> As others pointed out this is quit acceptable. But there is a but:)
> Official packages are tested/screned, and at least uptill now I trust
> them. Now comes some one I don't no, telling me he has fixed some
> probs. Nice nice, but would I want to handover my system to this guy?
> No, I wouldn
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:55:26PM +0800, Corey Popelier wrote:
...
> My issue is this, 5.5.3 is actually about 5 or 6 versions behind the
> times. It was from about Sept last year if I recall. Now I don't know what
> the status of the maintainer of this package is, but what are the Debian
> policy
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001, Corey Popelier wrote:
> Correct, I'm sure as hell not about to do that :) But I was thinking along
> the lines of saying "look, here's an unofficial .deb of fetchmail since it
> appears to be a tad outdated, and I've had considerable problems with
> the existing one which appea
> You are right about this. My point was that taking over a package and
> calling it official without the maintainer's knowledge is not very
> nice. Since Corey is probably not about to do this, it was probably
> not the best language to use.
Correct, I'm sure as hell not about to do that :) But
Chris Gray wrote:
> For example, how about this?
>
> -
>
> I, Chris Gray, have the official wmnetselect package on my apt site,
>
> http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~cgray4
>
> -
>
> Since I'm not the maintainer (you are), isn't what I have just done
> unethical?
It doesn't bother me one bi
> Joey Hess writes:
jh> Chris Gray wrote:
cp> recall. Now I don't know what the status of the maintainer of
cp> this package is, but what are the Debian policy/ethical issues
cp> involved if I suddenly piped up and said I had [unofficial?]
cp> packages available for this?
Chris Gray wrote:
> cp> recall. Now I don't know what the status of the maintainer of
> cp> this package is, but what are the Debian policy/ethical issues
> cp> involved if I suddenly piped up and said I had [unofficial?]
> cp> packages available for this?
>
> It's called hijacking
Corey Popelier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My issue is this, 5.5.3 is actually about 5 or 6 versions behind the
>times. It was from about Sept last year if I recall. Now I don't know what
>the status of the maintainer of this package is, but what are the Debian
>policy/ethical issues involved if I
> Corey Popelier writes:
cp> My issue is this, 5.5.3 is actually about 5 or 6 versions
cp> behind the times. It was from about Sept last year if I
cp> recall. Now I don't know what the status of the maintainer of
cp> this package is, but what are the Debian policy/ethical issue
On a side note as I send my lilo.conf thoughts, I had a rather nasty
problem recently where fetchmail suddenly started cutting off all my
inbound email partway through the messages. My mind boggled.
It turned out that a compile and install of Fetchmail 5.6.0 (unstable
currently has 5.5.3) solved t
10 matches
Mail list logo
