On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 07:54:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Sorry, but I cannot disclose what is told to me in private.
Yes you can, you just cannot do it without announcing it beforehand to
the parties involved.
--
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gabriele Giacone
* Package name: ispy
Version : 1.4.1
Upstream Author : iSpy contributors
* URL : http://iguana.web.cern.ch/iguana/ispy/
* License : GPL | LGPL | BSD | ... (to verify)
Programming Lang: C++
Descriptio
On Fri, Dec 04 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 03/12/09 at 23:55 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>>
>> > Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
>> > be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-p
On Fri, Dec 04 2009, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Nothing wrong with that. But when people are told to shut up
>> since Supe Speshul Sekrit discussions are going one betwen Really Ver
>> Important People, and the people partaking in the open dis
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 03/12/09 at 23:55 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>>
>>> Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
>>> be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
>>> mailing list. I
Russell Coker writes:
> They were asked to take it to private email - which is not the same as
> telling them to shut up.
I maintain that it *is* the same thing, unless very carefully phrased to
avoid that interpretation. The message received is at least as important
as the message intended.
>
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
>> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
>> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
On 03/12/09 at 23:55 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
> > Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
> > be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
> > mailing list. I don't see a reason to ma
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Nothing wrong with that. But when people are told to shut up
> since Supe Speshul Sekrit discussions are going one betwen Really Ver
> Important People, and the people partaking in the open discussions are
> not important enough to be heard
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
> be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
> mailing list. I don't see a reason to make it public right now as it's
> simply not ready. Does it rea
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Russell Coker wrote:
> It's really not uncommon for small groups of developers to discuss things
> privately before raising matters for discussion on the lists or for list
> discussions to be continued in private mail.
Nothing wrong with that. But when people are t
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Luk Claes wrote:
> >> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
> >> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
> >> issues we usually have real discussions on
"Piotr Ożarowski" wrote in message
news:20091203235820.gf6...@piotro.eu...
Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
mailing list. I don't see a reason to make it public right now as it's
si
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:25 AM, أحمد المحمودي
wrote:
> I am working on geda-gaf package [1]. It is almost ready except for a
> single issue: to upgrade the several geda-* packages, they can only
> upgrade using apt-get dist-upgrade, ie. an apt-get upgrade won't
> upgrade them, the reason is t
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
> > package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is
> > imm
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ulrich Dangel
* Package name: shunit2
Version : 2.1.5
Upstream Author : Kate Ward
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/shunit2/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Shell Script
Description : A unit test framework for
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 652 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 140 (new: 0)
Total number of packages request
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
> private mail. The final resu
Right now we're working on updating the Debian Python Policy. Once we'll
be happy with the first set of patches, we'll send them to debian-python
mailing list. I don't see a reason to make it public right now as it's
simply not ready. Does it really matter that I'm not preparing it alone?
If I woul
Tim Abbott wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) patch the debian cddlib package to produce a third library,
>> >libcdd_gmp (or whatever) that can be linked together with
>> >libcdd. This basically migrates the polymake abi changes to the
>> >debian p
Luk Claes writes:
> This discussion on -devel is quite useless and contra productive for
> everyone involved.
Yet it is the forum where everyone *is* involved. This is an open
project, I hope.
> There is currently discussion ongoing about how to move forward,
> though due to the complex nature
Joey Hess wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
>> package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is immaterial
>> to an objective examination of this question.
>
> I think this argument only makes sense if the dis
Steve Langasek wrote:
> The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
> package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is immaterial
> to an objective examination of this question.
I think this argument only makes sense if the distribution they are
working
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:34:42PM -0500, James Vega wrote:
> >> Version: 2.6.2-0ubuntu1 (jaunty)
> >> Apparently uploaded *33 weeks* ago.
> >
> > Perhaps more germane to the head of this thread is that python3.0 is not
> > in Debian, but prereleases were added to Ubuntu apparently in 2007.
>
> Th
Joey Hess wrote:
> Perhaps more germane to the head of this thread is that python3.0 is not
> in Debian, but prereleases were added to Ubuntu apparently in 2007.
There is a python3 and python3.1 package available in experimental.
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>> I think it *is* material in this instance:
>>
>> Versions of python-defaults in Debian:
>> unstable: 2.5.4-2
>> experimental: 2.5.4-3
>>
>> Version of package in Ubuntu:
>> Version: 2.6.4-0ubuntu1 (karmic)
>> Uploaded by: Matth
Frans Pop wrote:
> I think it *is* material in this instance:
>
> Versions of python-defaults in Debian:
> unstable: 2.5.4-2
> experimental: 2.5.4-3
>
> Version of package in Ubuntu:
> Version: 2.6.4-0ubuntu1 (karmic)
> Uploaded by: Matthias Klose
> On date: 2009-10-30 12:05:08 UTC
>
> That is o
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
>> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
>> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
>> private mail. The final r
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:58:58PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I do not completely agree that this is Canonical's fault. IMHO it is
> our fault as well if we do not step in by using the defined ways we have
> (Technical Committee) and sort out the situation for the profit of our
> users. Allowi
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:07:26AM -0400, brem...@unb.ca wrote:
> >
> > I see two solutions so far:
> >
> > 1) patch the debian cddlib package to produce a third library,
> >libcdd_gmp (or whatever) that can be linked together with
> >
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
> private mail. The final resu
OoO Pendant le repas du mardi 01 décembre 2009, vers 19:45, sean finney
disait :
>> This package contains a script which downloads RFCs containing SNMP MIB
>> files and extracts them into /usr/share/mibs/ietf. It also downloads the
>> most current MIBs from IANA and extracts them into /usr/share
Luk Claes wrote:
> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
> private mail. The final result of these discussions is normally also o
Joey Hess wrote:
> So, Debian is no longer an open project?
Why would having pointless discussions and flames on the lists
and because of that private discussions to get real solutions mean that
Debian is not an open project anymore?
The problems are known and are on the lists, the start of discu
So, Debian is no longer an open project?
Luk Claes wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> >> * Frans Pop [2009-12-03 14:11]:
> >>> [1] IMO this question is fair since Matthias is listed as sole
> >>> maintainer for Python packages.
> >> I agree it's a fair question but you guys s
Frans Pop wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>> * Frans Pop [2009-12-03 14:11]:
>>> [1] IMO this question is fair since Matthias is listed as sole
>>> maintainer for Python packages.
>> I agree it's a fair question but you guys should really CC Matthias
>> since -devel is not a required list.
>
> I
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:20:03AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It has been suggested on IRC that having dpkg-source switch back to
> native mode if it can't find the .orig tarball was probably a bad idea
> from the beginning and that it tends to confuse people. However,
> with the addition of n
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:08:15AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> True. IIUC, From a technical point of view, the Social Contract
> demands commitments from contributors with regard to their work for
> Debian; and nobody has committed to do X in Debian before they do it
> for someone else. So, I bel
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:58:58PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > So yes, I do have a problem with the way Canonical is taking developer
> > commitment away from Debian, at least if and when maintainers no longer
> > honor their Debian
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> So yes, I do have a problem with the way Canonical is taking developer
> commitment away from Debian, at least if and when maintainers no longer
> honor their Debian commitments *and* do not allow others to take over the
> work for Deb
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> The question of whether someone is doing an adequate job of maintaining a
> package is a legitimate one. The identity of their employer is
> immaterial to an objective examination of this question.
I think it *is
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:17:26AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> P.S. It's been mentioned on IRC, but not in this thread, that Mathiaz is
> currently ill, so I would suspect reading threads like this isn't currently
> his highest priority.
I hope Mathias will get well soon.
The fact that peop
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:46:48 +0100 Roland Mas wrote:
> The timing of #559206 is probably just an unfortunate coincidence, but
>I find it telling nevertheless.
If you look, you'll find the equivalent Ubuntu upload had the same bug, so
I'm not clear what it's telling you?
Scott K
P.S. It's bee
Steve Langasek, 2009-12-03 06:17:05 -0800 :
[...]
> Conflict of interest? Oh, disregard the previous comments, then;
> apparently this /is/ just a thinly-veiled slander.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure about the state of law worldwide, but
French law has at least two criteria for slander (whic
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Frans Pop [2009-12-03 14:11]:
>> [1] IMO this question is fair since Matthias is listed as sole
>> maintainer for Python packages.
>
> I agree it's a fair question but you guys should really CC Matthias
> since -devel is not a required list.
It wasn't meant as a quest
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> IMO the solution is simple. *We* as the Debian project should make sure
> that core packages of *our* distribution are maintained by people who's
> first priority is Debian, and not another distribution.
Take care to make sure our core
On Do, 03 Dez 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Can the TeX configuration files source other configuration files?
Some can some cannot.
> If this is the case, can't each of the separate configuration files
> source a single file which defines only the papersize? This way
No, that is definitely impossi
* Frans Pop [2009-12-03 14:11]:
> [1] IMO this question is fair since Matthias is listed as sole maintainer
> for Python packages.
I agree it's a fair question but you guys should really CC Matthias
since -devel is not a required list.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCR
I think the proper subject for this mail would have been:
Does the Python maintainer still have Debian as his priority? [1]
Shifting priority seems to be a fairly common pattern (to differing
degrees) for DDs employed by Canonical.
Not at all surprising of course, and not even something to ho
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:40:06AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Are there any other options? Currently, the configuration files in
> question are all conffiles; we'd have to change that, too, I guess. I
> have not followed this field in the last years; I guess ucf is still the
> method of choice i
Hi,
I had thought that I had understood it. But somehow I'm again running
into problems when it comes to manipulating configuration files with
maintainer scripts.
TeXLive contains many binaries that change output depending on the
papersize used. Each of them has a configuration file which - amon
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 04:52:59PM +0100, Adnan Hodzic wrote:
> I'm definitely interested in participating! One question tho, since I'm from
> Bosnia,
nice. :-)
> what other activities (perhaps involving Debian) could I be involved in during
> this whole week, since I wouldn't come to Germa
52 matches
Mail list logo
