On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:07:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:00:41PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:31:17PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > and this answers IMHO what the maintainer wants a patch for: a system
> > > that would work with all d
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:34:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> As stated by the Debian Policy Manual :
>
> "The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required
> for the depending package to provide a significant amount of
> functionality."
>
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:00:41PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:31:17PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > and this answers IMHO what the maintainer wants a patch for: a system
> > that would work with all download managers.
> Which is something it is not going to work.
Huh? W
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:31:17PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>
> and this answers IMHO what the maintainer wants a patch for: a system
> that would work with all download managers.
Which is something it is not going to work.
> The current intent to NMU is proposing curl | wget which doesn't need
>
Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:07:02PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
>>There are technical ways to solve the problem (e.g. to depend on
>>wget|curl and to detect which one is available at start up).
>>
>>If the mainatiner is willing to give more input than 'it is not a bug'
>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:07:02PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> There are technical ways to solve the problem (e.g. to depend on
> wget|curl and to detect which one is available at start up).
>
> If the mainatiner is willing to give more input than 'it is not a bug'
> on what behaviour he w
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:48:38PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>>>But if you read this bug (#307833), you'd see that the maintainer doesn't
>>>consider it a bug, and has documented why in the README file.
>>
>>It is a bug as the package is not usable without curl or wget insta
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:39:01AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > dependancy on curl. However, declaring proper dependancies for the
> > package is a "should", not a "must", so if a debian developper is free
> > to creating uninstallable p
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
> dependancy on curl. However, declaring proper dependancies for the
> package is a "should", not a "must", so if a debian developper is free
> to creating uninstallable packages if he fancies this.
Disclaimer: I am not talking about apt-file.
I sure ho
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:34:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:47:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote :
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:48:38PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > > But if you read this bug (#307833), you'd see that the maintainer
> > > > doesn't
> > > > conside
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:47:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote :
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:48:38PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > But if you read this bug (#307833), you'd see that the maintainer doesn't
> > > consider it a bug, and has documented why in the README file.
> > It is a bug as the pac
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:48:38PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > But if you read this bug (#307833), you'd see that the maintainer doesn't
> > consider it a bug, and has documented why in the README file.
> It is a bug as the package is not usable without curl or wget installed.
> Though, I give him
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:03:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Of course, this is trivial, but fixing this bug (251 days old) is
> > also trivial. Then why complain ? I feel that it gives a bad image of
> > debian, when it
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:03:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
>>Of course, this is trivial, but fixing this bug (251 days old) is
>>also trivial. Then why complain ? I feel that it gives a bad image of
>>debian, when it suggests to use a broken tool while another
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:03:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Of course, this is trivial, but fixing this bug (251 days old) is
> also trivial. Then why complain ? I feel that it gives a bad image of
> debian, when it suggests to use a broken tool while another one is being
> repaired.
But if
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote :
> > ...
> > If a maintainer would not manage to respond to an RC bug for three months
> > the package is obviousely not maintained and should be taken over by
> > somebody else, IMHO.
>
> I wish something like that applied to all
16 matches
Mail list logo
