Dear Luk,
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:16:59 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
> Hi Manoj
> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
> don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
> Thank you very much.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Manoj
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help to
release on December 4th at all till after that date?
Thank you very much.
Luk
PS: For those people that seem to think they can't help: there is still a long
list of RC bugs, th
Hi,
Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
removed portions from the policy that linked policy violations to bug
severities, since this has been deemed controversial and a "bug" in
policy. Next, I rem
> install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the jihad
> against circular dependencies is making any such distinctions.
Is the word "jihad" meant to mean "holy, and aggressive, war to spread
out a religion" here?
I recently had an argument with another maintainer who also used
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:04:54PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Well, I did say that it was a very rough draft. ;)
>
> > > Second try:
> > > "... However, this is not a direct mapping, and the release
> > > managers dete
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 06:48:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt
>> >> directives that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug
>> >> opened on polic
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:36:43 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:36:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Since we already feel that our RM's are overworked (hence dunc-tank
>> and payment schemes), I strongly suggest we not add to the RM's
>> burdens any
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:36:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Since we already feel that our RM's are overworked (hence
> dunc-tank and payment schemes), I strongly suggest we not add to the
> RM's burdens any more than we have to.
This is a laughable suggestion, given that the RMs
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 06:48:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt directives
> >> that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug opened on
> >> policy with severity important for every one of them.
> > Why? If these issues are down
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:00:45 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:49:01 -0400, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:46:23 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...]
and for policy:
These classifications
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pietro Abate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libxmlrpc-ocaml-dev
Version : 0.2.3
Upstream Author : Shawn Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://raevnos.pennmush.org/code/ocaml-xml-rpc/
* License : GPL
Programming
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:18:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061023 20:14]:
>> >> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism
>> >> for making seriou
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:04:54 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Well, I did say that it was a very rough draft. ;)
>> > Second try:
>> > "... However, this is not a direct mapping, and the release
>> > mana
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061023 20:14]:
> >> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism for
> >> making serious bugs non-RC (etch-ignore tags).
> > Etch-ignore tags are usually used for issues
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Well, I did say that it was a very rough draft. ;)
> > Second try:
> > "... However, this is not a direct mapping, and the release
> > managers determine the severity of each violation."
> Direct mapping of *WHAT*?
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: hinventory-client
Version : 1.2.8
Upstream Author : Julien SAFAR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.h-inventory.com
* License : (GPL)
Description : Hinventory-client Script to g
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:30:33 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Ian Jackson]
>> The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
>> general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
>> probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
> You seem to ha
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:49:01 -0400, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:46:23 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...]
>>> and for policy:
>>> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
>>> serious (for must or required directi
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:21:35 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061023 20:14]:
>> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism for
>> making serious bugs non-RC (etch-ignore tags).
> Etch-ignore tags are usually used for iss
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:18:20 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug mass filling"):
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:18:41 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > When there are issues addressed in policy that are
>> > black-and-white where all v
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:42:42 +0200, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> AFAICT the argument is that selinux should not be hard linked at
> all. Having openssh require selinux libs is unwanted overhead for
> the installer.
Well, since openssh already links with libselinux, my patch is
You are receiving this email because you recently sent a message to Pangolin,
or because a spammer is using your email address as the "FROM" address when
sending an email to a discontinued email box at Pangolin.
If you intended to contact Pangolin, your message unfortunately has not been
deliv
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:19:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:36:34 +0200, Aurelien Jarno
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I have created openssh packages with updated SELinux patches,
>> >> this brings us in li
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug mass filling"):
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:18:41 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > When there are issues addressed in policy that are black-and-white
> > where all violations of the policy requirement are definitely bugs,
> > but not all such viola
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 22:25 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>
> That would be much appreciated. The second troublemaker if adodb,
> which seems embedded in several webapps as well.
and is also already packaged, for clarity. however, many packages embed
it *anyway*, and some have locally modifie
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> I could imagine this creating an undesired overhead for the Security
> Team in case of a flaw.
>
> I would therefore suggest splitting TinyMCE into a package of its
> own. Unfortunately, I'm not a DD myself.
That would be much appreciated. The second troublemaker if adodb
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Piotr Ozarowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-pygments
Version : 0.1~svn2258
Upstream Author : Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://pygments.pocoo.org/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Python
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:46:23 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
>> and for policy:
>> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
>> serious (for must or required directive violations), minor, normal or
>> important (for should or recommended directive
Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I'm reading the function int10LinuxLoadSubModule in
> os-support/linux/int10/linux.c right, it shouldn't matter. vm86 will
> return ENOSYS, which will cause vm86_tst to fail, which will cause the X
> server to use x86emu instead of vm86.
>
> Or
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:19:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:36:34 +0200, Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have created openssh packages with updated SELinux patches, this
> >> brings us in line with the
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Brian Morris]
>> if there is a way to deal with all this i welcome suggestions,
>> especially if it is amenable to automation.
>
> The default submission method for popularity-contest is now HTTP. It
> might make it easier for your setup. Also,
[Brian Morris]
> if there is a way to deal with all this i welcome suggestions,
> especially if it is amenable to automation.
The default submission method for popularity-contest is now HTTP. It
might make it easier for your setup. Also, it is possible for popcon
submit its report somewhere else
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 07:19, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> No, it is not. The configure patch:
>
> ensures that LIBSELINUX expands to -lselinux only on machines where
> it is available, not otherwise.
>
> Unless you are saying that the configure.ac patch is broken,
> in which ca
although i have installed debian on
5 machines in the last two years and
multiple times for testing on a couple of
them, i don't think i have been counted
on popcon and most likely never will be.
the reasons, multiply:
3 of the five have never gone outside of
local network, and in fact only rec
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> >> [Ian Jackson]
> >> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
> >> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> [Ian Jackson]
>> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
>> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
>> > probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
>>
Since users of package emma will start app. most probably from some kind
of menu (I.e. I'm providing debian menu file in my package) and users of
your package will use shell, I will rename /usr/bin/emma to
/usr/bin/Emma.
pgpr3P3ZXkjJR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Kjetil Kjernsmo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) :
> Well, I do more and more package building these days, but I haven't had
> time to read the policy documents yet, and each time I try to set aside
> time, a disk dies or something. So it is on my agenda, but right now,
> it doesn't seem like I'll have the
> >> Bear in mind that the 64-bit kernel doesn't offer all the functionality
> >> that the 32-bit one does. vm86 is the most obvious thing missing.
> In arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S, both the vm86 calls (vm86 and vm86old)
> are stubbed to sys32_vm86_warning, which just printks "vm86 mode not
>
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ian Jackson]
> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
> > probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
>
> You seem to have missed the argument that pack
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 10:23, Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
> > I would therefore suggest splitting TinyMCE into a package of its
> > own. Unfortunately, I'm not a DD myself.
>
> It sounds interesting IMHO, and I could sponsor you if you want to
> become responsible of that package.
Well, I do more an
* Kjetil Kjernsmo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) :
> * Package name: tinymce
[...]
> The TinyMCE is a collection of JavaScripts that make up a HTML WYSIWYG
> editor that can be attached to any TEXTAREA of a HTML page. It is
> widely used, in fact it is allready in multiple copies in Debian.
[...]
> I woul
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So to see a difference for the smaller archs the upgrade should
> ask.
The only clean way to do this is IMO a dedicated upgrader tool. This
tool could then have special rules for the following issues:
* known strange dependency changes like
[Ian Jackson]
> The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
> general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
> probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
You seem to have missed the argument that packages with circular
dependencies are impossible to install a
44 matches
Mail list logo
