Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Frans Pop (12/09/2009):
>> I wasn't planning to, partly because the new packaging requires
>> debhelper v7.
>
> Which is available on backports.org, too.
Hmmm, OK. But I still don't see much point in backporting a package that
does not need any backporting.
--
To UNS
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:46:42 +, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> The following changes to the debian-maintainers keyring have just been
> activated:
>
> [..]
> france...@namuri.it
> Full name: Francesco Namuri
> Added key: 20FC1C89F7B8F72408FDB4B18E2764373B30EB44
Auguri Francesco! :)
And
Frans Pop (12/09/2009):
> I wasn't planning to, partly because the new packaging requires
> debhelper v7.
Which is available on backports.org, too.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
>> As debmirror is a native package that may interest developers I thought
>> a quick announcement here is appropriate.
>>
>> I uploaded version 2.2 earlier this morning. In comparison with the
>> lenny version, this introd
Package: general
Severity: normal
Short story:
When using kde 4.3, Xorg process grows from 35 MB of RAM to 600+ MB after ~10
hours... also the CPU usage gets over 90%
Long Story:
I have done a fresh install of my debian 3 weeks ago, to switch from i386 to
amd64 and installed the same stuff i h
Steve Langasek writes:
> I don't think this level of opt-out achieves anything. Perhaps owing to
> the existing BTS handling, I'm very conscious of whether a given message
> I write to the BTS should be seen by the submitter (and the answer is
> almost always yes). A submitter opting out of rec
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 12 septembre 2009 à 10:07 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > No additional me too messages are needed; I just wanted to wait to see
> > if there was some compelling objections before changing the default.
> > Since there haven't been any, I
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:07:13AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> No additional me too messages are needed; I just wanted to wait to see
> >> if there was some compelling objections before changing the de
Le samedi 12 septembre 2009 à 10:07 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> No additional me too messages are needed; I just wanted to wait to see
> if there was some compelling objections before changing the default.
> Since there haven't been any, I'll be implementing the fast version
> (n...@bdo and n
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As a general principle I think it should always be possible for people
>> to opt out of mail from any sort of automated or semi-automated system.
>> I think supporting opt-out is a good idea. But I think that
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:07:13AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > How much support must be shown for such an implementation to see it
> > > done?
>
> > No additional me too messages are needed; I just wa
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:00:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As a general principle I think it should always be possible for people to
> opt out of mail from any sort of automated or semi-automated system. I
> think supporting opt-out is a good idea. But I think that if the
> submitter opts out
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:07:13AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> No additional me too messages are needed; I just wanted to wait to see
>> if there was some compelling objections before changing the default.
>> Since there haven't been any, I'll be implementing the fast
Am 2009-09-12 10:07:32, schrieb Philipp Kern:
> On 2009-09-12, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > And as I have written, I was several times bombed on my cellphone with
> > messages up to 20 MByte
>
> And I was bombed with six from you, where I assume that one would've been
> sufficient, summarisi
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:07:13AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > How much support must be shown for such an implementation to see it
> > done?
> No additional me too messages are needed; I just wanted to wait to see
> if there was some compelling obje
The reason is that more and more libc features depend on availability
of /proc. This means that you have to mount /proc within the chroot,
which somewhat defeats the exercise of chrooting. On the other hand,
it's not totally clear that chrooting is an effective defense anyway
(I haven't got enoug
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> As debmirror is a native package that may interest developers I thought a
> quick announcement here is appropriate.
>
> I uploaded version 2.2 earlier this morning. In comparison with the lenny
> version, this introduces the following new features:
>
> *
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> How much support must be shown for such an implementation to see it
> done?
No additional me too messages are needed; I just wanted to wait to see
if there was some compelling objections before changing the default.
Since there haven't been any, I'll be
Hi,
I have been looking at the thread, and here is what I think
I saw as the emerging consensus:
1) allow submiters subscribe to a bug at submit@ time
(perhaps the default being to subscribe, and unsubscription an
option)
2) nnn-submitter@ makes "certain" that the submitter gets
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:52:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 09/09/09 at 16:18 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:04:16PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Choosing CC BY-SA would nicely conflict with our existing documentation,
> > > like the Debian new mainta
On Sat, Sep 12 2009, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Michael Biebl]
>> Would be interesting to have a before and after bootchart so this
>> regression can be investigated.
>
> Yes, definitely. Would also be interesting to know what kind of
> hardware you got (CPU, harddrive), and if you enabled read
Le Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:08:18PM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
>
> Consider the situation where you have a package licensed entirely under one
> license and predominantly authored by one or more persons, with the odd file
> here and there authored by a different conjunction of people. In this cas
On 12 Sep 11:13, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2009-09-10 17:23:32, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> > We currently even have procmail recipe to automatically subscribe upon
> > BTS ack receipt, that should be the default and the recipes reverted to
> > unsubscribe by default who doesn't want subscript
On 2009-09-12, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> And as I have written, I was several times bombed on my cellphone with
> messages up to 20 MByte
And I was bombed with six from you, where I assume that one would've been
sufficient, summarising your points.
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUB
Am 2009-09-10 21:35:02, schrieb Frans Pop:
> IMO opting out should mainly be for the case where the submitter is also
> receiving follow-ups because he's a member of the packaging team and thus
> already subscribed to the maintainer mailing list or PTS for the package.
> I.e. to avoid getting du
Am 2009-09-10 11:46:44, schrieb Russ Allbery:
> I would ideally like to see this implemented by having reportbug ask
> whether they want to be subscribed, perhaps with a default of yes, rather
> than just subscribing them and making them opt-out.
At the very las in reportbug:
Dear Bug-Reporter,
Am 2009-09-10 17:23:32, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> We currently even have procmail recipe to automatically subscribe upon
> BTS ack receipt, that should be the default and the recipes reverted to
> unsubscribe by default who doesn't want subscription.
Then I have to write a second procmail r
* Michael Hanke:
> test.cpp:9: error: ‘roundl’ was not declared in this scope
Four double values, you should just use round instead.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[Michael Biebl]
> Would be interesting to have a before and after bootchart so this
> regression can be investigated.
Yes, definitely. Would also be interesting to know what kind of
hardware you got (CPU, harddrive), and if you enabled readahead or
not.
Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen
-
Am 2009-09-10 16:05:19, schrieb Colin Tuckley:
> That is exactly what I was going to suggest - with the addition that
> the message you get sent after submitting the bug included the fact
> that you had been subscribed and a link to click to unsubscribe
> easily.
and if someone is subscribed to th
Hi Mark, Kumar and *,
Am 2009-09-10 16:25:04, schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:04:19AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > To be more specific, we should have a pseudo-header like
> > Subscribe: yes
> > which would allow me to subscribe to the bug during submission. This
> > way, we av
Am 2009-09-10 16:09:02, schrieb Sandro Tosi:
> Ideally, I'd imaging nnn...@b.d.o to reach
>
> - submitter
> - maintainers
> - subscribers
Is this not already the case?
Exspecialy I am subscriber to the PTS and 1200 Packages I have installed
on any of my systems and since some times I get all me
33 matches
Mail list logo
