On Tuesday 06 July 2010, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
DMs and DDs are maintainers and in some cases, DMs are also uploaders.
Debian Contributor seems nice enough, as Christoph Berg already
suggested.
So where would that leave translators, art people, etc, etc. Aren't
they contributing to? Contributors
On Tuesday 06 July 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I can't speak for the NM team, but if he was asked to go through DM
first (and that's what I understood), I could understand that his NM
application got removed for now.
This is the thing I'm having some problem with in the discussion so far.
Is
On Tuesday 06 July 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
Is it actually OK for FD to demand that candidates go through DM
before applying for DD, or as part of the NM process?
If the FD isn't fairly confident that someone has enough experience in
Debian to make
On Tuesday 06 July 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
The FD can say that someone isn't ready to enter the NM process,
though, and then provide specific suggestions as to how they can
demonstrate to the FD that they are ready to enter the NM process.
I'm not disagreeing with that. But that's a
On Friday 25 June 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'm not sure I understand against *what* exactly you're arguing; nor it
is clear to me whether you are proposing a different course of action
than the status quo.
The vote is there and we cannot change the past [...]
I would welcome a new GR
On Saturday 22 May 2010, martin f krafft wrote:
How about making archive chunks available e.g. at monthly periods
and telling people they have 2 months to voice objections before the
stuff is simply disclosed. Those people who don't want their stuff
disclosed are the ones that should be doing
On Sunday 14 March 2010, Clint Adams wrote:
Okay, so when there is a mysterious release team meeting in Cambridge,
and there is no discussion or planning of it on debian-release [...]
Clint,
Although to some level I agree with you [1], I wonder if you could explain
one thing.
That meeting
On Sunday 14 March 2010, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl [2010-03-14 16:09:34 CET]:
[1] I think release management for (old)stable is being handled quite
well ATM.
While this might be true and valid for stable, I am not too convinced
that the last point release
What's up with teams.debian.net? Looks like the server is down.
Has it been abandoned (if yes, what's happened to the archives there)?
Or has it maybe been moved to teams.debian.org, which does exist on liszt
but with a home page that does not give any useful info.
Is it still possible to
Joerg,
On Sunday 20 December 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
If you are one of the majority of people that have no access to Debians
ftp-master host, but still do want to know in which state our main
archive update, the dinstall run, is:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/dinstall.status to the rescue.
On Monday 01 February 2010, Manuel Navarrete Hidalgo wrote:
I am looking for Debian download format floppy disk, but i can not find.
Installation from floppy is no longer supported because current Debian
kernel images no longer fit on on a single floppy.
You'll have to use some other
On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I believe this configuration is unacceptable, but would like to check
that there is a consensus on this before pressing the matter with the
GRUB maintainers.
I agree, but it's hardly a new issue. For grub it's been this way for years
and
On Monday 07 December 2009, Michael Goetze wrote:
IANADD, and don't generally have time to keep up with the d-d mailing
list, so I would just like to say that for me personally it would be a
great improvement to the Planet if this Feed were added. It sometimes
seems rather hard to keep up with
On Sunday 01 November 2009, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
The following changes to the debian-maintainers keyring have just been
activated:
E: Can't load keyring
/srv/keyring.debian.org/keyrings/debian-maintainers.gpg from database
I suspect this was not supposed to happen ;-)
--
To
On Thursday 10 September 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
5 Pay people to do stuff we don't/can't/won't:
g website redesign and restructuring
This is something we seem unable to make any progress at and that
is very much overdue. Especially the restructuring part would
On Thursday 10 September 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
6 Fund other related projects
b Gnash. Petter is very keen on this, but I'm not so sure. Don't
they have other ways to get funding? Thoughts?
I don't think Debian as a project should sponsor upstream development.
That's up
On Thursday 10 September 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
It is useful not only for Debian, so IMHO Debian could donate some
money, but only if other big distributions (RedHat, SuSe/Novel, Ubuntu,
etc.) do the same.
Even then not IMO. Those other distributions are commercial, Debian is
not.
On Monday 24 August 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
When was it uploaded to experimental?
When was there a call to test the new things while they're in
experimental? This is NOT the way really important parts of Debian
should be maintained.
I'm no fan of insserv (I have the new sysv-rc on hold on
On Saturday 01 August 2009, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
One that will make a statement that women in Debian should always
wear deep cleavages, and men in Debian have sex with their laptops.
Nice...
IMHO you're seriously overreacting here.
IMO
On Friday 31 July 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't believe the kind of coarse synchronization that's been proposed
for the releases would make Debian-Ubuntu crossgrades significantly
easier. Most of the local changes that Ubuntu has today would still
apply, and there are rebuilt binaries
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
hard to make it look like that.
Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay
asynchronous with
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
After the talk Bdale commented about the length of the freeze and the
made observation (actually had a complaint) that the length of the
freeze is something were not the release team, but the project at large
should ask itself what to do better.
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Debian
==
- The completely voluntary nature of the project does not really lend
itself to hard timelines. If it turns out on the planned date of the
freeze that there are still major issues open, we need to be flexible
enough to delay the
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the
success of both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks
to flexible starts of the incremental freeze stages.
The staged
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Margarita Manterola wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Cyril Bruleboisk...@debian.org
wrote:
We discussed that quite extensively with Guido during last dinner,
and I totally share his opinion. Sounds like a very well performed
marketing campaign. Again:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009, Meike Reichle wrote:
The Debian project has decided to adopt a new policy of time-based
development freezes for future releases, on a two-year cycle.
Disappointing to see such an announcement without any prior discussion on
d-project, d-devel or d-vote. Some
On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
---
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
s/loose/lose/
I guess in practice that means: have their key removed from
On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly
run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part
of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an
achievable or useful goal and it does lock out
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at
least send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been
accepted in the project during the past x months
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
used to be sent out periodically
To cut this discussion short, I hereby volunteer to send out the New
Maintainer overviews. I'll probably rename them to New Debian
Developer
This is the first mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.
The overview starts after the last New Maintainers mail sent by Mohammed
Adnène Trojette in February 2007 [1].
Because
This is the second mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.
Because this was all quite long ago, I'm not including the short
introductions normally found in these mails. Instead
This is the last mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.
Because this was some time ago, I'm not including the short introductions
normally found in these mails. Instead there is
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
This is the second mail in a short series providing an overview of
people who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been
welcomed to the project on this list before.
I just see I missed Barry deFreese in this overview.
Welcome!
September
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Julien Cristau wrote:
(also, on the topic of people who are ready when they enter NM go
through it fast,
https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=samuel.thibault%40ens-lyon.org
)
Oh, I had missed that Samuel had become a DD. That's great. Congrats.
/me wonders
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Describing people like Samuel Thibault or Chris Lamb as people who are
ready when they enter NM, and therefore implying that if you take more
than 6 months, it's because you were not ready, is just insulting for
all the other applicants who were
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs
that used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”),
but AFAICT there might
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The second type, the one I believe Frans is referring to, is sent
manually. It takes a lot of work and effort to create it (looking up
the required information, copying and pasting the relevant sections
from the relevant mails, doing some
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
FD has mainly two people: Wouter and me. Christoph Berg helps out
sometimes, but has more than enough to do with DAM work. There is no
other FD - they either stepped down or disappeared completely from
Debian.
Would be great to know where FD
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Chris Lamb benefited from a lot of factors. [...]
That sounds a lot like my own NM process. I guess what this proves is that
really active people who already have been involved with the problem for
a decent time and already have shown both their
On Saturday 23 May 2009, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
What about requiring a GPG signed email by key in developers or
maintainers keyring?
As others have already mentioned, the addresses are also intended as
contact point for upstream developers and users, i.e. people who don't
have such a key.
On Friday 22 May 2009, Stephen Gran wrote:
So I've looked through a few weeks of mail logs to packages.debian.org,
I always use it to CC the maintainer(s) of a package I reassign a bug to,
or if I want to CC a package maintainer on some discussion.
For me it's the most natural address to use,
On Friday 22 May 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
Maybe a list of packages that do use it and an address to email for
those who want to start using it at a later date?
That would defeat its purpose. It is not about which maintainers use it,
but about who uses it to contact maintainers.
Cheers,
FJP
On Friday 15 May 2009, Peter Palfrader wrote:
== s390 ==
we have two porterboxes here. zelenka is new and fast and has nice
network but is a little short on disk space. raptor has more
diskspace but the network is too restricted - we can't even get to
our puppet master from it and
On Friday 15 May 2009, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 15 May 2009, Peter Palfrader wrote:
== s390 ==
we have two porterboxes here. zelenka is new and fast and has
nice network but is a little short on disk space. raptor has
more
On Saturday 18 April 2009, Marcello Di Marino Azevedo wrote:
Hello, I'm not sure this is the correct list to ask this but I was
askedto install Debian on a Sparc machine but not all CDs/DVDs are
available to download under main download server.
Looking at:
On Friday 10 April 2009, Thomas Nguyen Van wrote:
Package perl is not installed.
Below my perl's list installed on my machine:
Which clearly shows the package perl is not installed!
Solution: aptitude install perl
Please take such questions to the debian-user list in future.
(Luk BCCed to make sure he sees the thread.)
It appears that today either Luk himself or someone else added a Status
feed to planet.d.o with one-liner info messages about what Luk's up to.
These messages have already started to annoy me as
a) there are relatively a lot of them
b) they don't
On Tuesday 07 April 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
These messages have already started to annoy me as
a) there are relatively a lot of them
There are only a few per day maximum from me. If there were more that
reached you today it's probably because it contained the whole feed up
to now.
I
On Saturday 28 March 2009, Peter Palfrader wrote:
[note to -project readers: this mail was written with -admin as an
intended audience in mind and not you, but I figured I'd CC you
anyways. Please excuse the style and terseness of some items.]
Thanks! It's nice to have some sort of idea
On Sunday 15 March 2009, m...@iglou.com wrote:
In the future, it would be very, very, very, very, very nice if there
was an install option to install/reinstall Grub. Currently, the
install process will not install/reinstall Grub without having the core
packages installed first. I am using
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Being part of the project, particularly with upload rights, is
something I believe _should_ be difficult. This restriction on access
to the archive is one of our strengths, it gives us a higher quality of
packaging (yes, there are exceptions,
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
IMHO that's a false notion of security through laziness :).
Black hats are lazy too. They go after easy targets for maximum profit.
Getting into Debian currently takes a certain amount of demonstrated
dedication to the project through
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Micah Anderson wrote:
All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM
process is not that significant of a difficulty for getting inside
Debian and we cannot use this as mechanism for
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Enrico Zini wrote:
Yes, and there are cheaper ways than getting the black hat to become a
full DD: with a thousand of DDs we have a thousand possibly vulnerable
points of entry. Frankly, if anyone wanted to attack Debian, they'd
have to be remarkably silly to plan
On Monday 16 February 2009, Thomas Nguyen Van wrote:
In our company, we hourly check security updates via the command
apt-get update for several months.
You may have noticed that Lenny was released this weekend.
It seems to me that your /etc/apt/sources.list is probably not set up
correctly
On Monday 16 February 2009, Thomas Nguyen Van wrote:
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
^^
That was exactly the problem. Your modified version looks correct.
Cheers,
FJP
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tuesday 27 January 2009, Simon Huggins wrote:
They don't contain much information and don't talk about thresholds
Thank you for fixing these to actually have information in them now.
1 bounce out of 190 mails in 7 days (0%, kick-score is 80%)
Might I suggest you only send them out
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
interpretation are the ones making the most noise.
Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the
number of posts from anybody else?
Could you also
On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
The main reason I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this is that in practice
not all 1000 developers participate in a
Sorry for the late reply, but I've been so frustrated with things over the
past week that I decided to take a break and see how things worked out
first.
On Monday 15 December 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:28 +0100]:
Because any votes below FD do not count
If you feel disenchanted about how the Lenny GR has been handled and,
in particular, with the resulting ballot and its 7 options, I invite
you to participate in this unofficial vote and, optionally, to show
your discontent by ranking Further Discussion above all other options
in the official
(Adding -project and including full quote of dato's reply (excluding
signature) as that was not sent to that list.)
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]:
How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote
is to play into the hands of those who don't want any
On Friday 05 December 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
as the subject says, we are planning to increase the frequency of
dinstall[1] runs. Our current plan is to have 4 runs a day, switching
From the current [07|19]:52 schedule to the new [01|07|13|19]:52
schedule. All times are in UTC.
Please be
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
have _all_ the possible courses of
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
The fundamental thing we disagree on is that you think creating a
patch and doing an immediate upload to DELAYED is an acceptable
workflow for any kind of issue.
Yes. Not recommended, but certainly acceptable. With a long delay, of
course.
My
On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
I would of course do that. But you do indeed ask me to hide the
package? And after, say, 3 weeks have passed and nothing happened
(which is unlikely, but possible), I can upload it to DELAYED/7? Then
why couldn't I upload to DELAYED/28 in the first
On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
No matter what is done, there is a time limit for the review of
patches which fix RC bugs, whether stated or not. If a maintainer is
unable to respond to a patch for an RC bug in a reasonable timeframe,
they should expect an NMU. It matters little
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
Basically I and several others have been asking to add something that
effectively (and more explicitly than in the current proposal) says:
Please consider before you NMU if just contacting the maintainer
isn't likely to more effective than
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
What is the difference for the maintainer between these? Not the time
required for M; in all cases, the most M needs to do to prevent the NMU
from happening is writing a mail to N (and the BTS). The only
difference is what to say (please cancel the
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
No, I don't, I agree with you that this would be unacceptable.
Right, and that is where our opinions _do_ differ fundamentally.
You don't agree that I agree with you?
OK, I misread that. Sorry.
The fundamental thing we disagree on is that you
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I propose to add NMUs are usually not appropriate for
team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
instead. to the bullet list.
It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members
might become unresponsive
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
All members of a team becoming unresponsive is possible, agreed.
But it is a hell of a lot less likely than at least one member of
the team being able to respond to urgently needed changes if
appropriately notified.
So, why should there be any
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
* Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least on the
BTS? Has the maintainer been notified of it? It is also a good
idea to try to contact the maintainer by other means (private
email, IRC)
IMO private mail is
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
Sure. For me it is not necessarily about teams, but more about active:
likely to respond and take care of urgent issues
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
So far, you (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Charles Plessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) raised that concern.
Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Frank Küster have been voicing what
are basically the same concerns.
On
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I also stressed that in the intro, and removed the second paragraph of
the intro, which didn't really add any value.
Agreed.
+ * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you
+ tried to contact him? In general it should be
On Friday 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
the DEP says:
- must use BTS,
- usage of DELAYED is recommended.
I would like to see at least two cases where communication with the
maintainer is required *before* uploading (DELAYED or not) by sending
an intend to NMU (conform current policy
On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything
wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting
time, but that's your own problem). So no reasons are needed for it.
I find your argumentation rather weak, but
On Thursday 22 May 2008 20:33:25 Sergio Franco wrote:
I am completely new to Linux. For long years I was a MacOS user and now I
will move forward. From all I red Debian is the best choice. I downloaded
the Debian/PowerPC_etch FIRST CD and I red with close attention the
Debian GNU/Linux
On Monday 21 April 2008, Thiemann Daniel wrote:
i am searching für a download link für Debian 3.1 Sarge. Could you help
me, cause i didnt find it.
http://www.debian.org/releases/sarge/debian-installer/
Cheers,
FJP
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
their web sites for details on pricing and shipping costs.
Kind regards,
Frans Pop
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Francois Marier wrote:
You have a good point: dopewars, despite being fun to a lot of people, is
not exactly a family-friendly game. I suggest you look at this Debian
sub-project if you are looking for a child-safe distribution:
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Lars Wirzenius, Stefano Zacchiroli and myself are trying to introduce
the concept of Debian Enhancement Proposals, which I had in mind for
many months until purely by chance, in the Extremadura QA meeting last
December, I brought it up to
On Monday 17 December 2007, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Carl-Valentin Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
can I download the sourcecodes of debian packages complete in a
bundle???
No, you can't. A tarball containing all source packages available on
ftp.debian.org would be about 40 GB big.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Bruno Emmanuel wrote:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/amd64/bt-cd/
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-cd/
.ISO cd, dvd, jigdo amd64 lenny is not avaliable
This is a known issue due to some problems with the daily builds of
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
James Andrewartha a écrit :
Not a buildd, but [1] notes that there's an alpha porting machine
waiting for more than a year to be set up by DSA. I don't know if
there's an RT ticket, but there is a bug [2] about this, which was
closed
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Luk Claes wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 08:32:40AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html lists that alpha, mips
and mipsel a having buildd redundancy, but that does not seem to match
reality as both only have a single buildd
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Luk Claes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:01:54PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
James Andrewartha a écrit :
Not a buildd, but [1] notes that there's an alpha porting machine
waiting for more than a year
that is always the
subject of controversy and complaints, would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Frans Pop
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Saturday 03 November 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
Could you please explain in what way the addition of a single person to
the existing team (Phil already was DSA, even if not yet in the adm
group) is going to resolve all the huge and structural communication
problems between team members that we
On Saturday 13 October 2007, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
Congratulations, but is this a CDD?
AFAIK they aim to be a CDD, but currently they have a number of modified
packages, mainly because (program) translations for Dzongkha are not (yet)
available in Debian Etch.
They also have some minor
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Wayne Cam wrote:
I searched the whole website, and googled for the Kernel version of Etch,
but couldn't find it.
Could you tell me what linux kernel it is?
The obvious document to read is the Release Notes:
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, you wrote:
On 10/3/07, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Wayne Cam wrote:
I searched the whole website, and googled for the Kernel version of
Etch, but couldn't find it.
Could you tell me what linux kernel
On Monday 02 July 2007 17:26, Jens Seidel wrote:
comitee or comittee?
committee even :-)
pgpIUBdnkry1R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 29 June 2007 14:18, Luca Brivio wrote:
(He says to have already requested the removal of two emails from the
official archive, sent with two different address (one is arguably his
old address, the other isn't), both of which are different from his
current email address, and makes
On Friday 29 June 2007 15:51, Robert Millan wrote:
Please note that this message doesn't imply agreement with his methods.
I'm merely the messenger, so don't blame me. OTOH, I can understand
why a person who has been forcibly silenced would react this way.
I don't think you can say I'm merely
On Friday 01 June 2007 14:06, Sam Hocevar wrote:
I'd prefer we didn't use the word punishment, because punishing is
certainly not what Debian should do; Debian needs to protect itself
from threats, and this protection might mean expulsion, suspension or
other unfortunate measures, but they
On Saturday 26 May 2007 16:47, Torsten Trautwein wrote:
On 5/26/07, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably not, but then I'm not a fan of the Simpsons...
So maybe you've got a suggestion we both and maybe the majority of the
Debian community likes?
No, not really. I suggest we just
(Resending as I forgot to change the subject. Sorry about that.)
On Friday 18 May 2007 12:18, Bastian Blank wrote:
I'd like to schedule the linux-2.6 2.6.21-[23] upload for today.
Fixes:
[...]
- sparc32 deprecation? No fix yet for the cmpxchg problem.
This would have a serious implication
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
