Le Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 01:09:09PM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
>
> grep -ir copyright *
>
> Do that over your source and then compare what you have in debian/copyright.
> You might be surprised how often that turns up missing stuff. Check your own
> packages at least as carefully as you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/09/14 20:46, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Daniel Pocock:
>>
c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants
can sell their time through an auction process. [...]
>>>
>>> I hope this is a joke.
>>
>> Not entirel
Hi,
Daniel Pocock:
>
> >> c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants can sell
> >> their time through an auction process. [...]
> >
> > I hope this is a joke.
>
> Not entirely
> I was not suggesting people would pay to have their packages approved.
> Only that there would be p
On 05/09/14 18:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg"):
>> This is really the root of the problem and I agree that it would be nice
>> to find ways to help them. A solution is good for the FTP masters and
>> goo
On Friday, September 05, 2014 18:21:28 Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 05/09/14 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > It is true that long NEW processing queues is a big problem. But it
> > appears that a substantial amount of core team effort is being used to
> > deal with poor submissions. If we can fix that
Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg"):
> This is really the root of the problem and I agree that it would be nice
> to find ways to help them. A solution is good for the FTP masters and
> good for the project.
I agree.
> Another way to look at y
On 05/09/14 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
> It is true that long NEW processing queues is a big problem. But it
> appears that a substantial amount of core team effort is being used to
> deal with poor submissions. If we can fix that, we can fix the long
> queue.
>
This is really the root of the
Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg"):
> There is one package I recently uploaded where I meant to use a
> repackaged tarball to get rid of an embedded binary toolchain JAR. This
> is a more nasty mistake of course but thanks to the diligence of the F
On 03/09/14 17:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg"):
>> It may not simply be the person
>>
>> Somebody uploading packages where they are also the upstream may know
>> the copyright situation inside out and j
Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg"):
> It may not simply be the person
>
> Somebody uploading packages where they are also the upstream may know
> the copyright situation inside out and just cut and paste
> debian/copyright from one package to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/08/14 16:39, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 20, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> I think we need a reputation system here.
>>
>> Eg, you could sort the NEW queue by something like
>>
>> number of REJECTs of uploader's packages in last 12 months
>>
On Aug 20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think we need a reputation system here.
>
> Eg, you could sort the NEW queue by something like
>
>number of REJECTs of uploader's packages in last 12 months
>---
>number of ACCEPT or REJECT
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg"):
> there is one thing that we can do: increase the quality of the
> packages that we submit to the NEW queue. Acording to one member of
> the FTP Master team, up to 80 % of the packages have a problem [0].
> Ind
It has now appeared in the repos! Thanks everyone.
https://packages.qa.debian.org/libb/libbitcoin.html
On 13/08/14 09:20, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net):
>>
>>> However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and
>>> has been missed. Any informa
Hello Charles
> Peer review can help, by making sure that the final controllers (the FTP
> Master
> team) do not waste their time reporting defects that others could have found.
> You can find a process for peer review at the URL below.
>https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview
I like a lot
Thank you.
On 13/08/14 09:20, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net):
>>
>>> However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and
>>> has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated.
>>> The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dea
Hi!
Thanks for the response. I've had review on my license by the SFLC and
the FSF. See their responses here:
https://wiki.unsystem.net/en/index.php/Libbitcoin/License
Also I have emails from the Debian mailing list on this issue which I
can contribute. Is there anything I need to do to pass tha
> Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net):
>
> > However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and
> > has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated.
> > The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dead judging from
> > their mailing list.
Le Wed, Aug 13
Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net):
> However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and
> has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated.
> The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dead judging from
> their mailing list.
Hello,
That seems to be
Hi!
A Debian developer Jonas Smedegard has worked with me to package my
software since I first opened an ITP in April 2012.
Finally we finish to resolve all the outstanding issues after some
months, and I was very happy to see it pushed ready to be uploaded on 17
June.
https://ftp-master.debian.o
20 matches
Mail list logo
