Jordan Mantha wrote:
> Is there an easy way that we can include a description of packages in
> the REVU emails? I really like seeing what's new from REVU but I'm
> always a little disappointed when I look at the email and I can't find
> any idea of what the package is. Even the short description wo
Is there an easy way that we can include a description of packages in
the REVU emails? I really like seeing what's new from REVU but I'm
always a little disappointed when I look at the email and I can't find
any idea of what the package is. Even the short description would be
nice.
-Jordan
On Thu
NEW: foo-plugins_1.0.orig.tar.gz
NEW: foo-plugins_1.0-0ubuntu1.diff.gz
NEW: foo-plugins_1.0-0ubuntu1.dsc
foo-plugins (1.0-0ubuntu1) jaunty; urgency=low
* Initial release (LP: #191998)
Your package contains new components which requires manual editing of
the override file. It is ok otherwise,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Westby schrieb:
> For lintian there are lintian overrides.
lintian --no-override? :-)
Have a great day,
Daniel
- --
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GlobalBugJam - 20-22 February 2009
Join in on the fun with YOUR team!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Ve
Hi,
I am one of the developers at CrossWire. Several of our programmes are
in your repository, but they are ancient, often 2 or more releases
behind us.
I have tried on several occasions to contact the maintainer listed but
to little avail.
I asked eventually on #ubuntu-devel and was advised to
> Was there any further discussion on this which I missed, or has
> discussion stalled?
>
I think that discussion stalled as the new brainstorm version still
insist that packaging requests should be done in launchpad :
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/submit/ refers to
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubun
James Westby wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 18:44 -0600, Nathan Handler wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Loïc Martin wrote:
>>> What happens when lintian (or another automated check) throws an error,
>>> but that error is not justified? I've seen the case for all cdemu
>>> related packag
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:24:16 -0600 Nathan Handler
wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>> I'd suggest the automatically generated list be exposed on the package
page
>> on revu so that a MOTU doing a review can quickly look at the list and
>> judge if the package is
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I'd suggest the automatically generated list be exposed on the package page
> on revu so that a MOTU doing a review can quickly look at the list and
> judge if the package is mature enough for a detailed review. If it's not,
> they can eas
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:04:55 -0600 Nathan Handler
wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>> I think it's fine to mention, but I wouldn't want the package rejected
or knocked into some
>> kind of needs work state as a result.
>
>That brings up another interesting point.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think it's fine to mention, but I wouldn't want the package rejected or
> knocked into some
> kind of needs work state as a result.
That brings up another interesting point. Which checks should result
in the package entering the Needs W
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:25:53 -0600 Nathan Handler
wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30:29 -0600 Nathan Handler
>> wrote:
>> The purposes of needs packaging bugs are to give people a way to request
>> things get packaged, to give packagers
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:12 PM, James Westby wrote:
> For lintian there are lintian overrides.
>
> It won't solve the issue of e.g. checking installability when someone
> uploads two packages, one of which depends on the other.
That is true James. Technically, if I recall correctly, packages
sho
On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 18:44 -0600, Nathan Handler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Loïc Martin wrote:
> > What happens when lintian (or another automated check) throws an error,
> > but that error is not justified? I've seen the case for all cdemu
> > related packages (for example
> > htt
On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 18:11 -0600, Nathan Handler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM, charliej wrote:
> > If it would also send an email of the comment to the uploader would be
> > nice ;)
>
> You can currently have REVU notify you via email about everything
> related to your uploads [1]. T
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Loïc Martin wrote:
> What happens when lintian (or another automated check) throws an error,
> but that error is not justified? I've seen the case for all cdemu
> related packages (for example
> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=cdemu-client ) where
> l
Hello MOTUs,
I need reviews and advocate for may new package!
I've uploaded to revu:
http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=tcpproxy
thanks in advance!
--
Salman AS
s...@salman.or.id
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ub
Nathan Handler wrote:
> One way that we can accomplish this is by having REVU perform some
> automated checks of the source package (more than it does now). We
> could then have it add a comment to the upload mentioning what was
> wrong, and send it to the Needs Work list. This automatic check coul
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30:29 -0600 Nathan Handler
> wrote:
> The purposes of needs packaging bugs are to give people a way to request
> things get packaged, to give packagers an idea what people would like to
> see, and to make work in pro
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:28:18 +0100 Kjeldgaard Morten
wrote:
>Hi MOTUs,
>
>It's Friday, Jan 23, 2009 and it's REVU day!
>
>We need all MOTUs on deck! A similar plea was sent out last week, but
>to not much avail. We really need MOTUs to go and make at least one
>review. This week we have ~128
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM, charliej wrote:
> If it would also send an email of the comment to the uploader would be
> nice ;)
You can currently have REVU notify you via email about everything
related to your uploads [1]. This means that if somebody comments on
one of your uploads, you will
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30:29 -0600 Nathan Handler
wrote:
snip lots of good stuff I generally agree with.
>This automatic check could
>look for things such as a debian/changelog entry that has a proper
>version and target distribution, and closes a needs-packaging bug on
>Launchpad. These are co
On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 17:30 -0600, Nathan Handler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For those of you who might be unaware, I have taken over Siegfried
> Gevatter's (RainCT) role of REVU Coordinator. For the past few days, I
> have been thinking about something, and I want to get the opinions of
> the rest of th
Hello,
For those of you who might be unaware, I have taken over Siegfried
Gevatter's (RainCT) role of REVU Coordinator. For the past few days, I
have been thinking about something, and I want to get the opinions of
the rest of the people in the community before taking any action.
Currently, in or
Hi MOTUs,
It's Friday, Jan 23, 2009 and it's REVU day!
We need all MOTUs on deck! A similar plea was sent out last week, but
to not much avail. We really need MOTUs to go and make at least one
review. This week we have ~128 packages waiting for review. That's an
increase of > 15% in a week!
2009/1/22 Saïvann :
> If ubuntu policy is to accept any working software, then I think that
> using braintorm isn't worth since it don't matter how many votes this
> software get, it will be accepted anyway. The number of people
> subscribed to the bug report is already a good way to know the
> pop
Was there any further discussion on this which I missed, or has
discussion stalled?
--
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)
Ubuntu Developer. Debian Contributor.
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/lis
27 matches
Mail list logo
