Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
>> to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
>
> I recently was very mistaken about the proper way to deal with a
>
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Overall, in my eyes, the question becomes: Does Debian trust DDs not
> to add debs with silly names to existing sources?
I recently was very mistaken about the proper way to deal with a
confusing (to me) solib change, combined with a mistaken upl
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:08:27PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> In fact, the parts you have chosen to keep, and respond to, are the far
> *less* relevant portions of what I wrote. They existed as a demonstration
> only of one reason I consider it important for people to have some
> agreement on what
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:30:01AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:01:26PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > > > [1] Which is a separate ran
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:01:26PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > > [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be
> > > clear about what we real
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be
> > clear about what we really mean by "We won't hide probles" in our Social
> > Contract
>
> It
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be
> clear about what we really mean by "We won't hide probles" in our Social
> Contract
It's a literal statement. We won't hide them. As always with the
social contrac
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:25:22AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:28:25 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think ftp-master already has a more complex prioritizing than
> >that. Adding a new kernel images deb tends to be real fast (with
> >exceptions),
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[automatic NEW processing for split or renamed binary packages, and
occasionally a bug report and removal from the archive of a badly named
package]
> I could live with that if it means a lot more packages don't get stuck
> in NEW. But maybe that i
|| On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:31:55 +0100
|| Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
gvb> How often does it actualy happen that ftp-master rejects the name of a
gvb> package? Did anyone have that happen to him/her when adding a new deb
gvb> to old source ever?
>>
>> This is not the only prob
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> || On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:37:49 +0100
> || Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> gvb> Then the maintainer gets a bugreport saying they should
> gvb> Replace/Conflict/Provide the silly name. Also ftp-mster could get an
> gvb> automatic no
|| On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:37:49 +0100
|| Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
gvb> Then the maintainer gets a bugreport saying they should
gvb> Replace/Conflict/Provide the silly name. Also ftp-mster could get an
gvb> automatic notice about new debs and a 3 day window to veto it or
gvb
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 01:40 -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 01:06 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 07:39 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wro
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How often does it actualy happen that ftp-master rejects the name of a
> package? Did anyone have that happen to him/her when adding a new deb
> to old source ever?
There have been discussions about library renaming in the last couple of
weeks, an
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 01:06 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 07:39 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > >> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:28:25 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think ftp-master already has a more complex prioritizing than
>that. Adding a new kernel images deb tends to be real fast (with
>exceptions), adding a new deb to old source reasonable fast and
>completly new sour
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 07:39 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [snip]
> >> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [snip]
>> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some U.S. government
>> agency about the new deb, add an override entry into th
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> || On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:56:20 +0100
> || Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Why not automate the NEW queue for packages with prior source versions
>>> in the archive? Worst case ftp-master has to remove a deb with silly
>>>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:28:25PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
> > rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 22:28 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> have to be done for NEW packages, e.g. inform some U.S. government
> agency about the new deb, add an override entry into the db. The only
Could you flesh that out a littl
|| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:56:20 +0100
|| Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not automate the NEW queue for packages with prior source versions
>> in the archive? Worst case ftp-master has to remove a deb with silly
>> name from archive and kick the DD for it.
>>
>> Corre
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:28:25PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
> > rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
> > busy and that approving these packages is very important and respons
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello.
>
> Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
> rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
> busy and that approving these packages is very important and responsible
> tas
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
Any comments on that?
No further comments but an addition. I think there are some easy
tasks to *remove* packages like #283015 (or rather #282891). If
the situation is such simple as in this case the bug should not really
stand open for 60 days
Hello.
Our NEW queue is quite big and time needed to get package into unstable is
rather long. Nothing wrong with that for me, I know that ftp-masters are
busy and that approving these packages is very important and responsible
task.
But there are two kind of packages in NEW queue.
"Totally"
26 matches
Mail list logo
