* Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 14:54 -0500]:
> This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles
> somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK.
Sorry sweetie, I'm not a boy and have no pickle to compare.
--
off the chain like a rebe
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 20:23 +0100]:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Joerg Jaspert writes:
> >> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
> >>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting
> >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-anno
* Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:22 09:14 -0800]:
> (debbugs's strong point is handling a small
> number of bugs on *lots* of different packages; I find it somewhat
> difficult to follow when dealing with a *lot* of bugs on a single
> package.)
OT for this thread, but: do you notice th
* Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:22 08:10 +0100]:
> > > Bureaucracy is often designed to do lots of things "better" and it often
> > > doesn't achieve them. It creates needless hassle, more 'paperwork', and
> > > has very few benefits besides making people feel like they've done
>
* Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:21 17:32 +0100]:
> Erinn Clark wrote:
> > There are plenty of people who are maintaining packages alone
> > that are doing an excellent job
>
> True. However, the issue in question is whether or not it would be
> bett
* Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:21 12:23 +0100]:
> I don't think that it is ridiculous to require that every package have a
> team behind it---i.e., at least two maintainers. First, if someone can't
> find ONE other person willing to be named as a co-maintainer of a given
> package the
* Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:11 19:43 -0500]:
[...]
Oops, this was meant for -project. Apologies for the noise.
--
off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:11 16:32 -0800]:
> On Saturday 10 December 2005 12:07 pm, Josh Rehman wrote:
>
> > As for being warned, I was told that because my discussion was about
> > ubuntu I should stop. Because I felt my discussion was not about
> > ubuntu, I did not feel that
* Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 12:45 -0500]:
> * Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 17:48 +0100]:
> > Le vendredi 09 d?cembre 2005 ? 12:07 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
> > > Ingo's burnt a fair number of bridges wrt buildd i
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 13:27 -0600]:
> I'm surprised you think raising ones voice civilly in concern
> about a problem area in Debian is not playing nicely with others. Is
> your contention that some volunteers are so much more equal than
> others that no vo
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 12:47 -0600]:
> Err, so if a NM candidate speaks as openly as some DD's do,
> they get threatened with having their applications cancelled because
> of them speaking their minds? What is this, a munich beer hall in
> 1933?
Isn't the p
* Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 17:48 +0100]:
> Le vendredi 09 d?cembre 2005 ? 12:07 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
> > Ingo's burnt a fair number of bridges wrt buildd issues; I'm sorry,
> > but I don't really care if volunteers decline to work with people who're
> > obnoxious
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:11:23 18:40 +0100]:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:34:41 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar
> >Just to provide some statistics about dpkg-sig usage, as I got curious
> >about it too:
> >
> >In the archive, 525 out of 283283 .deb's are dpkg-sig'd (0.19%). There
> >are 8 d
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:11:23 11:07 +0100]:
> What are you trying to do instead? If you might have noticed, we have
> _just_ _another_ ftpmaster situation _right_ _now_, and from handling
> of #339686 by a member of the DPL team I don't get the impression that
> the DPL team actuall
* Dave Carrigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:11:16 07:33 -0800]:
> I am quite sure that there are Debian *users* out there that have legacy
> code that only builds under gcc 2.95 (or more likely g++ 2.95) and they
> haven't ported it to a newer C compiler because there is no business
> case for it.
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:09:23 18:11 -0300]:
> From memory, lyx is a major mess that FTBFS with gcc4 in very horripilant
> ways, uses yada, and is otherwise NMU-unfriendly IMHO. But it has been some
> time since I tried to build it.
The build system has been change
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:09:23 11:19 -0700]:
>
> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
> for such packages?
Hi Thomas,
AIUI, there are lyx packages ready, but there was a p
* Guglielmo Dapavo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:01:25 17:08 +0100]:
> Description : Pizza takeaway managment program written in gtk
^
management.
--
off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide
signature.asc
* Fernanda Giroleti Weiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:12:02 12:28 -0200]:
> I'll paste here a part of a message from Hellen on Debian-women mailing
> list. I'm sure you will read and think a little bit about.
>
> "It is also the type of discussion that deterred me
> from becoming involved in Debi
19 matches
Mail list logo
