Re: [404 Not Found] http://ftp-master.debian.org/queue-new/
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:36:20PM +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 12:30, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > I don't know if it's a known problem because I have a huge mail back log > > > ;-) but http://ftp-master.debian.org/queue-new/ is Not Found and returns > > > a 404... > > > Is there another URL? > > The URL has never existed. > > This is slightly wrong. > > The NEW queue was exported via http for a while until the full mirror on > merkel was established. It is no longer provided. Developers should log > into merkel (as soon as the local admin sorts the kernel out) to view > the queues. Err, so non-DD's cannot check it anymore? Why does that service need to be a DD only service? There were only the .changes to begin with. Iirc, it is adviced against people to just apply for DD if they only want to maintain a package or two, because all stuff needed to maintain a package is already readily available for everyone, even accounts on various other archs on request. By restricting such services, you make it harder for the non-DD's to track issues themselves, and thus they probably are going to mail ftp-masters more often to enquire about the status, while it could also be made possible that they can check the status themselves... --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Bug#249732: packages.d.o: lists source sizes as 'kB', but is 'bytes'
Package: www.debian.org Severity: minor On f.e. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/lintian , it says 'Size (in kB)', but the numbers are actually bytes, not kB's (lintian is about 242kB, not 242MB). --Jeroen -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.3 Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Bug#288417: RFC: Packages Needing Sponsors page
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 08:55:53PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to clean up WNPP. > > As you may recall, I'm encouraging people to use ITP+patch to mean > "This packages is ready to be uploaded, and I'm only waiting on a > sponsor". As part of my effort, I've created a webpage [0] of such > packages. > > So, if you have an opened ITP, and you are still persuing an upload, > tag the bug 'patch' and it'll show up at midnight. I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier -- I like your idea's, but have a alternative implementation suggestion: Use 'forwarded' with an URL to indicate package is ready and needing a sponsor -- the BTS will then separate these bugs in a different heading, plus you immediately click-through to the canonical location for that ITP's package location. --Jeroen PS: Having anti-spam email addresses is a bit defeated by the fact that the emailadresses are wide open on bugs.debian.org :) -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Bug#322152: Please mention forums.debian.net
Package: www.debian.org Severity: wishlist Hi, forums.debian.net, which for full disclosure, I started and host, has been steadily gaining popularity in the past year, and consequently it has become a resource for new Debian users with actually quite a good chance of getting a useful response. Web forums draw a bit a different audience than mailinglists and IRC, especially the experience of users visiting such forums typically is relatively low. This does make it quite new-user friendly resource. With now well over 700 contributions per month and steadily growing, I think it makes sense to mention these web forums somewhere on the debian.org website, for example http://www.debian.org/support#web. The current list of 4 websites is a bit on the short side in my opinion anyway, with also only 1 out of 4 websites actually being Debian-specific. A simple google query alone give a lot more useful resources for Debian users. Thanks, --Jeroen -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686 Locale: LANG=nl_NL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FTP team members
Hi, Recently Daniel Silverstone has resigned from the FTP Team. Could you please reflect this on the Organizational Structure page[1]? By the way, in my humble opinion it'd be better to remove the qualifying remarks next to all the FTP assistants. Both technically and by internal policy there is no distinction among us, although as with nearly all teams, specialisms do exist and some tasks are mainly done by specific people. This does not mean, though, that for example I am the only one that can and will be doing removals or can be asked questions about that. --Jeroen [1] http://www.debian.org/intro/organization.nl.html -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#340298: www.debian.org/ports unclear about ia64
Package: www.debian.org Severity: important www.debian.org/ports says about ia64: "This is a port to Intel's 64-bit architecture." Without further any warning/information about that other 64bit architecture intel, amd etc are producing: amd64. A *lot* of people try to use ia64 installation media to install Debian on their Opteron's etc, and then mail (for example) debian-cd that the cd is broken and doesn't boot. The paragraph in question could and IMHO should be more elaborate, like, saying it's Intel *alpha* 64, aka Itanium, and mention it's a high-end processor that's not available in consumer's computer shops at all, and also mention there exists another 64-bit processer made by Intel and others, that is *not* ia64, but rather 'amd64'. The fact that i386 is also called ia32 above, without any introduction to what ia32 means, isn't helping at all of course. If it doesn't serve anything, I strongly suggest to drop the name of 'ia-32', I've never heard of it before, while eh, I've been an i386 users for quite some time. Mentioning 'Pentium', 'Sempron' etc would seem more useful to me, as that's much more likely to be known to people than ia32 and even i386. Generally, having a bit of availability info in the summary so that people can more easily find which one's they need to look at. The m68k entry is a good example of this. I've X-Debbugs-Cc'd debian-ia64, who can maybe elaborate on this, or correct me where I've been wrong (I know very little about ia64 myself). (filed at important due to the huge amount of confusion this and maybe some other debian.org pages cause in this regard). Thanks, --Jeroen -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-k7 Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#340298: www.debian.org/ports unclear about ia64
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:00:48PM +0800, Randolph Chung wrote: > > Without further any warning/information about that other 64bit architecture > > intel, amd etc are producing: amd64. A *lot* of people try to use ia64 > > installation media to install Debian on their Opteron's etc, and then mail > > (for example) debian-cd that the cd is broken and doesn't boot. > > I am not disputing that the wording can be improved, but please note: > > > The paragraph in question could and IMHO should be more elaborate, like, > > saying it's Intel *alpha* 64, aka Itanium, > > What is "Intel alpha 64"? I've never heard of such a thing :-) > > ia64 != Itanium, just as Linux != RedHat. That's why I put debian-ia64 in the loop, because I don't much more than the bare minimum about the architecture in question. It also makes it hard for me to provide a factually correct patch. Please suggest some wording that *is* correct, then. I don't know how to do it. > > The fact that i386 is also called ia32 above, without any introduction to > > what ia32 means, isn't helping at all of course. If it doesn't serve > > anything, I strongly suggest to drop the name of 'ia-32', I've never > > heard of it before, while eh, I've been an i386 users for quite some time. > > Well, ia32 is a very common name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-32 Among Computer Hardware Engineers, maybe, but I surely never heard of it (I know, statistical sample of one, but still. And I *am* thoroughly familiar with Linux). And a quick poll amongst a handful of computer-savy people (computer science students and physics students) at my university suggests I'm not the only one who doesn't know what a ia32 is, despite having lots of them (and the Physics department's main shell server being an ia64 even). --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
