09:36:57 -0700, Keegan Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> The only solution I think is if dpkg were to take over
>> responsibility for deleting configuration files, so that the postrm
>> script doesn't have to worry.
> I think that in this situation, package a should check if
Hi Folks
I'll be visiting friends close to Atlanta between the 22nd and
the 30th this month.
If some local Debian or Linux/Unix people are interested, I'd be
happy to meet them. Just let me know. :-)
Cheers
Mike
--
-
Mich
On Wed, 14 May 2003 19:07:18 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:07:29 +0200, Martin Quinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > Your engagement for the quality of your pack
Hi,
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 06:35:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> Yes, but this is not something that is clearly said. Many people run
>> testing without even being aware that there may be security issues, or
>> more precisely, that the security issues are orders of ma
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:22:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:04:43 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Sure it is. If they believe that the translator is wrong, they can
> > ask a trusted person of their own to review the translation. It is
> > sil
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:18:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are
> > done except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a
> > translation team works, but you do not understand the language,
> > tough luck.
>
>
Folks,
My most humble apologies.
It has become quite clear that the culture that the DD community
shares has evolved in my absence. My absence disallowed me to
evolve with it. The culture you now enjoy is not the one I left.
I truly didn't expect to be attacked on my first post. I also
truly did
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Figuring that a security upload would be preferable, I approached the
> security team and offered to prepare an upload. I was effectively told
> that this isn't done, and because it isn't done, most testing users don't
> have secur
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:07:29 +0200, Martin Quinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Your engagement for the quality of your package is really
> > great. Only, I think that you are not responsible of the
> > translation.
>
>
> Is there a definition on what format I should use for that file?
If you only want to change font setting for GTK2 apps, try adding
line:
gtk-font-name = "Verdana 10"
Or any other font available for X in scheme
gtk-font-name = "face size"
Regards,
Mati
(removing -private _again_)
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:14:53AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I'm sorry, I am on a public terminal, and can't quite remember where I
> read it - But testing should always be close to a releasable state.
The key word being "close" to releasable (or "almost" releasable
05/14/2003 09:34 AM The original attachment contains a virus or meets the
File-Blocking rules. ScanMail took action: Q231893.exe/Moved, please see your
Exchange Server administrator for details!
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:08:34PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > IMHO, it is only particularly valuable for users to run testing when a
> > release is approaching (at which point security updates and removals
> > take place en masse).
>
> Wasn't testing supposed to be a perpetually mostly-re
On Tuesday 13 May 2003 07:31 pm, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:21:33AM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> > On Monday 12 May 2003 04:40 pm, Brian May wrote:
> > > Also, just blindly purging packages can be dangerous, in some cases old
> > > packages will purge files used by newer packages
Quoting Mateusz Papiernik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I don't use Gnome2 as a desktop manager, eg. I don't have panels
> > running, I only use gaim, which links against libgtk2. So the problem
> > is where gaim (and other libgtk2 using apps) don't start some
> > component that gnome-control-center doe
On Wed, 14 May 2003 14:27, Clay Crouch wrote:
> Hmmm An ettiquette lesson before a "welcome back" and a work
> assignemnt, just because you find my anti-spam measures draconian and my
> filter bypass info in my sig to be annoying.
When such lessons are needed they should be dealt with first.
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:24:03PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, I wasn't aware of any of the pre-plans Kalle refers to. I
> > didn't think anyone had actually picked up this ball yet.
>
> "Pre-plans" in this case means that two people (one DD
On Wed, 14 May 2003 11:45:48 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> Or do you send one of those obnoxious autoreplies asking people to
>> confirm their messages to you?
> FWIW, if they are only sent in reply to "spam status dubious"
> messages, I would
On Wed, 14 May 2003 15:16:38 +0200, Björn Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Michael Stone wrote:
>> All the complaints we see every couple of weeks about testing would
>> be swept away if people followed this advice and simply didn't use
>> testing.
> This brings back the question I never got
On Wed, 14 May 2003 09:14:20 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If that's the case, then maybe the testing distribution has outlived
> its usefulness. But if people feel otherwise, then it would make
> sense to think of ways in which testing might be able to be more
> true to its o
On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 09:14, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I've solved the problem for myself by just simply biting the bullet
> and using unstable. I either have gotten lucky, or maintainers of
> core packages have gotten much more careful about testing their
> packages before uploading, so I haven't g
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:43:10PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> I can't seem to find the package that xf86config belongs to
dpkg -S `which xf86config`
xbase-clients: /usr/X11R6/bin/xf86config
Christoph
--
~
~
".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%--3,41 All
On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:07:29 +0200, Martin Quinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Your engagement for the quality of your package is really
> great. Only, I think that you are not responsible of the
> translation.
The maintainer is responsible for the package. And, unless the
translation i
On Wed, 14 May 2003 16:27:53 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> To the extent that the DDTP gives the package maintainer veto
>> rights, it seems pretty clear that at least initially the DDTP
>> believed that the package maintainer was ultimately respo
[I only speak for myself, and not for the french translation team neither
for the ddtp, in which I'm not involved at all. Please flame *me* for what I
say]
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:27:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:07:29PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> >
> > Your
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
