m On Sun, 21 Aug 2022, 2:36 pm , <debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org> wrote:
> Content-Type: text/plain > > debian-user-digest Digest Volume 2022 : > Issue 680 > > Today's Topics: > Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored [ Stefan Monnier > <monnier@iro.umontre ] > Re: must i consider zfs or lvm for s [ Stefan Monnier > <monnier@iro.umontre ] > Re: must i consider zfs or lvm for s [ <to...@tuxteam.de> ] > Comments on upgrade steps from one v [ John Boxall <jboxal...@gmail.com> > ] > Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored [ Chuck Zmudzinski > <brchuckz@netscape ] > Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored [ Stefan Monnier > <monnier@iro.umontre ] > Re: Comments on upgrade steps from o [ Charles Curley > <charlescurley@charl ] > Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored [ Chuck Zmudzinski > <brchuckz@netscape ] > Re: must i consider zfs or lvm for s [ David Christensen > <dpchrist@holgerd ] > Re: Comments on upgrade steps from o [ Chuck Zmudzinski > <brchuckz@netscape ] > Re: Comments on upgrade steps from o [ John Boxall <jboxal...@gmail.com> > ] > Re: Comments on upgrade steps from o [ John Boxall <jboxal...@gmail.com> > ] > nfs-kernel-server [ Wylie <wyl...@twqua.com> ] > Re: nfs-kernel-server [ Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> > ] > Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored [ <to...@tuxteam.de> ] > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 14:06:33 -0400 > From: Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time? > Message-ID: <jwv35dq3iei.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org> > Content-Type: text/plain > > > So that means "free" software written and maintained by volunteers will > never be as > > stable and secure as software that is written by people who are paid by > the hour. > > Not necessarily. Have you filed a bug report about a problem you > perceived in macOS, Windows, other your usual shrink wrapped software? > Has it always been fixed promptly? > > If you want your bugs to be fixed, you generally need resort to some > kind of support contract, which you can get for Free Software just as > easily as for proprietary software (probably more easily, actually). > > Notice also that the goal of Free Software is not to be technically > better (you may be confusing it for Open Source software), but > ethically better. > > I suspect most maintainers who don't respond promptly to bug reports > aren't happy about that fact: its demoralizing to be in charge of > something you can't devote the resources it really deserves. > > But note that *you* can help, by taking on some of the work, looking for > bugs that haven't gotten an answer yet and trying to address them. > I don't think anyone can do that for any random bug, but I'm pretty sure > most people on this list would be able to do that for at least one of > the pending bug reports. > > > Stefan > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 14:35:35 -0400 > From: Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: must i consider zfs or lvm for smr large drive? > Message-ID: <jwvwnb22393.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org> > Content-Type: text/plain > > > i have a new 4tb portable external drive. i want it to have a huge > partition. > > I love LVM and use it as a matter-of-course everywhere (except for /boot > partition which I still keep as a separate partition out of habit). > > But FWIW, using LVM with external drives is not super smooth: it's OK if > the drive is almost always connected, but otherwise I don't think LVM > handles the case of plugging/unplugging the drive smoothly enough > (AFAICT there's no real problem at the lower levels, but at the UI level > it's just not "plug&play" enough IMO). > > The main issue is that after plugging the drive in, you need to > "activate" its volumes (e.g. `vgchange -ay`, which AFAICT does not > affect the disk itself but only the host OS, making the volumes appear > under /dev/mapper), and they won't get deactivated automatically when > you unplug it (so you end up with ghost entries in /dev/mapper unless > you're careful to unmount everything and `vgchange -an` before > unplugging). > > Maybe you can activate them once and for all and later just > unplug&replug and that'll work but I wouldn't bet on it (IIRC it depends > on whether it gets the same /dev/sdX label when you plug it back in). > > So if your plugging and unplugging is done in a disciplined enough way > (and is already accompanied by running some scripts, e.g. to initiate > a backup onto the drive) I would recommend the use of LVM, but otherwise > you're probably better off without it. > > > but now i am thinking, with smr, the drive could pseudo-brick, > > Last I heard, SMR drives aren't significantly less reliable than CMR, so > I'm not sure you should base your decision on that. Of course, you'll > want to keep backups (unless that drive is the backup for others, > obviously). > > > Stefan > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 20:53:58 +0200 > From: <to...@tuxteam.de> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: must i consider zfs or lvm for smr large drive? > Message-ID: <ywetxmfd4atg5...@tuxteam.de> > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6QSkMZZGoHD2VXhp" > Content-Disposition: inline > > --6QSkMZZGoHD2VXhp > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 02:35:35PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > [...] > > > > but now i am thinking, with smr, the drive could pseudo-brick, > >=20 > > Last I heard, SMR drives aren't significantly less reliable than CMR, so > > I'm not sure you should base your decision on that. Of course, you'll > > want to keep backups (unless that drive is the backup for others, > > obviously). > > Agreed. They are designed for another use-case. I don't know whether there > are file systems which work nicely with SMR. > > Cheers > --=20 > t > > --6QSkMZZGoHD2VXhp > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCYwEtvwAKCRAFyCz1etHa > RgKIAJ9ShCG6Ng3I+ZjR1CBaMai4WW10nQCcDKoTT9IFW3reZ02+rltzXmgZyB4= > =8w6C > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --6QSkMZZGoHD2VXhp-- > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 15:48:53 -0400 > From: John Boxall <jboxal...@gmail.com> > To: "debian-user@lists.debian.org" <debian-user@lists.debian.org> > Subject: Comments on upgrade steps from one version of Debian to another > Message-ID: <89a753f9-5f2c-c3a3-b80c-ccd615bf9...@gmail.com> > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I created an upgrade script based on something I found a few years ago > that indicated the steps to follow to upgrade from one version of Debian > to another (e.g. Buster 10 to Bullseye 11). As I am going to need to run > this script at some point (I am still running Buster/10 on my systems), > I thought I'd ask the Debian user brain trust to comment/critique the > scripted steps. So here they are: > > > ############### Start > apt -y install aptitude > aptitude search \'~o\' > apt update > apt -y upgrade > apt -y full-upgrade > dpkg -C > apt-mark showhold > # > Update sources.list > # > Update files in sources.list.d > (I don't even have this part started yet....didn't know I needed it the > last time I ran it) > # > apt-get check > apt update > apt list --upgradable > apt-get check > apt -y upgrade > apt -y full-upgrade > aptitude search \'~o\' > ############### End > > Thoughts/critique/criticism/flames/etc > > -- > Regards, > > John Boxall > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 16:20:21 -0400 > From: Chuck Zmudzinski <brchu...@netscape.net> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time? > Message-ID: <93454b87-37db-97c2-ffec-9d656d56a...@netscape.net> > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On 8/20/2022 2:06 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > So that means "free" software written and maintained by volunteers > will never be as > > > stable and secure as software that is written by people who are paid > by the hour. > > > > Not necessarily. Have you filed a bug report about a problem you > > perceived in macOS, Windows, other your usual shrink wrapped software? > > Has it always been fixed promptly? > > > > If you want your bugs to be fixed, you generally need resort to some > > kind of support contract, which you can get for Free Software just as > > easily as for proprietary software (probably more easily, actually). > > > > Notice also that the goal of Free Software is not to be technically > > better (you may be confusing it for Open Source software), but > > ethically better. > > > > I suspect most maintainers who don't respond promptly to bug reports > > aren't happy about that fact: its demoralizing to be in charge of > > something you can't devote the resources it really deserves. > > > > But note that *you* can help, by taking on some of the work, looking for > > bugs that haven't gotten an answer yet and trying to address them. > > That's a fair point. It may not be so easy for me to work on a bug that > does not affect > my systems, but I am willing to help with bugs important to the Debian > project now, as > the bookworm development process continues. I will take some time and see > if I can > help out with some other open bugs that do not directly affect my systems. > Such bugs > can be found by querying BTS for bugs marked as critical or grave by the > maintainer > and bugs that are blocking a release, as these are the ones most important > to the > maintainers and developers. I don't know if I have the skills to fix such > bugs which are > probably not so easy to fix, but it wouldn't hurt to ask if there is > anything I can do to > help. One thing that is always helpful are testers to test the proposed > fixes for open > bugs, and I could help with that in cases when the bug affects a package > on one or more > of my systems, at least to tell the maintainer, "that proposed fix looks > good, it does not > break anything on my systems." > > Thanks, > > Chuck > > > I don't think anyone can do that for any random bug, but I'm pretty sure > > most people on this list would be able to do that for at least one of > > the pending bug reports. > > > > > > Stefan > > > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 16:28:52 -0400 > From: Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time? > Message-ID: <jwva67y1x2i.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Chuck Zmudzinski [2022-08-20 16:20:21] wrote: > > That's a fair point. It may not be so easy for me to work on a bug that > does not affect > > my systems, but I am willing to help with bugs important to the Debian > project now, as > > the bookworm development process continues. I will take some time and > see if I can > > help out with some other open bugs that do not directly affect my > systems. Such bugs > > can be found by querying BTS for bugs marked as critical or grave by the > maintainer > > and bugs that are blocking a release, as these are the ones most > important to the > > maintainers and developers. I don't know if I have the skills to fix > such bugs which are > > probably not so easy to fix, but it wouldn't hurt to ask if there is > anything I can do to > > help. One thing that is always helpful are testers to test the proposed > fixes for open > > bugs, and I could help with that in cases when the bug affects a package > on one or more > > of my systems, at least to tell the maintainer, "that proposed fix looks > good, it does not > > break anything on my systems." > > Yes, there are many things one can do to help. E.g. several bugs are > misfiled (for example, sent to the Debian maintainer instead of being > sent to the package's developer even though the bug is unrelated to the > Debian packaging itself). Or often the bug report lacks information to > reproduce it. > > > Stefan > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 14:24:46 -0600 > From: Charles Curley <charlescur...@charlescurley.com> > To: Debian Users <debian-user@lists.debian.org> > Subject: Re: Comments on upgrade steps from one version of Debian to > another > Message-ID: <20220820142446.10cda924@hawk.localdomain> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 15:48:53 -0400 > John Boxall <jboxal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thoughts/critique/criticism/flames/etc > > I would not do that as a script. You have a good recipe there, but I > would run each step manually so I could correct errors, adjust > configuration files, and otherwise shoot trouble as it appears. > > You should probably run 'apt auto-remove' from time to time in there as > needed. > > -- > Does anybody read signatures any more? > > https://charlescurley.com > https://charlescurley.com/blog/ > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 17:06:02 -0400 > From: Chuck Zmudzinski <brchu...@netscape.net> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time? > Message-ID: <79b3d2ea-54f1-d37a-fcb0-850ca1c5c...@netscape.net> > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On 8/20/22 4:28 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Chuck Zmudzinski [2022-08-20 16:20:21] wrote: > > > That's a fair point. It may not be so easy for me to work on a bug > that does not affect > > > my systems, but I am willing to help with bugs important to the Debian > project now, as > > > the bookworm development process continues. I will take some time and > see if I can > > > help out with some other open bugs that do not directly affect my > systems. Such bugs > > > can be found by querying BTS for bugs marked as critical or grave by > the maintainer > > > and bugs that are blocking a release, as these are the ones most > important to the > > > maintainers and developers. I don't know if I have the skills to fix > such bugs which are > > > probably not so easy to fix, but it wouldn't hurt to ask if there is > anything I can do to > > > help. One thing that is always helpful are testers to test the > proposed fixes for open > > > bugs, and I could help with that in cases when the bug affects a > package on one or more > > > of my systems, at least to tell the maintainer, "that proposed fix > looks good, it does not > > > break anything on my systems." > > > > Yes, there are many things one can do to help. E.g. several bugs are > > misfiled (for example, sent to the Debian maintainer instead of being > > sent to the package's developer even though the bug is unrelated to the > > Debian packaging itself). Or often the bug report lacks information to > > reproduce it. > > > > > > Stefan > > > > On Debian, the best thing users can do to help, AFAICT, is to run the > testing distribution on non-critical systems to see if the development > of the next stable Debian version is causing problems. The more people > who run testing and give the developers feedback about problems on BTS, > the more likely the stable version won't break someone's current setup > when it is released and users start upgrading to the new stable version > in larger numbers. Still, for this development process that Debian uses to > be effective, when problems are reported to BTS, the developers and > maintainers need to respond to the bugs that are reported and not ignore > them. > > Best regards, > > Chuck > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 15:03:42 -0700 > From: David Christensen <dpchr...@holgerdanske.com> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: must i consider zfs or lvm for smr large drive? > Message-ID: <42314837-3dcb-1e92-c4ba-5482e455b...@holgerdanske.com> > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > Am 20.08.2022 um 02:43 schrieb David Christensen: > >> My SOHO file and backup servers are FreeBSD with encrypted ZFS root. I > >> use single 2.5" SSD's for the OS drive. I hacked the installer to set > >> copies=2 for boot and root, and enabled mirror for swap. > > On 8/20/22 00:30, DdB wrote: > > Hey! This sounds like you know, what you are doing, and more advanced > > compared to me. Sorry for having stated the obvious, then. > > > > Have fun with it. :-) > > DdB > > > The obvious choices are one drive and RAID. Both are supported by the > Debian and FreeBSD installers. > > > I prefer one drive per OS image, and keep all of my data in RAID on a > file server. The FreeBSD installer is a shell script, and already > features encrypted ZFS on root. Adding "copies=2" was straight-forward. > The key was being able to read and write Bourne shell scripts. > > > David > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 19:27:23 -0400 > From: Chuck Zmudzinski <brchu...@netscape.net> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Comments on upgrade steps from one version of Debian to > another > Message-ID: <f345ae68-ed11-e898-f7e5-ec12d4364...@netscape.net> > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On 8/20/2022 3:48 PM, John Boxall wrote: > > I created an upgrade script based on something I found a few years ago > > that indicated the steps to follow to upgrade from one version of Debian > > to another (e.g. Buster 10 to Bullseye 11). As I am going to need to run > > this script at some point (I am still running Buster/10 on my systems), > > I thought I'd ask the Debian user brain trust to comment/critique the > > scripted steps. So here they are: > > > > > > ############### Start > > apt -y install aptitude > > aptitude search \'~o\' > > apt update > > apt -y upgrade > > apt -y full-upgrade > > dpkg -C > > apt-mark showhold > > # > > Update sources.list > > # > > Update files in sources.list.d > > (I don't even have this part started yet....didn't know I needed it the > > last time I ran it) > > # > > apt-get check > > apt update > > apt list --upgradable > > apt-get check > > apt -y upgrade > > apt -y full-upgrade > > aptitude search \'~o\' > > ############### End > > > > Thoughts/critique/criticism/flames/etc > > > > Hi John, here are my suggestions: > > You can use apt, apt-get, or aptitude to run the commands that do most of > the work, and in your script you chose apt for that task. I recall reading > that they do not all use the same algorithm to determine which packages to > upgrade and in what order, at each stage of the upgrade. I think I read > somewhere that aptitude has the best algorithm, but apt-get is more > suitable for a script. I don't remember if there are advantages or > disadvantages to using apt. So you should do a little research to try to > find the most up-to-date information about the pros and cons of the > different apt related tools. The Debian wiki has a page on that, I think. > Also, you might want to make sure you record the upgrade session in a > logfile so you can examine what the script actually did in case there are > problems. And of course, backup or take a snapshot beforehand so you can > restore the system back to a working state in case things get broken badly. > > HTH, > > Chuck > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 19:45:24 -0400 > From: John Boxall <jboxal...@gmail.com> > To: "debian-user@lists.debian.org" <debian-user@lists.debian.org> > Subject: Re: Comments on upgrade steps from one version of Debian to > another > Message-ID: <e717d584-0aee-74dc-33f9-3771e40f3...@gmail.com> > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On 2022-08-20 19:27, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > On 8/20/2022 3:48 PM, John Boxall wrote: > >> I created an upgrade script based on something I found a few years ago > >> that indicated the steps to follow to upgrade from one version of Debian > >> to another (e.g. Buster 10 to Bullseye 11). As I am going to need to run > >> this script at some point (I am still running Buster/10 on my systems), > >> I thought I'd ask the Debian user brain trust to comment/critique the > >> scripted steps. So here they are: > >> > >> > >> ############### Start > >> apt -y install aptitude > >> aptitude search \'~o\' > >> apt update > >> apt -y upgrade > >> apt -y full-upgrade > >> dpkg -C > >> apt-mark showhold > >> # > >> Update sources.list > >> # > >> Update files in sources.list.d > >> (I don't even have this part started yet....didn't know I needed it the > >> last time I ran it) > >> # > >> apt-get check > >> apt update > >> apt list --upgradable > >> apt-get check > >> apt -y upgrade > >> apt -y full-upgrade > >> aptitude search \'~o\' > >> ############### End > >> > >> Thoughts/critique/criticism/flames/etc > >> > > > > Hi John, here are my suggestions: > > > > You can use apt, apt-get, or aptitude to run the commands that do most > of the work, and in your script you chose apt for that task. I recall > reading that they do not all use the same algorithm to determine which > packages to upgrade and in what order, at each stage of the upgrade. I > think I read somewhere that aptitude has the best algorithm, but apt-get is > more suitable for a script. I don't remember if there are advantages or > disadvantages to using apt. So you should do a little research to try to > find the most up-to-date information about the pros and cons of the > different apt related tools. The Debian wiki has a page on that, I think. > Also, you might want to make sure you record the upgrade session in a > logfile so you can examine what the script actually did in case there are > problems. And of course, backup or take a snapshot beforehand so you can > restore the system back to a working state in case things get broken badly. > > > > HTH, > > > > Chuck > > > > Thanks Chuck, very good points. > > apt always tells you that it isn't reliable in a script, which I am > aware of, however, I'll check the wiki. I "think" that applies to > apt-get as well. I've never used aptitude for anything but the one > command (it was one of those recommended on the web page I saw), but > will investigate it further. > > I use "tee" extensively in the script and record all of the command output. > > As for a backup, I will be cloning the drive to a backup and performing > a test update to that drive first. > > My only real concern is the non-Debian software that I've installed over > the years. We'll see how it goes. > > -- > Regards, > > John Boxall > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 19:49:33 -0400 > From: John Boxall <jboxal...@gmail.com> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Comments on upgrade steps from one version of Debian to > another > Message-ID: <98dac9b5-4139-923d-191f-b6196f748...@gmail.com> > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On 2022-08-20 16:24, Charles Curley wrote: > > > > I would not do that as a script. You have a good recipe there, but I > > would run each step manually so I could correct errors, adjust > > configuration files, and otherwise shoot trouble as it appears. > > > > I did a lot of testing the first time I ran the script and feel that I > can get away with it. I do have a complete log of all command output. > > > You should probably run 'apt auto-remove' from time to time in there as > > needed. > > > That is a good point. I'll probably through at least one in before > updating the sources.list files. Maybe one at the end as well. > > -- > Regards, > > John Boxall > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 18:21:21 -0700 > From: Wylie <wyl...@twqua.com> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: nfs-kernel-server > Message-ID: <6921d8eb-5cb2-aa38-73fa-5f84e7eab...@twqua.com> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="------------A2AD9FBA71891412170BDB7D" > Content-Language: en-US > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --------------A2AD9FBA71891412170BDB7D > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > i am getting this error ... on a fresh install of nfs-kernel-server > > mount.nfs: access denied by server while mounting > 192.168.42.194:/ShareName > > i'm not having this issue on other machines installed previously > i've tried re-installing Debian and nfs several times > > > Wylie! > > --------------A2AD9FBA71891412170BDB7D > Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > <html> > <head> > > <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> > </head> > <body> > <br> > <font size="-1">i am getting this error ... on a fresh install of > nfs-kernel-server <br> > <br> > mount.nfs: access denied by server while mounting > 192.168.42.194:/ShareName<br> > <br> > i'm not having this issue on other machines installed previously<br> > i've tried re-installing Debian and nfs several times<br> > <br> > <br> > Wylie!<br> > </font> > </body> > </html> > > --------------A2AD9FBA71891412170BDB7D-- > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2022 22:25:23 -0400 > From: Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: nfs-kernel-server > Message-ID: <ywgxk5g0rkxac...@wooledge.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 06:21:21PM -0700, Wylie wrote: > > > > i am getting this error ... on a fresh install of nfs-kernel-server > > > > mount.nfs: access denied by server while mounting > > 192.168.42.194:/ShareName > > > > i'm not having this issue on other machines installed previously > > i've tried re-installing Debian and nfs several times > > What's in your /etc/exports file on the server? What's the client's > IP address and hostname? If you attempt to resolve the client's IP > address from the server, what do you get? > > If the client changed IP address or name, or if you changed its entry > in /etc/exports on the server, did you restart the NFS server service? > Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2022 07:11:49 +0200 > From: <to...@tuxteam.de> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time? > Message-ID: <ywg+larygfrp1...@tuxteam.de> > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yxoy1FyIjMlPqxb3" > Content-Disposition: inline > > --yxoy1FyIjMlPqxb3 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 04:20:21PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > On 8/20/2022 2:06 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > [...] > > > > But note that *you* can help, by taking on some of the work, looking > for > > > bugs that haven't gotten an answer yet and trying to address them. > >=20 > > That's a fair point. It may not be so easy for me to work on a bug that > d= > oes not affect > > my systems, but I am willing to help with bugs important to the Debian > pr= > oject now, as > > the bookworm development process continues [...] > > Yay! Thank you! > > Cheers > --=20 > t > > --yxoy1FyIjMlPqxb3 > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCYwG+lQAKCRAFyCz1etHa > Rhq0AJ908VnaYnfEeFwOaQ+jRZB5EHQjIQCfQxiw9rixOJkwf6JyPs9UtlZNj50= > =s/Yz > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --yxoy1FyIjMlPqxb3-- >
