On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:09:18 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 04:18:26AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > - There does need to be a mandatory minimum waiting period. This
> > > process
> > >
> > >
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 04:18:26AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - There does need to be a mandatory minimum waiting period. This process
> >is going to be seen as "blessed" via the devref; we should not be
> >blessing a p
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > >>I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
> > >>willing to take over main
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So in sum, I'm broadly in favor of Lucas's patch, except:
>
> - A single nack is evidence of a lack of consensus. If consensus can't be
>achieved, it should be referred to the TC instead of making a political
>mess of thin
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
> >>willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmainta
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> [...]
> > All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
> > a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
> > rejec
Hi Zack,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:19:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:19:37PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > 1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the package
> > with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
> > 2) sleep
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:33:27PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>
>> We already orphan packages without the maintainer's consent, and it's
>> already called "orphaning".
>
>> Salvaging is still undefined
>
> No, it is not. The definition wa
Take a look:
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
Cheers!
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Ricardo Obando
wrote:
> When will there be in debian installer for Debian and wubi as Ubuntu?
>
> Attentively Ricardo Obando, from Chile.
>
--
William Vera | bi...@billy.mx
Systems Engineer / Consultant IT /
When will there be in debian installer for Debian and wubi as Ubuntu?
Attentively Ricardo Obando, from Chile.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:33:27PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> We already orphan packages without the maintainer's consent, and it's
> already called "orphaning".
> Salvaging is still undefined
No, it is not. The definition was clear from the first use of the term.
Stop trying to redefine i
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> >> I think this is where language is importa
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >> I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
> >> "adoption" will continue to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:51:57 Ian Jackson wrote:
> I still think that the right standard is "no objection" rather than
> collecting some explicit number of acks. In particular I don't think
> any number of acks ought to override a nack from the existing
> maintainer.
>
Indeed. I think lack of eno
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:40:26 Bart Martens wrote:
> > So why not agree now that the maintainer can veto the process?
>
> Because this would raise the question "how long should we wait for the
> maintainer to object or to remain silent". In obvious cases, for example
> when the package has clearly
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:56:02 Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:06:57AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > If bug was unanswered for let's say two months the package is free to
> > orphan
>
> Some prefer no delay, some prefer one month, some prefer two months. I
> originally wanted on
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> *) we have consensus that we are in need of such a rule set - which ever
> it may be
>
> *) we have three orthogonally different ideas:
>a) Bart's approach which was reformulated and proposed by Lucas in
> this thread [1]
>b) Mine - which
On 10/26/2012 05:07 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
People interested in salvaging an unmaintained package are discouraged by the
current procedures. The new procedure is meant to add a lightweight procedure
to mark unmaintained packages as orphaned, so that anyone interested can adopt
them without need
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
>> "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
>> package as its new maintaine
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> An immediate solution would probably be to 'affects ' so
> the bugs at least shows up on the package's bug page. Maybe the BTS
> could/should do this automatically?
Doing affects automatically isn't really something that the BTS itself
should do,[1] but
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:38:03PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> > The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense
> > to also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and
> > not wnpp? One has to be quite familiar
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:39:52PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 26 oct 12, 15:38:03, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> >
> > it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g.
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alevt.html:
> > "problems
>
> How many non-DDs/DMs do you think are aware of the PTS? My guess i
On Vi, 26 oct 12, 15:38:03, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
>
> it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g.
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alevt.html:
> "problems
How many non-DDs/DMs do you think are aware of the PTS? My guess is: not
that many. IMVHO the BTS is much more visible, especially to users who
Great stuff, thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026160652.GC20294@debian
* Thibaut Paumard [121026 15:54]:
> I don't see a reason to move it away from wnpp: its great to have a
> central place for that information, but I agree it is useful to have
> the info forwarded to other places (such as the PTS, and perhaps the
> package's own bug page).
Having a central page to
Bart Martens writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages - skipping pointless delay"):
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 3. Wait for objections
>
> For how long ? The proposal includes collecting ACKs so that any pointless
> delay can
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> I think orphaned packages are one of our best opportunities to attract new
> developers, rather than serving as an additional obligation for existing
> developers. [etc.]
Thanks for that excellent analysis.
> Neil Williams writes:
> Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
[…]
>> To note is that Source: gnunet has contrib/report.sh, which calls
>> gettext(1), but it doesn't seem to be propagated to any of the
>> binaries currently depending on gettext.
> You've misunderstood t
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:17:13AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Well, that's what I was trying to get at: I think your method puts too
> > many barriers in the way of someone who wants to take over an effectively
> > abandoned package. It also requires *more* skill than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense
> to also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and
> not wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian
On Friday, October 26, 2012 01:40:26 PM Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> > Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > >> Gergely Nagy wrote: AIUI, with the current
>
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> Gergely Nagy wrote: AIUI, with the current
> >> proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be orphaned, the
>
Russ Allbery writes:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
>>> think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
>
>> I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious
Hi all,
The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense to
also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and not
wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian to check wnpp for RFH,
RFA or O. Maybe having these bugs "in the face" of people interested in
the p
On 26.10.2012 01:13, Peter Miller wrote:
It may be possible to address both concerns in a different way.
1. Implement PPAs. The code is open source, get it working first,
and
enhance it later.
2. DDs and DMs upload source-only to their individual PPA(s). The
PPA
build farm builds the pack
Bart Martens wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> >Ian Jackson writes:
>> >> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard
>and
>> >> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps
>the
>> >> mai
Bart Martens wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it
>works?
>
>The "without objection" approach would require a reasonable delay for
>people to
>raise objections (some say two months). The ACK
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Gergely Nagy wrote: AIUI, with the current
>> proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be orphaned, the
>> maintainer's objection
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 08:35, vangelis mouhtsis a écrit :
> Hi, I'm wondering, before a package will be orphaned is it
> possible/ needful the owner to ask for help or to express the
> reasons?
>
> Regards gnugr
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
Look for "R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 02:13, Peter Miller a écrit :
> It may be possible to address both concerns in a different way.
>
> 1. Implement PPAs. The code is open source, get it working first,
> and enhance it later.
>
> 2. DDs and DMs upload source-only to th
On 26.10.2012 13:54, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But I urge you to reconsider proposing a GR. It is a heavy
> weight tool, that should be used as a last resort.
So far I agree. I didn't say I'll propose on - JFTR. I said I'll
consider that and asked for opinions - like yours :)
--
with kind re
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:54:19PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I don't think we're nowhere near the need of it in this specific case.
s/don't//
obviously :)
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:46:41PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> What do you think? Does this sound like a fair compromise everyone
> could live with?
Voting is almost never a way to reach consensus. Rather, it acknowledges
that consensus has not been reached and side-steps further constructive
attemp
Hi,
while Lucas did his best to summarize the outcome from the last thread
in a fairly constructive and consensual way, it turned out that too many
people have too many opinions here on this matter.
Having clearly in mind, that seeking consensus by way of a General
Resolution for something ending
Hi Alberto,
Thanks for your reply.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:59:52 Alberto Luaces wrote:
> Hi, this software is already packaged,
> (http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/pcalendar.html)
Indeed it is, sorry for the noise.
It was already revealed to me so I closed the ITP.
I've searched for "ovulation" a
Dmitry Smirnov writes:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>
>Package name: pcalendar
> Version: 3.3.0
> Upstream Author: Mar'yan Rachynskyy
> URL: http://linuxorg.sourceforge.net/
> License: GPL-3+
> Description:
On 2012-10-18 10:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> [...]
>
> If the relevant RC bugs in the affected packages are not dealt with
> /before/ Friday the 26th of Oct., the packages will be removed from
> testing. Note that "dealt with" may also include downgrading a
> severity-inflated bug or f
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:48:18AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> why would it hurt
> to bake in a worst-case scenario with no acks or nacks? (I can accept
> defaulting to no too, after a timeout, as long as there's one. I would
> find the result pointless and silly, but at least it puts an end to it
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Bart Martens writes:
>
> >> > I think that sufficient DDs will review the ITOs. Note that most work is
> >> > already done by the ITO submitter. Sponsoring a package at mentors
> >> > ("review
> >> > other peoples work") is, in my
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 04:12:03PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 01:09 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
> >I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention.
> >And the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned.
> >That's the easy part. The salvaging part goes via
Bart Martens writes:
>> > I think that sufficient DDs will review the ITOs. Note that most work is
>> > already done by the ITO submitter. Sponsoring a package at mentors
>> > ("review
>> > other peoples work") is, in my opinion, much more work than reading an ITO
>> > and
>> > sending an ACK
On 10/26/2012 01:09 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And
the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned. That's
the easy part. The salvaging part goes via the existing ITA procedure.
That's the hard part. Regards, Bart Martens
Steve Langasek writes:
>> > > No, it makes the process based on *consensus*, which is a minimum
>> > > requirement.
>
>> > It also means that the salvager has to do more work.
>
>> I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And the
>> ACKs are about agreeing on marking a pac
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:20:39 +0700
Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> > Neil Williams writes:
>
> […]
>
> > Check if the package contains a shell script which supports
> > translated output strings — such packages should Depend: gettext-base
> > rather than drop the dependency entirely.
>
> > I've
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:05:40PM +, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> When fixing non important bugs, or improving the package quality, like
> switching to format 3 source, arranging the rules file, and so on, I fear
> it will be very difficult to find a sponsor for these nmus.
>
> Having 3/1 (1
55 matches
Mail list logo
