On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Just to underline here, you need to send the diff for the NMU to the bug(s)
> > that you are fixing in the NMU *before* uploading the NMU.
>
> The developers reference is not clear on this
On Tue Mar 10 14:45, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > This would definetly be useful, as it would help someone from wasting
> > time preparing the NMU in the first place, but it certainly doesn't
> > excuse making NMUs without notifying the mai
Adeodato Simó a écrit :
* "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" [Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:42:43 +0100]:
I bet it won't work for a package in dak ;)
http://incoming.debian.org
http://packages.qa.debian.org/aqualung
It didn't appear neither on incoming nor on pts.
And, FFS, the ACCEPTED mail you get
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This would definetly be useful, as it would help someone from wasting
> time preparing the NMU in the first place, but it certainly doesn't
> excuse making NMUs without notifying the maintainer beforehand.
If the maintainer can't be
* "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" [Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:42:43 +0100]:
> I bet it won't work for a package in dak ;)
http://incoming.debian.org
http://packages.qa.debian.org/aqualung
And, FFS, the ACCEPTED mail you get has you *and* the uploader in the
To: line.
--
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
Simon Huggins a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 10:10:13PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
1. Don't spam devel to contact just one person.
For reference, who-uploads from devscripts is useful for working out who
NMU'd something.
Simon
I bet it won't work for a package in dak ;)
Ad
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 10:10:13PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> 1. Don't spam devel to contact just one person.
For reference, who-uploads from devscripts is useful for working out who
NMU'd something.
Simon
--
... "Be wewy wewy careful. There be dragons here." -- Linus Torvalds
--
To UNS
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Just to underline here, you need to send the diff for the NMU to the bug(s)
> that you are fixing in the NMU *before* uploading the NMU.
The developers reference is not clear on this point and should perhaps be
clarified. It lists th
Don Armstrong a écrit :
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Barry deFreese wrote:
That was me. I haven't posted the diff for the NMU yet.
Just to underline here, you need to send the diff for the NMU to the
bug(s) that you are fixing in the NMU *before* uploading the NMU.
In the case where a 0-day N
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Barry deFreese wrote:
> That was me. I haven't posted the diff for the NMU yet.
Just to underline here, you need to send the diff for the NMU to the
bug(s) that you are fixing in the NMU *before* uploading the NMU.
In the case where a 0-day NMU is valid, you can upload immedi
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> It would have been great if you write the progress in your bug
> report - including that you are almost ready and just awaiting
> sponsorship.
This would definetly be useful, as it would help someone from wasting
time preparing the NMU in the first place,
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
Hello,
I just received a DAK acknowledgement for aqualung 0.9~beta9.1-1.1 but
it's not me who prepared this package.
I guess it's a NMU fixing the ffmpeg/libavcodec issue but I can't
found any related message neither on the BTS nor on debian mailing
lists (-devel
Barry deFreese a écrit :
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
Hello,
I just received a DAK acknowledgement for aqualung 0.9~beta9.1-1.1
but it's not me who prepared this package.
I guess it's a NMU fixing the ffmpeg/libavcodec issue but I can't
found any related message neither on the BTS nor on debi
I can't possibly say how annoyed I am.
1. Don't spam devel to contact just one person.
2. Read devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00034.html
3. Or you can also read d-d-a:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/03/msg0.html
4. Or you can just deal with
On 2009-03-09, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
> I would have been great if this people told me he were preparing a NMU
> because I was working on new upstream release package that ALSO fix the
> ffmpeg issue.
It would have been great if you write the progress in your bug report -
including that y
Hello,
I just received a DAK acknowledgement for aqualung 0.9~beta9.1-1.1 but
it's not me who prepared this package.
I guess it's a NMU fixing the ffmpeg/libavcodec issue but I can't found
any related message neither on the BTS nor on debian mailing lists
(-devel and -release).
I would have
Hello,
I just received a DAK acknowledgement for aqualung 0.9~beta9.1-1.1 but
it's not me who prepared this package.
I guess it's a NMU fixing the ffmpeg/libavcodec issue but I can't found
any related message neither on the BTS nor on debian mailing lists
(-devel and -release).
I would have
17 matches
Mail list logo
