Hi,
I am Nick's sponsor, sorry for the late reply.
> removing kismet/2008 from testing/wheezy (while leaving it untouched in
> unstable/sid),
> uploading kismet/2011 into experimental,
> migrating kismet/2011 into unstable/sid (after some testing & polishing),
> and finally migrating kismet/2011
IMHO,
removing kismet/2008 from testing/wheezy (while leaving it untouched in
unstable/sid),
uploading kismet/2011 into experimental,
migrating kismet/2011 into unstable/sid (after some testing & polishing),
and finally migrating kismet/2011 into wheezy-backports
seems to be a good process idea.
>> I think that the ubuntu situation is orthogonal to the debian one.
>> Since ubuntu takes its packages from unstable, whether or not we
>> remove the package from stable is irrelevant.
>
> The bugs for the kismet package in Ubuntu are irrelevant IFF the package in
> Wheezy doesn't have these SIGS
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 18:50:45, Nick Andrik wrote:
> >> If there are any bugs reported on functionality (which I doubt) then
> >> it makes no sense trying to fix the 2008 version.
> >
> > Ubuntu has several SIGSEGV crashes reported on kismet 2008-05-R1-4.3:
> >https://launchpad.net/u
>> If there are any bugs reported on functionality (which I doubt) then
>> it makes no sense trying to fix the 2008 version.
>
> Ubuntu has several SIGSEGV crashes reported on kismet 2008-05-R1-4.3:
>https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kismet/+bugs
I think that the ubuntu situation is orthogo
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:18:54, Nick Andrik wrote:
> 2012/12/12 intrigeri :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) :
> >> I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be
> >> using this version of the package nowadays.
> >> On the other hand,
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
Hi,
Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 17:07:14 GMT) :
> Then, yes it is :)
OK, thanks for the clarification.
So, I think this removal request should be closed.
> As of curiosity, even if I push anything to unstable it will not move
> to testing because of the freeze pol
> If you mean "feature requests", then they are not appropriate for
> packages shipped in a stable release, so indeed it does not make
> sense, and then I gather your answer was a "yes".
Then, yes it is :)
> If you mean anything else, please clarify :)
>> If we need to fix anything then I will h
Hi,
Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 15:18:54 GMT) :
> 2012/12/12 intrigeri :
>> OK. I think the key question then becomes: as the upcoming maintainer
>> of kismet in Debian, do you want to commit to maintain 2008-05-R1-4.3
>> in stable once Wheezy is released? (as in: dealing with security
>> issue
2012/12/12 intrigeri :
> Hi,
>
> Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) :
>> I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be
>> using this version of the package nowadays.
>> On the other hand, I don't also see the clear benefits from removing it.
>
> OK. I think the ke
Hi,
Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) :
> I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be
> using this version of the package nowadays.
> On the other hand, I don't also see the clear benefits from removing it.
OK. I think the key question then becomes: as the up
>> No. A package which has been removed will always go back through NEW if
>> it is reintroduced. After going through the NEW queue, it can go into
>> either experimental or unstable.
>
> Since the discussion has drifted to full removal from the archive,
> I'd like to point out that a removal from
Hi,
Neil Williams wrote (12 Dec 2012 09:16:52 GMT) :
>> One should pass through the new queue, the
>> other through experimental.
> No. A package which has been removed will always go back through NEW if
> it is reintroduced. After going through the NEW queue, it can go into
> either experimental
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:18:18 +0100
Nick Andrik wrote:
> First of all I also CC the DD that follows my work on packaging the
> new version, since I am not an expert on all debian procedures yet.
>
> About removing kismet or not, I don't know what are the arguments for
> and against.
> I need to k
First of all I also CC the DD that follows my work on packaging the
new version, since I am not an expert on all debian procedures yet.
About removing kismet or not, I don't know what are the arguments for
and against.
I need to know the exact implications in order to give an informed answer.
If
Hi Francois and Nick,
Julien Cristau wrote (15 Nov 2012 19:38:51 GMT) :
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 19:39:35 +0200, Bob Bib wrote:
>> please remove kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3 package from testing, because it's too
>> outdated (the latest upstream version is Kismet-2011-03-R2) and unmaintained
>> (the 20
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 19:36:58 +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> Also note, there is someone looking for a sponsor of an updated kismet
> package:
>
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/kismet
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670176
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=66
Also note, there is someone looking for a sponsor of an updated kismet
package:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/kismet
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670176
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=662105
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 19:39:35 +0200, Bob Bib wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: rm
>
> Hi release team,
> please remove kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3 package from testing, because it's too
> outda
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Hi release team,
please remove kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3 package from testing, because it's too
outdated (the latest upstream version is Kismet-2011-03-R2) and unmaintained
(the 2008-05-R1-4.3 versio
20 matches
Mail list logo
