On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:28:02PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I agree if the FTBFS comes from something the NMUer did, then yes, it is
broken, but if it comes from general bad shape of the packages, then the
responsability is to the package maintainer
It's fine that you disagree. You're welcome
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:31:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:28:02PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I agree if the FTBFS comes from something the NMUer did, then yes, it is
broken, but if it comes from general bad shape of the packages, then the
responsability is to
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:28:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:26:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's say i do translataion work, for that i have to build the package,
and notice that it FTBFS (at least on some obscure arch or something). I
then fill a FTBFS bug
Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
with not only translating abilities (in fact I'm even rather bad at
translating).
That's fine, I'm rather bad at programming... :-)
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:35:08AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It only means that someone
wanting to do an NMU for some probably minor, not really touching the
package, will not do it because he don't want that responsaibility or
more probably cannot assume it.
That's the correct response. If
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:31:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:35:08AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It only means that someone
wanting to do an NMU for some probably minor, not really touching the
package, will not do it because he don't want that responsaibility or
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Holding NMUers accountable for the quality of their uploads: yes.
Holding NMUers accountable for the quality of the maintainer's package: no.
I'm happy to clarify my position if you aren't clear on it and would
rather you do that then make misleading
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:46:41AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:31:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:35:08AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It only means that someone
wanting to do an NMU for some probably minor, not really touching the
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:57:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Holding NMUers accountable for the quality of their uploads: yes.
Holding NMUers accountable for the quality of the maintainer's package: no.
I'm happy to clarify my position if you
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:58:31PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 09:30:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Just about everyone else appears to feel all they should care about is
the changes they make in their NMU instead of actually caring about the
package and the
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:15:25PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au):
It's the NMUer's responsibility to fix these bugs too.
(One possible way of handling this, might be to have translation people
support each other by having random non-coders
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:34:54PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:10:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:22:16AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
binary-only uploads are clearly not the same.
Ah
Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Earlier if the french team reachs its goal of completely translated package
install in sarge, since we only translate po-debconf files, and do (read
We won't.. :-)
For po-debconf switch bug reports, Michel Grentzinger is at letter p
going up in the
Quoting Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au):
Tagging the bug help is a good idea, but if it doesn't work the
responsibility is *still* the NMUer's to find some way that does. Not
the community's, not the list's, not the release manager's: the NMUer's.
I undoubtly agree with that
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:53:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:34:54PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:10:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:22:16AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:10:31AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au):
Tagging the bug help is a good idea, but if it doesn't work the
responsibility is *still* the NMUer's to find some way that does. Not
the community's, not the list's, not
Quoting Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
And i i try to build a random package from source, and it FTBFS, am i
going to be responsible for fixing it if i fill the FTBFS bug report ?
For sure, no. In the example previously given, I did generate the
FTBFS myself by uploading a NMU. I indirectly
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:26:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's say i do translataion work, for that i have to build the package,
and notice that it FTBFS (at least on some obscure arch or something). I
then fill a FTBFS bug report, thus liberating me of the responsability
you want to trust
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:28:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:26:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's say i do translataion work, for that i have to build the package,
and notice that it FTBFS (at least on some obscure arch or something). I
then fill a FTBFS bug
Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
binary-only uploads are clearly not the same.
Ah ? And why ? Translation changes do not interfer with the source code of
the package neither.
Hummm. Technically speaking, it does.. :-). With the source code of
the packagenot with the upstream
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Parse error. I cannot see a connection between answer and question.
Life's a beach. There's all of one line in the developer's reference
which talks about your responsibilities when doing an NMU:
Follow what
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 08:43:55AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Parse error. I cannot see a connection between answer and question.
Life's a beach. There's all of one line in the developer's reference
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 09:30:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 01:38:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
This hasn't got anything to do with NMU's.
With NMU in general, maybe not. But I see this as rather relevant to the
Quoting Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Just about everyone else appears to feel all they should care about is
the changes they make in their NMU instead of actually caring about the
package and the distribution. There's this feeling of not my problem.
I have to correct here : when
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 11:08:52PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
Well, either you were lucky, or you use good and well configurated mail
tools. But if my language did need a funky encoding, I would not let my work
depend of such conditions. Don't get me wrong. I mean that in such
condition,
Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Thanks for your time. I do really appreciate the time you're investing in a
discussion which is vital for my presonal goals inside Debian, but clearly
not for yours.
I think we cannot say this from Stephen's mail. We clearly disagree on
Quoting Mark Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
As a data point all the translations I've been sent since I can remember
(certainly since I converted my packages to use po-debconf) have arrived
as MIME attachments to bugs. If there are any problems with their
encoding they certainly haven't been
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:22:03PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
With the former (and still widely used) method for translating debconf
Is anyone maintaining statistics on how widely used the original Debconf
scheme is?
--
You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a
Quoting Mark Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
With the former (and still widely used) method for translating debconf
Is anyone maintaining statistics on how widely used the original Debconf
scheme is?
I'm not aware of such statistics.
We have the total number of strings in the new schemes. It
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:22:16AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
binary-only uploads are clearly not the same.
Ah ? And why ? Translation changes do not interfer with the source code of
the package neither.
Hummm. Technically speaking, it
Quoting Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au):
New uploads will often trigger dormant bugs due to changes in the
toolchain, too. If a package hasn't been uploaded since gcc-2.95 was
current, a new upload built with gcc-3.3 will often not work even if the
only source changes were some grammar
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:56:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
You've obviously not been paying very much attention at all then.
You should have a pretty good idea if the package is unmaintained or
not prior to doing an NMU. If it's not then you're uploading a package
which fixes some
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 09:30:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Just about everyone else appears to feel all they should care about is
the changes they make in their NMU instead of actually caring about the
package and the distribution. There's this feeling of not my problem.
Someone who has a
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:56:33AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 11:08:52PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
Well, either you were lucky, or you use good and well configurated mail
tools. But if my language did need a funky encoding, I would not let my work
depend of such
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:10:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:22:16AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
binary-only uploads are clearly not the same.
Ah ? And why ? Translation changes do not interfer with the source
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:28:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Quoting Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I, for sure, cannot hijack any package for which nothing has been done
for translation related bugs. I would quickly end up with
* Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:28:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Except what you don't realize is that one should never, ever, ever just
NMU and then forget about the package. If you do an NMU then you need
to make sure it worked, follow the
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Then you shouldn't be doing an NMU on it. When you NMU something you
take responsibility for it temporairly until the maintainer gets back.
Could you point the poor stupid monkeys we are to the relevant part of the
policy or developer reference
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 01:38:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:28:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Dude, translators already more than this. When I translate a package, I
register to its PTS to check that my translation
* Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Parse error. I cannot see a connection between answer and question.
Life's a beach. There's all of one line in the developer's reference
which talks about your responsibilities when doing an NMU:
Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug
* Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 01:38:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm not special caseing translations, nor do I feel they should be. I'm
referring to NMU's in general.
Maybe that's the point. Christian won't handle the same way non translation
41 matches
Mail list logo
