On 14963 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> I wonder why you think "a single ftpmaster". We are a team. We closely
>> coordinate what we do and how we do it. When one of us rejects, the team
>> rejects - it just happens to be a random one of us doing it. Others do
>> not need to get involved and
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 08:29 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:15:18AM +0300, kact...@gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Is it true? When invoked as /bin/sh, GNU Bash works in Posix-emulation
> > mode, and it is not that bad:
>
> Indeed, Bash manual section 6.11. Thanks for pointing this o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sophie Brun
* Package name: python-num2words
Version : 0.5.6
Upstream Author : Savoir-faire Linux inc
* URL : https://github.com/savoirfairelinux/num2words
* License : LGPL-2.1
Programming Lang: Python
Description
Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel]
three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> So in this specific case, I will add these files to libjs-three. I think
> ftp masters don't want to distinguish between browser environment and
> node environment, but just have one package. See
> h
Dear all,
as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently longest
in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how
transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to
review packages could be improved.
Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue tra
Hello,
This reminds me a discussion at debconf: it could be useful that anybody
be able to submit issues with the NEW package, so that for obvious
things ftpmaster doesn't even have to spend time, and ideally ftpmaster
would only look at packages which have already been reviewed not only by
the up
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:00 +0100, Gert Wollny wrote:
> as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently longest
> in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how
> transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to
> review packages could be improved.
Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 13:10 +0100 schrieb Samuel Thibault:
> Hello,
>
> This reminds me a discussion at debconf: it could be useful that
> anybody be able to submit issues with the NEW package, so that for
> obvious things ftpmaster doesn't even have to spend time, and ideally
> ftpmaster wo
On Friday, March 02, 2018 01:00:57 PM Gert Wollny wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently longest
> in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how
> transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to
> review packages co
Gert Wollny writes:
...
> Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue tracker for problems
> that come up with the review in NEW.
Is there any significant benefit that this brings over having the same
interaction in the BTS?
I realise that Gitlab is the new shiny thing, but there is a cost to
Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
>
>
> Counter proposal: let's work on ways in which uploaders can make it
> easy and quick for ftp masters to review packages in NEW. The idea
> should be, in my opinion, that any package that requires more than a
> day of work to re
On 2018-03-02 13:51:24, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
> >
> >
> > Counter proposal: let's work on ways in which uploaders can make it
> > easy and quick for ftp masters to review packages in NEW. The idea
> > should be, in my opinion, that an
Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 13:38 +0100 schrieb Philip Hands:
> Gert Wollny writes:
> ...
> > Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue tracker for problems
> > that come up with the review in NEW.
>
> Is there any significant benefit that this brings over having the
> same interaction in th
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:51 +0100, Gert Wollny wrote:
> How do you want to achieve this with a source package that has 13k+
> source files and where upstream does not provide a standard license
> header for each file? I.e. there is some license text and it needs to
> be quoted, but licensecheck doe
Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
>
> How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant, if there
> is no license information? If upstream cannot bother to provide
> headers, how do we know the code is indeed licenced under the claimed
> licence?
> Etc.
> Note:
Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 07:39 -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> On Friday, March 02, 2018 01:00:57 PM Gert Wollny wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently
> > longest
> > in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how
> > transpar
Philip Hands writes:
> Gert Wollny writes:
> ...
>> Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue tracker for problems
>> that come up with the review in NEW.
>
> Is there any significant benefit that this brings over having the same
> interaction in the BTS?
>
> I realise that Gitlab is the new
On വെള്ളി 02 മാർച്ച് 2018 02:00 വൈകു, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> But if you continously "run into the same wall", then it does not do any
> good to assume its that one person hating you and that, if you happen to
> get to another team member, they will like you. It's the wrong mindset.
This is based o
Simon McVittie wrote:
|On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 at 19:49:13 +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> Simon McVittie wrote:
|>|Why is the kernel version on the machine where s-nail was compiled useful
|>|to you?
|>
|> This is indeed correct, and i have changed $OSENV to go for
|> uname(1) -sm instead
Paul Wise wrote:
|On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> I try to make it short, but i want to say i am thankful for the
|> spark that reproducible-build.org was for me. Even though i think
|> it is a pity that $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is the sole indicator for
|> reproducible
On വെള്ളി 02 മാർച്ച് 2018 04:38 വൈകു, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is the first I'd heard of this being a policy question. How
> about you discuss the team policy and the reasons behind it on
> d-policy CC the javascript list. If you wish to retain the policy,
> but ftpmaster disagree with it, you c
Gert Wollny writes:
> Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
>>
>> How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant, if there
>> is no license information? If upstream cannot bother to provide
>> headers, how do we know the code is indeed licenced under the claimed
Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 17:49 +0100 schrieb Philip Hands:
> Gert Wollny writes:
>
> > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
> > >
> > > How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant, if
> > > there
> > > is no license information? If upstream cannot bother
Quoting Gert Wollny (2018-03-02 19:02:44)
> Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 17:49 +0100 schrieb Philip Hands:
> > Gert Wollny writes:
> >
> > > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
> > > >
> > > > How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant, if
> > > > there is
On Fri, 02 Mar 2018, Gert Wollny wrote:
> In salsa you get the links to the commits automatically, in the BTS
> one would have to set these manually I guess. That was my main
> incentive to propose this.
There's nothing stoping us from linking to commits "automatically" in
the BTS; I'd just need s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Federico Ceratto
* Package name: python-gitlab
Version : 1.3.0
Upstream Author : Gauvain Pocentek
* URL : https://github.com/python-gitlab/python-gitlab
* License : LGPLv3
Programming Lang: Python
Description : G
On Friday, March 02, 2018 02:23:00 PM Gert Wollny wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 07:39 -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > On Friday, March 02, 2018 01:00:57 PM Gert Wollny wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently
> > > longest
> > > i
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ana Custura
* Package name: python3-pynamecheap
Version : 0.0.3
Upstream Author : Bemmu Sepponen
* URL : https://github.com/Bemmu/PyNamecheap
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Python
Description : API client for
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> - file a bug against shellcheck asking for detection of this situation.
FTR, I've done that just now:
https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/issues/1133
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ana Custura
* Package name: python3-transip
Version : 0.3.0
Upstream Author : Ben Konrath
* URL : https://github.com/benkonrath/transip-api
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Python
Description : API client for DNS
On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 18:53:07 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Because we don't know if a package is even distributable until after it's
> reviewed, packages in New are not available outside the FTP Team to review.
> I
> don't expect that to change.
That's the theory.
The practice since many ye
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:15:08 AM CST Ian Jackson wrote:
> But when a submitter disagrees with a REJECT, and asks for a review,
> IMO submitter is entitled to a longer explanation, and there should
> explicitly be an opportunity for other ftpmasters to agree or dissent.
That would be nice. I
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Wookey
* Package name: libopencsd
Version : 0.8.0
Upstream Author : ARM Limited (maintained by Mike Leach
)
* URL : https://github.com/Linaro/OpenCSD
* License : BSD-3
Programming Lang: C++
Description : ARM Core
On Friday, March 2, 2018 6:00:57 AM CST Gert Wollny wrote:
> I'd like to make a proposal how
> transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to
> review packages could be improved.
I have an orthogonal proposal to enhance efficiency: stop re-examining each
new SOVERSION of a
On Friday, March 2, 2018 6:15:54 AM CST Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I'm not involved with the ftp master team in any way, except I
> occasionally make them do work by uploading things that go to thew NEW
> queue. In the past decade ago, the NEW processing has almost always
> been fast, and when it has
On Friday, March 02, 2018 09:44:04 PM Steve Robbins wrote:
> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:15:08 AM CST Ian Jackson wrote:
> > But when a submitter disagrees with a REJECT, and asks for a review,
> > IMO submitter is entitled to a longer explanation, and there should
> > explicitly be an opportunity
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:05 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> I assume that the reason my packages have been processed is due to one
> > of two reasons: a) I get quoted on LWN several times a year, so I'm a
> > celebrity and get special treatment
>
> I expect that's it.
For the avoidance of doubt,
Hi there!
Good news for all interested in hardware compatibility and reliability.
I've started a new project to estimate reliability of hard drives and SSD in
real-life conditions based on the SMART data reports collected by Linux users
in the Linux-Hardware.org database since 2014. The initial
38 matches
Mail list logo
