Re: TC voting and governance process (was: systemd bad press? score card?)

Russ Allbery wrote: > At the moment, I find the idea of other people discussing these issues and > any others that have arisen and coming up with a good plan of action while > I sit back and watch horribly appealing for some reason. :) I'm not sure > if now is the best time, or if we should wait

Re: systemd bad press? score card?

Russ Allbery wrote: > I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand > that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted. Well, not only outside the project. The tech ctte has always operated in the past by coming to a consensus and then voting to satisf

Re: Proposed MBF - mentions of the word "Ubuntu"

Steve Langasek wrote: > In the event that an over-enthusiastic mark holder tries to tell Debian that > their nominative use of a trademark (in a package name, file name, etc.) is > infringing, the appropriate course of action for Debian to take is to > *reject these claims*, and continue using the

Re: Proposed MBF - mentions of the word "Ubuntu"

Steve Langasek wrote: > As I hope Mark's post makes clear Mark's post certianly made clear to me that he has a continuing distain for Debian. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Should mailing list bans be published?

Bart Martens wrote: > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved. It's > really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect > bad on Debian's reputation. > > Approaches I could support : > - post the bans with reasons on debian-private > - or m

Re: Possibly moving Debian services to a CDN

Interesting idea. If the Debian website is served to users directly from non-free software, and so is the archive, I have to wonder what would be the FSF's reaction to this. It seems to have some potential to burn bridges that I'd otherwise hope would get mended. > Ultimately, we are of the opini

Re: KickStarter for Debian packages - crowdfunding/donations for development

Charles Plessy wrote: > In the case of Debian, I share with others the concern of having the packages > as a source of revenue How about making fixed bugs a source of revenue? -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: CIA going down: KGB wants your commits!

Martín Ferrari wrote: > If you rather use our bots, we'll need you to provide: a project/repository > name, an IRC channel, and a password (used to avoid spam, not really > secure). d-i would like to use your bots, but we have an ever-changing list of repositories. It'd be wrong to centralize the

Re: trademark policy draft

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Actually, I've realize only later an important overlook in my first > follow-up to this. This provision is positive, in the "you can use our > trademarks to ..." form. As such, it is just a public declaration that > we are with that kind of use. It does *not* follow from

Re: trademark policy draft

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > \item You can use DEBIAN trademarks to make true factual statements about > DEBIAN or communicate compatibility with your product truthfully. Can I use DEBIAN trademarks to make snarky ill-supported statements? (Anticipating a decrease in list traffic.) > \item You

Re: Claiming the "debian" account on GitHub ? [and 1 more messages]

Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > If anything it may be nice to mirror some "important" Debian software (say > dpkg, debhelper, lintian, ...) on GitHub like the Apache Foundation does [0] > (also see [1]). > > AFAIK those mirrors are completely automated and would allow GitHub users to > follow the deve

Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads

Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not >possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM. Isn't that the point of listing a DM in the field? Why would you want to list someone as a Maintainer and not allow them to upload a package?

Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads

Ian Jackson wrote: > > - It allows DMs to grant permissions to other DMs. > > It is far from clear that forbidding this is the right thing to do. As far as I know, we did this intentionally. When a DM is the maintainer of a package, they should be able to move it to team maintenance without need

Re: revenue sharing agreement with DuckDuckGo

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > That's basically it, yes. Everything else is essentially ancillary stuff > like governing law, that either part can break out of it, no warranties, > how to dispute the traffic report if we want to, etc. The most important > part of the information is the string we will

Re: revenue sharing agreement with DuckDuckGo

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I've clarified to them that the choice of which search engine options > are available in web browsers we ship, as well as the choice of which > one is the default, are purely based on technical merit and won't be > affected by us entering in such an agreement (if we do).

Re: revenue sharing agreement with DuckDuckGo

Steffen Möller wrote: > The problem I see is with a > competition with upstream. If we in any way lower the impact firefox > has for google, then this has a direct effect not only on firefox but > also on our relation with them and other upstreams. That is what I came here to say. It needs to be

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Are you sure the first successful installation of Debian happened during > DebConf3? I remember giving a talk about Skolelinux at that conference > and how Skolelinux used d-i to automate the Debian installation. During > the talk I ran the installation as a demonstra

Re: [Debconf-discuss] Your biggest achievement during past DebConfs (aka new DebConf promoting campaign)

Francesca Ciceri wrote: > "During DebConfN I wrote $cool-software which we now use to do > $cool-things" At DebConf3 in Oslo, I finally met the other Debian Installer developers gathered together in person, and after a week of challanging work, we achieved the first successful installation of Debi

Re: Debian WWW team IRC meeting, 15 February 21:30 UTC in #debian-www

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I've a wish list documentation request: a sort of "recipe" to apply the > current layout to ikiwiki websites, e.g. a ready to use local.css or, > maybe better, something to @import from there. I've a couple of > websites powered by ikiwiki which offers Debian-related se

Re: Funny / interesting facts about Debian

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > ask.debian.net > > - 318 questions submitted > - 554 users > > (I can't find out to determine how many votes have been submitted, but > someone can, it would be a nice addition.) > > Similar stats for forums.debian.net would be nice. In both cases, it > can promote u

Re: [DEP5] License field in the first paragraph ?

Ben Finney wrote: > The explanation in the DEP doesn't really make it clear why this is > needed, as opposed to an initial “Files: *” paragraph with the “package > as a whole” copyright and license values. > > Where is the rationale for having Copyright apply in the header? Files: * Copyright: Fo

Re: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1

Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On to, 2011-01-13 at 17:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Yeah, I think Source should be optional for native packages. > > Would anyone oppose making such a change? Does Policy allow it? If > there's consensus for, and it's ok by Policy, then I'd be happy to apply > a patch

Re: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1

Lars Wirzenius wrote: > I have just pushed out the CANDIDATE version of DEP5 to the DEP > subversion repository. DEP5 is the specification for a machine-readable > format for debian/copyright files, the use of which will be optional. I'm curious about Source being a required field. Policy says:

Re: No general political content on Planet

I can't support a rule like "no political content" on Planet Debian, because it's a horrily vague standard that could probably be used by anyone to agitate against any content they didn't like. Now, if Planet Debian were not running on Planet, but instead on ikiwiki, it would be easy for anyone to

Re: [DEP-5] [patch] Syntax of the files.

Lars Wirzenius wrote: > (The existing > section is giving requirements for the syntax of the file, such as > human-readability, which was appropriate at the beginning of the > development of the spec, but I think we don't need that in the spec > anymore.) > -The `debian/copyright` file must be mac

Re: [DEP5] [patch] Renaming the ‘Maintainer’ field ‘Contact’

Lars Wirzenius wrote: > There's a number of cases where the Debian source package name differs > from the name upstream uses. For example, Iceweasel. On the other hand, > is it useful to track that? Perhaps not. Specifically, is it useful to track it in a machine-parseable format? We already have

Re: [DEP5] [patch] Renaming the ‘Maintainer’ field ‘Contact’

Russ Allbery wrote: > Charles Plessy writes: > > > The purpose of the ‘Maintainer’ field is to provide a contact address > > for the users of the software. But for some projects, the primary > > corresondance address is not necessarly the developer's email > > address. It can be a helpdesk, or a

Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues

Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > A few comments: > - Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more > annoying > to use than writing a normal debian/copyright file, especially for complicated > cases. Just as a data point in the other direction, as a maintainer of several packages tha

Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I found that surprising; perhaps I have forgotten a lot about > this proposal. So, if I understand this correctly, this proposal is to > come up with some way of creating a standard format for copyrights that > is not meant to be universal (since lacunae that

Re: Who uses @packages.d.o mail?

Stephen Gran wrote: > So I've looked through a few weeks of mail logs to packages.debian.org, > and it looks like it collects some useful mail from automated scripts > on various debian.org machines (primarily ries), and about 1000 spams a > day from elsewhere. I haven't done an exhaustive survey,

Re: [D-m-team] Developer Status

Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:28:44PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:29PM +, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > >> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take > > >> us

Re: Updated Debian Developers Keyring

Jonathan McDowell wrote: > jetring has some useful and interesting ideas, but the main complaint > I'd have about it as a method of managing keyrings is that it takes on > various roles that are already provided by the underlying VCS and this > duplication makes it more complex than necessary. Thi

Re: Updated Debian Developers Keyring

Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > The keyring part isn't as easy. The problem is that the keyring isn't > maintained collaboratively. jetring has been developed for exactly this > use case, but I've heard (discussion on #debian-devel) that some people > considered jetring "a mess" (I don't have details about

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

maintenance software, on behalf of, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:15:21 -0400 Source: debian-maintainers Binary: debian-maintainers Architecture: source all Version: 1.23 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Main

Re: Using the BTS instead of a different system? (Was: RFC: Introducing Debian Enhancement Proposals (DEPs))

Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Let's take bug #209008 (debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] common interface for > parallel building in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS) as an example. There are already > 50 mails in that bug report, split in 5 threads. If you want to know the > status of this pseudo-DEP, you basically have to rea

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

: C1A82BE87587215D91EBB015A95C3BECEB88E930 dm:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Full name: Vagrant Cascadian Added key: C466B62FE90AF753509A1E0C94F73ADC13D61A99 A summary of all the changes in this upload follows. Debian distribution maintenance software, on behalf of, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEG

Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > So, now that I've also been added to the DD keyring, do I send a bug > asking to get removed as DM? Or will it happen automagically somehow? Don't worry about it, we have a test suite that notices DMs that have become DDs. -- see shy jo signature.asc Descrip

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

software, on behalf of, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:33:00 -0500 Source: debian-maintainers Binary: debian-maintainers Architecture: source all Version: 1.8 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer:

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

behalf of, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:18:53 -0500 Source: debian-maintainers Binary: debian-maintainers Architecture: source all Version: 1.7 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Maintainer K

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

of all the changes in this upload follows. Debian distribution maintenance software, on behalf of, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:09:15 -0500 Source: debian-maintainers Binary: debian-maintainers Archit

Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

George Danchev wrote: > What if that is not a unfortunate coincidence, but their general > style and tendency ? If it were a general problem with Kartik and his sponsors of all his packages, then Mohammed Adnène Trojette probably wouldn't have just said "Kartik has not finished NM yet as I have t

Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

Steve McIntyre wrote: > In this particular case, the problem is much worse than just a single > bug in a package - it's a total failure in the sponsorship > system. From what Ramakrishnan and other sponsors wrote on this thread, it sounds like Kartik was a frequent and active sponsee who did a lot

Re: [D-m-team] linhdd concerns

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > That's a bit weird. He produces a package with a major bug, ignores > *all* hints by lintian and is now rewarded for that by getting upload > permissions? It's also a bit weird for someone to have their upload ability immediately removed for making any sort of techn

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

: 190A8C7607743E3130603836A1183F8ED1028C8D dm:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Full name: Micha Lenk Added key: 25FE474147700558949D1DB158DD3FE299E141B4 A summary of all the changes in this upload follows. Debian distribution maintenance software, on behalf of, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED M

Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:46:31AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > I would expect that adding DM-Upload-Allowed should be a concious > > > decision which is to be made when a specific person is (about to become) > > >

developer.php DM-Upload-Allowed field

Package: qa.debian.org Bas Wijnen wrote: > DM is meant for people who are already uploading packages through > sponsors. So at first the packages they'll be uploading will be (at > most) the ones they already are in the uploader list for. > DM-Upload-Allowed may of course not yet be set. > > A l

Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

Bas Wijnen wrote: > I would expect that adding DM-Upload-Allowed should be a concious > decision which is to be made when a specific person is (about to become) > a DM and should be allowed to upload this specific package. If I am > right in this, it makes no sense to set this flag when only DDs a

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

distribution maintenance software, on behalf of, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:42:35 -0500 Source: debian-maintainers Binary: debian-maintainers Architecture: source all Version: 1.2 Distribution: unstable U

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

distribution maintenance software, on behalf of, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:40:24 -0500 Source: debian-maintainers Binary: debian-maintainers Architecture: source all Version: 1.1 Distribution: unstable U

Re: New Debian Maintainer Jose Parella

Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Huh ? So now even new DM team members are unannounced ? Like with any other package, changes to the maintainers of debian-maintainers are documented in its changelog and upload mail. Anibal's post to this list was actually made because I had forgotten to remove the manu

Re: Debian Maintainers

Joey Schulze wrote: > If this is a holdup, why has the offer of Bart Martens to help testing > the service with a separate key been rejected? Bart suggested that *I* drop the current DMs from the keyring, and put his key in it. Since as AJ noted only the ftp-master can modify the keyring currently

Re: Debian Maintainers

Don Armstrong wrote: > My concern (and possibly the concern shared by Joerg) is that people > whose DM-ity had not been announced according to the process were > allowed to upload packages to the archive. AFAIC, if we're just at the > stage where DM hasn't actually been implemented yet, no harm, no

Re: Debian Maintainers

BTW, I hope that Joerg realises that according to the GR, he's a member of the Debian Maintainer Keyring team, and thus just as responsible for slavishly following its rules as me and aj, and thus is presumably just as responsible if a rule was missed. ;-P (Perhaps his mail is an attempt to take th

Re: Debian Maintainers

ling list post. I think this is a useful way to cut down on the beauracracy involved. The NM docs on adocating say: | You should only advocate someone if you think that they are ready to be a | developer. And being a NM is a subset of being a DD, so.. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/debian-maintainers>h

Re: since when does Debian use GPG to authenticate uploads?

martin f krafft wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > when did Debian start requiring signed uploads to the archive? I can > find references on the lists pointing to October 1997, and I know it > was before 1999, but I can't figure out when exactly it became > a requirement. > > Could anyone please point

Re: Planet policy?

I'm not sure why I seem to keep falling into the role of defending Ian being on planet Debian, but then I don't really understand why people keep trying to remove him for the most minor infractions[1]. Otavio Salvador wrote: > I agree on disabling his blog since it has nothing related to Debian >

Bug#292330: use UTF-8 by default

Roger Leigh wrote: > I'm not sure who would want to use C.UTF-8. d-i contains and uses a C.UTF-8 locale. You can find the source in the installation-locale source package. > non-Unicode locale with known behaviour on all platforms, the "C" > locale is useful, particularly when doing serialisatio

Re: Debian 4.0 finally arrives... does anyone care?

Adrian von Bidder wrote: > http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5673962628.html http://www.acc.umu.se/technical/statistics/ftp/monitordata/index.html -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Developers vs Uploaders

Erinn Clark wrote: > - Stratification > > As a subset of the power structure thing, one of the other issues I > foresee is a "some developers are more equal than others" thing > happening. I'm having a hard time thinking of how to explain this, > because it's a bit "télétubby", as Joss wou

Re: Developers vs Uploaders

Kevin Mark wrote: > > The question is, is there a way we can minimize the overhead of integrating > > contributions from folks who aren't (yet) DDs? Given what I see and hear > > from various sponsors, the review of sponsored uploads is already a joke; >

Re: gpg changesets (was Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!)

D]>: -uid:-1116808856::16874BA594735C2647F63A853EFBAA373FD2E0FE::Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: pub:-:1024:17:DADA79CD788A3F4C:-:::-:::scESC uid:--::558865A42A128E974449AF46596C86154E3F63B4::Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uid:--::0D93ACA144ADD501DD5A3372FA0FCFD1E5DE3

Re: gpg changesets (was Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!)

Jens Peter Secher wrote: > it seems to me that a very simple solution would need > > 1. A trusted machine with a subversion (say) repository, to which only > the keyring-assistants have access. > > 2. A directory in this repository with one *.key file for each key in > the keyring. The *.key fil

Re: gpg changesets

Florian Weimer wrote: > The index file isn't necessary if you use hash-based chaining, like > several SCMs relying on hash functions do (Monotone, GIT, probably > Mercurial, too). True. The index file seems nice as a single file that can be signed, rather than needing to do (slow) signature checki

Re: gpg changesets (was Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!)

nt and dup removal. I've done the same for debian-keyring.gpg, with similar results, just took a bit longer. On to making changes.. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/debian-keyring-2005.05.28/keyrings>cat > joeyh.retired Changed-By: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comment: had to happen some day Date:

Re: gpg changesets (was Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!)

Anthony Towns wrote: > I was more meaning it as an optimisation so you could ignore "key > add 0x7172daed" if there was a "key delete 0x7172daed" changeset > later. Likewise a "uid add" followed by a "uid del" or whatever. Ah, sure, as an optimisation it could be useful. However, I think that lett

Re: gpg changesets (was Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!)

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:15:00PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > Changed-By: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Comment: Removing an old email address. > > I'm not sure that's plausible -- afaik the keyring gets synced to the > real ke

gpg changesets (was Re: Bits from the DPL: DSA and buildds and DAM, oh my!)

opulated keyring, apply each changeset after the last applied one, and record the last applied changeset. What format to use for the changesets is an interesting question. Perhaps something like this, which is an example changeset to modify my current key, and add a new key: Changed-By: Joey Hess

Re: DWN

Clint Adams wrote: > You're representing $COMPANY's funding of DWN in ways that may be overly > creative? Not IMHO. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: DWN

Clint Adams wrote: > What was the number of hours that management deemed appropriate for your > DWN project? You're making assumptions about $COMPANY's management that may not apply. :-) IIRC I worked on it about 1 full day per week, similar to the time Joey says he spent on it. -- see shy jo

Re: DWN

Clint Adams wrote: > What were the terms of that contract? > Were you paid by the word or by the issue? I was saleried. > In particular, what remedies would you be obliged to provide if you > failed to publish DWN every week, or if the quality fell below a > defined threshold? If I didn't work o

Re: DWN

Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:13:11AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > The above is probably intended to be ironic, but as I've noted > > elsewhere, funding DWN has been successful in the past. :-) > > You're confusing funding you with funding DWN. Fu

Re: [AMENDMENT] Re: seconds searched for override of resolution 007 needed.

Stephen Gran wrote: > Seconded. Please keep debian-vote procedural traffic off of the debian-project mailing list. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: DWN

martin f krafft wrote: > Think project kerneltrap -- having short summaries of ongoing > discussions on mailing lists would *rock*! That's what DWN started out largely doing, FWIW. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: DWN

Martin Schulze wrote: > You could also think about funding DWN if it's important enough. The above is probably intended to be ironic, but as I've noted elsewhere, funding DWN has been successful in the past. :-) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: DPL caretaking

Anthony Towns wrote: > Sorry this took longer than I'd hoped. Anyway here's the caretaking stuff > so we can get on with the DPL recall vote stuff without having to worry > about things being left in the lurch. I'll be trying to avoid exercising > any DPL powers from now until the votes are dealt w

Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware

When did this list turn into debian-vote? Should I unsubscribe from this one too? :-/ Daniel Baumann wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > , > > | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software > > | community (Soci

Re: DebianTimes launched

Daniel Baumann wrote: > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > OH YEAH! > > > > seconded++ > > Ack, and when there are anyway changes on the way.. joeyh, how about > moving your upstream-planet[0] to something as > upstream.planet.debian.org (and DebianTimes/DWN to > {groups,teams,press,$whatever}.planet.d.o

FWD: wikis

I'm going to take a wild guess that he means wiki.debian.org, which probably has me as the last edit on FrontPage right now and not one of my numerous other less well known wikis (ikiwiki, my homepage/blog wiki, another wiki I've not formally rolled out, etc). So, forwarded for the Project's cons

Re: ftp.debian.org cannot be reached

Michael Großer wrote: > I think, it is not good that for some people the information > in the Internet is censored. I think that calling "censorship" for information that is mirrored to hundreds of locations worldwide is a slight exageration. http://www.debian.org/mirrors/list -- see shy jo s

Re: irc.debian.org

Don Armstrong wrote: > > Hmm, you seem to have missed #debian-boot, which is on freenode with > > some 70 in channel. Also, you missed #debian-security and #debian-release, > > which are, IIRC, on OFTC. > > For whatever reason, those channels appear to be +s, so it's not > surprising that they wer

Re: irc.debian.org

Jorgen Schaefer wrote: > So, here it goes. Data was collected on 2006-05-03 at around 18:40 > CEST: Hmm, you seem to have missed #debian-boot, which is on freenode with some 70 in channel. Also, you missed #debian-security and #debian-release, which are, IIRC, on OFTC. -- see shy jo signature.

Re: irc.debian.org

Peter Samuelson wrote: > And as for Debian development, I receive even fewer private messages > related to that. Do the rest of you? What aspects of Debian > development warrant private conversations? I would think most things > would be appropriate to discuss either in public or in small, focus

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Unfortunately, I think most if that is from before we drove > her away from Debian into the arms of Ubuntu. Clytie is on record as IIRC, using OSX and contributing to as many translations of free software projects as she can, whether she personally uses them or n

Re: Question to all candidates about stable point releases

Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Why ? When you look back at the history of debian-announce (check 1998 for > example), we used to use that list much more than currently. Yes I know. I'm a big fan of debian-announce in that period. Currently though it's a moderated list with a quite limited set of posting

Re: Question to all candidates about stable point releases

Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > How about instead dominating the news tickers by reporting more > noteworthy news? "Debian launches beta of new graphical installer" is a > very noteworthy news item IMHO. Which will be announced as such once we have a graphical installer that's in beta, which we don

Re: Questions about Ubuntu

Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: > I think what we need to do is create some kind of meta-package that > would pull in a full environment like what is installed by Ubuntu (which > I know has been discussed in the past) and then offer an official > "Debian Desktop" CD that would have D-I preconfigured

Re: Emphasize teams, not packages

Peter Samuelson wrote: > The point of maintaining a package is to prove that you *can* maintain > a package. Being on a team proves nothing. Being on a team and doing > most of the work proves something, if this can be measured, but that's > difficult. As it happens, I'm on at least one team whe

Re: non-free firmware

Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Second, the issues with the installer > -- Your analysis of the modules that would be needed by the installer does not take all possible installation methods and hardware combinations into account, notably missing a) network cards b) p

Re: Information abount packages.d.o and experimental

Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Eh, considering I'm member of the ftp-master team, what problem are you > talking about? There isn't any mail about any problem in my ftpmaster > inbox that I can see, nor any bug filed. > > The only thing I can think of you must've been referring to is the > followi

Re: Stable security support

Anthony Towns wrote: > Since the above, Moritz Muehlenhoff has been added as a security > secretary and given priveleges to do security updates for testing via the > security.debian.org infrastructure, but there's been no other activity > to my knowledge. The testing-security team haven't issued an

Re: Status of mirror split and AMD64

Michael Banck wrote: > Q_: there's already a reasonably easy script, it's more the > issue of making it easy for people to find a (eg) m68k mirror > when the country mirror only had i386 eg Back before sarge was released I added information about what arches each mirror carries to Mir

Re: [Utnubu-discuss] Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]

Joachim Breitner wrote: > I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better > than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth. It's SOP in Debian to attach patches to bug reports. I might consider doing otherwise if the patch exceeded 1 megabyte. (And yes, I'm on

Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]

Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to not > > send patches directly to the BTS, > > Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team, > and have never heared about such a directive. There was a large thread on

Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]

Sven Luther wrote: > I have no idea how ubuntu works internally, but my believe, since they > (canonical) pay people all around the world, and they don't have structures > locally to do the official hiring, they are forced to hire independent worker, > who pay their social charges and stuff themsel

Re: Debian's task system and the desktop (was: Complaint about #debian operator)

martin f krafft wrote: > Personal attacks aside, would you mind sharing what I missed? Does > the desktop task do anything more than pull in some packages and let > them configure themselves? Will my experience differ if I install > the desktop task, or `apt-get install x-window-system kde gnome` >

Re: Complaint about #debian operator

martin f krafft wrote: > I don't think I ever installed the task myself Sigh, I rest my case. Thank god we have actual users who help us make Debian better as opposed to developers who are too busy running ubuntu. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Complaint about #debian operator

martin f krafft wrote: > No, of course I don't. And I was hoping my comment would be read > with a grain of salt. d-i is massively cool and it gets more usable, > even to "plain users" on a daily basis. But once you finished the > install, what then? You've missed my point I'm afraid. > Ever comp

Re: Complaint about #debian operator

martin f krafft wrote: > A user coming to #debian wondering why Ubuntu would get so much > publicity and inquiring about the differences mainly shows that > people have not forgotten that Ubuntu is Debian, and not the other > way around. I think it is better for "plain users" to go with > Ubuntu, w

Re: The archive.debian.org situation

Michelle Konzack wrote: > The Only Server I know, which is hosting buzz, rezz, bo, hamm, slink > and potato completly is and in the next > days will try to mirror the whole POTATO tree (without i386) which > is missing on my local 430 GByte Debian wirror. > > > Debian-ar

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Steve Langasek wrote: > - KDE is not the default desktop in sarge, even when installing the desktop > task > - "Random" is not the default screensaver choice in KDE (AIUI) Agreed with these reasons. > - The objectionable content is *not* shipped as part of Debian > - Plenty of other content Deb

  1   2   >