> "Gerfried" == Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gerfried> * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-05-16
Gerfried> 13:33]:
>> Such a package should be as close to possible to the version
>> actually in testing, and not depend on packages and/or versions
>> that ar
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 03:24:49PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-05-16 13:33]:
> > Such a package should be as close to possible to the version actually
> > in testing, and not depend on packages and/or versions that are not
> > yet in testing.
>
> S
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-05-16 13:33]:
> Such a package should be as close to possible to the version actually
> in testing, and not depend on packages and/or versions that are not
> yet in testing.
So, you request more or less that every developer should backport fixes
thems
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:57:13AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>This is a remeniscent (sp?)
> "remnant", probably. "reminiscent of" means "similar to".
My guess at what he meant was "reminiscence".
- ...
- a remembered experience
...
- something so like another as to be r
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:57:13AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:24:51PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > already fixed there. They should go into a security update repository,
> > > just
> > > as is done for stable, but not on security.debian.o
Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:24:51PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > already fixed there. They should go into a security update repository, just
> > as is done for stable, but not on security.debian.org.
>
> Why not? It's already there.
>
> #Security
* Steve Kemp
| On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:39:20PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
|
| > > If a member of the sec-team says "Yes, we are actively trying to
| > > find
| > > new members, but finding competent and responsive people who have
| > > the
| > > time and will to help is very difficult", the
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 11:41:02AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Not only you, Jerome and me were suggesting it in the past. However I am
> afraid that the whole package movement machinery would have to be
> rewritten to allow independent handling of the version in different
> "testing" threes, plus
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 02:08:28AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > > Figuring that a security upload would be preferable, I approached the
> > > security team
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:24:51PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> already fixed there. They should go into a security update repository, just
> as is done for stable, but not on security.debian.org.
Why not? It's already there.
#Security
deb http://security.debian.
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Figuring that a security upload would be preferable, I approached the
> > security team and offered to prepare an upload. I was effectively told
> > that this is
#include
* Björn Stenberg [Thu, May 15 2003, 01:18:57AM]:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > So let me make the following modest strawman proposal. Let us posit
> > the existence of a new distribution, which for now I'll name
> > "testing-x86".
>
> I suggested the same thing a few weeks ago, with little
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:51:18PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > I must be totally missing something. Is one getting the s3kr1t
> > > "create-a-repository-key" when you are becoming a DD? Where would these
> > > repositories be located? Nobody told me so!
> > >
> > To create a respository you
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:09:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I wouldn't feel like setting up a repository for testing that only
> > clueless people-who-put-every-apt-line-they-see-in-their-sources-list[0]
> > would use.
>
> Others would see what y
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:30:46AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Yes, and funnily enough, uploads to -p-u have to be processed by the
> > release manager, either Joey for stable, or me for testing. How's the
> > phrase go? "You suggest distributing the workload, and your concrete
> > suggestions
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:35:01PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> It would be a start and I think that's what is needed. It needs to be
> started by someone, and I contend *anyone* can start it, before it will
> be possible to do it in full.
The thing is: The autobuilders for testing-security are
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You seem to be missing something:
>
> I'm not the least bit interested in running a testing-security
> repository outside of Debian. Furthermore, I've neither the skill, nor the
> time to contribute to something like this integrated to Debian. I've
> me
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:09:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I wouldn't feel like setting up a repository for testing that only
> > clueless people-who-put-every-apt-line-they-see-in-their-sources-list[0]
> > would use.
>
> Others would see what y
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I wouldn't feel like setting up a repository for testing that only
> clueless people-who-put-every-apt-line-they-see-in-their-sources-list[0]
> would use.
Others would see what you had done and you could post patches to the BTS
with the fixes in them, e
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:49:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > You seem to fail to understand that people don't pull security updates
> > from Joe-Random-NM-or-not's server. Of course, one can setup a
> > repository with testing-security-updates. Whe
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Huh? How could a DD create a repository somebody else cannot? The only
> place that would be is people.debian.org/~, right? That'll be
> quite a bad place for security updates because I think one still cannot
> pin different repositories at p.d.o to
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:39:20PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:41:47PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200305/msg5.html
I stand corrected.
> > If a member of the sec-team says "Yes, we are act
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You seem to fail to understand that people don't pull security updates
> from Joe-Random-NM-or-not's server. Of course, one can setup a
> repository with testing-security-updates. Whether it would (or should)
> actually be used is another matter.
People
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:39:20PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > If a member of the sec-team says "Yes, we are actively trying to
> > find
> > new members, but finding competent and responsive people who have
> > the
> > time and will to help is very difficult", then I'm happy and shut
> > up.
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:38:39PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:06:57AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > People are only going to bitch if you make it look like an
> > > official part of Debian when it isn't, and rightly so
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:41:47PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:06:25PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The problem is finding competent volunteers to do the work.
>
> I must have missed that post to debian-devel-announce where the security
> guys call for respo
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:06:57AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > People are only going to bitch if you make it look like an
> > official part of Debian when it isn't, and rightly so.
>
> Why the hell do you think this should not be an official part of
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:06:57AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> People are only going to bitch if you make it look like an
> official part of Debian when it isn't, and rightly so.
Why the hell do you think this should not be an official part of debian
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Look. People already complained about mentors.debian.net being run by
> non-DDs. Do you think 'security.debian.net', being run by non-DDs, would
> get any support at all?
It shouldn't and wouldn't need to be security.debian.net. It can be
'mytestingupd
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:52:15PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> So, what have we got here?
>
> Three theses:
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:13:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> 1.
> > Well, the documentation says that there is no security for testing,
>
> 2.
> > but it does not say that the
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:44:28PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:13:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The only thing really needed here is the RM's blessing, and an
> > announcement.
>
> I have no idea how you might think this announcement should look like.
> Could you
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:59:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:28:48PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Outstanding DSA's are not the matter at hand;
>
> Sure they are: if you're complaining that the security team already has
> too much work to do, then it's outstand
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:52:26AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Matthias Urlichs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hi, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > >> (a) Before I do something like that, I'd need to be accepted as DD.
> > >
> > > False statement.
> >
> > So non-DDs can get accounts on Debian ma
So, what have we got here?
Three theses:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:13:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
1.
> Well, the documentation says that there is no security for testing,
2.
> but it does not say that the security of unstable is higher than the
> one of testing.
OK, so testing has "no se
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:13:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> The only thing really needed here is the RM's blessing, and an
> announcement.
I have no idea how you might think this announcement should look like.
Could you perhaps at least give a rough outline of it?
Thanks.
Michael
--
DaniFi
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:06:25PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The problem is finding competent volunteers to do the work.
I must have missed that post to debian-devel-announce where the security
guys call for responsible people to get on the team then.
I mean, nothing wrong with tryin
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:36:38PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:15:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yes, but before someone steps for and does this, a consensus need to be
> > found on what to do, the RM at least has to green-light it, and it
> > should be announced o
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:11:27AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Yes, and funnily enough, uploads to -p-u have to be processed by the
> > release manager, either Joey for stable, or me for testing.
> This may be a stupid question, but why is there a "have to" here (w
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:15:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yes, but before someone steps for and does this, a consensus need to be
> found on what to do, the RM at least has to green-light it, and it
> should be announced on debian-devel-announce so all the maintainer are
> aware of it and the
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> [Removed debian-private from Cc-List, there is *no* need to duplicate
> the thread there]
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:58:44AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 2) a way for people for which stable is too outdated to run more
> >
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:45:21AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:15:21PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Please don't bother listening to or arguing with Michael on this,
> >he's wrong, but likes to keep repeating his opinion as though it's
> >gospel whenever this comes up
[Removed debian-private from Cc-List, there is *no* need to duplicate
the thread there]
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:58:44AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 2) a way for people for which stable is too outdated to run more
> advanced software, without suffering from the breakages of unstable.
>
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:15:21PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
Please don't bother listening to or arguing with Michael on this,
he's wrong, but likes to keep repeating his opinion as though it's
gospel whenever this comes up anyway.
aj likes to say I'm wrong, but hasn't fixed the problems to make
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Finding a cure is not a problem: we know what the cure is; do
> the same thing the security team does for stable.
A few other cures have been advocated. I'll not repeat them here.
As in medicine, figuring out what the RIGHT cure is is the problem.
--
Matthias Url
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Yes, and funnily enough, uploads to -p-u have to be processed by the
> release manager, either Joey for stable, or me for testing.
This may be a stupid question, but why is there a "have to" here (we're
not in freeze mode!), and would you be OK with sharing this part of
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If someone
> would like to volunteer whose not in with the security team, or a
> release assistant, please talk to herr DPL about doing so, rather than
> me.
[ patiently waiting for AM approval ]
Will do.
And, thanks for the info. Whether to further automate this (i.e
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 07:30:36PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 07:07:16AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >But we don't advertize this, so it is natural that people make the
> >mistake and use testing instead of unstable.
>
> People say this all the time. Then other people go
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:40:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:06:47AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > release
>> > (Or "released version", "baseline") A version of
>> > a piece of software which has been m
On Thu, 15 May 2003 09:52:06 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Um, when we all agreed to be Debian Developers, we agreed to the
> following from the social contract:
> * Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the
>
On Fri, 16 May 2003 10:40:10 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:06:47AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:19:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> >> Do you honestly think would be a
On Fri, 16 May 2003 01:37:14 +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> has no official support from Debian security team qualifies as not
>> for public consumption in my eyes, but fo course there are braver
>> souls than
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:28:48PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:40:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:06:47AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > There's that "we" again. Why not unstable, too?
> > I'd have no problem with that.
> You don'
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:14:53AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> >I'm sorry, I am on a public terminal, and can't quite remember where I
> >read it - But testing should always be close to a releasable state.
> That assumption is both fa
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:40:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:06:47AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > There's that "we" again. Why not unstable, too?
>
> I'd have no problem with that.
You don't seem to have any problem suggesting that other people do more
work.
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> An upload to testing-proposed-updates is not the same as an upload to
> testing-security, AFAIK (different upload queue, different machinery).
> But it was my understanding that both were in working order, they just
> aren't used --
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:06:47AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:19:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >> Do you honestly think would be a good idea to use testing-security this way
> >> on a continual b
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> has no official support from Debian security team qualifies as not
> for public consumption in my eyes, but fo course there are braver
> souls than I out there.
So you are saying we should tell people to live with the disease,
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 07:07:16AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
But we don't advertize this, so it is natural that people make the
mistake and use testing instead of unstable.
People say this all the time. Then other people go around telling
everyone to run testing. I'm not sure how to fix misplaced a
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> Why ? is the migration from testing-proposed-update to testing follow
> the same rule as the unstable to testing migration, nothing is lost.
Well, it if's exactly the same rule, then t-p-u would be the same as
unstable, thus we wouldn't need it in the first place. :-/
-
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:42:26AM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2003 08:31 am, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > In that case, I invite any maintainer with a security fix for their
> > > package in 'testing' to upload it to testing for
> > > testing-prop
On Thursday 15 May 2003 08:31 am, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > In that case, I invite any maintainer with a security fix for their
> > package in 'testing' to upload it to testing for
> > testing-proposed-updates. Problem solved. Are you the one who will be
> > responsi
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:26:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> No, it's sitting there, waiting for someone to use it. After a year's
> >> neglect it might need some metaphorical oil on its hinges
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If none of the people who are in a
> position to approve packages for inclusion in testing or
> testing-security are willing to commit resources to doing so
... or if the process is (or can be) sufficiently automated that the
general case doesn't need any human interve
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 04:16:39PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > You again forget that debian is not x86 only, or do you expect Matthias
> > to have access to machines of all the supported arches ?
> >
> Right.
>
> Besides, I don't want to do this on my own, I wa
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:37:51PM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> >
> > Sure, every now and then a badly-broken package makes it in for a
> > day or two. This seems to be far less harmful than the massive
> > headache that treating 't
* Matthias Urlichs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > You again forget that debian is not x86 only, or do you expect Matthias
> > to have access to machines of all the supported arches ?
> >
> Right.
Wrong, as I pointed out in my other message.
> Besides, I don't want to do this
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 04:22:30AM -0700, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:03:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:09:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:13:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:52:26AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Matthias Urlichs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Hi, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >
> > > >> (a) Before I do something like that, I'd need to be accepted as DD.
> > > >
> > > > False state
Hi, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> In that case, I invite any maintainer with a security fix for their package
> in 'testing' to upload it to testing for testing-proposed-updates. Problem
> solved. Are you the one who will be responsible for reviewing the
> packages?
testing, in the absence of a freez
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:26:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> No, it's sitting there, waiting for someone to use it. After a year's
>> neglect it might need some metaphorical oil on its hinges and some
>> dusting, but it really is there. I'm not just saying this for
>>
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> package to re-install. If you're not a developer, you don't have
> access to archives, so your choice is to either go back to the stable
> or testing version of the package, or try to find a mirror that still
With the pool system t
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:37:51PM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> >
> > Sure, every now and then a badly-broken package makes it in for a
> > day or two. This seems to be far less harmful than the massive
> > headache that treating 't
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:37:51PM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> >
> > Sure, every now and then a badly-broken package makes it in for a
> > day or two. This seems to be far less harmful than the massive
> > headache that treating 't
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:19:08AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > >If unstable has a fix for the bug, then it is a waste of time to work on
> > >testing because users can just upgrade. If unstable does not have a fix
> > >for the bug, then it is still a waste of time because unstable needs to
>
Hi,
Sven Luther wrote:
> You again forget that debian is not x86 only, or do you expect Matthias
> to have access to machines of all the supported arches ?
>
Right.
Besides, I don't want to do this on my own, I want to do this as part of
Debian. I don't yet know enough about the setup of testing
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:37:51PM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
>
> Sure, every now and then a badly-broken package makes it in for a
> day or two. This seems to be far less harmful than the massive
> headache that treating 'testing' as a usable release seems to be
> causing.
Something that would
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:53:50PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Manoj's answer, while witty, is closer to the mark than you may
> realize.
>
> Debian will always be for whoever the people contributing to Debian
> are willing/want it to be for. No more, no less.
Um, when we all agreed to be Debia
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:19:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Do you honestly think would be a good idea to use testing-security this way
> > on a continual basis?
>
> Yes, I do. I think we should release DSA's for security
On Thu, May 15, 2003, someone calling themselves "LapTop006" wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman arranged a set of
> bits into the following:
> > There are no mirrors of security.debian.org, and have not been for as long
> > as I have been aware. See the security te
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:52:26AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Matthias Urlichs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hi, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > >> (a) Before I do something like that, I'd need to be accepted as DD.
> > >
> > > False statement.
> >
> > So non-DDs can get accounts on Debian ma
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:37:51PM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> Hmm. Funny how myself and every admin I know have only very minor issues
> with
> running unstable. What, pray tell, makes it such an 'obvious' non-option for
> end users? Well-timed unstable snapshots are often more 'stable' th
* Matthias Urlichs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> >> (a) Before I do something like that, I'd need to be accepted as DD.
> >
> > False statement.
>
> So non-DDs can get accounts on Debian machines to setup something like
> this (install FTP directories, setup autobuild
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:26:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:13:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:03:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:09:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:13:1
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:13:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:03:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:09:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:13:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:1
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:03:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:09:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:13:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > > Take the harden package, or creat
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:03:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:09:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:13:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > > Take the harden package, or creat
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:09:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:13:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Take the harden package, or create something similar: a package that
> > > conflicts with all versions o
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:37:51PM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 May 2003 04:53 pm, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> > What's worse, saying testing is not for public use means there is _no_
> > place to get updates, since unstable is obviously not an option for end
> > users. This makes Debia
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:19:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > There are no mirrors of security.debian.org, and have not been for as long
> > as I have been aware. See the security team FAQ.
>
> deb http://mirror.pacific.net.au
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:13:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Take the harden package, or create something similar: a package that
> > conflicts with all versions of packages with known security holes.
>
> Why not just /fix/ the hol
Hi, Chris Leishman wrote:
>> - If the build is successful, it's available for apt-getting from
>> testing-updates; otherwise the maintainer gets a helpful ;-) email.
>
> I'm just curious why the updates couldn't just go straight into testing
> itself. It's not as if the testing distribution is
Hi, Stephen Frost wrote:
> honestly, if you care enough about what other people think to not take
> any action on your own chances are pretty good whatever you did wouldn't
> get very far anyway.
My approach is somewhat different. I freely admit that I'm fairly new to
Debian and probably have som
Keegan Quinn wrote:
> Funny how myself and every admin I know have only very minor issues with
> running unstable. What, pray tell, makes it such an 'obvious' non-option
> for end users?
How about constantly repeated statements to the effect?
"So you did not even look at the release announcement
Hi, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> (a) Before I do something like that, I'd need to be accepted as DD.
>
> False statement.
So non-DDs can get accounts on Debian machines to setup something like
this (install FTP directories, setup autobuilders, etc.)?
If that's so, cool, I'll have free time in two we
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is, after all, more than just a herd of cats.
> How on earth did you get that quaint idea?
>From looking at Debian. It is far more structured, organised and controlled
than the great majority of free software projects out there.
> If you want a universally held fi
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:14:53AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> >I'm sorry, I am on a public terminal, and can't quite remember where I
> >read it - But testing should always be close to a releasable state.
>
> That assumption is both
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman arranged a set of bits
into the following:
> There are no mirrors of security.debian.org, and have not been for as long
> as I have been aware. See the security team FAQ.
FALSE.
There are at least several mirrors. I myself use them as for
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> There are no mirrors of security.debian.org, and have not been for as long
> as I have been aware. See the security team FAQ.
deb http://mirror.pacific.net.au/debian-security/ stable/updates main
> Do you honestly think would be a
* Matthias Urlichs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there is
> > unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does the work.
> > This has been discussed over and over with the same result each
Hi, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there is
> unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does the work.
> This has been discussed over and over with the same result each time
> (i.e., no action).
Two answers:
(a) Before I do
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
