Bug#640284: ITP: ab-chocolate -- inline assignments book

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Georges Khaznadar * Package name: ab-chocolate Version : 49.00 Upstream Author : Pierre Lemaitre * URL : http://www.etab.ac-caen.fr/bsauveur/cahier_de_texte/ * License : GPL-3+, and BSD-like Programming Lang: PHP, Per

Re: Dependencies of metapackages

On mer., 2011-08-31 at 11:59 +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote: > > Could you elaborate on your reasons and your intentions for making the > distinction? Policy 7.2, mostly, and the fact depends are installed (obviously), recommends are installed by default (but that can be disabled and one can remov

Bug#640263: debian-policy: Clarify policy section 9.9 - Environment variables

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.2.0 Severity: normal Per resolution of bug #639997 I would like to ask for clarification of section 9.9 in the polcy regarding environmental variables, and if it implicitly excludes "global" environmental variables like PATH, or if all programs must include them

Bug#640240: ITP: toprammer -- Command-line and GUI software for the TOP2049 universal programmer

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Uwe Hermann * Package name: toprammer Version : 0.9 Upstream Author : Michael Büsch * URL : http://bues.ch/cms/hacking/toprammer.html * License : GPL Programming Lang: Python Description : Command-line and GUI sof

Re: Are we monitoring disk space per package over time anywhere?

On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:48:28 +0200 Steffen Möller wrote: > Hello, > > with more people using Debian on phones and SSDs, the size > of packages keeps being an issue. It's more than the packages themselves. It also includes the Packages file and there's a clear need to encourage maintainers to u

Bug#640204: ITP: ztex-bmp -- babel universal macro processor

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Steffen Moeller * Package name: ztex-bmp Upstream Author : Stefan Ziegenbalg * URL : http://www.ztex.de * License : GPL-3 Programming Lang: Pascal Description : babel universal macro processor The package is close to be r

Re: kernel.org compromised

* Joerg Jaspert (jo...@debian.org) [110903 12:44]: > > > Yeah, yeah. We've beaten that horse to death, and our side lost. I also > > advocate that all debs should be signed, but that was not the will of the > > ftp-masters the last time the issue was up for discussion. > > Thats wrong. > Since

Re: kernel.org compromised

> Yeah, yeah. We've beaten that horse to death, and our side lost. I also > advocate that all debs should be signed, but that was not the will of the > ftp-masters the last time the issue was up for discussion. Thats wrong. Since 03 Aug 2008 at least. See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo

Re: Are we monitoring disk space per package over time anywhere?

Steffen Möller, le Sat 03 Sep 2011 11:48:28 +0200, a écrit : > with more people using Debian on phones and SSDs, the size > of packages keeps being an issue. And some claim that there > would not be much difference of current distros to all the > overhead that Redmond brings. > > Are we monitoring

Status of circulars dependencies in unstable

Dear developers, Today circular dependencies in unstable reached an all-time low, with only 40 circular dependencies. Here the current list: * acheck acheck-rules * aide aide-common * autodocktools mgltools-pmv * bochs bochs-wx * bootcd bootcd-i386 bootcd-ia64 (1 pre-depends) * ca-certificates-j

Are we monitoring disk space per package over time anywhere?

Hello, with more people using Debian on phones and SSDs, the size of packages keeps being an issue. And some claim that there would not be much difference of current distros to all the overhead that Redmond brings. Are we monitoring any sudden in- or decrease in disk space per package or "per tas