Quoting Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org):
> Considering the fact that this thread has only been here for a few
> hours,[1] I'm going to hold off at least for a few days to entertain
> objections. But hearing none, I'll implement this when I get a chance.
Not sure that's really needed as you made
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kumar Appaiah
* Package name: taggrepper
Version : 0.03
Upstream Author : Kumar Appaiah (myself)
* URL : http://gitorious.org/taggrepper/pages/Home
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C
Description : search and matc
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:40:14PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > I'm fine with it being the default, it just needs to be something that
> > a submitter can choose not to receive.
> > If the consensus is that we should implement Cc:'ing the submitter
> > quickly, and that it's ok to implement the o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sylvestre Ledru
* Package name: overload
Version : 1.3.1
Upstream Author : Calixte Denizet
* URL : http://scilabtbxset.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL 3
Programming Lang: C, C++
Description : Scilab toolbox to
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I actually lost 7 seconds, according to bootchard, by setting
> that.
Would be interesting to have a before and after bootchart so this regression can
be investigated.
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Now, libxml2 is used a lot. A whole lot. My concern is that partial
> upgrades can possibly leave people with an old libxml2 and newer
> programs (they could even put themselves in this situation by pinning
> some packages), in which case these warnings are
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
> But combined with "readahead", there is no I/O bound during init.
> Most of needed files are preload.
Any initscripts that deal with devices will still be I/O bound. And the
current scheduler doesn't help (see current threads in LKML). You should
st
Don Armstrong writes:
> The complete plan involves having nnn-submitter@ changing from being
> an alias of the submitter's e-mail address to behaving like nnn@, with
> the addition of making sure that the submitter gets a copy. See my
> mails on this subject.
Thanks for pointing this out again.
Hi fellow developers,
I uploaded, yesterday, a new upstream of libxml2 that adds symbol
versioning. There is actually no problem with this, and from my testing,
everything is still working as expected (the most important part being
that symbols have only been versioned, and none was removed).
Any
Harald Braumann wrote:
> While I personally like to be kept updated on all bugs I file and would
> welcome an auto-subscribe feature, one has to accept the fact that
> others might not. I always find it very irritating if The System
> forces things on me because it thinks it knows what's best for e
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: latex-translator
Version : 1.00
Upstream Author : Till Tantau (tan...@users.sourceforge.net)
* URL or Web page : http://sourceforge.net/projects/latex-beamer
* License : LaTeX Project Public License or GPL
Description :
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Heiko Stuebner
* Package name: agtl
Version : 0.3.0
Upstream Author : Daniel Fett
* URL :
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Advanced_Geocaching_Tool_for_Linux
* License : GPL3 (or later) and one included file GPL2 (or late
On Fri, Sep 11 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:05:32PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> If you want to test this feature in testing or unstable, use this
>> command:
>>
>> echo CONCURRENCY=makefile >> /etc/default/rcS
>>
>> It will enable makefile style concurrenc
Hi Michael,
> I am trying to fix #513272, a FTBFS on armel. The problem basically
> boils down to the following snippet failing to compile on armel (tested
> with a Debian lenny on a qemu-emulated armel system):
see /usr/include/bits/mathdef.h on armel:
] [...]
] #ifndef __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH
]
Sorry to raise the spectre of DEP5 after so many months.
And apologies if this has already been raised elsewhere;
I haven't found it in a skim of the list archives and the
wiki page.
Consider the situation where you have a package licensed
entirely under one license and predominantly authored by
o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sylvain Beucler
* Package name: gargoyle-free
Version : 2009-08-25
Upstream Author : Tor Andersson, Ben Cressey
* URL : http://ccxvii.net/gargoyle/
* License : GPL and compatible
Programming Lang: C
Description :
Hi,
[ I already posted this to debian-armel already [0], but got no response
so far -- maybe someone on this list can provide a hint ]
I am trying to fix #513272, a FTBFS on armel. The problem basically
boils down to the following snippet failing to compile on armel (tested
with a Debian lenn
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Christoph Egger wrote:
> I'm seeing exactly this problem with the proposal. IMHO we really
> need a way to definitely get the submitter and we need to use that
> whenever we need a answer. subscribing the submitter to
> ???...@bugs.d.o by default and giving the option to unsubs
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:44:56PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:21:07AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > As I've mentioned before, IMO there is only one valid
> > reason to unsubscribe from BRs after we change the
> > default, and that is if you *already* receive follow-ups
> >
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:05:32PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> If you want to test this feature in testing or unstable, use this
>> command:
>>
>> echo CONCURRENCY=makefile >> /etc/default/rcS
>>
>> It will enable makefile style concurrency, and run N scripts in
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:21:07 +0200
Frans Pop wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > I personally prefer not to be CCed on bug reports. I don't want to
> > recieve any mail about a bug unless it is asking me to supply more
> > information.
>
> So you *do* want to be CCed if the maintainer needs more infor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frans Pop wrote:
> 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 alrea
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 17:23 +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.
If the submitter can unsubscribe, then we haven't won anyth
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 18:25 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> 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.
Speaking of -quiet, I'd be happy to see that die. Or at the very le
[Wouter Verhelst]
> That seems suboptimal.
Could be. See the startpar program to see how the scripts are run in
parallel. Note that the boot is mostly CPU bound when readahead is
used, which you should use if you care about boot speed. :)
> If it actually is configurable, but you just didn't te
But combined with "readahead", there is no I/O bound during init.
Most of needed files are preload.
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:05:32PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
If you want to test this feature in testing or unstable, use this
command:
echo CONCURRENCY=ma
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 02:15:43PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I don't find the existing behavior confusing, especially since there
> is -submitter@
The problem with the -submitter@ mail alias is that it does not get
changed in the forward, so that when a submitter hits 'reply' in his
MUA, he
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:05:32PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> If you want to test this feature in testing or unstable, use this
> command:
>
> echo CONCURRENCY=makefile >> /etc/default/rcS
>
> It will enable makefile style concurrency, and run N scripts in
> parallel during boot, where
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alastair McKinstry
* Package name: libsx
Version : 2.05
Upstream Author : Jean-Pierre Demailly
* URL : ftp://ftp.ac-grenoble.fr/ge/Xlibraries/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : Simple X library
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:21:07AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, IMO there is only one valid
> reason to unsubscribe from BRs after we change the
> default, and that is if you *already* receive follow-ups
> because
snip
There's also the case where you submitted a bug in a pac
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:40:21AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> [1] I think that is the biggest argument against this change: The
> current behaviour is user centered and the new one will be
> developer-centered, so most likely be confusing to the user.
I don't agree with the positioning here.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:35:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> I don't think it should be too easy to opt-out. We should
> not get in a situation where we no longer CC a submitter
> because we assume he/she is subscribed, while the
> submitter will never get the mails because he did not
> realize tha
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: rabbit
Version : 0.6.1
Upstream Author : Kouhei Sutou
* URL or Web page : http://www.cozmixng.org/~rwiki/?cmd=view;name=Rabbit
* License : GPL
Description : presentation tool using RD, a simple te
Frans Pop schrieb:
> Paul Wise wrote:
>> I personally prefer not to be CCed on bug reports. I don't want to
>> recieve any mail about a bug unless it is asking me to supply more
>> information.
>
> So you *do* want to be CCed if the maintainer needs more information.
>
> Then there's one thing I
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:13:12PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> 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 ou
Paul Wise wrote:
> I personally prefer not to be CCed on bug reports. I don't want to
> recieve any mail about a bug unless it is asking me to supply more
> information.
So you *do* want to be CCed if the maintainer needs more information.
Then there's one thing I don't get.
- if we change the de
* Don Armstrong [090910 22:47]:
> 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
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 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 t
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:47:22PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1: Not to mention the multiple messages erroneously describing my
> position on the matter without allowing time for a response, or
> bothering to read the logs of the relevant bugs.
While I hope I'm not in that author set :-), let m
39 matches
Mail list logo
