On 29/11/2007, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> override files allow comments which means giving a justification is
> already possible. So it seems this just needs to be documented as best
> practice?
Yes.
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgpwk92xgu5mY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 11:08:33AM +, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Thursday 29 November 2007, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I know, but maybe (but that's sad if we need to do that) we should
> > > have overrides validated by the QA people
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know, but maybe (but that's sad if we need to do that) we should
> > have overrides validated by the QA people … *sigh*.
>
> Should the override file have a justification field for each (error)
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know, but maybe (but that's sad if we need to do that) we should
> have overrides validated by the QA people … *sigh*.
Should the override file have a justification field for each (error)
override? That would help generic DD's going through all ove
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 06:49:37AM +, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:19:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > or we could disallow the override of >= E: errors in lintian, and make
> > > lintian reboot your computer, fill y
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:19:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > or we could disallow the override of >= E: errors in lintian, and make
> > lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and
> > install windows over your Debian
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> or we could disallow the override of >= E: errors in lintian, and make
> lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and
> install windows over your Debian if you override such errors.
I'd love it if lintian were at a point wh
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing we could do is have a seperate report on
> http://lintian.debian.org which lists all the lintian overrides (maybe
> only those for errors, not for warnings), so they can be peer reviewed
> by interested people.
I've been wanting to add overri
On 2007-11-28, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:49:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +, Michael Banck wrote:
>> > Another thing we could do is alert sponsors about checking for lintian
>> > overrides when they review a pac
Bas Wijnen dijo [Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:51:30PM +0100]:
> > or we could disallow the override of >= E: errors in lintian, and make
> > lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and
> > install windows over your Debian if you override such errors.
>
> Interesting idea.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:54:39PM +, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:49:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > or we could disallow the override of >= E: errors in lintian, and make
> > lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and
> > install windo
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:55:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> aj, who'd just like to see some failure analysis / air crash investigation
>> type conclusions out of this, rather than just "foo sucks and
>> shouldn't upload"
>
> One thing we
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:49:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:55:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > aj, who'd just like to see some failure analysis / air crash investigation
> > > type conclu
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:49:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Another thing we could do is alert sponsors about checking for lintian
> > overrides when they review a package.
>
> or we could disallow the override of >= E: er
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:23:30PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:55:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> aj, who'd just like to see some failure analysis / air crash investigation
>> type conclusions out of this, rather than just "foo sucks and
>> shouldn't upload"
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:49:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> or we could disallow the override of >= E: errors in lintian, and make
> lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and
> install windows over your Debian if you override such errors.
Are you routinely ove
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:55:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > aj, who'd just like to see some failure analysis / air crash investigation
> > type conclusions out of this, rather than just "foo sucks and
> > shouldn't uplo
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:55:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> aj, who'd just like to see some failure analysis / air crash investigation
> type conclusions out of this, rather than just "foo sucks and
> shouldn't upload"
One thing we could do is have a seperate report on
http://lintian
[ late, but for the records. ]
Kartik Mistry wrote:
> linhdd introduce binary abs_fdisk which was modified copy of fdisk
> from new version 0.4. It was arch:all before that too, and previous
> maintainer set it to arch:all saying 'it will save achieve space'.
hu?? the previous maintainer, me, did
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:38:06PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 09:51:35PM +0100, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
> > What information does linhdd need from fdisk?
> > Fdisk seems to run just fine as a normal user on Debian. The issues
> > seems to be that /dev/{s,h}d* are dire
Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, that would be a security hole. Even making it setgid disk would be a
> security hole, since the disk group has write access to all disk devices.
I didn't mean a simple wrapper around the binary, I meant a wrapper
around the binary with a specific set of arguments, lock
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 09:44:50PM +0530, Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan wrote:
> As people have already explained, this is not the first mistake people
> have commited. And at the same time, I agree that it was a grave
> mistake on my part and I publicly apologize for this mistake. If you
> care to r
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 09:51:35PM +0100, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Given the description of abs_fdisk on the linhdd site:
> > ] 0.4 release now includes a customized version of fdisk (called
> > ] abs_fdisk). Why? Well, daealing with SATA (scsi) in /proc was a bear --
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Given the description of abs_fdisk on the linhdd site:
>
> ] 0.4 release now includes a customized version of fdisk (called
> ] abs_fdisk). Why? Well, daealing with SATA (scsi) in /proc was a bear --
> ] and the ease with which fdisk gave me the needed drive info made me wis
On Nov 26, 2007 5:14 PM, Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you care to rectify this by removing my account, by all means do so.
I do not like that idea and I have just sponsored an upload for Kartik
because I think he is doing a great job for Debian. I agree that he
was mi
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ] I could use fdisk. Just that on Slackware and Absolute, which I use,
> ] you can only run fdisk as root. So -- I downloaded util-linux and
>
> makes it sound to me like you should be packaging abs_fdisk separately and
> having linhdd Depend: on it;
On Nov 26, 2007 8:57 PM, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In this case it's inaction, and it'd be better if you'd acknowledge the
> problem and do what you can to avoid it in future. From the above, it
> seems like when sponsoring packages you're not always:
>
> - testing to see if
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:34:21PM +0530, Kartik Mistry wrote:
> > Kartik what possible reason did you have for overriding the lintian
> > error report, rather than changing your package to remove the error?
> linhdd introduce binary abs_fdisk which was modified copy of fdisk
> from new version 0.4
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:22:52PM +0530, Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan wrote:
> [I did not recieve the original email addressed to me by aj, so I am
> literally "reading between the lines" to digest the original message]
It was sent to your @d.o address, and is in the list archives at:
http://l
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Mohammed and Jaldhar, as advocates (and AM) of Kartik, do you have
> anything to add here?
What I have to add is:
1) Kartik is very reactive in correcting his packages when an error
is found
2) Kartik has not finished NM yet as I have to check (all) his
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have sponsored several of Kartik's uploads as well, regarding
> xosview (for which I am the previous maintainer). Some months ago,
> yes, Kartik needed quite a bit of hand-holding. As of now, however, I
> do agree his packaging (on what I have seen - this
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:18:46PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> So... Well, I do hope this public flaming regarding the fdisk messup
> is enough to fix the mistake (not minor by any means, but still a
> mistake) he did.
I think this misses the point. Giving someone DM privileges is a
declaration t
Jaldhar H. Vyas dijo [Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:13:29AM -0500]:
> >Mohammed and Jaldhar, as advocates (and AM) of Kartik, do you have
> >anything to add here?
> >
>
> Mainly I have worked with Kartik on Debian-IN packages and there I
> have no complaints. Lately, I have been sponsoring some of his
On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 00:14 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Mohammed and Jaldhar, as advocates (and AM) of Kartik, do you have
> anything to add here?
Out of Kartik's NM page:
Application Manager Comments
P&P1: [done] 20070417
P&P2: [done] 20070529
T&S1: [done] 20070812
T&S2: [done] 20071007
p
[I did not recieve the original email addressed to me by aj, so I am
literally "reading between the lines" to digest the original message]
"Kartik Mistry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Ramakrishnan, how did your sponsorship checking miss both this error
>> and the RC bug (442093) the previous up
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
Mohammed and Jaldhar, as advocates (and AM) of Kartik, do you have
anything to add here?
Mainly I have worked with Kartik on Debian-IN packages and there I have no
complaints. Lately, I have been sponsoring some of his other packages and
on the oc
On Nov 24, 2007 7:44 PM, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ramakrishnan, Mohammed, Jaldhar, Kartik,
Hi all,
Please read me inline.
> It's been pointed out that Kartik's latest upload of linhdd has included
> an i386 binary in arch:all package, and explicitly overriden the lintian
> w
37 matches
Mail list logo
