Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil
* Package name: ruby-rails-i18n
Version : 0.7.0
Upstream Author : Rails I18n Group
* URL : http://github.com/svenfuchs/rails-i18n
* License : MIT/X
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : loc
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("[PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages"):
> - one week has passed since the ITO bug was submitted, and at least
> 3 DDs supported the orphaning (possibly including the submitter
> of the ITO bug, if it was a DD), while nobody objected.
I think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also atta
On 2012-10-28 18:47, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:37:38PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> ax25-apps, fabric, firmware-crystalhd, icewm-themes, ilisp, inguma,
>> lustre, mingw-ocaml, noflushd, openvas-plugins-dfsg, php-crypt-gpg,
>> phpgacl, python-django-piston, smbind, sor
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:13:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("[PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's
> packages"):
> > - one week has passed since the ITO bug was submitted, and at least
> > 3 DDs supported the orphaning (possibly including the submitter
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil
* Package name: ruby-rack-protection
Version : 1.2.0
Upstream Author : Konstantin Haase, Akzhan Abdulin, Corey Ward, David Kellum,
Fojas, Martin Mauch
* URL : http://github.com/rkh/rack-protection
* Licens
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:13:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think four weeks would be much better. A maintainer might
> > reasonably go abroad for 2-3 weeks - we even have a VAC process for
> > handling a
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil
* Package name: ruby-patron
Version : 0.4.18
Upstream Author : Phillip Toland
* URL : https://github.com/toland/patron
* License : MIT/X
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : Ruby HTTP clie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I think four weeks would be much better. A maintainer might
> reasonably go abroad for 2-3 weeks - we even have a VAC process for
> handling absences. (And we don't want to complicate this third-party
> orphan process with references to VACs.)
Re
Le mardi 30 octobre 2012 16:03:35, Stuart Prescott a écrit :
> > I think four weeks would be much better. A maintainer might
> > reasonably go abroad for 2-3 weeks - we even have a VAC process for
> > handling absences. (And we don't want to complicate this third-party
> > orphan process with ref
Stuart Prescott writes ("Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> I'm not suggesting that VAC status should be public information, but blanket
> statements that we know if maintainers are on VAC (or MIA or whatever) are
> wrong for 50% of our maintainers as are statements t
Hello List,
does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
testing ?
I have in mind packages that were discarded too quickly because
an easy to fix a RC appeared a some point while it was unofficially orphaned.
Jerome
On 30/10/12 14:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
-B
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
> testing ?
Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject o
On 30/10/12 17:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
testing ?
Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
my experience as potential sponsoree for s
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:18:41PM +0200, Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Stefano Rivera has written on Monday, 29 October, at 16:57:
> >Hi Tzafrir (2012.10.29_16:29:06_+0200)
> >> While clearing your throat, mind telling us how this works in Ubuntu
> >> with PPAs? What happens if you
Hello!
Tzafrir Cohen has written on Tuesday, 30 October, at 17:04:
>On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:18:41PM +0200, Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote:
>> Stefano Rivera has written on Monday, 29 October, at 16:57:
>> >Hi Tzafrir (2012.10.29_16:29:06_+0200)
>> >> While clearing your throat, mind telling us h
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:47:53 +0100
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> On 30/10/12 17:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> >> does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
> >> testing ?
> >
> > Is this not something best man
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
>
> my experience as potential sponsoree for such a package answers me no
> because
> it is hard to get a sponsor.
If it fixes *only* rc bugs, then send a bug to sponsorship-reques
Package: general
Severity: grave
Tags: d-i
Justification: renders package unusable
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.6
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Local
Your message dated Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:26:05 +
with message-id <1351628765.13356.19.ca...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#691890: general: sudoers problem
has caused the Debian Bug report #691890,
regarding general: sudoers problem
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 691890 sudo
Bug #691890 {Done: Ben Hutchings } [general] general:
sudoers problem
Bug reassigned from package 'general' to 'sudo'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #691890 to the same values
previously set
Ignoring reques
21 matches
Mail list logo
