On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
>> Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last min
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
> Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
> much discussion so far I know.
The installer's export mode allows you to make
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
>
> Russ> There's another alternative to using the CTTE, and my
> Russ> understanding is that this was generally the method used prior
> Russ> to the existence of the CTTE, but I'm not sure it's rea
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> another clear benefit is reduced package cruft.
> The only thing that is reduced is the size of the orig tarball.
People do actually do review package source changes (think every
release team unblock, security analysis, etc.), and the
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> You could always use the Files-Excluded field to make uscan remove
>> those files from the upstream tarball,
> Too much work (at least when you are not repacking the tarball for other
> reasons) for absolutely no gain.
Not sure how that'
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DEP-5 as defined in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ does not have any
> clause allowing us to skip license entries for certain class of files.
>
> In practice, many packages lack entries for autotools generated files
> which come with v
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> I really (and still) like the idea of having no default desktop at all
> and let the users decide by themselves if they even want to get a DE when
> performing a DVD based installation.
Including all potential DE options on the main install disc (
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > I don't think this achieves the goal of rotating more project members
>> &
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years,
>>> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then
>>> have to leave the committee for at least one term.
>
>> 8 seems like it would be near idea
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years,
> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then
> have to leave the committee for at least one term.
8 seems like it would be near ideal: turnove
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> It's my understanding that this is a result of a debianqueued bug, not dak
> it's self.
>
> It's unlikely other people are using it, IMHO
That's making another assumption and isn't provable or disprovable.
Even it is somehow true now, futu
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 13054 March 1977, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>> Is dak is present in a “released” state somewhere? Do other people use
>> those releases? Meaning, should we ask for a CVE for this?
>
> No, no and no.
>
> We have git. We have people use that, t
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Recklessly exposing too much information outside the context in which it
> was published can in some cases turn people away from contributing. If
> ohloh were actually being taken seriously by people in my professional
> circle, I would probably
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> The benefit is that we have a legal tool against someone doing something
> nasty with our name. Which is nice to have, but doesn't come for free.
> It's hard to quantify as well: the benefit is for a future situation of
> which we do not kn
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:08:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> If I could get a copy of the Secretary's running source code I could
>> also change it so that options were lettered rather than numbered.
>> That would be /much/ less confusing
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 1:21 AM, dE . wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I was wondering about the 2 year release cycle of Debian and it's
> adaptability on the Desktops.
If you want something with a faster release cycle, there is always
testing, which is updated four times a day.
If you want something slightly mo
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Michael Fogg wrote:
> will debian in future releases use gnome 2.32 becuse gnome 3s fallback mode
> just is not gnome 2.32.
> i know it takes a lot to maintain gnome 2 but will you please keep it in the
> system.
> even if you dont maintain gnome 2 at lest keep it
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:57:43 -0700 Yacin Belmihoub wrote:
>
> Hi there, I would just like to know how to recompile Debian
> netinstaller, I really need help for this. Thx and hopefully you can help me
> :)
$ sudo apt-get build-dep debian-installer
$ apt-get source debian-installer
$ c
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:27:08 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
>
> | It's more like "use this thing that I produced, and if you want, you
> | can reward me with a few cents". There simply is nothing distasteful
> | about that.
>
> You don't think so. I do. One of the reaso
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:56:18 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe writes:
>
> > Anyways, you should not complain when someone asks you to give them
> > money, even if it results in you feeling guilty for not complying.
>
> I respectfully disagree. Depending on the context and the s
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:12:15 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 15/09/2010 16:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking about this overnight, and I think dropping .0 does
> > actually make a lot of sense for marketing/publicity purposes. A
> > release announcem
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:23:30 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On tiisdei 14 Septimber 2010, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > So, for the past years we have had x.0.y with growing `y' for point
> > releases, and skiping to (x+1).0.0. And the zero in the middle carries
> > no meaning anymore.
>
> It also doesn
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:13:35 -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:58:51PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new
> > major long-term release. It also demonstrates stability when used in
> >
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:25:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
> made whether Sarge sho
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:22:36 -0500, Steve Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In general, how long is a version for Debian supported? Ie, I believe that
> it is Microsoft's policy to stop providing support (patches, fixes, etc)
> after 6 years from a release. Is there any such policy for Debian and if s
On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:57:46 +0300, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> Seriously speaking, to me it seems very clear that non-free firmware
> will not be present on official installer images. Then again, the
> installer team has made it very easy to inject firmware during
> installation on machines where it's
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:55:34 +0530, dE . wrote:
> The solution that I'm proposing is a super dep package. A single
> 'sdebp' file which's suppose to install a singe software (mostly a
> meta package for e.g kde) but contains all dependencies which might be
> required by the package relative to a fre
29 matches
Mail list logo
