Hi,
I'd like to append two (hopefully short) comments to this.
a) The right place to fix this bug/implement it is Guy's dinstall
program that installs the packages into the archive. If
one feels that this should happen soon he should contribute
to it. I think Guy would accept appro
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Santiago> Maybe the right thing to do here, since none of the new
> > Santiago> lists did exist previously, and since debian-devel
On 20 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Santiago> Maybe the right thing to do here, since none of the new
> Santiago> lists did exist previously, and since debian-devel-changes
> Santiago> will disappear as such, is to let p
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Maybe the right thing to do here, since none of the new
Santiago> lists did exist previously, and since debian-devel-changes
Santiago> will disappear as such, is to let people to subscribe to
Santiago> whatever list they l
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> * People subscribed to the first one are only interested in
Santiago> binary .deb packages for the i386 architecture, not in
Santiago> new source packages. Most of the Debian users currently
Santiago> subscribed to
On 20 Aug 1998, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> I suggest that the current debian-devel-changes be your
> debian-devel-changes-source list, because I think most of the people
> currently subscribed to debian-devel-changes are developers, more
> interested in new releases (ie source packages) than binarie
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suggest one change to this. Instead of renaming debian-devel-changes
> > to debian-devel-changes-i386, it should be changed to
> > debian-devel-changes-source. This way people who upload source packages
> > for other architectures will get noticed, a
On 20 Aug 1998, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Therefore, I will send the last proposal:
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9808/msg00115.html
> >
> > to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so that whenever the new upload procedure is
> > impleme
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Therefore, I will send the last proposal:
>
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9808/msg00115.html
>
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so that whenever the new upload procedure is
> implemented, the list is splitted in the proposed way at that t
Splitting of debian-devel-changes
=
I'm going to summarize everything so far:
* The list may be filtered in many several ways, but this does not solve
the problem of bandwidth for people using POP (the "too late" problem).
Therefore, most people seem to agree tha
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If I don't hear any serious objection, I will send the proposal to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [.. snip snip ..]
>
> Could you first take a look at all comments made and post a new proposal?
> If I remember correctly so
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> If I don't hear any serious objection, I will send the proposal to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [.. snip snip ..]
Could you first take a look at all comments made and post a new proposal?
If I remember correctly some nice suggetions were made.
Wichert.
--
=
Hi.
Seven days ago, I posted my second proposal for the splitting of
debian-devel-changes.
If I don't hear any serious objection, I will send the proposal to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], where is the bug which asked for the new upload
procedure, so that whenever the new upload procedure is implemented
Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Here's a top 10 of K/Day for 1998 if you're curious.
> >
> > debian-user 276253
>
> I hope you mean that this is 276253K/day for _all_ subscribers, e.g.
No, I just forgot to divide. It's 276K/day of email written. Sorry.
Guy
On Mon 10 Aug 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
>
> Here's a top 10 of K/Day for 1998 if you're curious.
>
> debian-user 276253
I hope you mean that this is 276253K/day for _all_ subscribers, e.g.
with 2000 subscribers you get 138K per subscriber. Right? Otherwise
I'm (happily!) missing a lot of traffic
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another thing I'ld like to see is moving the point of posting from (d)upload
> to dinstall.
Yes, I know I need to implement this.
I looked at the archives and debian-*-changes has generated 160K a day
on average this year. Even a stinkin' analog mod
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> (apart from the fact that it is seriously under powered for the task ;-)
/me suspects a new `holy' war coming up :)
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written t
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> I just tried to do a simple proposal. Feel free do propose a better one.
> I would be happy with *any* reasonable solution.
freshmeat has a better solution iirc: personalized messages. Since the
number of posts in -changes is quite limited, we could do that.
Anot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ok, second proposal:
The "distributed", non i386-centric one:
The debian-devel-changes is renamed to debian-devel-changes-i386, and an
announcement is sent explaining the goal of the new list.
There would be the following lists:
a) debian-devel-changes- for e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> That's ugly.
Maybe.
> If I only wanted to see alpha uploads I would still have to
> subscribe to the i386-list to see architecture independant uploads.
Ok, but then architecture independant uploads would have to
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> [1 ]
Wichert> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
>> In the meantime, I think we should start thinking about the splitting of
>> debian-devel-changes, creating lists for every architecture (we have
>> already seven).
Wich
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> In the meantime, I think we should start thinking about the splitting of
> debian-devel-changes, creating lists for every architecture (we have
> already seven).
What is wrong with using procmail for that? I have the following in
my procmailrc:
:0:
* ^X-Mailing-L
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > In the meantime, I think we should start thinking about the splitting of
> > debian-devel-changes, creating lists for every architecture (we have
>
> Hmm, I object to "in the meantime" since this ensures that this f
I already filter these with some mailing filtering rules.
My mailagent .rules looks like this:
X-Loop: /debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org/i { REJECT CHANGES };
Subject: /\(.*source.*\)/ { SAVE Debian.debian-devel-changes.source };
Subject: /\(.*hurd-i386.*\)/ { SAVE Debian.debian-devel-ch
(evil me is still not on -policy...)
On Sat, Aug 08, 1998 at 07:30:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> [ I've Bcc:ed debian-devel. Please answer only to debian-policy. Thanks ].
>
> The "new upload procedure", approved some time ago, is already in the bug
> list for ftp.debian.org (#17525), so I h
Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hi.
>
> [ I've Bcc:ed debian-devel. Please answer only to debian-policy. Thanks ].
>
> The "new upload procedure", approved some time ago, is already in the bug
> list for ftp.debian.org (#17525), so I hope it will be implemented some
> day and this procedure will allow us
> > In the meantime, I think we should start thinking about the splitting of
> > debian-devel-changes, creating lists for every architecture (we have
> > already seven).
>
> The only reason to do this is to quell bandwidth. The discarding of
> uninteresting architectures can always be done by the
I personally don't think splitting the lists is necessary. It's so
trivial to pick out what you want using mail filters. This fact, plus
the clear and obvious awkardness of your proposal w.r.t.
x86-centricity and where "source" and "all" pacakges go, is why we've
never bothered to change things.
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the meantime, I think we should start thinking about the splitting of
> debian-devel-changes, creating lists for every architecture (we have
> already seven).
The only reason to do this is to quell bandwidth. The discarding of
uninteresting architec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi.
[ I've Bcc:ed debian-devel. Please answer only to debian-policy. Thanks ].
The "new upload procedure", approved some time ago, is already in the bug
list for ftp.debian.org (#17525), so I hope it will be implemented some
day and this procedure will allow us
30 matches
Mail list logo
