Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
Just a note that using Send-To requires to add a bug control file to
each upload to bpo which I consider a huge overkill solution to that.
reportbug's README.developers.gz suggests to use dpkg's Origin and Bugs
tags (see deb-control(5)) instead of Send-To.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:35, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@43-1.org wrote:
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
Just a note that using Send-To requires to add a bug control file to
each upload to bpo which I consider a huge overkill solution to that.
reportbug's README.developers.gz suggests to
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:01:29PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
From a reportbug POV, it's not a big deal to redirect the reports for
bpo packages to something different than sub...@b.d.o. What I need to
know is:
- the address where to send the bugs
- a regular expression (bonus points if
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 15:33, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:01:29PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
From a reportbug POV, it's not a big deal to redirect the reports for
bpo packages to something different than sub...@b.d.o. What I need to
know is:
- the
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 15:33, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:01:29PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
From a reportbug POV, it's not a big deal to redirect the reports for
bpo packages to something different than
Hi all,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:14, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
the alternative solution) seems
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37:55AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
OK, thanks for the clarification. Still, we need to decide—sort of
now—whether we need to add support in reportbug for mailing backport
report bugs to the bpo list or not (and that might require some time, as
someone needs to
On 28/09/10 at 09:16 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37:55AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
OK, thanks for the clarification. Still, we need to decide—sort of
now—whether we need to add support in reportbug for mailing backport
report bugs to the bpo list or not
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 01:29:46PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 28/09/10 at 09:16 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37:55AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
OK, thanks for the clarification. Still, we need to decide—sort of
now—whether we need to add support in
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me and others in the
thread. The proposal also seems to assume a
On 27/09/10 at 10:14 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me and
From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me and others in the
thread. The proposal also seems to assume a different Maintainer
field for the bpo package, as hinted above, am I wrong Don?
Right. The idea here is that
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Stepping in sideways here, but in case you can make use of them,
backports is creating the same debversion info like the main
archive. Want them synced to the bts?
Yes, please.
Don Armstrong
--
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 07:46:56AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for
normal packages (normal
On 22/09/10 13:53, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Thinking about it, what we _conceptually_ need is pretty simple: a
mechanism to declare who is the Maintainer of the bpo package and
enforce its declaration. The responsibility of bpo maintenance will be
on the declared bpo maintainer. If the
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me and others in the
thread. The proposal also seems to assume a different Maintainer
field for the bpo package, as hinted above, am
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
But when someone takes my package and uploads it somewhere other
than the main Debian archive, they incur *all* the responsibilities
of maintaining that package, including the
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 07:46:56AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 06/09/10 at 20:32 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Lu, 06 sep 10, 17:52:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes (Backports service becoming official):
Because of limitations in the Debian Bug Tracking
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider
Some other possibilities;
Move *-backports (and *-volatile) into the main archive like they are in Ubuntu.
Merge the
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 07:46:56AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for
normal packages (normal
On 2010-09-07, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for
normal packages (normal
Hi,
On Dienstag, 7. September 2010, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2010-09-07, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
personally prefer if we had the same
Hi,
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for
normal packages (normal backport
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Sune Vuorela wrote:
I'm not planning to ever provide backports of any of my packages, and
while others are welcome to do it, I do not in any way want to be
bothered by their bugs or upload emails or anything.
Which would call for filtering, not for keeping the bad
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:40:09AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
That I dont think it is. I think you not wanting t be bothered by
backports of your packages is quite an exception,
I don't think it is. I have no problem with people backporting any of my
packages that are useful to them, but I
On 09/06/2010 10:46 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for
normal packages (normal backport
On 09/07/2010 05:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:40:09AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
That I dont think it is. I think you not wanting t be bothered by
backports of your packages is quite an exception,
I don't think it is. I have no problem with people backporting any
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:38:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
personally prefer if we had the same rules
Hi!
* Simon McVittie s...@debian.org [2010-09-06 19:33:34 CEST]:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 at 17:52:17 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
What are the BTS limitations ?
I assume the relevant limitation is that in the BTS' data model, each source
package has a single maintainer, whereas the
Lucas Nussbaum schrieb am Tuesday, den 07. September 2010:
Hi,
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes (Backports service becoming official):
Because of limitations in the Debian Bug Tracking System, any bugs
relevant to backported packages still have to be reported to the
debian
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 08:35:05PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
I really would like to see us trying to work together more effectively
instead of objecting to things right ahead without even knowing wether
it is such a big relevant deal to make a fuzz about. IMHO it isn't, far
from it.
Well
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 09/07/2010 05:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:40:09AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
That I dont think it is. I think you not wanting t be bothered by
backports of your packages is quite an exception,
On 2010-09-07, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
On 09/07/2010 05:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:40:09AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
That I dont think it is. I think you not wanting t be bothered by
backports of your packages is quite an exception,
I don't think it
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
But when someone takes my package and uploads it somewhere other
than the main Debian archive, they incur *all* the responsibilities
of maintaining that package, including the responsibility of
appropriately triaging bug reports and forwarding them to
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes:
On 09/07/2010 05:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't think it is. I have no problem with people backporting any of
my packages that are useful to them, but I shouldn't have to read bug
mail for them. I have enough bugs of my own.
Chances are good that
Gerfried Fuchs rho...@deb.at writes:
To me the solution is to see the person who does the backport as a part
of the packaging team. There is the need for having a communication
channel between the people anyway. Actually more and more packages are
moved into team maintenance and I'm pretty
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
If there's any complexity in the backport, that's probably true. But I'll
note here that for all the backports I do for my packages, all the changes
in the backport are mechanical (and automated) and maintaining that in a
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes (Backports service becoming official):
Because of limitations in the Debian Bug Tracking System, any bugs
relevant to backported packages still have to be reported to the
debian-backports [3] list, which have now also been moved to
lists.debian.org [4].
What
On Lu, 06 sep 10, 17:52:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes (Backports service becoming official):
Because of limitations in the Debian Bug Tracking System, any bugs
relevant to backported packages still have to be reported to the
debian-backports [3] list, which have
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 at 17:52:17 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes (Backports service becoming official):
Because of limitations in the Debian Bug Tracking System, any bugs
relevant to backported packages still have to be reported to the
debian-backports [3] list
On 09/06/2010 07:33 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 at 17:52:17 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes (Backports service becoming official):
Because of limitations in the Debian Bug Tracking System, any bugs
relevant to backported packages still have
On 06/09/10 at 20:32 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Lu, 06 sep 10, 17:52:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes (Backports service becoming official):
Because of limitations in the Debian Bug Tracking System, any bugs
relevant to backported packages still have
42 matches
Mail list logo
