Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Is an archive of those mails available somewhere? This way the "small > patches" will be available even for packages of people not subscribed to > the PTS. Or for people who subscribe after some version has been > uploaded to ubuntu. There's only th

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Le mar 18 juillet 2006 00:08, Magnus Holmgren a écrit : > On Monday 17 July 2006 23:41, Pierre Habouzit took the opportunity to write: > > Le lun 17 juillet 2006 19:53, Adrian von Bidder a écrit : > > > So the question is, imho, not if we should potentially lock out > > > users of big mail pools -

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On 7/17/06, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2006-07-17 20:48, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 7/17/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > New derivatives keyword > > --- > > [...] > > The Ubuntu distribution will be the first to make use of

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On 7/17/06, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 06:59:41PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/ That's indeed great to address my concern but ... > >A dumb way to implement that is of course set up a mail account > >s

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Jul 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Still, if you think it's just nitpicking, then why not ask the IETF to > amend the standard to clearly permit this practice? Because there is no reason to do this, this is not a standard issue but plain operations. -- ciao, Marco sign

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Le lundi 17 juillet 2006 à 22:29 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:36:31AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Quoting Wolfgang Lonien ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > >> Do we use greylisting on the @debian.org domain and especially on > >> @lists.debian.org? > > > So, up

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On 2006-07-17 20:48, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 7/17/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > New derivatives keyword > > --- > > [...] > > The Ubuntu distribution will be the first to make use of this new feature. > > Each time that a new package is uploade

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Monday 17 July 2006 23:27, Thomas Bushnell BSG took the opportunity to write: > Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Deal with it when people complain. Also, this kind of information can be > > shared so that not every mail admin has to find it out himself by users > > complaining. >

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 06:59:41PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-patches/ That's indeed great to address my concern but ... > >A dumb way to implement that is of course set up a mail account > >subscribed to all packages with the derivative keyword. I can

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Monday 17 July 2006 23:41, Pierre Habouzit took the opportunity to write: > Le lun 17 juillet 2006 19:53, Adrian von Bidder a écrit : > > So the question is, imho, not if we should potentially lock out users > > of big mail pools - those are in the default whitelists anyway by > > now. The ques

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On 7/17/06, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:39:18PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > New derivatives keyword > --- > Each time that a new package is uploaded to Ubuntu, the PTS will receive > the diff between the new version and the prev

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:42:22PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > > And finally, if we don't care about standards conformance, I have said > > that a good second-best is to document exactly what our requirements > > are, rather than burying the

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:39:18PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > New derivatives keyword > --- > Each time that a new package is uploaded to Ubuntu, the PTS will receive > the diff between the new version and the previous one. This way we'll Is an archive of those mails avail

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Le lun 17 juillet 2006 22:29, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > Here is one: I am strongly opposed to greylisting (on mail sent to me > or that I send), for the reason that it delays legitimate mail. which shows that you didn't read the discussion that was about enabling greylisting on *certain* *sp

Bug#378626: ITP: pulseaudio -- networked sound server

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Loic Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi, * Package name: pulseaudio Version : 0.9.2 Upstream Author : Lennart Poettering, Pierre Ossman * URL : http://www.pulseaudio.org/ * License : LGPL, some parts have GPL deps Pr

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > And finally, if we don't care about standards conformance, I have said > that a good second-best is to document exactly what our requirements > are, rather than burying them in apparent secrecy. What standards, exactly? Can you be specific?

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Le lun 17 juillet 2006 19:53, Adrian von Bidder a écrit : > So the question is, imho, not if we should potentially lock out users > of big mail pools - those are in the default whitelists anyway by > now. The question is: can we temporarily (until they can be > whitelisted) lock out users of "st

Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > "Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > >There is no such general solution. See > > > > That says: > >However, wanna-build does not look at the control f

what's the python status?

So presumably the python transition is now ready for changing the version on python defaults, right? What remains to be done? I would ask directly, but they have not yet responded to any question I have asked. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscrib

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Do you have some mechanism in place to detect >> such a case when or if it happens? > > Deal with it when people complain. Also, this kind of information can be > shared so that not every mail admin has to find it out himself by users > complaining

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, up to now, we've found Thomas Bushnell who seems really hardly > voting against greylisting on Debian hosts, with arguments about it > breaking established standards. I personnally find these arguments > very nitpicking and mostly aimed at findin

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On 7/17/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] New derivatives keyword --- [...] The Ubuntu distribution will be the first to make use of this new feature. Each time that a new package is uploaded to Ubuntu, the PTS will receive the diff between the new version a

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:36:31AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Wolfgang Lonien ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> Do we use greylisting on the @debian.org domain and especially on >> @lists.debian.org? > So, up to now, we've found Thomas Bushnell who seems really hardly > voting against greyli

Processed: Only in stable

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > retitle 359565 [Stable-only] ruby-manual: please finish /usr/doc transition Bug#359565: ruby-manual: please finish /usr/doc transition Changed Bug title. > unblock 322762 by 359565 Bug#322762: /usr/doc still exists (transition tracking bug) Was blocked

Re: intent to hijack python-paramiko

* Wouter van Heyst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 20:35]: > > He was moving cross-country in May, so I suggest you NMU for now. > > Would NMUing a new upstream be ok in this instance then? I think so, yes. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: intent to hijack python-paramiko

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 07:40:37PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 19:35]: > > 1.6.1 is now upstream, and #344734 is over half a year old. Unless > > we hear from the maintainer (Jeremy Bouse, on CC to be sure) by the > > end of this week, we will

Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package

"Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debia

Re: NFSv4

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:03:12PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > Does the current NFSv4 implementation already allow client-side on-disk > caching? IIRC the standard does specify it, but a quick look at > linux-nfs.org confuses me - some pages speak about delegations, but OTOH > the end use

Re: intent to hijack python-paramiko

also sprach Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.17.1940 +0200]: > > 1.6.1 is now upstream, and #344734 is over half a year old. Unless > > we hear from the maintainer (Jeremy Bouse, on CC to be sure) by the > > end of this week, we will take over the package as it's blocking bzr > > He w

NFSv4

On Monday 17 July 2006 17:00, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:18:41PM +, Marc Brockschmidt wrote: > > There was a new request for another approved release goal, that is NFS > > v4 support. We approved that goal. > > AFAICS, that goal has been completed for a while. Sm

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

[sending systems that don't deal with greylisting] On Monday 17 July 2006 17:36, Magnus Holmgren wrote: [...] > Also, this kind of information can be > shared so that not every mail admin has to find it out himself by users > complaining. Some data points: * the default greylist shipped by greyl

Re: intent to hijack python-paramiko

* martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 19:35]: > 1.6.1 is now upstream, and #344734 is over half a year old. Unless > we hear from the maintainer (Jeremy Bouse, on CC to be sure) by the > end of this week, we will take over the package as it's blocking bzr He was moving cross-country in

intent to hijack python-paramiko

1.6.1 is now upstream, and #344734 is over half a year old. Unless we hear from the maintainer (Jeremy Bouse, on CC to be sure) by the end of this week, we will take over the package as it's blocking bzr 0.9, which is to be released RSN. Wouter van Heyst would be the new maintainer and I'd sponsor.

Bug#378587: ITP: qrfcview -- viewer for IETF RFCs

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Frederic Daniel Luc LEHOBEY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: qrfcview Version : 0.62 Upstream Author : Romain ROLLET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://qrfcview.berlios.de/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C++ Desc

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

This one time, at band camp, Magnus Holmgren said: > On Sunday 16 July 2006 04:35, Thomas Bushnell BSG took the opportunity > to write: > > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I suggest that when we find a domain that sends mail from 120 > > > /27's (roughly a /20), we worry about it the

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Sunday 16 July 2006 04:35, Thomas Bushnell BSG took the opportunity to write: > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I suggest that when we find a domain that sends mail from 120 /27's > > (roughly a /20), we worry about it then. > > An excellent strategy. I think so. How many system

Disturbing uploads (Re: release update: Etch 4.0, Blockers and Goals, Arch status, kernel 2.4, etc)

Marc Brockschmidt wrote: > Please note that as of now, RC bugs and problematic transitions are our > main concern. There has been progress, but we still need to lower the > number of release critical bugs further. There will be a couple of Bug > Squashing Parties soon, so please consider to join

Bug#378569: ITP: courierpasswd -- Authenticate courier passwords with checkpassword interface

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: courierpasswd Version : 1.1.1 Upstream Author : Andrew St. Jean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.arda.homeunix.net/store/ * License : GPL Description : Authentic

Bug#378568: ITP: courieruserinfo -- Retrieve courier user account information

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: courieruserinfo Version : 1.1.1 Upstream Author : Andrew St. Jean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.arda.homeunix.net/store/ * License : GPL Description : Retriev

Re: release update: Etch 4.0, Blockers and Goals, Arch status, kernel 2.4, etc

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:18:41PM +, Marc Brockschmidt wrote: > There was a new request for another approved release goal, that is NFS > v4 support. We approved that goal. AFAICS, that goal has been completed for a while. What's needed in etch is: - nfs-utils 1.0.7 or newer (check, 1.0.9 i

Processed: Unblocking, this bugs belong to stable and old-stable

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > unblock 322762 by 332303 Bug#322762: /usr/doc still exists (transition tracking bug) Was blocked by: 189856 190020 203278 254800 254913 254924 255590 302504 319726 320084 320103 321926 322749 322769 322772 322776 322778 322779 322781 322782 322783 322

Re: Challenge: Binary free uploading

* Adeodato Sim?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060717 15:11]: > But also, I'm really very curious (and would welcome insight from any > Ubuntu people reading this) how the above mentioned concerns for > "ensuring a minimum amount of testing" are addressed in Ubuntu. Actually that "minimum amount of testing

Re: release update: Etch 4.0, Blockers and Goals, Arch status, kernel 2.4, etc

On Mo Jul 17 11:15:28 UTC 2006, Marc Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - - SELinux support What are the plans for SELinux support? Best regards, Edwin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Challenge: Binary free uploading

> Hi all, Hi, I wanted to chip in and share a couple thoughts on the matter, namely: (a) why (at the moment) "Debian's buildd network" is not an area particularly suited to get improved by "looking at what Ubuntu is doing" (in other words, why little Ubuntu does there can be directly impo

Re: Depends vs. Recommends

Helmut Wollmersdorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMHO these options give you the choice. I disagree to change > recommends' to 'depends', because it should be the users choice to > install 'minimal' or 'full', but this choice should be as convenient > as possible. > > Nowadays it is more or less

Re: Challenge: Binary free uploading

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:42:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:14:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > For starters, we'd need a *lot* of hardware to be able to do all these > > builds. Many of them will fail, because there *will* be people who will > > neglect to tes

Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:53:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three > knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it > to the affected/responsible person. Who would you suggest would do that? I know it's

Re: Depends vs. Recommends

Frank Küster wrote: Jens Peter Secher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To ease upgrades, transitions, etc., dependencies (Depends) should be kept to the absolute minimum. There's always a tradeoff: The easiest system to upgrade is one that runs, but is barely usable for anything... 'usable' -

Re: Depends vs. Recommends

Jens Peter Secher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 10:11:41AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: >>> >>> I agree that that is a common type of file to recover, so that would >>> make it more appropriate to Recommend cpio rather than Su