On mer., 2014-07-16 at 15:08 +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:40:13PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
Since you seem to know the software well, and it is important for you,
perhaps you can take over maintainence of the package? The current
maintainer doesn't seem to be
On 07/28/14 11:38, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
I don't currently use the network-manager strongSwan plugin but that's
mostly because it doesn't work.
AFAICT it didn't work due to #741415.
Today its broken again. It says
Could not find VPN plugin service for
On 07/16/14 17:56, Thomas Goirand wrote:
To try to kill your frustration, I have sponsored the upload of your fix
to the delayed/10 queue. If everything goes well, then in 15 days,
network-manager-strongswan will be back in Jessie.
Thanx very much for your help
Regards
Harri
--
To
On 07/16/14 17:56, Thomas Goirand wrote:
BTW, it feels weird that the package build-depends on debhelper when it
really is using CDBS. The debian/copyright is also quite wrong, as it
doesn't include the copyright notice for the GPL v2 (and I believe
that's mandatory, right?). Not commenting
On 07/17/2014 06:40 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
On 07/16/14 17:56, Thomas Goirand wrote:
BTW, it feels weird that the package build-depends on debhelper when it
really is using CDBS. The debian/copyright is also quite wrong, as it
doesn't include the copyright notice for the GPL v2 (and I
Hi folks,
how comes that network-manager-strongswan has been dropped
from testing? This package is extremely important for road-
warrior setups using IPsec.
Regards
Harri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Wed, July 16, 2014 12:17, Harald Dunkel wrote:
how comes that network-manager-strongswan has been dropped
from testing? This package is extremely important for road-
warrior setups using IPsec.
You can find that out for any package on the PTS:
On 16/07/14 11:17, Harald Dunkel wrote:
how comes that network-manager-strongswan has been dropped
from testing?
https://packages.qa.debian.org/n/network-manager-strongswan.html says:
network-manager-strongswan (source, i386, amd64, armel, armhf, mips,
mipsel, powerpc, s390x) has new bugs!
Hi Thijs,
On 07/16/14 12:35, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
As it turns out, this package got removed because it has an unfixed
release critical bug (which interestingly enough you yourself reported).
When this bug is fixed, the package will transition back to testing.
Of course I know that I
On Wed, July 16, 2014 13:05, Harald Dunkel wrote:
On 07/16/14 12:35, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
As it turns out, this package got removed because it has an unfixed
release critical bug (which interestingly enough you yourself reported).
When this bug is fixed, the package will transition back to
Hi Simon,
On 07/16/14 12:36, Simon McVittie wrote:
If the change you proposed works correctly, an NMU seems appropriate.
I am using the fix in a private package since I
created the bug report. Seems to work fine (using
strongswan 5.x).
I have appended a diff to the bug report. Hope
this
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:05:26PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Hi Thijs,
On 07/16/14 12:35, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
As it turns out, this package got removed because it has an unfixed
release critical bug (which interestingly enough you yourself reported).
When this bug is fixed, the
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:40:13PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
Since you seem to know the software well, and it is important for you,
perhaps you can take over maintainence of the package? The current
maintainer doesn't seem to be active (no upload since 2012..).
Alternatively the package could
Hi Riku,
On Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2014, Riku Voipio wrote:
This a side-effect from Debian's policy that discourages fixing bugs in
other maintainers packages via NMUs. Somehow, it is felt better to
remove packages from testing than possibly offending the maintainer with
an unwarranted NMU.
Huh,
On 07/16/14 15:17, Holger Levsen wrote:
Especially if the NMU is properly done (eg documented in the BTS, uploaded to
DELAYED-foo, etc) I've hardly seen any complaints in recent years.
Surely I could have done better in providing a clean
fix to #741415, making it more easy for the Debian
Hi Riku, Holger,
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org (2014-07-16):
On Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2014, Riku Voipio wrote:
This a side-effect from Debian's policy that discourages fixing bugs in
other maintainers packages via NMUs. Somehow, it is felt better to
remove packages from testing than
On 07/16/2014 10:06 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
On 07/16/14 15:17, Holger Levsen wrote:
Especially if the NMU is properly done (eg documented in the BTS, uploaded
to
DELAYED-foo, etc) I've hardly seen any complaints in recent years.
Surely I could have done better in providing a clean
fix
On 2014-07-16, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
BTW, it feels weird that the package build-depends on debhelper when it
really is using CDBS. The debian/copyright is also quite wrong, as it
If you use cdbs' debhelper module (which runs the various dh_foo
commands), you need to ensure
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:06:06 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Especially if the NMU is properly done (eg documented in the BTS, uploaded
to
DELAYED-foo, etc) I've hardly seen any complaints in recent years.
Surely I could have done better in providing a clean
fix to #741415, making it more
19 matches
Mail list logo
