Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Johannes Schauer
* Package name: rss-bridge
Version : 2017-08-03
Upstream Author : sebsauvage
Mitsukarenai
Pierre Mazière
logmanoriginal
* URL : https://github.com/R
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk writes:
>>> Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired
>>> maintainer would be very bad.
>> I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking
>> about
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired
> > maintainer would be very bad.
>
> I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking about
> team-maintained packa
On Aug 3, 2017, at 17:57, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> While at DebCamp, Stefano Rivera and I sat down to analyze what needs to be
> done
> to deprecate Python2 usage within the distribution. It might not be possible
> to
> drop Python2 for the next release, but there are still too many issues wi
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:16:30PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
> > > proponents: What does th
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:11:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tobias Frost writes:
>
> > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have
> > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a
> > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did not recogn
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: 1110 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 167 (new: 2)
Total number of packages reques
Adrian Bunk writes:
> Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired
> maintainer would be very bad.
I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking about
team-maintained packages. The whole *point* of team maintenance is that
there's no reason to orp
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
> > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,
> > actually give others? Are they
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
>...
> What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
> proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,
> actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons
> privately when emai
Clint Adams writes:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
>> proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,
>> actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy.
> >
> > This would not be "a purely informative change".
> >
> > Your suggested wording has
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
> proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,
> actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons
> privately when emails to
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:04:17PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> […]
> Thanks for putting my thoughts (again!) into better words than I ever
> could!
+1
> > (I am entirely in favor of giving the MIA team more actual power.)
> (Me too.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:25:32 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
Thanks for your long and elaborate email.
Unfortunately I find myself disagreeing with your two main points:
> I wonder whether we are framing this in the right way anyway. There
> are two orthogonal questions in my mind:
> - is a speci
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tobias Frost writes:
> > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have
> > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a
> > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did not recognize that
While at DebCamp, Stefano Rivera and I sat down to analyze what needs to be done
to deprecate Python2 usage within the distribution. It might not be possible to
drop Python2 for the next release, but there are still too many issues with
packages. For now we identified some categories which need f
* Steffen Möller:
> The HPC community does not want to need root privileges to get their
> software installed/used on the HPC setup. This excludes regular
> Debian packages, traditional containers like Docker and chroot
> environments.
So they would rather give the user full file system access on
On 08/03/2017 08:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
>> Do the MIA team also track MIA teams?
>
>> My concern is that packages without maintainers may go unnoticed when
>> none of its previously active maintainers were tracked individually.
>
>> For such detection of abando
Tobias Frost writes:
> Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have
> retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a
> lot "team maintained" packages where the team did not recognize that the
> (sole) Uploader wasn't there anymore and the packages wer
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Do the MIA team also track MIA teams?
> My concern is that packages without maintainers may go unnoticed when
> none of its previously active maintainers were tracked individually.
> For such detection of abandonment we need not track _all_ active
> maintainers, but
Quoting Russ Allbery (2017-08-03 11:41:12)
> Bill Allombert writes:
>
> > The patch also remove the requirement to list individual email of the
> > maintainers. That is what I am objecting to.
>
> Oh, okay, I see that, but I'm not sure why. What is the purpose of
> listing those email addresses
Am Donnerstag, den 03.08.2017, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> Hello Tobias,
>
> Thank you for writing about this bug from the MIA team's perspective,
> which is very relevant to resolving this.
>
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:44:36AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Some remarks / questions I d
Hello Tobias,
Thank you for writing about this bug from the MIA team's perspective,
which is very relevant to resolving this.
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:44:36AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Some remarks / questions I do not see adressed:
> - If you have not a name on some task human nature tends
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy.
>
> This would not be "a purely informative change".
>
> Your suggested wording has the potential to create a HUGE amount of tensions.
You're right. After s
Hi.
Christian Seiler - 03.08.17, 17:34:
> On 08/03/2017 03:21 PM, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > thank you for all the links. My main question was why it is not listed at
> > all in the groupware wiki, you could easily list nextcloud/owncloud in
> > the section "Groupware projects not currently conside
Quoting Rainer Dorsch (2017-08-03 09:21:37)
> thank you for all the links. My main question was why it is not
> listed at all in the groupware wiki, you could easily list
> nextcloud/owncloud in the section "Groupware projects not currently
> considered for inclusion in Debian".
The wiki page
Bill Allombert writes:
> The patch also remove the requirement to list individual email of the
> maintainers. That is what I am objecting to.
Oh, okay, I see that, but I'm not sure why. What is the purpose of
listing those email addresses that you want to preserve?
> When a team is reduced to
Hi,
On 08/03/2017 03:21 PM, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> thank you for all the links. My main question was why it is not listed at
> all
> in the groupware wiki, you could easily list nextcloud/owncloud in the
> section
> "Groupware projects not currently considered for inclusion in Debian".
It's
On 2017-08-03 14:21, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
So I can see multiple solutions
1) Debian includes nextcloud only in unstable and testing (probably
most
compatible with the nextcloud/owncloud business models, see also
https://
help.nextcloud.com/t/will-nextcloud-be-inviting-to-distribution-packages/
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:12:55PM +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> Hi Guido,
>
> just wondering, did you consider nextcloud as groupware?
Yes. I had owncl...@packages.debian.org on the list of people
contacted.
-- Guido
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
Package name: libengine-gost-openssl1.1
Version: 1
Upstream Author: Many
URL: https://github.com/gost-engine/
License: OpenSSL license
Descript
Hi Martin,
thank you for all the links. My main question was why it is not listed at all
in the groupware wiki, you could easily list nextcloud/owncloud in the section
"Groupware projects not currently considered for inclusion in Debian".
I always had the impression that part of the motivation
Package: wnpp
Followup-For: Bug #655420
Owner: =?utf-8?q?Carn=C3=AB_Draug?=
Hello Rainer.
Rainer Dorsch - 03.08.17, 13:12:
> Hi Guido,
>
> just wondering, did you consider nextcloud as groupware?
Owncloud has been in Debian… and its past maintainers gave up on maintaining
it. For a part of the discussion see:
Debian Bug report logs - #822681
RM: owncloud -- ROM; Unfit
Hi Guido,
just wondering, did you consider nextcloud as groupware?
Thanks
Rainer
Am Mittwoch, 2. August 2017, 19:44:14 CEST schrieb Guido Günther:
> Hi,
> The 10th Debian Groupware Meeting[1] was held on a weekend in April in
> the LinuxHotel, Essen, Germany[2]. We were five people altogether.
>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:30:11PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Bill Allombert writes:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Bill Allombert writes:
> > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >
> > >> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
>...
> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
> packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphaned
> properly, with their maintainer field set to the QA team. This is
> already current best p
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> >> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
> >> packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphan
Am 2. August 2017 23:48:15 MESZ schrieb Sean Whitton :
>Hello,
>
>Here is an updated diff for this bug, against the docbook version of
>the policy manual.
>
>I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
>packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphaned
>prop
41 matches
Mail list logo
