On Thu, Feb 05, 1998 at 12:20:28AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I agree with most of what Christian said. As a corollary, I
> > would like to add to policy that @debian.org be a working
> > email address.
> And more, can we put in the design also the
> @packages.debian.org address?
On Wed, Feb 04, 1998 at 10:20:22AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with most of what Christian said. As a corollary, I
> would like to add to policy that @debian.org be a working
> email address.
>
meetoo
And more, can we put in the design also the
@packages.debian.org
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> I doubt that we ever had this stituation in the past), then one of these
> developers has to `coordinate' all changes done to that package. This
> person has to be clearly marked as `coordinator' at some place, for
> example in the `Maintainer:' field
On Wed, Feb 04, 1998 at 10:20:22AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with most of what Christian said. As a corollary, I
> would like to add to policy that @debian.org be a working
> email address.
Seconded.
All new maintainer get such a valid address because I create that
Hi,
I agree with most of what Christian said. As a corollary, I
would like to add to policy that @debian.org be a working
email address.
All it needs is a simple one line .qmail file on master, and
it is a convenient means of contacting the maintainer, and is far
easier than t
We have about 250 maintainers and more than 1200 source packages. Both
numbers are increasing at a very high speed, i.e., the project is growing
very fast. Everyone who has some knowledge about how large `organizations'
work will agree that a continuous growth of any organization is very
dangerous
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Christian Schwarz:
> > Well, first of all current policy says ``Every package must have
> > exactly one maintainer at a time.'' (see section 2.3.2 The maintainer
> > of a package). So this is the case. Whether it `should' be the case
> > needs to be discus
G John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where can I put a package that is not dangerous, and is
> functional, but is still in early stages of development? I imagine it
> might detract a bit from the rest of the stable distribution, and yet
> there are perhaps some who would like access
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are two reasons I can think of at the moment for putting the
> parsing into dpkg-parsechangelog.
Since Mike is planning to release a new dpkg very soon anyway, someone
can just send him a patch and he'll include it.
Guy
> Furthermore, commas are no good because they're already a separator
> for separate addresses in a single field. (Admittedly we already
> allow a syntax like John F. Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which is not
> permitted by RFC822.)
Why?
'John F. Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' s
> Furthermore, commas are no good because they're already a separator
> for separate addresses in a single field. (Admittedly we already
> allow a syntax like John F. Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which is not
> permitted by RFC822.)
Why?
'John F. Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' seems to be a valid
11 matches
Mail list logo
