Quoting Scott Kitterman (2021-12-06 16:03:31)
> Speaking only for myself here, not the team as a whole:
>
> The tools we use default to age order, so if one just starts working
> through packages in the order given, it's oldest first. Personally, I
> rather rarely do that. I don't have a lot
On Monday, December 6, 2021 8:58:15 AM EST Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> I've thought that it is probably not my turn to answer your questions
> but since there was no answer yet I'd like to report from my experience.
>
> Am Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:21:45PM +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Hi Jonas,
I've thought that it is probably not my turn to answer your questions
but since there was no answer yet I'd like to report from my experience.
Am Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:21:45PM +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
>
> Is "Age" used to rank processing of NEW requests?
I have some evidence
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 04:08:23PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
>> > > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
>> > > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
>> > > [...] Since packages in experimental will never
Simon Richter writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/18/21 4:08 PM, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
>
>> I guess this raises the (maybe already answered) question if the
>> additional license QA from NEW is for the end-product (i.e. Debian
>> stable) or for the servers that run the Debian infrastructure, which
>> of
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 19:32 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> There is also the issue of cryptographic software, and the laws
> regarding its export from the USA, which Debian deals with by treating
> every package as though it _might_ at some point incorporate some
> crypto, and therefore registering
Stephan Lachnit writes:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 4:16 PM Simon Richter wrote:
>>
>> On 11/18/21 4:08 PM, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
>>
>> > I guess this raises the (maybe already answered) question if the
>> > additional license QA from NEW is for the end-product (i.e. Debian
>> > stable) or for
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 19:28:28 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> > [...] Since packages
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 4:16 PM Simon Richter wrote:
>
> On 11/18/21 4:08 PM, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
>
> > I guess this raises the (maybe already answered) question if the
> > additional license QA from NEW is for the end-product (i.e. Debian
> > stable) or for the servers that run the Debian
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 04:08:23PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> > > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> > > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> > > [...] Since packages in experimental will never land in any
> > > official
Hi,
On 11/18/21 4:08 PM, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
I guess this raises the (maybe already answered) question if the
additional license QA from NEW is for the end-product (i.e. Debian
stable) or for the servers that run the Debian infrastructure, which
of course includes experimental.
The
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 19:28 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> > [...] Since packages in
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:28 PM Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> > [...] Since packages in
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> [...] Since packages in experimental will never land in any
> official release, I think
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:52 AM Gard Spreemann wrote:
>
> Every time I see stories like this, I wonder what the consequences of
> the NEW queue's current workings are. This is *not* criticism of the
> heroic work of the FTP Masters, nor is it criticism of the objectives
> they have in processing
Hi list,
On 18/11/2021 11:51, Gard Spreemann wrote:
Apologies in advance if this is something that has been discussed a lot
in the past. I'd be very interested in being pointed in the right
direction in that case!
No need to apologize... searching the the devel archives on "NEW queue"
Hi all.
Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes:
> slightly related question: if I upload a new version to NEW, will the Age of
> the package be reset? I'm asking because my package has been in NEW for four
> months already and I'd like to avoid loosing that place by an upload of a new
>
Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-11-18 11:26:44)
> Quoting Tobias Frost (2021-11-18 10:38:40)
> > (speculatinng on the why you want it rejected: if you want to replace it
> > with e.g. a newer version, you can just upload the new version)
>
> slightly related question: if I upload
Quoting Tobias Frost (2021-11-18 10:38:40)
> (speculatinng on the why you want it rejected: if you want to replace it with
> e.g. a newer version, you can just upload the new version)
slightly related question: if I upload a new version to NEW, will the Age of
the package be reset? I'm asking
Am 18. November 2021 10:30:37 MEZ schrieb Stephan Lachnit
:
>I tried to remove a package from NEW with `dcut rm package.deb`, `dcut
>rm package.changes` and `dcut cancel package.changes`, but nothing
>worked.
>Is there even a way to remove a package from NEW?
>
>Regards,
>Stephan
>
ask FTP
I tried to remove a package from NEW with `dcut rm package.deb`, `dcut
rm package.changes` and `dcut cancel package.changes`, but nothing
worked.
Is there even a way to remove a package from NEW?
Regards,
Stephan
21 matches
Mail list logo
