On Saturday, February 03, 2018 08:20:02 AM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:17:14PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Friday, February 02, 2018 06:30:28 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:18:28PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 01, 2
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:17:14PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, February 02, 2018 06:30:28 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:18:28PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:56:21 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:14 A
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 01:48:52PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
>...
> And we've all learned a lot more about secure coding in the past 20 years.
>...
Who is "we all"?
I'd guess the majority of new packages in Debian were not written
by people who have learned anything about secure coding.
It is
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 01:25:14AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
I have only a limited amount of tuits. The package works fine for me, an
Then don't remove it from your machine. Problem solved.
Mike Stone
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 12:39:57AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:23:51AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > If it's orphaned+RC-buggy but it Works For Me™, it's good to stay, right?
>
> This doesn't compute.
>
> A package can be orphaned and still perfectly functional; a
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:23:51AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> If it's orphaned+RC-buggy but it Works For Me™, it's good to stay, right?
This doesn't compute.
A package can be orphaned and still perfectly functional; a package can
be orphaned and RC-buggy. A package cannot, however, be RC-buggy
On February 2, 2018 9:21:48 PM UTC, Don Armstrong wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> So far, every time this comes up, there's no actual volunteer to
>> invest the time to update the removals page to make this reasonable
>to
>> do in practice.
>
>Would the last-modified time
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daniel Stender
* Package name: sawtooth
Version : 1.0.1
Upstream Author : Shawn T. Amundson , Adam M. Ludvik
* URL : https://github.com/hyperledger/sawtooth-core
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: Python
Descr
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> So far, every time this comes up, there's no actual volunteer to
> invest the time to update the removals page to make this reasonable to
> do in practice.
Would the last-modified time from the BTS be sufficient and/or useful?
[Or the reported time?]
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:54:37AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote...
>
> > We already have RFA, where maintainers are asking for adoption. I fail
> > to see how a different type of bug will trigger a quicker adoption. An
> > ITR is going to (unfortunately) achieve the exact s
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 06:44:36PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Example:
>
> Subject: RM: hello -- RoM; obsolete
> Control: affects -1 src:hello
>
> For the few days or hours between the RM bug being filed and the
> package actually being removed, this would show up at
> https://bugs.debian.org/
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 06:39:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Typically a removed package is not in a much worse shape when it got
removed compared to when it was first shipped in a stable release.[1]
At that point the actual question is why we did allow the package
to be ITP'ed into Debian at al
On Friday, February 02, 2018 06:44:36 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:29:49AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Currently, RM bugs are filed against ftp.debian.org.
> > >
> > > It might make sense to have them f
On Friday, February 02, 2018 06:30:28 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:18:28PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:56:21 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > > > For example
> > >
> > > Here is another
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:29:49AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Currently, RM bugs are filed against ftp.debian.org.
> >
> > It might make sense to have them filed against ftp.debian.org *and* the
> > package to be removed, inste
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:40:19PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> I think we should remove cruft more aggressively then we currently do.
I think it would be bad to move even more to a revolving door
situation where we are adding packages to a stable release only
to remove them in the next stabl
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:18:28PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:56:21 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > > For example
> >
> > Here is another example of a low-quality RM bug; removal at request of
> > the maintain
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonathan Dowland
* Package name: zdbsp
Version : 1.19
Upstream Author : Marisa Heit
* URL : https://github.com/rheit/zdbsp
* License : GPL-2+
Programming Lang: C++
Description : node builder tool for Doom-style games
On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 at 11:07:42 +, Hugh McMaster wrote:
> Freetype-config has been considered deprecated for several years [1].
By us, or by upstream?
> With this in mind, I removed freetype-config and built all reverse
> build-dependencies. I have also searched codesearch.debian.net for use
On Friday, 2 February 2018 12:15 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Will you be asking upstream to remove it too?
I hadn't considered that, but it might be a good idea. Why do you ask?
Am Freitag, den 02.02.2018, 09:32 +0100 schrieb Thomas Goirand:
[...]
> O: Package is unmaintained, hurry or the package is in danger to be
> removed.
I risk to differ, if this were so, we wouldn't have +700 packages that
have the QA team as maintainer, and quite a few have a five or even
six-fig
On 02/02/2018 08:54 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote...
>
>> We already have RFA, where maintainers are asking for adoption. I fail
>> to see how a different type of bug will trigger a quicker adoption. An
>> ITR is going to (unfortunately) achieve the exact same thing as an RFA,
22 matches
Mail list logo
