* Andreas Barth:
> For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah, thanks. Pretty obvious in retrospect.
> For proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only sent upon approval,
> but I'm not sure (it would be debian-changes@lists.debian.org).
Mail after approval is good enough for my purposes, thanks.
--
T
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Winnertz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: liblatex-tom-perl
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/~schubiger/LaTeX-TOM-0.6/lib/LaTeX/TOM.pm
* License
Hi,
On Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:37:06 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ah, thanks. Pretty obvious in retrospect.
>
> > For proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only sent upon approval,
> > but I'm not sure (it would be debian-changes@list
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 10:24:26AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I disagree. Not only because the bug is not RC, but because you could say
> > the same for users running other virtualization technologies (UML? Vmware?)
> > with similar behaviours.
>
> Do they behave in the same way?
Well, not t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: brouette
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Sébastien Tricaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.wallinfire.net/brouette/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Descr
Hello
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was
> not signed; which means there is no information about who is sending
> the ballot. This is a legitimate addition to the ballot; I'll po
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:11:38PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
> seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signature
> won't verify, because I deleted the votes):
You had your message signed, then put the sign
Hello
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:15:40 +0200
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:11:38PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> > It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
> > seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signat
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:11:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was not
>> signed; which means there is no information about who is sen
Hi
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:04:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the most creative and weird action I have seen in the
> last few elections.
>
> You send an encrypted mail, which was not itself signed. This
> caused the vote to be rejected. Now, the b
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:04:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:11:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Hello On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the messa
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> IIRC signing subkeys are not accepted at package uploads, so maybe that's
> what you were thinking about.
AFAIK, they are.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the
Scribit Steve Langasek dies 01/04/2007 hora 13:09:
> Hrm, is there really an RFC that specifies encryption before signing?
AFAIK, the RFC specifies how to build an encrypted MIME body and a
signed body. When you want both, you can either store a signed body in
the encrypted one, or an encrypted an
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> For the rare case of a Xen instance with multiple
Russell> Ethernet devices it would be easy to modify the config
Russell> file in question - which is actually an easier task than
Russell> determining how to corr
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 07:37:47PM +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Please welcome the Smith Review Project to the galaxy of Debian projects.
>
> Project presentation
>
> This work is intended to continue all through the etch->lenny release
> cycle and be
> What about putting standardisation of descriptions and package names in
> these, too ?
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/02/msg00125.html
Descriptions is part of the game but we might need people with ideas
in that area to join in.
For package names, I'm unsure: this has technica
On Sunday 01 April 2007 23:19, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > IIRC signing subkeys are not accepted at package uploads, so maybe
> > that's what you were thinking about.
>
> AFAIK, they are.
Policy URLs are not accepted, that's what I was thi
> Please welcome the Smith Review Project to the galaxy of Debian projects.
As I keep getting mails saying that this is "a good one", I need to
send this disclaimer:
Despite the date, this project is definitely *not* a joke. I'm really
sorry that April 1st is a Sunday, the day where I have time
Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
testing-propposed-updates?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070401 11:00]:
> Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
> alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
> testing-propposed-updates?
For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only s
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
> alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
> testing-propposed-updates?
debian-testing-changes will show upload to TPU, such as xmms
1:1.2.10+20061101-1etch1
21 matches
Mail list logo
