martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.15.0015 +0100]:
But in any case, you really shouldn't be offended when people
suggest you follow the same path they did.
I am not.
Well, it sure sounds like you are from where I sit. Maybe you should try
to communicate better? :-P
The qu
also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.15.0015 +0100]:
> But in any case, you really shouldn't be offended when people
> suggest you follow the same path they did.
I am not. I also want to reiterate that this is *not* about me.
I have tons of emails in my read box by frustrated contributors or
wannab
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.11.1715 +0100]:
As you weren't able to provide a single problem (but only listed
a non-problem), I consider you're just a firefeeder.
This is part of the problem: you (as well as some others) are in
a situation in which
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.11.1715 +0100]:
> > > That people who would like to know more about Debian internals
> > > have no easy way of finding out, and if they approach those that
> > > know at the wrong time, or not in the way those would ex
also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.11.1715 +0100]:
> > That people who would like to know more about Debian internals
> > have no easy way of finding out, and if they approach those that
> > know at the wrong time, or not in the way those would expect,
> > they get flamed and b
Anthony Towns writes:
> "Do you understand this trivially obvious thing? Obviously you don't,
> so here's a hint." is not being particularly polite -- it's showing
> off how smart you are and how dumb your correspondent is.
Actually, it turns out we disagree about the thing in question, at a
fa
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
Do you understand why judges aren't allowed to judge their own cases?
Hint: it is not because we don't trust judges.
See, that was unnecessarily snarky.
But see, I wasn't trying to be snarky at all.
No, you weren't, and that's precisely the problem:
Anthony Towns writes:
> > Do you understand why judges aren't allowed to judge their own cases?
> > Hint: it is not because we don't trust judges.
>
> See, that was unnecessarily snarky.
>
> And yes, it _is_ because we don't trust judges -- and justifiably so,
> they are deciding life and death
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
I'm not attacking at all; I'm not accusing you of any kind of
impropriety. But what is crucial is the avoidance of the *appearance*
of any impropriety.
Mmm. I'm not really sure that "You're not acting improperly, it just
*looks* like your acting im
Anthony Towns writes:
> > I'm not attacking at all; I'm not accusing you of any kind of
> > impropriety. But what is crucial is the avoidance of the *appearance*
> > of any impropriety.
>
> Mmm. I'm not really sure that "You're not acting improperly, it just
> *looks* like your acting improperl
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
Yes, but this doesn't *quite* answer my question.
The question is whether the bts people will make their own decision
about anything, or just do whatever the maintainer says.
Of course they'll look over whatever bug you claim is being abused. I
don'
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 04:01:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Of course they'll look over whatever bug you claim is being abused. I
> don't understand why you'd even imagine it'd be otherwise.
Well, there is a DPL candidate who has, with another role hat on his
head, repeatedly claimed that me
Anthony Towns writes:
> > Yes, but this doesn't *quite* answer my question.
> > The question is whether the bts people will make their own decision
> > about anything, or just do whatever the maintainer says.
>
> Of course they'll look over whatever bug you claim is being abused. I
> don't under
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Adeodato Simà <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* Anthony Towns [Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:52:49 +1000]:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/12/msg01966.html
Hrm. I thought for sure I'd made that clear in that thread, but now I
can't seem to find any evidence of it.
"I'm happ
Adeodato Simà <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Anthony Towns [Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:52:49 +1000]:
> > >>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/12/msg01966.html
>
> > Hrm. I thought for sure I'd made that clear in that thread, but now I
> > can't seem to find any evidence of it.
>
> "I'm happy
* Anthony Towns [Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:52:49 +1000]:
> >>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/12/msg01966.html
> Hrm. I thought for sure I'd made that clear in that thread, but now I
> can't seem to find any evidence of it.
"I'm happy to do the same thing for any other maintainer who is bei
Romain Francoise wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
The debian-release list enforcement policy of politely asking people to
stay on topic has worked quite well and hasn't needed any augmentation.
Isn't it because the RMs have been asking people to treat -release as a
role address? If you discourage d
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224742
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/12/msg01966.html
I have a question about this one. Enrico was abusing the system (from
the bug log, at least, I concur with that judgment). But is it a
coincidence that he
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 07:23:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[ snip, obviously ]
> or "have a debian-flames list, that's moderated, and only
> accepts *really* good, vicious, hurtful flames".
>
> (I figure, if you're getting flamed on a moderated list with high
> standards for flamage, you c
Anthony Towns writes:
> The debian-release list enforcement policy of politely asking people to
> stay on topic has worked quite well and hasn't needed any augmentation.
Isn't it because the RMs have been asking people to treat -release as a
role address? If you discourage discussion on a lis
Anthony Towns writes:
> Enforcement of the BTS policy gets a few more flames because it only
> happens when people are already being argumentative, and because it's
> not a policy people are very well aware of in advance. OTOH, an
> argument doesn't stop the policy being effective -- for instance
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.11.0158 +0100]:
I can't see any way of having polite reminders work without some
sort of statement from the DPL or the listmasters, probably with
the prospect of some sort of enforcement, though, personally.
And I can't see how enforcement
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.11.1353 +0100]:
> > And the point is what exactly?
>
> That people who would like to know more about Debian internals have
> no easy way of finding out, and if they approach those that know at
> the wrong time, or not
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 11.03.2005, 13:14 +0100 schrieb Frank Küster:
>> However, we should be careful not to make the problem worse instead of
>> better: We don't gain much if anybody who wants to be informed then
>> would have to follow -devel *and
also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.11.1353 +0100]:
> And the point is what exactly?
That people who would like to know more about Debian internals have
no easy way of finding out, and if they approach those that know at
the wrong time, or not in the way those would expect, the
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.11.1222 +0100]:
> > Which machines are you talking about?
>
> All those marked as restricted on db.debian.org.
>
> And of course, ftp-master.debian.org and security.debian.org :)
So that was just a bogus comment to
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 11.03.2005, 13:14 +0100 schrieb Frank Küster:
> However, we should be careful not to make the problem worse instead of
> better: We don't gain much if anybody who wants to be informed then
> would have to follow -devel *and* -devel-moderated, -project *and*
> -project-moderated
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.11.0158 +0100]:
>> There's a trivial way: moderate the lists. I think there are less
>> fascist ways that'll be both effective and more efficient. But
>> there's no point kidding ourselves that it'll be easy or that
>
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050311 12:50]:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.11.1222 +0100]:
> > Which machines are you talking about?
>
> All those marked as restricted on db.debian.org.
>
> And of course, ftp-master.debian.org and security.debian.org :)
ftp-m
also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.11.1222 +0100]:
> Which machines are you talking about?
All those marked as restricted on db.debian.org.
And of course, ftp-master.debian.org and security.debian.org :)
> Which information are you missing in particular?
"The big picture" -
martin f krafft wrote:
> > There's nothing magic about anything in Debian; it's all just 1's
> > and 0's.
>
> ... and a number of restricted machines, to name just one example of
> how people without access might feel excluded from the inner circle.
> I know the reason why these are restricted, wh
also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.11.0158 +0100]:
> I can't see any way of having polite reminders work without some
> sort of statement from the DPL or the listmasters, probably with
> the prospect of some sort of enforcement, though, personally.
And I can't see how enforcement will fly within
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.03.1827 +0100]:
usual flamewars be declared off topic and either having the thread
killed or, if necessary, the poster suspended.
I am not sure this is a good idea. First off, we're all about
freedom, and what you suggest is more reminiscen
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> Here's third one:
>
> (1) Hrm, ftpmaster aren't doing things as quickly as normal.
> (2) Not that that's very quick anyway.
> (3) Why the hell isn't there an explanation somewhere about the change
> somewhere?
> (4) What could we do to get th
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Yep, but there is a difference between the information being available,
> > > and it
> > > being actively feeded to the NSA or whoever. And it is especially
> > > bothering if
> > > this cause undue delay in our normal activities, like aj is saying it
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:11:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 04:54:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:12:03AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >>It's hard to take this sort of discussion as anything but an attack on
ke, 2005-03-09 kello 17:07 +0100, Michael Banck kirjoitti:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:15:11PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > That said, there is no way to ban flamewars since they are sort of
> > part of the nature of a project like this.
>
> I do not subscribe to this. Flamewars are *not* a
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:15:11PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> That said, there is no way to ban flamewars since they are sort of
> part of the nature of a project like this.
also sprach Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.09.1707 +0100]:
> I do not subscribe to this. Flamewars are *no
also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.04.2118 +0100]:
> I think the "communication issues" are just a stand in for
> complaints of the underlying cause. If they weren't, I think the
> new.html page should be more of a solution
... not many people knew about it until recently. And there has not
been
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:15:11PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> That said, there is no way to ban flamewars since they are sort of
> part of the nature of a project like this.
I do not subscribe to this. Flamewars are *not* a necessary evil (or
even a good thing), I believe we would be at leas
also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.03.1827 +0100]:
> If elected DPL I'd aim to remove the list problems by having
> delegates lead discussion of problems in their fields of expertise
> and having the
This sounds like the delegates would inform the general public of
problems; this is good.
> usua
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 04:54:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:12:03AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > >>It's hard to take this sort of discussion as anything but an attack on
> > >>ftpmaster, since there are plenty of teams in Debian that're even
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'd actually say that any approach _other than_ working around
> problems while they can't be fixed, and keeping track of them so that
> they are fixed when they can be does Debian a great deal of harm.
Right, right. The disagreement between us seems to be about which
iss
Frank Küster wrote:
Anthony Towns schrieb:
Frank Küster wrote:
Given I personally worked around the lack of ftpmaster support for
pools for a good six to twelve months while developing testing, I
think I've got a reasonable basis for thinking this isn't such a big
deal.
This work wasn't targetted
Anthony Towns schrieb:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>>>Given I personally worked around the lack of ftpmaster support for
>>>pools for a good six to twelve months while developing testing, I
>>>think I've got a reasonable basis for thinking this isn't such a big
>>>deal.
>> This work wasn't targetted at
Frank Küster wrote:
Given I personally worked around the lack of ftpmaster support for
pools for a good six to twelve months while developing testing, I
think I've got a reasonable basis for thinking this isn't such a big
deal.
This work wasn't targetted at users at that stage, was it?
I was using
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:09:00AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> (1) Hrm, ftpmaster aren't doing things as quickly as normal.
> (2) Gosh, that probably means they're really busy.
> (3) I wonder what I could do that would help.
(4) I'll ask.
(5) Hmmm, no response. OK, let's see whether anyone
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:09:00AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, here's a simple train of thought:
>
> (1) Hrm, ftpmaster aren't doing things as quickly as normal.
> (2) Gosh, that probably means they're really busy.
> (3) I wonder what I could do that would help.
Ah, well, in how can we
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:12:03AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >>It's hard to take this sort of discussion as anything but an attack on
> >>ftpmaster, since there are plenty of teams in Debian that're even less
> >>transparent and effective than us. But given how these sort
Anthony Towns wrote: [...]
> Well, here's a simple train of thought:
> (1) Hrm, ftpmaster aren't doing things as quickly as normal.
> (2) Gosh, that probably means they're really busy.
> (3) I wonder what I could do that would help.
I can't see why one would make the jump from 1 to 2 withou
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, here's a simple train of thought:
>
> (1) Hrm, ftpmaster aren't doing things as quickly as normal.
> (2) Gosh, that probably means they're really busy.
> (3) I wonder what I could do that would help.
>
> Here's a train of thought that doesn't work so well:
>
>
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>>> It's hard to take this sort of discussion as anything but an attack
>>> on ftpmaster, since there are plenty of teams in Debian that're
>>> even less transparent and effective than us. But given how these
>>> sorts of
>> But they are less a hindrance
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 06:56:44PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
4) furthermore, i believe that, altough it never happened, it could well be
that the BSwhatever agency may also once it reads the notification, reject
the export authorization for a particular package, no ?
No.
Ch
Sven Luther wrote:
It's hard to take this sort of discussion as anything but an attack on
ftpmaster, since there are plenty of teams in Debian that're even less
transparent and effective than us. But given how these sorts of
But they are less a hindrance to the daily work of maintainers, and can
Matthew Garrett wrote:
(I'm not suggesting that the ftp-masters are doing their job
inadequately here,
See, that's the thing, you _are_. You can tell, because you had to
explicitly refute the idea; it's the same as being able to tell you're
being offensive when you feel the need to say "no offens
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> With that hat on, this statement is perfectly acceptable, just as all
>> the mails you sent about NEW processing. The problem, to me, is that
>> you fail to see the issue from a different side, and you definitely
>> *should* as a DPL candidate. As a
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> 3) Some would argue that this impose an additional fee or
> restriction (in the same way as a post-card licence) on our
> distribution as part of debian. (read the debian-legal posts for
> this past year or so, if you doubt).
Nothing in debian-legal has sa
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:53:52AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >Sorry, I did not follow the threads from the beginning, but... whom
> >should I believe? I inteprett your answers as exactly what Henning
> >describes. What I miss is a clear statement:
> > - what is going wrong
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 06:56:44PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do
Anthony Towns wrote:
> There's no particular reason NEW isn't being processed -- people are
> just busy doing other things; some of which are outside Debian, others
> of which are related to getting the release out, or whatever else.
> That's not, in my opinion, something Debian developers hav
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian
> > > is
> > > reported to the US secret services or whateve
Frank Küster wrote:
With that hat on, this statement is perfectly acceptable, just as all
the mails you sent about NEW processing. The problem, to me, is that
you fail to see the issue from a different side, and you definitely
*should* as a DPL candidate.
As a DPL candidate, you should not only
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> For example, there is no excuse for blocking libs because of obvious
>> soname changes in new, for months now.
>
> They're not blocked, they're just not being done. The answers to your
> question are either "NEW is not being processed / because people
Eduard Bloch wrote:
Sorry, I did not follow the threads from the beginning, but... whom
should I believe? I inteprett your answers as exactly what Henning
describes. What I miss is a clear statement:
- what is going wrong
- why is it going wrong
Uh, what are you talking about? NEW processing?
For
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:52:51PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op vr, 04-03-2005 te 21:09 +0100, schreef Sven Luther:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:07:06AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > > >Anthony Towns writes:
> > > >>resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:28:57AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There's no particular reason NEW isn't being processed -- people are
> just busy doing other things; some of which are outside Debian, others
> of which are related to getting the release out, or whatever else.
> That's not, in my
Op za, 05-03-2005 te 08:48 +0100, schreef Sven Luther:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian
> > > is
> > > reported to the US secret ser
Op vr, 04-03-2005 te 21:09 +0100, schreef Sven Luther:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:07:06AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > >Anthony Towns writes:
> > >>resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I don't think that the NEW
> > >>issue is an example of a communication prob
#include
* Anthony Towns [Mon, Mar 07 2005, 12:34:02AM]:
> I'm pretty confident I can find someone who's not me to enforce that
> policy who doesn't suffer from that level of infamy, and I'm also pretty
> confident that given that policy being actually enforced, that I can
> encourage a bunch
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:28:57AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >I'm certainly not suggesting that they be rejected out of hand, and
> >accepting them isn't the correct decision either. Currently, though,
> >it's impossible to tell the difference between "This package is a
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 03:02:34PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I actually think that's a good result: far better to keep track of the
> > problematic packages, than to just REJECT them with a reason like
> > "doesn't seem like a good idea" and have them randomly reup
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns
Matthew Garrett wrote:
(I'm not suggesting that the ftp-masters are doing their job
inadequately here,
See, that's the thing, you _are_. You can tell, because you had to
explicitly refute the idea; it's the same as being able to tell you're
being offen
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> (I'm not suggesting that the ftp-masters are doing their job
>> inadequately here,
> See, that's the thing, you _are_. You can tell, because you had to
> explicitly refute the idea; it's the same as being able to tell you're
> being offensive wh
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
I think the "communication issues" are just a stand in for complaints of
the underlying cause. If they weren't, I think the new.html page should
be more of a solution --
But currently people have no idea what the underlying cause /is/, which
is certai
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Complaints about NEW can roughly be split into three catagories:
>> 1) It takes too long
>> 2) It isn't happening
>
> These are the same issue: it's a queue, packages uploaded now will be
> processed when NEW starts getting processed regularly ag
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what ? You are one of us, and not a potentially hostile outside agency.
PUBLIC. That means not only to "us", but to hostile things too.
Hostile things like the US Government, or *really* hostile things like
the governments of France and China.
--
T
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:37PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >3) My package has been sitting in the queue for ages and other packages
> >have been processed
> >This is a communication problem.
>
> No, this is a policy problem. Communication is easy: hit "M" for manual
On Saturday 05 March 2005 10:59, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:55:25PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > >I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian
> > > is reported to the US secret services or whatever by the ftp-masters
> > >
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:55:25PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian is
> >reported to the US secret services or whatever by the ftp-masters and our
> >archive handling services, and i certainly did *NOT* agr
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:02:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050305 09:00]:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the wo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yep, but there is a difference between the information being
> available, and it being actively feeded to the NSA or whoever. And
> it is especially bothering if this cause undue delay in our normal
> activities, like aj is saying it is.
Tough. It's *pub
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 08:48:21AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian
> > > is
> > > reported to the US secr
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050305 09:00]:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian
> > > is
> > > reported to the US secret services or
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian is
> > reported to the US secret services or whatever by the ftp-masters and our
> > archive handling servic
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:09:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:07:06AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > >Anthony Towns writes:
> > >>resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I don't think that the NEW
> > >>issue is an example of a communicatio
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian is
> reported to the US secret services or whatever by the ftp-masters and our
> archive handling services, and i certainly did *NOT* agree to this being the
> case.
What are you tal
Sven Luther wrote:
I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian is
reported to the US secret services or whatever by the ftp-masters and our
archive handling services, and i certainly did *NOT* agree to this being the
case.
Everyone subscribed to debian-devel-changes get
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:26:39PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 21:20]:
> > Sure, move our archive out of the US, and be gone with the problem.
> except for the developers who live in US, and have to deal with export
> regulations by themselfs then.
So, t
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:37PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think the "communication issues" are just a stand in for complaints of
> the underlying cause. If they weren't, I think the new.html page should
>
> I actually think that's a good result: far better to keep track of the
> proble
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 21:20]:
> Sure, move our archive out of the US, and be gone with the problem.
except for the developers who live in US, and have to deal with export
regulations by themselfs then.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:07:06AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> >Anthony Towns writes:
> >>resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I don't think that the NEW
> >>issue is an example of a communication problem at all.
> >This is getting slightly too detailed discussion f
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erm, , I guess.
Anthony Towns wrote:
As a concrete example, I don't think
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I don't think that the NEW
issue is an example of a communication problem at all.
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:28:16AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >And again to my purely technical question. Is it really necessary for
> >kernel-source-2.6.11 to go through NEW once it is uploaded for example ?
>
> It's not a technical issue it's a legal one -- our approach t
Sven Luther wrote:
You wouldn't accept this kind of behavior from DDs on their package
maintenance,
That's not true. Plenty of DDs are non-responsive for one reason or
other, and it's perfectly acceptable; we even have documented procedures
to deal with that -- NMUs, vacation reports, and QA amon
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I don't think that the NEW
issue is an example of a communication problem at all.
This is getting slightly too detailed discussion for a DPL, but
anyway: what do you think the NEW issue is an example of?
Not hav
Anthony Towns wrote:
> As a concrete example, I don't think
>
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
>
> resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I don't think that the NEW
> issue is an example of a communication problem at all.
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html failing to resolv
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:29:58AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Well, i guess people get rather irritated if sending email to ftp-master
> >email
> >address for things that are mostly reasonable could as well go to
> >/dev/null,
>
> Sure, of course they are, and so they sh
Anthony Towns writes:
> resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I don't think that the NEW
> issue is an example of a communication problem at all.
This is getting slightly too detailed discussion for a DPL, but
anyway: what do you think the NEW issue is an example of?
--
* Sufficiently adv
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, i guess people get rather irritated if sending email to ftp-master email
address for things that are mostly reasonable could as well go to /dev/null,
Sure, of course they are, and so they should be. I can fairly readily
find 52k more reasons for people to be irritated with
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:33:43PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:27:36AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >>Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>As someone who is
> >>>both an ftpmaster and a DPL candidate, could you also tell us what
> >>>resources you (or the f
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
