Hello Dominic,
Am 20.04.2018 um 12:21 schrieb Dominic Hargreaves:
...
>> Except that we would want the forward to only forward user emails and not
>> automatic emails sent by the BTS, DAK, etc. since we already get those
>> through the package tracker. I'm not sure that they are willing to do
>> s
On April 23, 2018 3:11:10 AM UTC, Holger Levsen wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:52:19AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have
>solid
>> foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are
>nothing
>> more than the opini
Hi Holger,
On 23/04/18 03:11, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:52:19AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have solid
>> foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are nothing
>> more than the opinions of
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:52:19AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have solid
> foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are nothing
> more than the opinions of the lintian maintainers. This is one of the latter.
you
On April 23, 2018 12:52:09 AM UTC, Luke W Faraone wrote:
>On 22/04/18 23:52, Julien Muchembled wrote:
>> A lintian warning is even a reason for REJECT.
>
>Technically yes, Lintian warnings and errors are a thing that ftpteam
>looks at when processing new packages.
>
>But if all Lintian warnings
On 22/04/18 23:52, Julien Muchembled wrote:
> A lintian warning is even a reason for REJECT.
Technically yes, Lintian warnings and errors are a thing that ftpteam
looks at when processing new packages.
But if all Lintian warnings without an override were cause for reject,
we'd just configure dak
Le 04/21/18 à 20:04, Chris Lamb a écrit :
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
>> were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable
>
> I suspect developers may be reading too much into Lintian output,
> reading them as "Please r
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Braud-Santoni
* Package name: pijul
Version : 0.10.0
Upstream Author : Pierre-Étienne Meunier
* URL : https://pijul.org
* License : GPL-2
Programming Lang: Rust
Description : Distributed version control
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Boulenguez
* Package name: python-async-generator
Version : 1.9
Upstream Author : Nathaniel J. Smith
* URL : https://github.com/python-trio/async_generator
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Python
Description
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On April 21, 2018 9:05:27 PM UTC, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>>You and I seem to be clashing a bit often on the issue of when it is
>>appropriate to remove obsolete packages from Debian. It seems like
>>some of your resistance is a bit theoretica
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 02:56:18PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > RFC 5322 also prohibits non-ASCII characters, which would have to be
> > > encoded in RFC 2047 encoding.
> >
> > Yeah, we don't want this.
>
> Luckily there is an established transformation for encoding non-ascii
> in 5322 headers
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 05:37:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Let's also not store this in debian/control, but in something like the
> package tracker. We can have the archive software put in a Maintainer
> field with current syntax, if we want to, at least for a transition
> period.
Seconded.
I feel like performing cruel acts on a previously viable equine
entity.
On Sun, 2018-04-22 at 14:56 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think this is not really desirable. It would be much better to make
> the syntax a subset of 5322, at least.
I think we should make this easy on ourselves. Let's drop
Jeremy Bicha writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
> > were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable, but
> > also for those without there will
Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Re: Comma in Maintainer field"):
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 04:24:59PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'd be more comfortable with this (well, RFC 5322 at this point), since
> > this removes a lot of the insanity. However, note that this is
> > incompatible with existing
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ole Streicher
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-as...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: drms
Version : 0.5.5
Upstream Author : Kolja Glogowski
* URL : https://github.com/sunpy/drms
* License : Expat
P
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alexandros Afentoulis
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: python-django-nocaptcha-recaptcha
Version : 0.0.20
Upstream Author : Imaginary Landscape
* URL :
https://github.co
Hi Paul,
> > Well, that becomes a question of taste. We do need separate binary
> > packages anyway, I don't see how using separate source packages makes it
> > uglier.
Naturally, separate binary packages are required but that doesn't
justify the compounding of any problem by adding a whole
set o
Steve Robbins writes:
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 4:05:27 PM CDT Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> But I think if we had that philosophy, we
>> wouldn't ever remove anything until identified security concerns force
>> it out.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with that philosophy.
>
> Assuming someone is will
19 matches
Mail list logo
