On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:19:37PM +0200, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have been trying to contact Patrick Winnertz (winnie-at-d.o). I
> would like to see iTalc in Debian upgraded to 2.0
Relevant bug report from 3 September 2011:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640200
>
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: 454 (new: 22)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 156 (new: 7)
Total number of packages reques
Le Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:47:07AM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli a écrit :
> > Jonas, I think we all agree that the Maintainer should Maintain
> > whatever he signed up to. Non-Debian people have the right to maintain
> > packages through a sponsor, and they are encouraged to. And they are
> > encouraged
> Jonas, I think we all agree that the Maintainer should Maintain
> whatever he signed up to. Non-Debian people have the right to maintain
> packages through a sponsor, and they are encouraged to. And they are
> encouraged to look for a different sponsor if their current one stops
> being responsiv
On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:03:05 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There is no excuse for hijacking a package, ever.
[...]
Hi Steve,
while I really appreciate both your technical work and expertise as
well as your personal care for Debian, this mail didn't go down well
with me, for two reasons:
- It
Svante Signell dijo [Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:45:13PM +0200]:
> > It's *usually* not what you want to do. There are several cases where
> > different versions of the same program are available in Debian, and I
> > am unfamiliar with the case at hand, but it's usually where a specific
> > older versi
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 16:20 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Svante Signell dijo [Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:22:21PM +0200]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A Short question. Is it possible to ITP a new release of some software
> > not being even considered by the DM, for whatever reason. Wishlist bugs
> > are submitted,
Svante Signell dijo [Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:22:21PM +0200]:
> Hi,
>
> A Short question. Is it possible to ITP a new release of some software
> not being even considered by the DM, for whatever reason. Wishlist bugs
> are submitted, etc. According to if there is no reply of bug reports,
> there se
On 31.05.2012 21:35, Andreas Tille wrote:
> In any case the idea is to collect issues of broken mime support where
> maintainers are unable / not willing to respect Debian policy 9.7.
> Adding more entries is simple: Just add the according mime file as
> .mime and add to "Enhances" in debian/con
Svante Signell, le Thu 31 May 2012 22:22:21 +0200, a écrit :
> A Short question. Is it possible to ITP a new release of some software
> not being even considered by the DM, for whatever reason.
It's normally not a good thing to do. "ITP" is also not what you mean
here, BTW.
> Wishlist bugs are su
Hi,
A Short question. Is it possible to ITP a new release of some software
not being even considered by the DM, for whatever reason. Wishlist bugs
are submitted, etc. According to if there is no reply of bug reports,
there seems to be no interest at all from the DM to package that piece
of SW, not
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: The Ayatana Packagers
* Package name: libappindicator
Version : 0.4.92
Upstream Author : Ted Gould
* URL : https://launchpad.net/libappindicator
* License : GPL-3, LGPL-2.1
Programming Lang: C
Description : allow
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:51PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 09:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they
> > believe they are not answerable to the project's processes for how
> > package maintenance is deci
Hi,
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I'm also not seeing GNOME applications as file type handlers in
> Akregator (KDE application). So I'm not sure this is even 'just' a
> problem for text-mode applications.
I have no idea whether the solution proposed below could
Dear all,
I have been trying to contact Patrick Winnertz (winnie-at-d.o). I
would like to see iTalc in Debian upgraded to 2.0 but Patrick is
neither replying to contact attempts via mail (Debian Edu mailing
list, directly), nor to contact attempts via IRC. My first attempt to
reach him i
severity 470294 serious
thanks
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> That's a mater of views. #470294 should be made RC IMO.
"somebody should do something" ;-)
> Or is writing to /usr not a good candidate for an RC bug?
> I thought this was a "serious violation of the policy"
On 05/31/2012 10:52 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Please note that "badly maintained" is something quite different from
> "not maintained". AFAICS, the package we are talking about is not
> affected by severe or critical bugs.
That's a mater of views. #470294 should be made RC IMO.
Or is writing to /
On 05/31/2012 04:52 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 31/05/12 16:40, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 08:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> I have no intention of spreading or amplifying wrong information.
>>>
>>> Do I understand it correctly that your intention in your original
>>> post was to h
On 05/31/2012 06:25 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 31/05/12 18:15, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>
>> Part of the common and established procedure is to mail d-devel if
>> you intend to hijack a package
>
> True, but it is _not_ common (nor acceptable) to let only 2-3 days for
> the maintainer to reply.
Th
Jonas Smedegaard dijo [Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:52:47PM +0200]:
> > > You avoided my question, it seems: What does "Maintainer:" mean, then?
> >
> > What does "Uploaders:" field mean?
>
> You still avoid my question: What does "Maintainer:" mean?
This is getting silly. Please stop the word-defini
On 31/05/12 18:15, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Part of the common and established procedure is to mail d-devel if
you intend to hijack a package
True, but it is _not_ common (nor acceptable) to let only 2-3 days for
the maintainer to reply.
The rest of the thread raised other questions such as the r
On 05/31/2012 04:57 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 31/05/12 15:11, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 03:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>>> A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that
>>> they believe they are not answerable to the project's processes for
>>> how pack
Hi Thomas,
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I was asking if it was alright to ask the MIA team to orphan the
> package, yes, because no reply from Jack. Never I wanted to do
> it myself, or take over the package without going through the
> standard procedures.
yes, please do t
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> You still avoid my question: What does "Maintainer:" mean?
why do you ask rhetoric questions? It's defined in policy and you know it. So
whats the point?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "
On 12-05-31 at 04:43pm, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:15:31 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > [dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
> >
> > On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > > You and a lot of others fail to
On 31/05/12 15:11, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 05/31/2012 03:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that
they believe they are not answerable to the project's processes for
how package maintenance is decided. It is antisocial vigilanteism
and
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 03:16:06 PM George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > responsible for the package.
> >
> > Huh?!?
> >
> > What does "Maintainer:" mean if not the
On 31/05/12 16:40, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 05/31/2012 08:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I have no intention of spreading or amplifying wrong information.
Do I understand it correctly that your intention in your original
post was to have the package orphaned and then have a team take
over maint
On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:15:31 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> [dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
>
> On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > > responsible for the
On 05/31/2012 08:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I have no intention of spreading or amplifying wrong information.
>
> Do I understand it correctly that your intention in your original
> post was to have the package orphaned and then have a team take over
> maintainance?
>
I was also pointin
On Thursday 31 May 2012 14:43:00 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-05-31 at 08:02pm, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 05/31/2012 04:36 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Hijacking, in my vocabulary, is when a non-maintainer takes matters
> > > in his/her/their own hands and takes over maintainership witho
[dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > responsible for the package.
> >
> > Huh?!?
> >
> > What does "Maintainer:" mean if no
On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi,
> > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > responsible for the package.
>
> Huh?!?
>
> What does "Maintainer:" mean if not the entity being responsible for,
> well, maintaining?!?
Who is responsible for the
On 05/31/2012 03:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>[...]
> A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they believe
> they are not answerable to the project's processes for how package
> maintenance is decided. It is antisocial vigilanteism and it is not
> acceptable.
So asking pe
On 12-05-31 at 08:02pm, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 04:36 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Hijacking, in my vocabulary, is when a non-maintainer takes matters
> > in his/her/their own hands and takes over maintainership without the
> > consent of the former maintainer and outside formal
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the
PHP PEAR team"):
> A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they believe
> they are not answerable to the project's processes for how package
> maintenance is decided. It is antisocial vigilantei
On 05/31/2012 04:36 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hijacking, in my vocabulary, is when a non-maintainer takes matters in
> his/her/their own hands and takes over maintainership without the
> consent of the former maintainer and outside formal Debian procedures.
>
Nobody did that, or had the in
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:46:49AM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Also, nowadays normal filesystems are journaled; using a journal for
writes to /tmp damages the SSD for zero benefit.
Writing to /tmp will damage a SSD? Are you serious? And writing to /var
or /home will not?
If SSDs are so easy da
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> [ Holger, that's fingerpointing. Pointing to how you quickly dealt with
> those packages, thanks again. :-) ]
/me happily fingerpoints back at the release team and esp. KiBi, who greatly
deal with trying to get 1 packages and 1000 people i
Hi Enrico,
On 12-05-31 at 09:19am, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:51PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > Did you see me writing "I'd like to hijack php-codesniffer in order
> > to rush and get it into wheezy in time before the freeze"? *NO* ! I
> > didn't write that.
>
> A
Your message dated Thu, 31 May 2012 11:56:44 +0200
with message-id <201205311156.45092.hol...@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#675327: general: Adobe acrobat reader problem
has caused the Debian Bug report #675327,
regarding general: Adobe acrobat reader problem
to be marked as done.
This
Jonas Smedegaard (31/05/2012):
> I have heard before the argument of the sponsor having responsibility,
> but in reality I have *never* heard of sponsors actually being held
> responsible for anything but the concrete upload of a specific
> packaging release.
Suggested reading:
http://bugs.debi
Package: general
Severity: normal
Every time I do updates or install a package via synaptics, adobe acrobat
reader is no longer on the menu, it should be listed always in the office menu.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.5
APT prefers proposed-updates
APT policy: (500, 'proposed-u
On 12-05-31 at 09:22am, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 11:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> It is better to have a well maintained package than to ait for
> somebody who collected a number of NMUs and doesn't react to bug
> reports for years.
I perfectly agree.
But it is better to have re
On 12-05-31 at 10:06am, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:03:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There is no excuse for hijacking a package, ever.
> > ...
>
> Hmm, this arguing sounds quite German to me. Rules are rules are
> rules and you should not disregard them. So a Germa
Hi Charles,
On 12-05-31 at 08:29am, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:11:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> >
> > *nothing* qualifies for a hijacking.
>
> Dear Jonas,
>
> your reaction seems to imply that hijacking is an implicit statement
> of failure. But this can be
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:03:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There is no excuse for hijacking a package, ever.
> ...
Hmm, this arguing sounds quite German to me. Rules are rules are rules
and you should not disregard them. So a German will wait in front of a
red traffic light even if there
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "José Luis Segura Lucas"
* Package name: grive
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Matchman Green
* URL : https://github.com/match065/grive
* License : GPL2
Programming Lang: C++
Description : GNU/Linux client for
On 05/30/2012 11:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-05-30 at 11:30am, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> We aren't kicking him, we want to have the package team maintained.
>> He's fine to come and join!
>
> You want to play by your rules (file), not his. That's kicking to me.
>
>
>> This doesn't rea
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:51PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Did you see me writing "I'd like to hijack php-codesniffer in order to rush
> and get it into wheezy in time before the freeze"? *NO* ! I didn't write
> that.
Agreed. I'd have expected people, if anything, to answer suggesting the
[CCing debian-www as requested but I'm not subscribed]
Le 31/05/2012 00:34, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Sat, May 26, 2012 at 03:03:06AM +0100, Philip Ashmore a écrit :
>>
>> What I noticed by its absence was that no-one linked to official Debian
>> policy detailing the choices made and their jus
OoO En cette nuit striée d'éclairs du jeudi 31 mai 2012, vers 02:09,
Charles Plessy disait :
> I do not know why developers prefer GitHub over Gitorious or other providers.
> But I note that even gitlabhq, advertised on this list for its free license,
> has its main download link pointing to
52 matches
Mail list logo
