On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Marc
Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to
be
Otavio, let me make it clear for all readers that you're talking on
behalf of debian installer team.
I'm sure d-i team is very important to RM team. Communication is far
from being a strong quality of this project, with that in mind could
you please try to dissociate a little from the whole thing
On 6/20/07, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Since every GNU/Linux distributor seems to be positioning with regards to
possible patent deals with Microsoft, I thought we could do the same.
Actually, it's totally unthinkable that a non-profit organization could do
this kind of deal,
On 3/16/07, Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 04:26:15PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well, I'm still not sure wether DM is a good thing or not in fact. But
I'd say it has te be experimented yes. If we are going that road, Then
I've two people to recommend for
On 2/27/07, Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:06:47AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Exactly Martin, if the plain is a publicly accessible interface to
track requests for DSA, we've our BTS! The security argument sells
the idea that a RT (not publicly
On 2/28/07, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10944 March 1977, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I disagree. RT has a very flexible and complex ACL management which
lacks in BTS. So it can be potentially used to to ensure public view of some
information without full disclosure.
I know and use
On 2/24/07, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:16:52PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
That's up to the person behind the *my* you wrote, disclose $ADDRESS
and $NUMBER. The same can't be said about our email address, so what's
the point really? I don't think the DSA
On 2/23/07, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.02.23.1054 +0100]:
You did notice that the DSA team is about to install a request tracker
for issues like you described? I would think that takes care of most
of the current communication
On 2/23/07, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:06:47AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
softwares) and anyone is free to open bugs with debsecan output and
stuff like that. Don't tell me that hey, what's the alpha machine
status? and keyring-maint requests will leak
On 2/13/07, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Gustavo Franco wrote:
- more momentum to the leadership: clearly a single leader is swamped with
administrivia and even the addition of a 2IC didn't let Anthony finish
his first proposal (about giving single-package
On 2/12/07, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Hi Raphael,
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Romain Francoise wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Feel free to comment, ask questions and give suggestions on how to
enhance it.
Could you provide a bit more context about which
On 1/25/07, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
This idea arose from a discussion on the -private mailing list.
Andreas Tille, Gustavo Franco, Manoj Srivastava and Gunnar Wolf all
commented fairly positively on a vague idea of having a social committee
(soc-ctte), different from
On 1/25/07, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On to, 2007-01-25 at 19:11 +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
As far as appointment, we could try all the same for soc-ctte.
Except two things:
* keeping votes secret - maybe they should not be secret.
* soc-ctte members should serve two years or
On 1/26/07, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 05:55:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
We can determine social policy by discussion and, if necessary, by
voting. I'd rather see consensus, and, more specifically, see the
soc-ctte spell out the social norms and
On 1/25/07, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
This idea arose from a discussion on the -private mailing list.
Andreas Tille, Gustavo Franco, Manoj Srivastava and Gunnar Wolf all
commented fairly positively on a vague idea of having a social committee
(soc-ctte), different from
On 1/26/07, Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all!
Andreas Tille wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Amaya Rodrigo
Andreas Schuldei
Andreas Tille
Carlos Laviola
Erinn Clark
Felipe van de Wiel
Guilherme Pastore
Ian Murdock
Removing Ian Murdock from my reply:
a) he
On 12/9/06, Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061209 14:46]:
aparently this can be worked around if the machine is owned
outside brazil and is only hosted there. so somehow e.g. fiis
could own the machine and have it hosted in .br.
Stratus,
On 9/24/06, Tulio de Melo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qual o significado do nome Debian? Tem alguma coisa a ver com Demônio,
essas coisas? Valew!
Hi list,
Tulio asked in portuguese the origin of Debian name and i point out
below the project-history page.
[ Tulio, por favor não envie novamente
On 7/29/06, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I agree, but we need to keep in mind that Ubuntu has less officially
supported
packages (the main section) and the others are in universe section,
supported
by volunteers like us, that work
On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 02:49:34 +, Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:11:03 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 28 Jul
On 7/29/06, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 08:48 +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
There's a nother problem with team maintained packages. The Security
Team has to work on packages that are team-maintained in sid every
once in a while. Often we want to get in
On 7/29/06, Julien Danjou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:03:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why is a 0 day NMU not OK policy when a team is not
maintaining a package well? If there is a bug in the package, it
should be fixed asap, regardless of how many
On 7/29/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 02:49:34AM +, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Hello, i thought Debian project was a big team. If people here don't
want to work in a team, we're going nowhere.
Two words for you: Fred Brooks.
More two for you: Be polite
On 7/29/06, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
What if we introduced the concept of area maintenance? Like saying
Matthew Garrett is part of our hardware support team, so can thus NMU
any package that needs changes to support that release
On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:16:53 +, Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 7/29/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 02:49:34AM +, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Hello, i thought Debian project was a big team
On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:46:58 +, Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:16:53 +, Gustavo Franco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 7/29/06, Matthew Palmer
On 7/28/06, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reply to -project only!
also sprach Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.28.1737 +0100]:
If Debian had slightly less of a culture of Keep your hands off
my package, I'd do it here instead.
I've been thinking about this a lot
On 7/28/06, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.28.1838 +0100]:
* Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status.
The developer needs to be logged and mark if all his packages (where
he's listed as uploader) can
On 7/28/06, Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership. Make it 100%
mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first.
Are there packages which are particularly well co-maintained right now?
What about
On 7/28/06, Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Pierre,
please don't Cc me, I read this list. :)
Il giorno ven, 28/07/2006 alle 19.28 +0200, Pierre Habouzit ha scritto:
and that won't happen because I'm not very keen on leraning yet another
VCS, and that other's think the same,
On 7/28/06, Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
(...)
I imagine if we would have a big CVS tree like Gentoo or some BSD's, i
wouldn't know where to begin with my work or what I sould do. The forest
is so large and you don't see the tree!
I don't think we need a central approach,
On 7/28/06, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Gustavo Franco [Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:38:52 -0300]:
* Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status.
And remember that (well done) NMUs are not only for bugs of RC severity.
For example, I'm going to upload to 7-delayed
On 7/28/06, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10729 March 1977, martin f. krafft wrote:
also sprach Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.28.1737 +0100]:
If Debian had slightly less of a culture of Keep your hands off
my package, I'd do it here instead.
I've been thinking about
On 7/28/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simply change the NMUs to be always 0-day, for all bugs =3Dnormal. Which
means - upload and mail to BTS at the same time.
Would that mean we get BTS+NMU tennis instead of BTS tennis,
where differences of
On 7/28/06, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le ven 28 juillet 2006 22:40, MJ Ray a écrit :
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simply change the NMUs to be always 0-day, for all bugs =3Dnormal.
Which means - upload and mail to BTS at the same time.
Would that mean we get
On 7/28/06, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Moreover, not having strong maintainership in Ubuntu lead to some
obscure package to be completely neglected, and some are in a not
satisfying shape. I attribute that to the fact that nobody is
On 7/28/06, Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gustavo Franco wrote:
For existing packages:
* The package that contains only the Maintainer field with the name of
a person and not a group can be uploaded by any DD. ping the current
maintainer is good but not required;
then I will have
On 7/28/06, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Gustavo Franco wrote:
* The package that contains only the Maintainer field with the name of
a person and not a group can be uploaded by any DD. ping the current
maintainer is good but not required;
I propose that under that policy
On 7/29/06, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Gustavo Franco [Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:01:26 -0300]:
I've seen more problems of bad maintainers with bad packages, than of
irrevertible broken NMUs. Yes shit happen, but well, if you don't move,
things rot, which is not much better.
Yes
On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:11:03 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[2006.07.28.1737 +0100]:
If Debian had slightly less of a
On 7/29/06, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Thomas Viehmann [Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:40:19 +0200]:
If that is wanted, I'd consider it important enough information to have
it in debian/control.
A couple packages of mine ship already with an X-VCS-Bzr header in the
source. Example:
On 7/13/06, Bas Zoetekouw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Martin!
You wrote:
Debian Server restored after Compromise
Kudos to debian-admin for sorting out the situation so quickly!
Yes!
An investigation of developer passwords revealed a number of weak
passwords whose accounts have been
On 7/13/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Should a check/review be done of recent (staring from the date that first
account was compromised I would guess) uploads where those keys were used
(even if only by the involved DDs themselves)?
Do we
On 6/15/06, GNAA Jmax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is exactly the sort of hate i expected from the debian community. I
feel ashamed to be a debian user, as though I have betrayed my brothers and
sisters by giving into your hate. I shall not tolerate this, and will be
considering legal action
) not on any freenode channels at
all.
On another front, oftc is also a sister org under the SPI
umbrella.
Thoughts?
I agree with the move, but to avoid confusion i would like to
recommend announce it at least a week before, through debian-announce
mailing list.
Thanks,
Gustavo Franco - [EMAIL
On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
3. Conclusions
==
(..)
I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast as
possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already in the
queue waiting for an AM. (2.3) is, as I
On 4/11/06, Benjamin Mesing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless you are not planning to have long term second class
developers
Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term second class
developers
No, no, no. Give someone the rights to vote or upload something for
Debian isn't consider
On 4/11/06, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I strongly disagree that 2.3 is a long-term thing. It should be
started years ago, but it isn't too late yet. We should push it with a
transition plan in mind (e.g: what we're going to do
On 3/14/06, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ti, 2006-03-14 kello 01:57 +, MJ Ray kirjoitti:
Debian contributors are being cost time and money dealing
with UOL's crap anyway.
The cost of having to delete an autoreply message for every mail you
send to -devel is not so great as
On 3/14/06, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ti, 2006-03-14 kello 11:28 +, MJ Ray kirjoitti:
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The cost of having to delete an autoreply message for every mail you
send to -devel is not so great as to warrant kicking out Debian
contributors
On 3/13/06, Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
(...)
That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
unsubscribed[1].
Perhaps this action will prompt some kind of response from the powers
On 3/13/06, Matthew R. Dempsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
unsubscribed[1].
I am still
On 3/13/06, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ma, 2006-03-13 kello 17:53 -0300, Daniel Ruoso kirjoitti:
I would recomend sending a private message for those who have this
stupid antispam asking them to remove or just killfile him or disable
him from receiving messages until he remove
On 3/13/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Anand,
Hope you don't mind me replying. You sent this to -project.
Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no general problem with that domain,
right
On 3/13/06, Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 13 March 2006 04:20, Anand Kumria wrote:
That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
unsubscribed[1].
Just curious: how many
Hi listmasters,
Can you send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and me explaining the problem ? If you already
did, please forward to me the original message.
Thanks in advance,
-- stratus
I've just mailed a person in UOL, but i still need a better technical
contact that probably i'll obtain through a nic.br person until the
end of this week. If the listmasters or somebody else has a good
summary that was already sent for UOL, please forward it to me.
Thanks,
-- stratus
On 3/13/06, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now
On 3/13/06, Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gustavo Franco wrote:
I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to
debian-user.
I see, and it's just other reason that this unsubscribe thing not
worked as the listmasters
thought. I would like
59 matches
Mail list logo
