Bug#849859: ITP: golang-github-nebulouslabs-demotemutex -- Allow an RWMutext writelock to be demoted to a readlock.

Package: wnpp Owner: Free Ekanayaka Severity: wishlist * Package name: golang-github-nebulouslabs-demotemutex Version : Upstream Author : * URL or Web page : * License : Description : Allow an RWMutext writelock to be demoted to a readlock.

Re: HEADSUP: mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are NOT sent to the submitter

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 08:00:18AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > When I decided that debbugs should work like this: > > I think this was the right decision and still is, with this additional reason: > > Folks are much busier these days and ev

Re: Bug#849703: ITP: ansible-doc -- Documentation for Ansible

Ohai, On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 01:07:44PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: > "W. Martin Borgert" writes: > > Then why not make an additional binary package from the same > > source package? This way ansible and its documentation would > > not get out of sync. > > Unfortunately, we don't build

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[ Had this half-drafted, but had not found the time to finish it up until now. ] Hi! On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 13:52:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: > misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > > Instead, file conflicts might be

Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Hi! I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one of these apply that would be helpful). All these including objective and subjective

Re: Bug#849703: ITP: ansible-doc -- Documentation for Ansible

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 05:38:50PM +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote: > Ohai, > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 01:07:44PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: > > "W. Martin Borgert" writes: > > > Then why not make an additional binary package from the same > > > source package? This way ansible and its docume

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Jan 01 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > (I'm not using because > TBH it read more like a sales brochure than a more neutral page…) TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, which I think is pretty sad and inappropriate. Best, -Nikolaus --

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 05:40:44PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > The only correct "solution" I see while keeping the current mess, would > be to declare binNMU versions a globally shared resource across all > architectures (in and out of archive!), trigger them globally for all > architectures (or

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 10:47:59 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 01 2017, Guillem Jover wrote: > > (I'm not using because > > TBH it read more like a sales brochure than a more neutral page…) > > TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, w

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Guillem Jover wrote... > On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 10:47:59 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > TBH this feels like you're sniping at Raphael here, which I think is > > pretty sad and inappropriate. Well, bringing up more old stories, even if 'The secret plan behind the "3.0 (quilt)" Debian source' was

wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"

Oi you lot! I wonder, would it be better if we switched to using the word "depender" in place of "reverse dependency"? It certainly sounds clumsier, but it is far less likely to be confused, especially by new readers. I myself often find sentences which include references to both depends and rev

Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"

Adam Borowski writes: > Oi you lot! Wassp!? > I wonder, would it be better if we switched to using the word > "depender" in place of "reverse dependency"? I don't know a simple term in English that carries that meaning. To me, “depender” feel like a neologism and does not make me confiden

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the > point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes > people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one > of these apply that

Re: Bug#791828: dput-ng: Please make coinstallable with dput

On 08-Jul-2015, Tobias Frost wrote: > I'd love to use both dput and dput-ng without the need of installing > the version I'd use next.. As discussed briefly in the thread from 2016-12, my counter-proposal is that the two packages should ideally: * Be alternative implementations of the same set o

[Fwd: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#472304: marked as done (fpc: doesn't link dynamically)]

Dear All, Since last month I'm really stuck with a spammer closing this very same bug#472304 as soon as I reopen it. I've reported abuse multiple times via the link at the foot of the bug page but nothing changed. Can anyone help please? bug#472304: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b

Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"

Hi, Quoting Ben Finney (2017-01-01 23:37:19) > Adam Borowski writes: > > I wonder, would it be better if we switched to using the word "depender" in > > place of "reverse dependency"? > > I don't know a simple term in English that carries that meaning. > > To me, “depender” feel like a neologis

Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"

On Jan 1, 2017 4:37 PM, "Ben Finney" wrote: Adam Borowski writes: > Oi you lot! Wassp!? > I wonder, would it be better if we switched to using the word > "depender" in place of "reverse dependency"? I don't know a simple term in English that carries that meaning. To me, “depender” feel

Re: Specification of FTP upload queue management commands

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes: > On 29/12/16 20:49, Ben Finney wrote: > > Where is the canonical specification of the commands accepted by > > ‘dak’? > > See gregor's link, or read the source: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/mirror/dak.git/tree/daklib/command.py This surprises me. To be clea

Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"

Ben Finney writes: > The adjective “dependent” is IMO fine, so perhaps the noun phrase > “dependent package” is a good candidate. It's not the single word > you're looking for, but maybe it is unambiguous for the purpose? https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/366158/noun-for-thing-which-de