X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Tryton Maintainers
* Package name: tryton-modules-sale-complaint
Version : 3.8.0
Upstream Author : Tryton project (www.tryton.org)
* URL : http://downloads.tryton.org/3.8
also sprach Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.12.12.1405 +0100]:
> I don't understand why for Etch, if a user chooses "Desktop" during
> tasksel, they shouldn't get the just works[tm] experience.
Yeah, and let's draw from the work by the Ubuntu guys, rather than
doing it a different way!
>
(Dropping Josh and moving to -devel, as this is discussion is going
elsewhere)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:59:05PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> However, some users just want a computer that works (the "plain
> users"). They don't want to have to learn too much about Linux or
> Debian, they just
* 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? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
* 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
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:58:21PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:37:34AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
> Leader wrote:
>
> > > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there
> > > are some archs already have a working wanna-build acce
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:03:01AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > I get the impression that there is some sort of a "Debian clan" that
> > controls some important positions of the Debian project and that is
> > protecting itself
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:37:34AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-14 13:20]:
> > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there
> > are some archs already have a working wanna-build access since days,
>
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> This is an official complaint about the current buildd situation.
>
> The situation:
>
> - Wouter Verhelst wrote on Tue, December 9, 2003 18:40 to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and the m68k porters list at [EMAIL
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:00:22AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Sure, people can be overloaded with work, being too busy to answer
> > immediatedly, but when this extends to a longer time or is the default
> Hell, when they have time to discuss the issue with third parties, then
> they also assur
Ryan Murray said:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, 2003
>> 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k buildd
>> machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got answer
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11, 2003
> 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k buildd
> machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got answers he asked for.
One p
that there's reason for complaints -at
> least, not yet- but that's a different matter entirely)
Yeah, I know that you´re a little more patient than me, but from the
response I got and the talks I´ve had after that post, I can state that I
can´t completely wrong with my complaint becaus
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:07:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:19:47AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:55:30PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > >
> > > Try to coordinate? When there would have been a try to cooperate by
> > > him, I wouldn´
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:19:47AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:55:30PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:05:39AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > Thus, he probably has little choice, in some cases, but to depend on
> > > others
> > > to deal wit
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:21:02PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> So can we please end this flamewar before it really starts off?
Why? Better give arguments than flames.
So far I have not read any good argument why there is no good communication
between the people that are working on recovering s
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:29:35PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> True, if you try to get rid of the current volunteers, then publicly
> criticising them is somewhat productive. This usually slows things
> down, though, and I think that Ingo's point is that things are not
> moving fast enough.
Not
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> The situation:
>
> - Wouter Verhelst wrote on Tue, December 9, 2003 18:40 to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and the m68k porters list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get information about
> the process of getting wanna-build access back.
>
> - Ja
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Why people tend to become polemic when they have no arguments left?
Very good question.
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Oh, great... I wouldnÂt have expected that getting polemic is a
> necessary to become DPL... :-//
So can we please end this flamewar before it really star
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I already contacted Ryan for a different issue and got no response at all.
> Go and figure out my motivation to ask him again.
People do have different response times regarding different things. I
may leave trivial questions lying in my mailbox for
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> argument (publicly critising volunteers who are busy is not
>> productive, even if you point is otherwise valid).
>
> The hell it isn't.
True, if you try to get rid of the current volunteers, then publicly
criticising them is somewhat productive. This usu
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:19:47AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Well, compromise the machine of some DDs and you have the same. Compromising
> > machines opens are serious security issue regardless for what the machine is
> > used.
> Yes. But debian-admin is not responsible for those machines; th
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:57:46PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Looking at the graphs ti seems obvious that the way how to get buildds
> > running again is known for about 5 days now.
> You're complaining about a delay of five days in a project run by
> volunteers and which has been hit very s
ords, the only two explanations I can see are either that you
have no real concept of what you're discussing, or that you're being
deliberately obtuse about the lot of it.
Debian may have a lot of issues at times. I'd be one of the last to deny
it. But given what a good job HAS been done,
> argument (publicly critising volunteers who are busy is not
> productive, even if you point is otherwise valid).
The hell it isn't.
including holidays? Do you know that the DSAs are not
paid for 24/7 support?
>> Sorry, I just cannot take your complaint seriously.
> That´s sad - for you, not for me, that you´re taking complains not serious
> although there are reasons for doing so. :-(
I have to agree with Martin. I
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:05:39AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> Remember, these machines are, behind the archives, perhaps the most
> implicity trusted machines in the entire project. Compromise the archives,
> and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any package on any port.
> Compromise a
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:58:21PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> Looking at the graphs ti seems obvious that the way how to get buildds
> running again is known for about 5 days now.
> And 5 days are not enough time to inform other archs or give them access as
> well?
> Why should it be eas
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> I get the impression that there is some sort of a "Debian clan" that
> controls some important positions of the Debian project and that is
> protecting itself from being influence by the outside. This is my personal
THERE IS NO C
happen so far.
> > - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11,
> > 2003 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k
> > buildd machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got
> > answers he asked for.
> So basically your
ail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k
> buildd machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got
> answers he asked for.
So basically your complaint is that after 3 days (including the
weekend, so effectively 1 business day) it's not fixed yet. Sorry, I
just cannot
This is an official complaint about the current buildd situation.
The situation:
- Wouter Verhelst wrote on Tue, December 9, 2003 18:40 to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the m68k porters list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get information about
the process of getting wanna-build access back.
- James Troup
32 matches
Mail list logo
