Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - Eliminate the wait for the buildd for the first architecture.
>
> Not acceptable.
Rather, you would not find that acceptable.
> It will cause a time window where a trojaned binary package
> might be active,
True.
> and si
Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu 31. August 2006 12:47, you wrote:
> > Without a binary version someone upload (and therefor should
> > have tested), he could always claim his upload would have
> > worked if the buildds would not have mangled it. So there is
> > at least on
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> What I suggest is that certain organizations should be allowed to use
> the name "Debian Labs" in their name. Hence, Skolelinux could create
> its foundation with the name "Skolelinux Debian Labs" [4].
Sounds good to me.
- Jim Van Zandt
Robert Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Frustrated with Windows 98 and Microsoft, I'm looking at moving to
>Linux. I've been told that Debian is a good way to go, particularly
>for a Linux beginner. I'm hoping to use it on a home office computer,
>using applications such as Pagemaker, Photosho
> Produce a conservative distribution
> well tested before release
> has relatively few bugs
> those bugs that do exist are well publicized
I would add:
open bug management system
documented policies that favor:
flexibility (e.g. `alternativ
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I was looking at the Debian Machine usage policy (to be found
> at http://www.debian.org/devel/dmup>), and found a number of
> glaring flaws and omissions. More ominously, I think that unlike the
> constitution, the DMUP places uncontrolled pow
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>> This makes me think about dropping the symlinks completely.
>>
>> So we can have a real, physical pool of any sort, and all
>> distributions are simply a packages file with the relevant
>> constellation.
>
>This makes it impossibl
7 matches
Mail list logo
