Hi
>I agree. Something known to be >buggy shouldn't be uploaded >anywhere
>other than maybe experimental. When >I talked about low priority in my
>previous e-mail, I meant to refer to >disruptive and major changes as you
>describe. Thanks!
I would say *everything* is buggy by definition. The dec
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:19:55AM +0200, Jack Henschel wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, neither Section 4.4 [1] nor
> 5.6.17 [2] explain when which urgency should be used (so I just used
> the lowest one). Is there documentation for this elsewhere?
> [1] https://www.de
This one time, at band camp, martin f krafft said:
> Can you please shine some light on section 2.2 of the Policy?
> I understand required and important, but the phrasing of optional and
> extra are a little cumbersome. I think my packages may not all have
> the right priorities and
This one time, at band camp, martin f krafft said:
> Can you please shine some light on section 2.2 of the Policy?
> I understand required and important, but the phrasing of optional and
> extra are a little cumbersome. I think my packages may not all have
> the right priorities and
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, martin f krafft wrote:
> Can you please shine some light on section 2.2 of the Policy?
> I understand required and important, but the phrasing of optional and
> extra are a little cumbersome. I think my packages may not all have
> the right priorities and before
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, martin f krafft wrote:
> Can you please shine some light on section 2.2 of the Policy?
> I understand required and important, but the phrasing of optional and
> extra are a little cumbersome. I think my packages may not all have
> the right priorities and before
Can you please shine some light on section 2.2 of the Policy?
I understand required and important, but the phrasing of optional and
extra are a little cumbersome. I think my packages may not all have
the right priorities and before I go and fix them, I need to
understand...
Aren't almos
Can you please shine some light on section 2.2 of the Policy?
I understand required and important, but the phrasing of optional and
extra are a little cumbersome. I think my packages may not all have
the right priorities and before I go and fix them, I need to
understand...
Aren't almos
On 18-Jun-2002 Jeff Bailey wrote:
> When perusing debian-devel recently, I noticed an email indicating
> that one of my packages, mailutils, has the wrong priority (Perhaps
> ones day I'll understand why people talk about bugs instead of simply
> filing them... *sigh*)
>
> So my question is, How
When perusing debian-devel recently, I noticed an email indicating
that one of my packages, mailutils, has the wrong priority (Perhaps
ones day I'll understand why people talk about bugs instead of simply
filing them... *sigh*)
So my question is, How are priority important and required selected?
I
On 18-Jun-2002 Jeff Bailey wrote:
> When perusing debian-devel recently, I noticed an email indicating
> that one of my packages, mailutils, has the wrong priority (Perhaps
> ones day I'll understand why people talk about bugs instead of simply
> filing them... *sigh*)
>
> So my question is, How
When perusing debian-devel recently, I noticed an email indicating
that one of my packages, mailutils, has the wrong priority (Perhaps
ones day I'll understand why people talk about bugs instead of simply
filing them... *sigh*)
So my question is, How are priority important and required selected?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:01:23AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Either the bug is a mistake or the ftpmasters have overridden your
> package's priority.
One common reason for this to happen is that the maintainer changes the
priority of the package in the control file - the archive soft
On 20020430T055257+0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> I just got serious bugs filed against two of my packages about
> dependencies on packages with lower priorities. In one case it is
> correct (a package with "optional" depending on one with "extra"), but
> in one
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:01:23AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Either the bug is a mistake or the ftpmasters have overridden your
> package's priority.
One common reason for this to happen is that the maintainer changes the
priority of the package in the control file - the archive sof
Hi!
I just got serious bugs filed against two of my packages about
dependencies on packages with lower priorities. In one case it is
correct (a package with "optional" depending on one with "extra"), but
in one case all the packages are set to "extra" in my co
On 20020430T055257+0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> I just got serious bugs filed against two of my packages about
> dependencies on packages with lower priorities. In one case it is
> correct (a package with "optional" depending on one with "extra"), but
> in one
Hi!
I just got serious bugs filed against two of my packages about
dependencies on packages with lower priorities. In one case it is
correct (a package with "optional" depending on one with "extra"), but
in one case all the packages are set to "extra" in my co
On 05-Jun-2000 Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote:
> I sent my application to new-maintainer last week, and now i have
> a few questions. How long should i expect to wait to hear from
> them? Will i be assigned a mentor or do i need to find one
> myself?
>
New maintainer just opened and we have quite a q
I sent my application to new-maintainer last week, and now i have
a few questions. How long should i expect to wait to hear from
them? Will i be assigned a mentor or do i need to find one
myself?
I've package sqwebmail (http://www.inter7.com/sqwebmail/) and
pybiff (http://www.pobox.com/~epg/softwa
20 matches
Mail list logo
