Work-needing packages report for Sep 11, 2009

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 495 (new: 0) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 161 (new: 0) Total number of packages request

Re: RFC: Providing vi when /usr isn't mounted

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:19:25AM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 19:02 -0400, James Vega wrote: > > tag 528494 help > > thanks > > > > #528494 raised the idea of having vim-tiny (the default vi-like editor > > on a base install) provide /bin/vi so that it would be ac

Bug#546042: ITP: libnet-opensrs-perl -- A wrapper interface to the DNS portions of the Tucows OpenSRS HTTPS XML API.

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ivan Kohler * Package name: libnet-opensrs-perl Version : 0.03 Upstream Author : Richard Siddall * URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-OpenSRS/ * License : Perl Programming Lang: Pe

Re: trac maintenance activity?

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:45 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting "Andres Salomon" : > > Yes, trac will be maintained in the Python Application Packaging Team. > I already tried to copy the git history to the PAPT svn, but - lacking > any experience with git - failed. I will now just start with

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Given the high rate of people (at least in those that replied here) > in favor of adding submitter in the loop of n...@b.d.o, I think your > plan is very good: > > - include the submitter in n...@b.d.o by default now; Considering the fact that this thread

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 22:31, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, David Nusinow wrote: >> Don Armstrong wrote: >> >On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> >>I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the >> >>different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default? >

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, David Nusinow wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > >On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >>I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the > >>different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default? > >> > >>Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach > >> > >

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:05:19PM +0100, Colin Tuckley wrote: > Quoting Mark Brown : > > >What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to > >subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue > >with confusing less technical users. > > That is exactly what

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote: I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default? Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach - submitter n...@bdo should reach submitters who are inte

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Russ Allbery wrote: >> That should probably be something that would fly for me actually. and >> you could make reportbug take an option to add some kind of pseudo >> header so that subscribing is not done for the rare cases when sender >> doesn't want to be subscribed. > > I would ideally like to

Re: #545996: please inform submitters they need to subs cribe

Holger Levsen wrote: > But I also think the acknowledgement mail should contain the information > that the submitter is not being subscribed by default and how s/he can > subscribe. IMHO this is very wrong: the user has already taken the trouble to report the bug. We should not make him/her jump

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu,10.Sep.09, 09:32:55, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > Just my view, I try to remember to Cc the reporter, but I'd much > rather prefer being subscribed to bugs as I report them. Or maybe make it possible to subscribe by just replying to the ACK mail. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it si

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:32:09PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > 2009/9/10 Josselin Mouette : > > Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 16:09 +0200, Sandro Tosi a écrit : > >> I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the different > >> direction: why not mailing the submitter by default? > > >

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 20:46, Russ Allbery wrote: > Pierre Habouzit writes: >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > >>> Conceptually, what "we" want is trivial: we want submitter to be >>> subscribed (in the sense of "bts subscribe") by default. If they want, >>>

Re: #545996: please inform submitters they need to subs cribe

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Holger Levsen wrote: > Also it would be nice if #351856 would be implemented, so people who want > this, will be automatically subscribed to their bugs. That actually is fairly easy to implement, but I haven't done so primarily because I want to solve it properly, which mean

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Pierre Habouzit writes: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> Conceptually, what "we" want is trivial: we want submitter to be >> subscribed (in the sense of "bts subscribe") by default. If they want, >> they are free to opt unsubscribing. > That should probabl

#545996: please inform submitters they need to subs cribe

package: bugs.debian.org severity: wishlist x-debbugs-cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Hi, On Donnerstag, 10. September 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our > distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away > by rew

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

also sprach Samuel Thibault [2009.09.10.1545 +0200]: > I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to > ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else > he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc. It's now > quite a few times that

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote: > I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the > different direction: why not mailing the submitter by default? > > Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach > > - submitter n...@bdo should reach submitters who are interested in being reach

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Ok, recap-ing a bit, adding ow...@bts in the loop directly. On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 16:09, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 15:45, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to >> ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explici

[iproute2] tc action mirred __ documents

Hi all, I need some 'tc ... action ... mirred' doc/man. On "http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.intro.linux.html"; (Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control), it said 'Traffic control is almost undocumented.' What I want to do: My network is /A\ B D \C/ All of the nodes(A, B, C, D) have two wirel

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:58:30PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Leo costela Antunes, le Thu 10 Sep 2009 16:52:43 +0200, a écrit : > > Why not include a pseudo-header to subscribe to bugreports on submit? > > I thought about that too, but that doesn't solve the original problem: > clueless repor

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:08:00PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he > > should mail nnn-silent or whatever, because that is the exception. > > Full ACK. >

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 18:25 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : > That is the thread at large. Currently it was about why nnn-quiet is no > suitable workaround if the followup address for users (nnn@) would suddenly > also mail users. Then use nnn-maintonly@, which will reach the PTS and mai

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

* Josselin Mouette [090910 18:11]: > > Otherwise most packages have some crowd of people following the package > > or even only specific bugs. Then additional user input not reaching them > > is losing valuate chances for additional information. > > We???re not talking about preventing additional

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 17:55 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : > If all one does with the bugs is collecting them, hoping upstream will fix > them (for which one does not even have the manpower to check oneself) > or the submitters lose interest, then the current system is of course > not fa

Re: trac maintenance activity?

Quoting "Andres Salomon" : Ah, just noticed debacle's emails[0] regarding this. You'll certainly find no objections from me. Feel free to take over. Yes, trac will be maintained in the Python Application Packaging Team. I already tried to copy the git history to the PAPT svn, but - lacking an

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

* Josselin Mouette [090910 17:26]: > Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 17:19 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : > > > When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he > > > should mail nnn-silent or whatever, > > > > That is only true for very small packages where only the mainta

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:08:00PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Not the reverse. This is a major (if not _THE_ major) annoyance with the > BTS. FWIW this is a long discussed issue, and the BTS maintainers do not > share this opinion (that mailing @ should also mail the submitter) > so we're

Re: trac maintenance activity?

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:57:38 -0400 Andres Salomon wrote: > Hi, > > Is trac being actively maintained? I no longer use it, so I'd like to > be removed from the uploaders list when someone does the next upload. > If no one is maintaining it, it should really be orphaned.. > > Note that 0.11.5 ha

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 17:19 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : > > When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he > > should mail nnn-silent or whatever, > > That is only true for very small packages where only the maintainer is > intrested in. Since apparently y

Re: trac maintenance activity?

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:01:45 -0400 Andres Salomon wrote: > On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:57:38 -0400 > Andres Salomon wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Is trac being actively maintained? I no longer use it, so I'd like > > to be removed from the uploaders list when someone does the next > > upload. If no one

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:04:19AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to > > subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue > > with confusing less te

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:08:00PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > When the maintainer think the bug reporter is not to be annoyed, then he > should mail nnn-silent or whatever, because that is the exception. Full ACK. > Not the reverse. This is a major (if not _THE_ major) annoyance with the > B

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 15:45 +0200, Samuel Thibault a écrit : > I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to > ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else > he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc. It's now > quite a

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Hi, * Kumar Appaiah [2009-09-10 17:03]: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]: > > > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? > > > there are some reasons not to? > > > > But reporters are sacrifing some of

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

* Pierre Habouzit [090910 17:08]: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]: > > > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? > > > there are some reasons not to? > > > > But reporters are sacrifing some of their t

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 16:58 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : > So we should punish users for incompotent developers? Whoa? Informing users is punishing them? This whole thread is a complete WTF, as were previous discussions on the topic. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 15:43 +0100, Mark Brown a écrit : > What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to > subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue > with confusing less technical users. No, it wouldn’t be useful. Not all reports are well

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Leo costela Antunes, le Thu 10 Sep 2009 16:52:43 +0200, a écrit : > Why not include a pseudo-header to subscribe to bugreports on submit? I thought about that too, but that doesn't solve the original problem: clueless reporters won't enable it and absent-minded maintainers will forget to Cc them.

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Quoting Mark Brown : What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue with confusing less technical users. That is exactly what I was going to suggest - with the addition that the message you get sent a

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]: > > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? > > there are some reasons not to? > > But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our > distribution better.

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > This is subjective. I know of several bug reporters who would either > > be happy to see that their bug is being dicussed/attended to, or even > > be able to pariticipate in the fixing efforts if their technical > > knowledge falls in

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:32:55AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our > > distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away > > by rewarding bug repo

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

* Sandro Tosi [090910 16:35]: > Yes, I do believe that submitters should be informed of any activity > on their bugs (to know they're not ignored, to contribute to the tech > discussion (not every reported is a non-tech guy), etc). Not everyone is a non-tech guy, but even most tech-savy persons a

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Sandro Tosi wrote: > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? > there are some reasons not to? As raised by Berhard[0], this could bother some reporters, OTOH - as Kumar said[1] - other posters would actually like being more closely involved with their bugs. Why not incl

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Am Donnerstag, den 10.09.2009, 16:09 +0200 schrieb Sandro Tosi: > Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach > > - submitter > - maintainers > - subscribers > > We already have -quite if we want to not mail people. > > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? Yes, plea

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 16:21, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]: >> Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? >> there are some reasons not to? > > But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our > distribution better. Do you reall

[RANT] [OT] Bloating dependencies instead of using recommends (was: Re: RFS: sqlkit)

On Sep 04 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On Friday 04 September 2009 13:14:43 Alessandro Dentella wrote: > > So I'd really prefer to leave those 2 drivers as dependencies. > > Recommends, right? As a user it annoys me to no end when the packager > Depends > on something the system will w

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]: > > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? > > there are some reasons not to? > > But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our > distribution better.

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

2009/9/10 Josselin Mouette : > Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 16:09 +0200, Sandro Tosi a écrit : >> I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the different >> direction: why not mailing the submitter by default? > > Because the debbugs maintainer doesn’t want it. Yes, I seemed to remem

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

* Sandro Tosi [090910 16:09]: > Do others feel we should enable emailing the submitter by default? > there are some reasons not to? But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away by rewarding bug reports by pul

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 16:09 +0200, Sandro Tosi a écrit : > I was thinking about this a couple of hours ago, but in the different > direction: why not mailing the submitter by default? Because the debbugs maintainer doesn’t want it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recomm

Re: Explicitely Cc bug reporters

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 15:45, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to > ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else > he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc.  It's now > quite a few

Explicitely Cc bug reporters

Hello, I'd like to remind maintainers that in order to reach bug reporters to ask for tests etc. you _need_ to explicitely Cc the bug reporter, else he won't receive the mail and of course not do the tests etc. It's now quite a few times that I have received a "you didn't answer" mail... Samuel

Faster boot by running init.d scripts in parallel

One "hidden" feature of the current Debian boot sustem, is the ability to run the init.d scripts in parallel. This require dependency based boot sequencing to be enabled, and the init.d script dependencies to be complete and correct to work reliably. The feature is hidden and undocumented, becaus

Re: Modifying /etc/nsswitch.conf in Debian Packages

Hi Luke, On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:58:34PM -0400, Luke Faraone wrote: I'm currently working on packaging Rainbow, an implementation of the Bitfrost security spesification. Rainbow runs user-level desktop applications

Bug#545949: who should cleanup /var/lib/update-rd.d ? should it be cleaned up at all?

package: sysv-rc severity: important x-debbugs-cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts piuparts.d.o Hi Petter, On Mittwoch, 9. September 2009, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > today I noticed that quite many packages fail the piuparts test, > > because

Re: RFC: Providing vi when /usr isn't mounted

On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 19:02 -0400, James Vega wrote: > tag 528494 help > thanks > > #528494 raised the idea of having vim-tiny (the default vi-like editor > on a base install) provide /bin/vi so that it would be accessible in > situations where /usr isn't available. At first glance, I naïvely > f