On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:40:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Debian Policy has a more formal process than developers-reference and
> I am concerned that mixing both discussions on the same channel would cause
> confusion.
>
> debian-de...@l.d.o could be a better channel for the developers-ref
* Philipp Kern:
> On 2009-09-21, Hilko Bengen wrote:
>> I have written and maintained scripts that download signature file
>> updates for several commercial antivirus scanners and built packages for
>> them -- which is pretty much the same thing that clamav-getfiles does.
>> 10 updates to the sig
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I request assistance with maintaining the stfl package.
The package description is:
stfl is a library which implements a curses-based widget set for text
terminals.
.
This package contains the development files required to
build software that uses libstfl.
I
Le vendredi 18 septembre 2009 à 21:18 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> If there are no objections, I will submit a MBF for those 75 packages in
> a few days.
Done, omitting a reported false positive and a few packages fixed in the
meantime.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=d
2009/9/20 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh :
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
>> As long as you do not expect me to manually sign every single upload,
>
> Why not? It is a package, it has root access anywhere it is being installed
> or removed. Even if you abuse the DM machinery to have a key
* Javier Fernandez-Sanguino:
> This really sounds like there is a "use case" for data-only
> "packages" that:
Is clamav-data really data-only? Other AV software ships some sort of
code even in signature updates (as opposed to engine updates).
> - do not include maintainer scripts (dpkg refuses
Sandro Tosi wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm personally happy that this script stops: ITP without work should
> be retitled to RFP (since this way we don't loose the history of the
> bugs if someone will step in) instead of closing it.
>
FWIW I have a script that I usually run to do WNPP bugs maintenance th
> > Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a
> > project name that has been around since ... I don't know,
> > but the Debian package goes back to 1997.
[Jon Dowland]
> In what way is it hostile?
It is hostile in the sense that nobody in Linus-git went to GNU-git
to ask permission be
Hi folks,
i have created the package zendframework and zendframework-bin. The package
zendframework contains the php libraries. The bin package contains two
scripts with that you can create a mvc environment with the zendframework.
This is only important for developers.
So my question is, if i
By the way,.. a similar problem is also present in many other packages.
Let me just name a few concrete examples so that you get a feeling on
what I mean.
1) debootstrap/cdebootstrap
IIRC, only cdeboostrap requires a keyring per default (or did it always
use debian-archive-keyring?)
Anyway,... w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christoph Anton Mitterer schrieb:
> By the way,.. a similar problem is also present in many other packages.
> Let me just name a few concrete examples so that you get a feeling on
> what I mean.
>
>
>
> 1) debootstrap/cdebootstrap
> IIRC, only cdebo
On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 21:23 +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> There are so many scenarios where we are not able to verify any
> signatures (upstream does not provide any kind of verification) or where
> it is non-sens.
>
> If we are so pedantic about this topic, we should also ask ourself, if
> pack
Frank Habermann wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> i have created the package zendframework and zendframework-bin. The
> package zendframework contains the php libraries. The bin package contains
> two scripts with that you can create a mvc environment with the
> zendframework. This is only important for dev
On Sep 23, 2009, at 1:22, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Frank Habermann wrote:
I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework.
biased answer: ugh, why?
That reminds me some of the libfoo-bar-moo-invent-something-else-here
packages we have in the archive.
One possible answer to "why?
http://www.informexp.com/Flix.htm
http://www.informexp.com/
Le Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:13:38PM +0200, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino a écrit :
>
> This really sounds like there is a "use case" for data-only "packages" that:
>
> - do not include maintainer scripts (dpkg refuses to run them) or are
> only allowed a set of limited tasks (run in a restricted shell
You're invited to join Darren Scott's network of friends.
By joining Friendster, you can reconnect with old
friends, meet new friends, start a blog, build a custom
profile, keep track of birthdays, and so
much more!
You can even stay in touch if you move away, switch
email addresses, or lose you
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 06:22:20PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >
> > I also want to rename the package to libphp-zendframework.
> >
>
> biased answer: ugh, why?
> That reminds me some of the libfoo-bar-moo-invent-something-else-here
> packages we have in the archive.
the php policy draft r
18 matches
Mail list logo
