On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:00:13AM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> Personally I'm not sure what the reason sections were introduced,
I assume it was because from a flat FTP hierachy it was not very easy to
tell what kind of purpose a particular .deb had back in 1993.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Damyan Ivanov
* Package name: libcrypt-twofish-perl
Version : 2.12
Upstream Author : Abhijit Menon-Sen ,
Dr. Brian Gladman
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-Twofish/
* License : Artistic
Pro
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
wrote:
> Hi Florian, and sorry for the long delay.
>
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Well, it's not my package, so you don't have to listen to me. I'm
>> also not speaking for the security team.
>
> Oh, should you have said that before, I'd have
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Miriam Ruiz
* Package name: structure-synth
Version : 0.8.5
Upstream Author : Mikael Hvidtfeldt Christensen
* URL : http://structuresynth.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C++
De
Hi!
Drupal, both version 5 and version 6, is a popular CMS and is in the Debian
archive. Upstream regularly releases security updates, which is a good
thing.
Unfortunately Debians packaging is lagging behind. No, I don't want to blame
the maintainer, who is doing a good job anyway. The problem is
Ingo Jürgensmann 2008.bluespice.org> writes:
> For example the drupal6 package is version 6.6-1.1 while the problem which
> lead to 6.6-1.1 was fixed in upstream version 6.7.
> [...] the user/admin is now informed about (security) updates
> of installed modules, which is a good thing for security
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:33PM +0100, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote:
> So, how can this be solved so that our users are not irritated everytime
> they visit their own Drupal sites?
By filing an appropriate bug in the BTS, if there is none already.
cheers,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
Hi Ingo,
Il giorno 08/gen/09, alle ore 12:11, Ingo Jürgensmann ha scritto:
Unfortunately Debians packaging is lagging behind. No, I don't want
to blame
the maintainer, who is doing a good job anyway. The problem is a
different
versioning between Drupal upstream and Debian packaging.
For exa
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Brian Cassidy
* Package name: libapp-whiff-perl
Version : 0.001
Upstream Author : Ricardo Signes
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/App-Whiff/
* License : Artistic | GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
Description :
Package: dctrl-tools,devscripts
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Hello,
for my line of work (heh) I regularly have to run grep-dctrl against the
Packages/Sources files for a combination of arches and suites. Since
I've always found specifying the paths to those files
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-scie...@lists.debian.org,
pkg-boinc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hello,
We, the Debian BOINC Maintainers, put up boinc and boinc-app-seti for
adoption. None of us currently have enough time to properly maintain
t
Le January 7, 2009 02:32:24 am Joerg Jaspert, vous avez écrit :
> > I don't remember using sections in over 4 years of Debian usage, though
> > I had already used GNU/Linux for a few months before I switched to
> > Debian. But I doubt even a user new to GNU/Linux would use them much.
>
> Everyone t
IMO, it would make sense to merge Debian sections into a debtags facet
so that you can have multiple sections when it makes sense. The facet
could still be controlled by ftpmasters if that was desired.
I don't understand why you suggest creating a debtags facet replacing
sections, except if you
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Florian Richter
* Package name: jmimemagic
Version : 0.1.2
Upstream Author : David Castro
* URL : http://jmimemagic.sf.net/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Java
Description : determines content type of files a
Le Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:02:23PM -0500, Filipus Klutiero a écrit :
> I don't understand why you suggest creating a debtags facet replacing
> sections, except if you plan to give exclusive control on it to the
> archive maintenance team as opposed to the rest of the tags.
Hi Filipus and all
Le January 8, 2009 05:50:02 pm Charles Plessy, vous avez écrit :
> Le Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:02:23PM -0500, Filipus Klutiero a écrit :
> > I don't understand why you suggest creating a debtags facet replacing
> > sections, except if you plan to give exclusive control on it to the
> > archive maint
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ian Wienand
* Package name: python-facebook
Version : 0.1+svn20090108
Upstream Author : Samuel Cormier-Iijima (sciyo...@gmail.com)
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/pyfacebook/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Charles Plessy writes:
> now that the "base" section has been removed (Policy 3.8.0.0), is it
> still necessary to override the management of the Section field instead
> of simply trusting the maintainers?
The maintainers are really bad at it? lintian.d.o alas has a ton of
evidence of this, eve
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:09:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The maintainers are really bad at it? lintian.d.o alas has a ton of
> evidence of this, even for the very easy cases. Consider:
>
> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dev-package-should-be-section-libdevel.html
> http://lintian.debian.o
Clint Adams writes:
> That's not really a fair comparison; libdevel, perl, and python, are
> relatively new sections that the ftpmasters added unilaterally, and doc
> has been used inconsistently by the ftpteam in the past. There is also
> minimal motivation (at least for me) to update the secti
Dear Friend,
Satyabrata likes to invite you to join his network in
Indiashines.
http://www.indiashines.com/index.php?op=join&ref=Satyabrata&i=755984
- Upload your photos
- Share your videos & music
- Post your blogs
- Start a group
- Find interesting jobs/classifieds
By joining in Satyabrata
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 482 (new: 12)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 107 (new: 1)
Total number of packages reques
22 matches
Mail list logo
