Thomas Goirand wrote...
> We already have RFA, where maintainers are asking for adoption. I fail
> to see how a different type of bug will trigger a quicker adoption. An
> ITR is going to (unfortunately) achieve the exact same thing as an RFA,
> which in most cases is ... no much.
I disagree. The
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Currently, RM bugs are filed against ftp.debian.org.
>
> It might make sense to have them filed against ftp.debian.org *and* the
> package to be removed, instead. That way, people who care about the
> package are more likely to see
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> What is the point of RFA?
>
> I mean why don't you just Orphan it and continue to maintain it with
> QA uploads until a volunteer wants to adopt it?
I wasn't around when RFA was invented, but:
You might want to have choose amongst the potenti
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:26 AM, peter green wrote:
> On that note one thing that doesn't seem to be easy/well documented is how
> to go about finding the bugs that affected a package at the time of it's
> removal. If I go to the bugs page for the package and select "archived and
> unarchived" I se
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Hugh McMaster wrote:
> This is a Debian-specific change.
Will you be asking upstream to remove it too?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
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: 1158 (new: 2)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 167 (new: 7)
Total number of packages reques
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> We already have RFA, where maintainers are asking for adoption. I fail
> to see how a different type of bug will trigger a quicker adoption. An
> ITR is going to (unfortunately) achieve the exact same thing as an RFA,
> which in most cases is
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 12:23 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > I disagree, I'm afraid. As a user, the speed in which we do removals
> > from testing or unstable shouldn't matter to you. What matters is that
> > the software you need
On February 1, 2018 8:24:05 PM UTC, Abou Al Montacir
wrote:
>On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 12:23 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 11:10 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
>> > In general I agree with this as a DD, but when I wear my user hat I
>don't.
>>
>> I disagree, I'm afraid. As
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:45:55AM +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> On 01/02/18 09:40, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > Why would filing a third RC bug (the "proposed-RM") and waiting one
> > month more change anything? Why would someone turn up to fix them now?
>
> Why not? I *was* already doing just t
On 02/01/2018 01:12 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> One issue: on a small screen, crap font and no glasses, "ITR" looks similar
> to "ITP", an alternate acronym could be better.
>
> Meow.
Hi,
I very much appreciate your intent here, which is for sure, to make
Debian nicer and more welcoming. However,
Hi everyone,
I intend to do a mass bug filing against all packages that use freetype-config
and/or freetype.m4,
as these APIs will be removed from libfreetype6-dev in the next maintainer
release. This is a
Debian-specific change.
Freetype-config has been considered deprecated for several year
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:42:13PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> peter green writes:
> >> If you do reintroduce it, please note the extra steps (reopening bugs
> >> in particular)
> > On that note one thing that doesn't seem to be easy/well documented is
> > how to go about finding the bugs that
peter green writes:
>> If you do reintroduce it, please note the extra steps (reopening bugs
>> in particular)
> On that note one thing that doesn't seem to be easy/well documented is
> how to go about finding the bugs that affected a package at the time
> of it's removal. If I go to the bugs page
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 12:23 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 11:10 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > In general I agree with this as a DD, but when I wear my user hat I don't.
>
> I disagree, I'm afraid. As a user, the speed in which we do removals
> from testing or unstable s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alf Gaida
* Package name: qt5-engines-kvantum
Version : 10.5
Upstream Author : Pedram Pourang
* URL : https://github.com/tsujan/Kvantum
* License : GPL-3.0+
Programming Lang: C++, etc
Description : SVG-based the
If you do reintroduce it, please note the extra steps (reopening bugs
in particular)
On that note one thing that doesn't seem to be easy/well documented is how to go about
finding the bugs that affected a package at the time of it's removal. If I go to the bugs
page for the package and select "
On 2018-02-01 15:03, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I agree that the FTP team should not second guess the maintainer's
removal request. However, with or without a new ITR process, I think
it
would be justified (and good practice) for the FTP team to start
requiring the maintainer to record in the bug th
* Scott Kitterman [180201 09:04]:
> On February 1, 2018 1:47:17 PM UTC, Marvin Renich wrote:
> >I agree that the FTP team should not second guess the maintainer's
> >removal request. However, with or without a new ITR process, I think
> >it would be justified (and good practice) for the FTP team
On February 1, 2018 1:47:17 PM UTC, Marvin Renich wrote:
>* Mattia Rizzolo [180201 03:26]:
>> I seriously doubt ITRs or somesuch would help, you wouldn't notice
>them
>> anyway.
>> If you can parse a list of ITRs you can equally easy parse a list of
>> packages with open RC bugs with next to th
* Mattia Rizzolo [180201 03:26]:
> I seriously doubt ITRs or somesuch would help, you wouldn't notice them
> anyway.
> If you can parse a list of ITRs you can equally easy parse a list of
> packages with open RC bugs with next to the same effect.
I disagree. As a user, if I see RC bugs on a pack
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ole Streicher
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: pytest-astropy
Version : 0.2.1
Upstream Author : Thomas Robitaille
* URL : https://github.com/astropy/pytest-astropy
* Lice
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 11:10:43AM +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > On 01/02/18 09:45, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> >> On 01/02/18 09:40, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> >>> So there was plenty of time to fix them.
> >>>
> >>> Why would filing a third RC bug (the "proposed-RM") and waiting one
> >>> month mor
On February 1, 2018 12:53:40 PM UTC, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Removing packages perhaps too
>aggressively?"):
>> As the FTP team member that processed that removal, I can tell you I
>think
>> it's perfectly fine. I don't think the FTP team should be in the
>business of
Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?"):
> As the FTP team member that processed that removal, I can tell you I think
> it's perfectly fine. I don't think the FTP team should be in the business of
> second guessing maintainers that say their packages should be
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Oh wow, I didn't realize x3270 got removed. :(
...
> I agree that you shouldn't second-guess, but I think you can at least
> enforce some comment to be present. As someone who now ponders to
> re-introduce the package I have zero context as wel
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 11:10 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> In general I agree with this as a DD, but when I wear my user hat I don't.
I disagree, I'm afraid. As a user, the speed in which we do removals
from testing or unstable shouldn't matter to you. What matters is that
the software you need
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 23:00 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On January 31, 2018 10:34:28 PM UTC, Michael Biebl
> wrote:
> > Am 31.01.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Don Armstrong:
> > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > > > Me too likes to extend the removal notice for few weeks/months.
> > >
On 01/02/18 09:45, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> On 01/02/18 09:40, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Andrej Shadura writes:
>>> On 31/01/18 21:01, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Here you go, there's #871004 for you. Missed jessie, stretch,
> not in testing, no uploads since the beginning of 2017.
I do
On 01.02.2018 05:18, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:56:21 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>>> For example
>>
>> Here is another example of a low-quality RM bug; removal at request of
>> the maintainer, with no reason stated.
>
Andrej Shadura writes:
> On 01/02/18 09:40, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Andrej Shadura writes:
>>> On 31/01/18 21:01, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Here you go, there's #871004 for you. Missed jessie, stretch,
> not in testing, no uploads since the beginning of 2017.
I don't think you'll g
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:37 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote...
>
> > Thus, I'd like to propose a new kind of wnpp bug: "Intent To Remove".
>
> Sounds like a very good idea. For me, I could automatically parse these
> and check against the list of packages installed on my syste
Andrej Shadura writes:
> On 31/01/18 21:01, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>>> Here you go, there's #871004 for you. Missed jessie, stretch,
>>> not in testing, no uploads since the beginning of 2017.
>>
>> I don't think you'll get much sympathy for a package being removed
>> from unstable when it hasn't shi
On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 at 08:50:05 +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > I don't think you'll get much sympathy for a package being removed
> > from unstable when it hasn't shipped with a Debian release since
> > Wheezy, and has continuously been out of Testing for 3.5 years.
>
> True, it hasn't. But if y
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 08:16:31AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> So for example "RM: RoQA; unmaintained upstream, orphaned, low popcon"
> (but with no actually known RC bugs) would go via an ITR bug, but
> removals for long-standing RC bugs would usually be immediate? That
> sounds fair, and is si
On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 at 01:12:21 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Thus, I'd like to propose a new kind of wnpp bug: "Intent To Remove".
This sounds like a formalization of the "foo: should this package be
removed?" bugs that some people already use[1]. I was wondering whether
to suggest formalizing th
Adam Borowski writes:
> One issue: on a small screen, crap font and no glasses, "ITR" looks similar
> to "ITP", an alternate acronym could be better.
RFI (Request for Interest)
RFU (Request for Users)
POLL (Participate Or Let's Lose this)
--
\“Politics is not the art of the possib
37 matches
Mail list logo
