On 8/15/21 9:06 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Antonio Russo wrote:
>
>>"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package?
>> Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy?
>
> There is no specific rule against this, but I feel that culturally
> Debian gener
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Antonio Russo wrote:
>"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package?
> Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy?
There is no specific rule against this, but I feel that culturally
Debian generally doesn't like this.
> The details are filed
Hi,
On 2021-08-15 10:16 p.m., Antonio Russo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question that I originally posed in debian-vote, but was directed
> here instead:
>
>"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package?
> Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy?
>
> Again, if this is
Hello,
I have a question that I originally posed in debian-vote, but was directed
here instead:
"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package?
Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy?
Again, if this is the wrong venue, I'm sorry.
The details are filed against firefox[-es
Hi all,
I noticed that sometimes Debian's choice of upstream source for
packaging can be suboptimal. This is especially apparent for the
different per-language upstream packaging ecosystems[1], where the
upstream packaging differs from the upstream VCS in some significant
ways, including missing f
On Aug 15, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Doing what usrmerge does from a maintainer script is pretty scary from a
> robustness/interruptability point of view. Without my Technical Committee
> hat on, one route that I think should be considered is deferring the
> migration until the next boot and doing
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Following the release of bullseye, we can confirm that autopkgtests (when
> provided) will continue to be considered across all architectures for
> migration to bookworm. In other words, the tests need to succeed on all
> release
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 11:52:21 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> You snipped both times the [for me] logical consequence that all
> bookworm build chroots are kept in a [then unsupported] unmerged state
> as "one of the last things" aka until bookworm is discontinued,
> so that they are building
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 00:17, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> It is because debian:stable docker image's setting: it is still
> old style "stable/updates", instead of "stable-security" for security
> updates(*).
> [snip]
> Do you know When it will update to bullseye?
I'll be working on an updated buil
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 12:16:39AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 at 16:59:24 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be kinda strange to have the chroots building the packages
> > for the first bookworm release using a layout which isn't supported by
> > bookworm itsel
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:33:17 +0800
Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> Instead of waiting for docker:stable tag to be updated to bullseye,
> you can use debian:bullseye tag.
　Sorry, I don't want to change release notes CI setting ;)
--
Regards,
Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.org/iijmio-mail.jp
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 3:48 PM Hideki Yamane wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've commited release notes translation update to repo but CI failed.
>
> It is because debian:stable docker image's setting: it is still
> old style "stable/updates", instead of "stable-security" for security
> updates(*).
>
> >
Hi,
I've commited release notes translation update to repo but CI failed.
It is because debian:stable docker image's setting: it is still
old style "stable/updates", instead of "stable-security" for security
updates(*).
>> Err:5 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stable/updates Relea
13 matches
Mail list logo
