* Peter Samuelson [2014-02-26 18:36:10 CET]:
> [micah]
> > it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
> > a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
> > be removed from testing, but don't have the time to resolve the
> > situation before it gets
Hey,
* Mehdi Dogguy [2011-06-07 17:02:50 CEST]:
> For now users of packages from BPO have to send a mail to
> debian-backports mailing-list, according to [1]. I don't know how you
> handle those bugs, but they seem very easy to miss (even if d-b@l.d.o
> isn't a high traffic list).
This is co
Hey again,
* Mehdi Dogguy [2011-06-07 17:41:57 CEST]:
> Yes. But, one can still check and remove those tags when appropriate.
> My approach was just to avoid as much as possible to send false bugreports
> to the usual maintainer. The reporter can remove those tags if he's sure
> that it also a
Hi!
* Stephen Gran [2011-06-11 16:06:58 CEST]:
> This one time, at band camp, Andreas Tille said:
> > I would like to repeat my question about UDD access from alioth (or one
> > / both of its successors): Is there anybody working to reenable the UDD
> > access?
>
> This is now reenabled
Hi!
Policy is clear on packages in main aren't allowed to depend on
packages outside of main. Now in a fair amount of cases this has been
worked around by having the package outside of main as alternative
dependency and a package in main offer basic functionality for the
package to still
* Bruce Sass [2011-09-21 23:18:54 CEST]:
> On September 20, 2011 02:24:33 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:12:37PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > tl;dr - what do you think, is a "Depends: foo-contrib | foo" acceptable
> > >
101 - 106 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
