Hello Debian mainainers,
In accordance with the Etch wishlist^wTODOList[1], we need to remove
from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages.
This is why Clément Stenac and I have tried to establish a list of the
packages to be removed[2]. This[3] page also explains how the lis
* Mohammed Adnène Trojette [Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:46:19 +0200]:
> Hello Debian mainainers,
Hi!
> [2] http://adn.diwi.org/wiki/index.php/DummyPackagesList
> [3] http://adn.diwi.org/wiki/index.php/DummyPackagesStatus
This two pages are asking for authentification. I guess this is not
intende
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> This two pages are asking for authentification. I guess this is not
> intended?
Oops! It should be fixed ;-)
Thanks.
PS: I read the list.
--
adn
Mohammed Adnène Trojette
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote:
> Hello Debian mainainers,
>
> In accordance with the Etch wishlist^wTODOList[1],
Do not confuse a personal wishlist with a real todo list.
> we need to remove
> from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages.
No, that's n
On 10353 March 1977, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> we need to remove
>> from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages.
> No, that's not true, we don't *need* to remove woody-to-sarge dummy
> packages, as they are also woody-to-etch dummy packages.
We do not support that. No. So yes,
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10353 March 1977, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> >> we need to remove
> >> from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages.
> > No, that's not true, we don't *need* to remove woody-to-sarge dummy
> > packages, as they are also woody-to-etc
> >> In a few weeks, we'll start filing RC bugs against the remaining
> >> packages.
> > RC bug? What the heck are you talking about?
>
> No RC Bug, normal severity. If its a dummy out of an (now) empty source
I also agree with the severity to be normal.
Which could, btw, have been said in a m
On 7/17/05, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As we only support upgrades to the next release and not any other its
> very clear to remove them from the archive.
Does 'not supporting' equal 'requiring it to fail'?
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:51:23AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 7/17/05, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As we only support upgrades to the next release and not any other its
> > very clear to remove them from the archive.
> Does 'not supporting' equal 'requiring it to fail'?
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10353 March 1977, Santiago Vila wrote:
we need to remove
from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages.
>>> No, that's not true, we don't *need* to remove woody-to-sarge dummy
>
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:40:32 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In this context, woody->sarge transition packages are just one form of
> useless cruft that we should strive to get rid of before the etch release.
I agree and I've been busy getting rid of that cruft. It's a
pleasure to see how much the
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> On 10353 March 1977, Santiago Vila wrote:
> we need to remove
> from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages.
> >>> No, t
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:51:23AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 7/17/05, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As we only support upgrades to the next release and not any other its
> > > very clear to remove them from the archive.
>
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > In this context, woody->sarge transition packages are just one
> > form of useless cruft that we should strive to get rid of before
> > the etch release. They're not the biggest source of cruft, but on
> > th
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > In this context, woody->sarge transition packages are just one
> > > form of useless cruft that we should strive to get rid of before
> > > the etch release. T
On Sunday 17 July 2005 23.28, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10353 March 1977, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >> we need to remove
> >> from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages.
> >
> > No, that's not true, we don't *need* to remove woody-to-sarge dummy
> > packages, as they are also wo
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 12:54:56PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > In this context, woody->sarge transition packages are just one
> > > > form of useless c
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Do you think having this in policy may be harmful? If so, why?
>
> > We supported upgrades that skip releases in the past, and now we do
> > not (I suppose the fact that our release cycles are much long
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:57:14 +0200 (CEST), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> I see your point, but policy has never been a "permanent" thing.
I have no idea where you get this impression.
> For some time we have had a policy which mandated symlinks in
> /usr/doc. Later we had e
19 matches
Mail list logo
