Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org): > My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient technical > advantages of one over the other. Either postfix or exim4 meets our needs > for a default MTA, and both have packages that appear to be well-supported > by their maintainers an

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Manoj Srivastava writes: > and documentation all over the place that assumes the Debian > default is Exim I think that's a weakness that should be addressed regardless of what happens with the default. [Of course changing defaults is one way to force the issue a bit, but of course it doesn't sto

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 10:22:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, May 09 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Sat, 09 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient > >> technical advantages of one over the other. > > Just going by what

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, May 09 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 09 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: >> My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient >> technical advantages of one over the other. > > Just going by what MTAs -ctte members are running, it'd be 3, 2, 2 > (postfix, exim, and sendm

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, 09 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient > technical advantages of one over the other. Just going by what MTAs -ctte members are running, it'd be 3, 2, 2 (postfix, exim, and sendmail.) [Though I honestly wouldn't suggest sendmail a

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 08:55:11AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org): > > If this were put to the TC, I can't see any way that this would be anything > > more than a poll of the personal preferences of the members of the TC. If > > someone who's in a pos

Bug#527985: ITP: libbind -- DNS resolver and message parsing library

Package: wnpp Owner: "Robert S. Edmonds" Severity: wishlist * Package name: libbind Version : 6.0 Upstream Author : Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. * URL : https://www.isc.org/software/libbind * License : ISC Programming Lang: C Description : DNS reso

Re: Bug#527557: general: should have a help tracker for each package

On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 13:15 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi Ritesh, > > thank you for your suggestion on how to improve Debian! Even though I'm > closing this bug on the assumption that it ain't useful to report arbitary > wishlist bugs about things which could be implemented to improve Debian,

Bug#527962: ITP: jstest-gtk -- joystick testing and configuration tool

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Miriam Ruiz * Package name: jstest-gtk Version : 0.1.0 Upstream Author : Ingo Ruhnke * URL : http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/jstest-gtk/ * License : GPL3+ Programming Lang: C++ Description : joystick testing and

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

On tisdagen den 28 april 2009, Noah Slater wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:04:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Many of the more popular MUAs on your list have this command already, > > Can you name any others apart from mutt that come with this by default? Kmail is one. -- Magnus Holmgren

Bug#527951: ITP: haskell-editline -- Haskell bindings to the BSD editline library (libedit)

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Chris Lamb X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: haskell-editline Version : 0.2.1.0 Upstream Author : Judah Jacobson * URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/editline * License

Re: texlive restrictive licence in main prevents derived works?

Neil Williams wrote: > It looks like packages that build-depend on tex* will simply not build > on Emdebian Grip - for (of all things) legal reasons - without pulling > the unchanged Debian packages. It means bringing in the massive > Packages.gz file from Debian but then, the texlive dependencie

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

also sprach Peter Eisentraut [2009.05.09.1142 +0200]: > There are really two orthogonal things being discussed here: One question is > whether the default MTA should be a full or proper implementation versus a > tiny and limited implementation (or -- the latest idea -- none at all). The > othe

Bug#527286: Current state

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Mathieu Parent To keep history: ansel1 is currently on git.debian.org [1] and reviewed by reg [2]. It will be maintained by me and others in the pkg-horde team. Regards Mathieu Parent [1] [2]

Bug#527906: ITP: ocaml-text -- library for dealing with sequences of Unicode characters

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Stephane Glondu * Package name: ocaml-text Version : 0.2 Upstream Author : Jeremie Dimino * URL : http://ocaml-text.forge.ocamlcore.org/ * License : BSD-C3 Programming Lang: C, OCaml Description : library for de

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Saturday 09 May 2009 02:35:18 Micah Anderson wrote: > Some people clearly want postfix as the default MTA in Debian (I do), > and some people dont want the default to change from Exim. There are > some people who want something else, but so far that something else has > not be technically satisf

Re: Bug#527557: general: should have a help tracker for each package

Hi Holger, My proposal is just to see if there can be a way to glue up all the bits n' pieces together. There is a lot of information scattered at multiple places, which if mined properly, can serve as one of the best resource. Debian Bug Reports contain a lot of valuable data. But is it conne

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

Steve Langasek writes: > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > That seems like a good reason to go through this exercise. > > No. Figure out which packages actually should be changed, *then* file > bugs. By “this exercise” I'm referring to the discussion here in debian