On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:54:30 +0200
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG
> >> standards menu spec, and every WM at this po
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:54:30 +0200
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Another solution would be to make debian-menu build .desktop
> >> entries for the menu in the main menu namespace and not the
> >> 'Debian' namespace; this seems like the easiest solution.
>
> > +1
>
> I don'
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 01:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by actual
> implementations and to which KDE at least has a whole ton of extensions?
>
I think the XDG standard is actually *based* on the Desktop Entry spec
from KDE1/KD
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by
> actual implementations and to which KDE at least has a whole ton of
> extensions?
Or in the breach, even. Although in the breech does sum up my opinion on
parts of it. :)
Some examp
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards
>> menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for
>> their menus.
>>
>> I think the debian-menu system sh
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards
> menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for
> their menus.
You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by actual
implementations and
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 02:42:27AM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> For discussion:
>
> Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and
> cover most users of desktops in debian.
>
> They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu.
You already opened a bug against
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards
> menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for
> their menus.
>
> I think the debian-menu system should be seen as legacy, sinc
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 02:42 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> For discussion:
>
> Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and
> cover most users of desktops in debian.
>
> They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu.
>
> xdg .desktop-based menus are no
Hi Julien,
>>> We currently maintain a little amount of GONME 2.21 modules in
>>> experimental, mostly platform stuff, lacking the manpower to follow
>>> the full set, send bugs upstream etc.
>> Sad :( But why don't you "backport" Ubuntu packages?
>>
> How would that solve the lack of manpower?
>
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 18:35:50 +0100, Cyril Jaquier wrote:
> Hi Loïc,
>
> > We currently maintain a little amount of GONME 2.21 modules in
> > experimental, mostly platform stuff, lacking the manpower to follow
> > the full set, send bugs upstream etc.
>
> Sad :( But why don't you "backport" Ubu
Hi Loïc,
> We currently maintain a little amount of GONME 2.21 modules in
> experimental, mostly platform stuff, lacking the manpower to follow
> the full set, send bugs upstream etc.
Sad :( But why don't you "backport" Ubuntu packages?
Please, could you CC me next time? Thanks.
Regards,
Cyri
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008, Cyril Jaquier wrote:
> A few months ago, I switched from Gentoo to Debian. I used to install/test
> the development version of Gnome when it reached the API/UI freeze. Gentoo
> has the "Gentoo Gnome Overlay" [1] where Gnome packages are tested before
> going into the main P
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:53:50PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started
> > a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/gnome-1.x-removal so that people
Quoting Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Because the last time you all did this it got all the way to deleting
> the packages and I had to run around and clean that up. I'm asking you
> to give the maintainers a chance. That's all. Is it really that hard
> to do?
Isn't this what is h
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:53:50PM +, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started
> > a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/gnome-1.x-removal so that people
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started
> a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/gnome-1.x-removal so that people
> interested in that goal can track our progress.
Two thumbs up, thanks for
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 19:56 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> We can surely keep all old cruft in the archive and never release again
> (or not with these packages anyway), though I don't think that is
> preferred from a quality assurance, security nor release point of view...
Of course, this isn't what
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Instead of saying "we're deleting this, you will all have to adapt",
> say, "we aren't maintaining this anymore; if you want it, you'll
> have to start taking it over."
Isn't that exactly what bug #369130 means? I thought it was the
responsibility
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wouldn't. I don't keep tabs on every package that my packages depend
> on. One of them could be orphaned and I would never know.
Running wnpp-alert weekly out of cron is a good idea for any DD, IMO.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:39 +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "As long as there's interest the software will stay alive" is one of the
>>> main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as th
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:02 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them
> > about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining
> > gnome 1.x is worth
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:39 +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "As long as there's interest the software will stay alive" is one of the
> > main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people
> > willing to
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:56 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them
> > about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining
> > gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the
> > maintenance.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them
> about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining
> gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the
> maintenanc
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:35:54PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 10:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a
> > > chance. Take th
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 10:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a
> > chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that
> > depend on the librari
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "As long as there's interest the software will stay alive" is one of
> > the main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as
> > there's people willing to maintain i
"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "As long as there's interest the software will stay alive" is one of the
> main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people
> willing to maintain it, it shouldn't be removed regardless of how old it
> is.
GNO
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a
> > chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that
> > depend on the libraries you w
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:34:54AM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a
> > chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that
> > depend on the l
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a
> chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that
> depend on the libraries you want to remove, post RFAs instead of remove
> requests, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/14/08 19:20, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> (Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is
> obviously subscribed to both.)
>
> On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> This is not the right process for something like this.
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 02:20 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> (Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is
> obviously subscribed to both.)
>
> On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I
> > believe you s
(Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is
obviously subscribed to both.)
On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I
> believe you should find out specifically which packages depend on
> gnome 1.x, and o
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 00:07 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x
> related libs until we got rid of them al.
>
> If you know your package depends on gnome 1.x one way or the other, now
> is the time to fix that, package a new upstrea
On mar, 2007-02-20 at 19:40 +0100, Florian Ludwig wrote:
> Anyway I just wondering: Why, WHY are you telling debian-devel that
> you
> switched from gnome to xfce?
To please Xfce maintainers!
--
Yves-Alexis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
Am Montag, den 19.02.2007, 14:37 -0500 schrieb Greg Folkert:
> On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 20:27 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > If you could also shut the fuck up, that would be even better.
>
> I see you have a great command of the language. Really... I'd expect
> nothing better. You should re
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 09:30, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Why the gratuitous insult to Indian and Indians here? Or do
> > you think only one country has people who deserve pity? there are
> > no unfortunate people in developed countries?
>
> It has been
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 21:05, "Tshepang Lekhonkhobe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > Why the gratuitous insult to Indian and Indians here? Or do
> > > > you think only one country has people who deserve pity? there are
> > > > no unfortunate people in developed countries?
> > >
On 2/20/07, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 09:30, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Why the gratuitous insult to Indian and Indians here? Or do
> > you think only one country has people who deserve pity? there are
> > no unfortunate p
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:09:10 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:53:55 +0100, Josselin Mouette
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Currently, there are people in India that need your pity more than
>> Debian developers having fun of your stupidity.
> Wh
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:53:55 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Currently, there are people in India that need your pity more than
> Debian developers having fun of your stupidity.
Why the gratuitous insult to Indian and Indians here? Or do
you think only one country h
Le lundi 19 février 2007 à 14:37 -0500, Greg Folkert a écrit :
> I see you have a great command of the language. Really... I'd expect
> nothing better. You should realize that you are just making a better and
> better case for how much the GNOME teams alienate the users they are
> supposedly servic
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 20:27 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> If you could also shut the fuck up, that would be even better.
I see you have a great command of the language. Really... I'd expect
nothing better. You should realize that you are just making a better and
better case for how much the
Le lundi 19 février 2007 à 11:05 -0500, Greg Folkert a écrit :
> I guess, even when someone really does try to be level headed and cool
> about the whole thing, they get shutdown exactly the same way I do...
> just a bit more gentle.
You mean, like Christian Schaller who actually chose to submit T
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 16:20 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> That said, he should have just used reportbug and let the maintainers
> work it out :)
s/work\ it\ out/reject\ it\/won\'t\ fix\ it/
Sorry, but when I see things like this:
http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/desktop_archi
On 2/17/07, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, finally found them by searching on Slashdot.
http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/desktop_architects/2007-February/001129.html
Basically, there's zero chance they get accepted this way, as a patch
not in bugzilla simply doesn't g
I demand that Josselin Mouette may or may not have written...
[snip]
> For people more interested in improving window manager experience than
> trolling or adding more options to an already cluttered control center,
> there is an ongoing discussion about the general window design on
> desktop-deve
Le samedi 17 février 2007 à 10:59 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> Do you have some pointers to more constructive actions, like the patches
> you are claiming he wrote?
Ah, finally found them by searching on Slashdot.
http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/desktop_architects/2007-February/
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seems I am not the only one that believes GNOME is limiting.
>
> Linus Torvalds has submitted patches. I am betting they get ignored or
> rejected with "to complex for our idiot users".
>
> Yes, Joss could you please explain this away for me?
Errrm, I kno
could you please take your trolling elsewhere? kthxbye.
sean
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 21:09 -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> Seems I am not the only one that believes GNOME is limiting.
>
> Linus Torvalds has submitted patches. I am betting they get ignored or
> rejected with "to complex for
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 09:09:35PM -0500, Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Seems I am not the only one that believes GNOME is limiting.
>
> Linus Torvalds has submitted patches. I am betting they get ignored or
> rejected with "to complex for our idiot users".
>
> Yes, Joss could you pl
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 13:30:11 +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> occasions), I can't even kill the GNOME process (kill -9 failed on
> several processes running under GNOME). That's really weird, and I've
> never seen this sort of behaviour before.
That can happen if the process is in uninterruptible sl
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hmm, I've looked over the packages mentioned above, and none of the others
> seem to be removable. I think someone's been sneaking new GNOME1 packages
> into the archive when I wasn't looking. :)
>
> libcapplet is closest, only python-gnome-1.2 as a reverse-dep after the
reassign 385417 ftp.debian.org
retitle 385417 RM: gwrapguile -- RoQA; orphaned, obsolete library
thanks
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 02:30:42PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-27 15:39]:
> > > I have been maintaining the following gnome-1 support packages:
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-27 15:39]:
> > I have been maintaining the following gnome-1 support packages:
> > bonobo gal0.x gnome-libs gnome-print gtkhtml gwrapguile imlib
> > libcapplet libglade oaf
> gwrapguile and gtkhtml have no reverse-dependencies in Debian except for
>
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>python-gnome has a build-dependency on libgtkhtml-dev which
>> should be trivially removable since none of its binary packages use it.
>
> python-gnome is also deprecated and should go away when po
On Sat, May 27, 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
>python-gnome has a build-dependency on libgtkhtml-dev which
> should be trivially removable since none of its binary packages use it.
python-gnome is also deprecated and should go away when possible, I've
filed bugs on the rdeps already.
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sat, 27 May 2006 15:49:41 -0700]:
Hi Thomas,
> (indeed, whenever I use rdepends I get a lot of
> spurious entries, and I don't know why, and it requires gobs of manual
> work to figure out which ones are real).
One scenario in which it does not work:
http://chistera.yi.
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 12:00:43PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> I have been maintaining the following gnome-1 support packages:
>
>> bonobo gal0.x gnome-libs gnome-print gtkhtml gwrapguile imlib
>> libcapplet libglade oaf
>
> gwrapguile an
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 12:00:43PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I have been maintaining the following gnome-1 support packages:
> bonobo gal0.x gnome-libs gnome-print gtkhtml gwrapguile imlib
> libcapplet libglade oaf
gwrapguile and gtkhtml have no reverse-dependencies in Debian excep
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 12:12 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!
>
> and then apt doesn't run, and instead prints:
>
> E: There are problems and -y was used without --force-yes
pbuilder login --save-after-login
[...]
# apt-get install gnupg
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > /usr/sbin/pbuilder update --override-config --configfile /etc/pbuilderrc.sid
>
> Ok, this gets me a good sid chroot. But I can't build with it. When
> I try to build, using, say
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:24, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
>>
>> Upstream reports that the SQL subsystem is known not to work. S
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:24, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
>
> Upstream reports that the SQL subsystem is known not to work. So that
> means that until it gets to working, I cert
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doesn't work for me.
>
> # grep apt.config /etc/pbuilderrc
> APTCONFDIR="/etc/pbuilder/apt.config/"
> # cat /etc/pbuilder/apt.config/apt.conf.d/allow-unauthenticated
> APT::Get::AllowUnauthenticated 1;
>
> but the same errors persist.
Apparently
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Presumably the problem is that the packages cannot be authenticated.
>> Presumably that's because the key inside the chroot is the old 2005
>> one? How do I fix that?
>
> $ grep apt.config /etc/pbuilder
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Presumably the problem is that the packages cannot be authenticated.
>> Presumably that's because the key inside the chroot is the old 2005
>> one? How do I fix that?
>
> $ grep apt.config /etc/pbuilder
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Presumably the problem is that the packages cannot be authenticated.
> Presumably that's because the key inside the chroot is the old 2005
> one? How do I fix that?
$ grep apt.config /etc/pbuilderrc.sid
APTCONFDIR="/etc/pbuilder/apt.config/"
$ cat
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /usr/sbin/pbuilder update --override-config --configfile /etc/pbuilderrc.sid
Ok, this gets me a good sid chroot. But I can't build with it. When
I try to build, using, say, pbuilder build gnucash_1.9.6-3.dsc, I get
seemingly normal pbuilder output, lot
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No solution to the bug, but an easy workaround: Create a sarge chroot
> tar.gz on your sarge machine, change pbuilderrc to point to sid (I have
> copies for each distribution), and then update the tar.gz to sid, like
> this:
>
> /usr/sbin/pbuilder update
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
Upstream reports that the SQL subsystem is known not to work. So that
means that until it gets to working, I certainly won't be building it
for Debian.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSC
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pardon me if I've missed something obvious or misunderstood
> something.
No solution to the bug, but an easy workaround: Create a sarge chroot
tar.gz on your sarge machine, change pbuilderrc to point to sid (I have
copies for each distribution), an
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:11:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6,
>
> And you should've used pbuilder to check if it is buildable.
So I would love to use pbuilder on my fancy fast computer. It runs
sarge.
So w
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:08, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
>>
>> I think so.
> Great. If you want someone to test the builds ple
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:08, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
>
> I think so.
Great. If you want someone to test the builds please let me know when
they are ready and where I can d
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
I think so.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
The SQL backend is known to suffer from neglect, it's probably not a
good thing to start encouraging people to use at this time. I gather
that the gnucash developers intend to add
On Monday 15 May 2006 07:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6, the first beta release of the new
> gnome 2 gnucash. Since this is now in beta, I judged it opportune to
> upload it to unstable. The final 2.0 release is expected in a short
> number of weeks. Many tha
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6, the first beta release of the new
>> gnome 2 gnucash. Since this is now in beta, I judged it opportune to
>> upload it to unstable. The final 2.0 release is expe
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6, the first beta release of the new
> gnome 2 gnucash. Since this is now in beta, I judged it opportune to
> upload it to unstable. The final 2.0 release is expected in a short
> number of weeks. Many thanks
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:11:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6,
>
> And you should've used pbuilder to check if it is buildable.
Sorry, but I don't have the resources to use pbuilder for every single
upload of
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:11:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6,
And you should've used pbuilder to check if it is buildable.
> Is there any particular thing I should do to have the series in the
> experimental distribution deleted? Ideally, they should
On 14-Nov-05, 20:22 (CST), Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You trust them, but not any user of Debian will want to trust them so
> much. Some will want some degree of confidence that the binaries are
> clean...
Then they need to download the source, examine it, and build the binary.
W
Scribit Josselin Mouette dies 12/11/2005 hora 18:37:
> It was already suggested to accept only source+binary uploads, but to
> rebuild the binaries on the upload's architecture anyway.
Has there been a consensus on rejecting that solution?
Curiously,
Nowhere man
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP 0xD9
Scribit Manoj Srivastava dies 11/11/2005 hora 22:35:
> You gotta start trusting somewhere. Our web of trust starts with the
> Developers in the keyring, we trust these people not to muck with the
> binaries.
You trust them, but not any user of Debian will want to trust them so
much. Some will want
Le samedi 12 novembre 2005 à 02:29 +0100, Pierre THIERRY a écrit :
> And I see a rationale for allowing them: what prevents a DD to upload
> binaries that include exploits or some trojan code, along with a clean
> source?
It was already suggested to accept only source+binary uploads, but to
rebuil
Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 23:19 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo a
écrit :
> Sorry, Joss, but I can't believe disk space can be a problem nowadays.
> Of course you can be short of disk space, but a 160GB HDD is quite
> affordable, and you can cache Debian lot of times there.
I can't believe I
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:29:56 +0100, Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Scribit Josselin Mouette dies 10/11/2005 hora 22:45:
>> Le jeudi 10 novembre 2005 à 13:32 -0800, Debian Installer a écrit :
>> > Rejected: source only uploads are not supported.
>> I can't see the rationale for rejecti
Scribit Josselin Mouette dies 10/11/2005 hora 22:45:
> Le jeudi 10 novembre 2005 à 13:32 -0800, Debian Installer a écrit :
> > Rejected: source only uploads are not supported.
> I can't see the rationale for rejecting source uploads, and they used
> to be accepted in the past.
And I see a rational
El jue, 10-11-2005 a las 23:43 +0100, Josselin Mouette escribió:
> Le jeudi 10 novembre 2005 à 23:00 +0100, Adeodato Simó a écrit :
> > * Josselin Mouette [Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:45:20 +0100]:
> >
> > > (And don't tell me to use pbuilder, I don't have the disk space nor the
> > > bandwidth for it.)
>
[Brian Nelson]
> Oh, so Ubuntu packages are fucked up more by their maintainers more
> than Debian packages are?
Yes, or so it's been alleged.
Not being a user of ubuntu unstable, I can't confirm or deny.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 11/10/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Josselin Mouette]
> > I can't see the rationale for rejecting source uploads, and they used
> > to be accepted in the past.
>
> It's the first line of defense against people uploading things that
> don't build, wasting various infrastruct
Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 00:55 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels a écrit :
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Why is this the case ? I'm running with experimental GNOME packages; if
> > I upload a binary package depending on them, it will be uninstallable on
> > unstable systems.
>
> How c
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:18:00AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10469 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I can't see the rationale for rejecting source uploads, and they used to
> > be accepted in the past.
>
> Because people then fuck up their packages even more.
>
> No, they havent bee
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Why is this the case ? I'm running with experimental GNOME packages; if
> I upload a binary package depending on them, it will be uninstallable on
> unstable systems.
How can you test your packages if you dont build them?
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10469 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>>> Rejected: source only uploads are not supported.
>> I can't see the rationale for rejecting source uploads, and they used to
>> be accepted in the past.
>
> Because people then fuck up their packages eve
On 10469 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Rejected: source only uploads are not supported.
> I can't see the rationale for rejecting source uploads, and they used to
> be accepted in the past.
Because people then fuck up their packages even more.
No, they havent been accepted in the past.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:45:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I can't see the rationale for rejecting source uploads, and they used to
> be accepted in the past.
AFAIK, this is false. Source-only uploads were never allowed in Debian.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: h
101 - 200 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
