freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship

2012-07-02 Thread Bart Martens
Hello, Now that the freeze period has started, some of the open requests for sponsorship are now invalid because the packages don't conform to the freeze policy. http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html With open requests for sponsorship I mean not only the RFS bugs but also the

Re: Moving /home of a package account, and to where?

2012-07-02 Thread Marc Haber
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 10:03:08PM +1000, Sven Dowideit wrote: On 02/07/12 02:03, Marc Haber wrote: I am really really astonished about with which ease we hurl RC bugs at packages without having thought-out alternatives. Would it not be better to reject the Debian QA 'suggestion' until such

Re: Moving /home of a package account, and to where?

2012-07-02 Thread Marc Haber
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 07:53:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: It would indeed be best if everything possible was documented, but very few people volunteer to do the work to drive changes to the documentation through to completion. This is partly because of the kind-of heavy-handed policy

Bug#679402:

2012-07-02 Thread Steven Ayre
It is indeed a small package. It only contains TODO, README and postinst files. It triggered the lintian empty binary package warning until I put 'empty package' in the long description. I guess it'd be up to the FTP masters. Essentially it's simply a package that links mysql_tzinfo_to_sql and

Re: freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship

2012-07-02 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Bart Martens wrote: Comments on these suggestions ? Perhaps use wheezy-ignore for stuff that shouldn't be in wheezy? I guess that might be stepping on the release team's tags, so maybe setting up usercategories and usertags for the sponsorship-requests

Re: Moving /home of a package account, and to where?

2012-07-02 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012, Marc Haber wrote: On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 07:53:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: It would indeed be best if everything possible was documented, but very few people volunteer to do the work to drive changes to the documentation through to completion. This is partly

Re: freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship

2012-07-02 Thread Arno Töll
Hi, On 02.07.2012 17:06, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Bart Martens wrote: Comments on these suggestions ? Perhaps use wheezy-ignore for stuff that shouldn't be in wheezy? I guess that might be stepping on the release team's tags, so maybe setting up usercategories

Re: Moving /home of a package account, and to where?

2012-07-02 Thread Russ Allbery
Marc Haber mh+debian-ment...@zugschlus.de writes: On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 07:53:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: It would indeed be best if everything possible was documented, but very few people volunteer to do the work to drive changes to the documentation through to completion. This is

Re: Bug#679402:

2012-07-02 Thread Russ Allbery
Steven Ayre stevea...@gmail.com writes: Essentially it's simply a package that links mysql_tzinfo_to_sql and tzdata together using a trigger. When mysql-tzdata is first installed and then when tzdata is updated the postinst script is run, which loads the mysql_tzinfo_to_sql output into the

Re: freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship

2012-07-02 Thread Adam Borowski
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 09:06:25AM -0600, Paul Wise wrote: Perhaps use wheezy-ignore for stuff that shouldn't be in wheezy? Isn't that completely contrary to that tag's usual meaning? You set it for stuff that should be in wheezy despite the bug. What we'd want here, is some way to convey do

Processed: retitle to RFS: bilibop/0.3.3 (ITP #675467)

2012-07-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: retitle 675532 RFS: bilibop/0.3.3 (ITP #675467) Bug #675532 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: bilibop/0.3.2 (ITP #675467) Changed Bug title to 'RFS: bilibop/0.3.3 (ITP #675467)' from 'RFS: bilibop/0.3.2 (ITP #675467)' stop Stopping processing here.

Processed: retitle to RFS: python-x2go/0.2.0.6-1 [ITP]

2012-07-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: retitle 676608 RFS: python-x2go/0.2.0.6-1 [ITP] Bug #676608 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: python-x2go/0.2.0.5-2 [ITP] Changed Bug title to 'RFS: python-x2go/0.2.0.6-1 [ITP]' from 'RFS: python-x2go/0.2.0.5-2 [ITP]' stop Stopping processing here.

Bug#676608: marked as done (RFS: python-x2go/0.2.0.6-1 [ITP])

2012-07-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:55:13 + with message-id e1slw4v-0005pq...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: python-x2go/0.2.0.6-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #676608, regarding RFS: python-x2go/0.2.0.6-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim