Greetings,
To get to the point as quickly as possible
What process(es) must be followed to start a Debian dist for a new
architecture??
I'm hoping to kick into life a Debian/390 dist for the IBM S/390
architecture based on the just released S/390 linux kernel patches. Yes I
know the S/390
On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 at 10:51:40PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I joined Debian at May 23, this year (1999). I know at least one
> new maintainer who joined at June, IIRC. Old New Maintainer Team
> did work at that time.
You must have squeaked in under the wire. I applied in late May o
Hi.
I joined Debian at May 23, this year (1999). I know at least one
new maintainer who joined at June, IIRC. Old New Maintainer Team
did work at that time.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
at Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:53:10 +1100 (EST),
on Re: new maintainers,
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 10:09:54PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So tell me: What exactly do I do? I'm told by the Developer's
> Reference that there is a specific procedure. But I have some
> reasonable cause to believe that there is in fact no chance of any new
> developers being added
On Dec 30, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > As for naming names, it's a matter of accountability. Yes, NM is
> > > messed up. Now we need to make sure NM doesn't get messed up again,
>
> James Troup wrote:
> > Oh, by the way, Chris, whatever happened to
On Dec 30, James Troup wrote:
> Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As for naming names, it's a matter of accountability. Yes, NM is
> > messed up. Now we need to make sure NM doesn't get messed up again,
> > and to do that we need people in NM we can trust not to stage a
> > walkou
I don't have time for this BS; I'm off to London in a couple of hours
to watch the end of the world, and I won't have net access there, so
if I don't reply for a while that's why.
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I didn't "stage a walkout"; I quit. I've had nothing to do with
> > new
So there's a lot of flaming here, and I'd like to make it clear that
I'm not interested in flamage, and it was a little intemperate of me
to ask "if it isn't X's fault, whose is it?" I have more information
now than I wanted. ;-)
I'm simply in the position of being
1) Very clueful (I hope that
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Saying `hey, you suck at new-maintainering' and other junk isn't exactly
> the best way to encourage them to work on it, either.
Nor did offerring to help (because you need someone widely trusted in
the project) and nor did pointing out how credential c
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Anand Kumria wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> >
> > > Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > > > I'm very disappointed that Wichert has failed to reopen New
> > > > Maintainer. This is the biggest failure of his tenure thus far, IMHO.
> > >
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > Plus if you have resigned why does new-maintainer still point to you?
>
> This question does not really show your cluefulness btw...
Really? James resigned and yet he still receives mail for
new-maintainer. I think that is s
Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > > Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > What are the reasons for ever not letting new maintainers in?
> > >
> > > There are none, I agree.
> > >
> > > I'm very disappointed that
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > What are the reasons for ever not letting new maintainers in?
> >
> > There are none, I agree.
> >
> > I'm very disappointed that Wichert has failed to reopen New
> > Mai
Anand Kumria wrote:
> > I didn't "stage a walkout"; I quit. I've had nothing to do with
> > new-maintainer since then. I fail to see how that's "improper
> > behaviour" which "screwed Debian over".
>
> Really? So when I visited you and you saw you had about 500+ messages
> in your new-maintaine
On 30 Dec 1999, James Troup wrote:
> Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As for naming names, it's a matter of accountability. Yes, NM is
> > messed up. Now we need to make sure NM doesn't get messed up again,
> > and to do that we need people in NM we can trust not to stage a
> >
On 30 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> I'm interested in this question for several reasons. Basically, I'd
> like to be a new maintainer, but the process is 1) not clear and 2)
> officially closed. So I'm sitting here, waiting, wondering what
> possible motivations there could be for e
16 matches
Mail list logo
