webvinz . com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
realnewsoft . com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We offer mass sending letters via e-mail service.
Low prices .
Bypassing through the spamfilters.
Contact Information:
icq: 355591743
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi again... Need to meet you. Call me please.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is OEM?
OEM means Original Equipment Manufacturer . In general it is 100% fully
functional software. But it lacks manuals, promo-discs and bulk-boxes.
We offer the software for downloads only. It means that you do not receive a
fancy package and a printed manual that actually aggregate the
Hello!
My name is Sara Balhen, I work in the company « E-exchange Finland ». Our
company is engaged in purchase of electronic
currencies, such as e-gold, e-bullion, e-vocash, and other currencies. We
search for the responsible, decent, operative
person for work with our company. From our side we
Vis|t, cheapsoftxp .com ,ln 1nternet Exp|orer.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you hoped to have a expensive watch
Piece of Pricey Jewerly?
Or even a nice Ink Pen
We have the problem solved for you!
We sell all the high scale
for a low precentage of the cost.
www.passtt.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
tiene
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CT Summer camp run Camps Clinics
http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hfsqan8.png
Only days to Danbury
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your message dated Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:10:14 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line IP address legally
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility t
hard as a rock
http://mknudsenlc.365city.info
I always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific
dont want get it up buddy
http://rcoerciblevr.365city.info/r/
not a problem, talk to you later
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Hey whats up,
A Genuine College Degree in 2 weeks ! 1-206-350-5982 < - ccall n0ww !
Have you ever thought that the only thing stopping you from a great job and
better pay was a few letters behind your name?
Well now you can get them!
BA BSc MAMScMBA PhD
Within 2 weeks!
On 30-Mar-01, 17:47 (CST), Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:45:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > + One example of this is if the current version of the
> > + stable and unstable package is 1.2-1, then
> > + a new upload can have 1.2
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:45:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:19:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:06:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Summary:
> > > History:
> > > Technical reasoning:
> > > Issues:
> > > Caveats:
> >
> > But nowher
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:36:31PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> This sounds like a good idea. Except only the source code can be
> transfered from stable to unstable (to prevent problems others are
> debating), which will mean:
>
> upload to stable == upload to stable + source only upload to unstable
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Herbert Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:23 AM
Subject: Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow
multi-distribution uplo
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:39:57PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Brian> upload to stable == upload to stable
> Brian> + source only upload to testing
> Brian> + source only upload to unstable
>
> Sorry to followup straight away o
> "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> upload to stable == upload to stable
Brian> + source only upload to testing
Brian> + source only upload to unstable
Sorry to followup straight away on my previous post, however I
just thought of something.
What problem wo
> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> So, rather than uploading to "stable unstable", you
Anthony> upload just to "stable", and the change automatically
Anthony> gets propogated to unstable (and/or testing), unless
Anthony> there's a newer version already there.
This
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:06:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Policy should disallow uploads for multiple distributions. Specifically
> this means same version uploads to "stable unstable".
What if instead of doing it like this, we made an effort to make it *more*
convenient, rather than less?
S
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, proposed updates do go into the pool.
>
> Interesting. Which Packages file points to them? Certainly not
> stable's (at least not for a while), certainly not unstable's (not
> permanen
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, proposed updates do go into the pool.
>
> Interesting. Which Packages file points to them? Certainly not
> stable's (at least not for a while), certainly not unstable'
>> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, proposed updates do go into the pool.
Interesting. Which Packages file points to them? Certainly not
stable's (at least not for a while), certainly not unstable's (not
permanently, at least), and would think neither testing's. What's
left?
On 22-Mar-01, 10:28 (CST), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pondering a new angle to this. Perhaps we don't even need to mess
> with dinstall. What would really suffice is a check in the testing
> scripts that disallows anything moving from unstable to testing if it
> depends on someth
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:16:43PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:44:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > The stable package need not go into the package pool. Am I
> > mistaken in assuming that proposed updates packages are not in the
> > package pool? If
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:44:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> There is not technical reason
> >> for not building uploads to stable unstable twice in buildd either.
>
> Marcus> I think this is not true. What is meant by this? It means
> Marcus> building the same package twice, with t
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Are you sure you wanted to say "multiple versions of a
Marcus> package in the same distribution"? In my opinion, "one
Marcus> version of a package in multiple distributions" fits better
Marcus> in the context.
Marcus> If the
I'm pondering a new angle to this. Perhaps we don't even need to mess
with dinstall. What would really suffice is a check in the testing
scripts that disallows anything moving from unstable to testing if it
depends on something marked obsolete.
This could be anything in oldlibs, and special overri
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:23:20AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> No, you have outlined problems in dinstall and the buildd
> process. There is inherently no reason not to have multiple versions
> of a package in the same distribution using package pools, apart from
> the current impleme
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> The only objections I have seen are simplified by "it is too difficult
Ben> to for that one maintainers" and "it should be possible to do this for
Ben> packages that do not break".
You now have wnother one: There is little technic
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Yes it does help. By allowing stable/unstable uploads, we implicitly
Ben> allow maintainers to do something potentially harmful and with almost
Ben> zero technical gain. By disallowing it, we raise awareness that it is
Ben> most commonly
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> What is a legitimate reason for uploading to stable/unstable other than
Ben> convience? I see none.
Is there a reason for policy to disallow convenience
(incidentally, what reason is there to use helper packages other than
conven
Hi,
Looking at the original bug report, the history section seems
to detail implementation flaws in buildd's and dinstall, and the
major motivation for this proposal seems to ber a workaround for the
shortcomings of the dinstall+buildd system. I think this motivation
is bogus, we shoul
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 01:13:17PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> no reason for it. In fact, the only technical reason was back when we
> had frozen/unstable uploads, and they do not occur any longer.
We have yet to see what a freeze in the new setup actually looks
like. It has been discussed, but n
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:45:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> - frozen
> + testing
I don't think any conclusion has yet been reached about whether or not
we will have some sort of frozen distro during the freeze. So I'm
unsure whether we should make this change as sug
>
> Your proposal is exactly like throwing the bash with the baby (sorry, don't
> remember the exact wording).
>
It's "throwing out the baby with the bath water" :)
And you are probably right. Some of Manoj's points are setting in. The
only thing is that this requires a lot of checking on dinst
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 09:00:02PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, the fundamental and unavoidable reason why we have this problem
> > is the following:
>
> > We don't know in which Packages files (=distributions) a
> > single binary is (used
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:11:43AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > If there is need of a technical reason here, we need a technical
> > reason to forbid legitimate uploads, which is (one of the things) your
> > proposal would do.
>
> What is a legitima
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMHO, the fundamental and unavoidable reason why we have this problem
> is the following:
> We don't know in which Packages files (=distributions) a
> single binary is (used or) going to be used.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought the wh
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 09:23:08PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > Any libraries which change the ABI without changing the soname is buggy,
> > period.
>
> Agreed. However, uploading to "stable unstable" is not the correct nor
> intende
Your message dated Thu, 22 Mar 2001 02:30:25 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow
multi-distribution uploads)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the probl
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:57:16PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This is a different issue. Besides, you won't solve it by
> >> gettint people to do different uploads since they can compile
> >> both on stable (some developers
> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is a different issue. Besides, you won't solve it by
>> gettint people to do different uploads since they can compile
>> both on stable (some developers only run stable machines
>> immediately after a release). What y
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:09:30AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Well my point is that disallowing "stable unstable" doesn't solve those
> > problems for most packages, as "stable unstable" uploads are rare to start
> > with. And f
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:51:06PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:42:16AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > > Are you saying that packages compiled against old libc6-dev packages are
> > > not guarranteed to work
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Well my point is that disallowing "stable unstable" doesn't solve those
> problems for most packages, as "stable unstable" uploads are rare to start
> with. And for packages which don't have these problems, this incurs
> significant ove
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:51:06PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:42:16AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that packages compiled against old libc6-dev packages are
> > not guarranteed to work with a new libc6? Well, better tell that to all
> > the application v
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:06:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> It's my opinion that same version uploads to stable/unstable are harful
> to archive and distribution integrity.
There is a deep reason why this makes sense, but I think you didn't mention
it explicitely. The reasons you mentioned are
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:11:43AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> If there is need of a technical reason here, we need a technical
> reason to forbid legitimate uploads, which is (one of the things) your
> proposal would do.
>
What is a legitimate reason for uploading to stable/unstable other t
Ben Collins wrote:
> So, if those objecters will adress my counter-objection to them, I will
> concede the objection.
If you think my objection is gratuitous, I think your proposal is
gratuitous too. I'm sorry but objections are not "conceded" by people
doing policy proposals. They just happen as
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:42:16AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:35:58PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > > > Testing libc6 backward compatibility is not the purpose of
> > > > stable/unstable uploads. That is something that needs to be tested
> > >
> > > But it is a side
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:35:58PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > > Testing libc6 backward compatibility is not the purpose of
> > > stable/unstable uploads. That is something that needs to be tested
> >
> > But it is a side effect for packages depending on libc6.
>
> And side affects are often
Here's an (IMHO) better way of solving the old libraries problem:
1. If a package depends on anything in section oldlib in a distribution,
it isn't allowed in to that distribution.
2. Disallow uploads to "stable unstable" that can't go into both of them.
Of course, you need to override this ch
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 03:09:54PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Mar-01, 11:45 (CST), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > @@ -1434,15 +1434,23 @@
> >
> >
> >
> > - frozen
> > + testing
>^^^
>
> But la
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:22:40AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:10:20PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Yes it does help. By allowing stable/unstable uploads, we implicitly
> > allow maintainers to do something potentially harmful and with almost
> > zero technical gain.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:10:20PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Yes it does help. By allowing stable/unstable uploads, we implicitly
> allow maintainers to do something potentially harmful and with almost
> zero technical gain. By disallowing it, we raise awareness that it is
> most commonly not
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:45:27AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As for the first. Multi distributions occur so infrequently that it
> > should not be a problem to do this. Most of the time a package is
> > already diverged between stable and unstable, so
On 21-Mar-01, 11:45 (CST), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -1434,15 +1434,23 @@
>
>
>
> - frozen
> + testing
^^^
But later wrote:
> + is a time constraint before migration. Note
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:31:18AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:37:56AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Remember that the majority of uploads to stable are done by the security
> > team and the buildd's. I don't think this is a lot of effort for the
> > maintainers, since it
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 03:58:44PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:31:18AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > And as I said in my previous message, for libraries with the soname
> > (like glibc), you do want to test it against old -dev packages to ensure
> > binary compatibility.
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the first. Multi distributions occur so infrequently that it
> should not be a problem to do this. Most of the time a package is
> already diverged between stable and unstable, so two uploads are still
> required in that case for security fixes. Enfo
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:37:56AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Remember that the majority of uploads to stable are done by the security
> team and the buildd's. I don't think this is a lot of effort for the
> maintainers, since it isn't done often enough to be cumbersome, like it
> would have been
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:45:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> diff -urN debian-policy-3.5.2.0.orig/policy.sgml
> debian-policy-3.5.2.0/policy.sgml
[snip]
Seconded.
--
G. Branden Robinson |Software engineering: that part of
Debian GNU/Linux|computer science w
The only objections I have seen are simplified by "it is too difficult
to for that one maintainers" and "it should be possible to do this for
packages that do not break".
As for the first. Multi distributions occur so infrequently that it
should not be a problem to do this. Most of the time a pack
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:19:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:06:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Summary:
> > History:
> > Technical reasoning:
> > Issues:
> > Caveats:
>
> But nowhere did you have the actual text of a policy change. This is
> needed.
>
> Plea
Remember that the majority of uploads to stable are done by the security
team and the buildd's. I don't think this is a lot of effort for the
maintainers, since it isn't done often enough to be cumbersome, like it
would have been for "frozen unstable" uploads.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 07:38:08PM +1
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
> Summary:
>
> Policy should disallow uploads for multiple distributions. Specifically
> this means same version uploads to "stable unstable".
Summary: I object.
> [...]
> Technical reasoning:
>
> 1) Building for "stable unstable
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Running a buildd, I have the problem of builds that come in for stable
> and unstable. Currently this means the buildd performs the compile on
> stable, and either uploads to "stable unstable", or as it were
Is there a reason why this option won't work?
>
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:06:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Summary:
> History:
> Technical reasoning:
> Issues:
> Caveats:
But nowhere did you have the actual text of a policy change. This is
needed.
Please write one up and I'll second it.
--
G. Branden Robinson | If a man
Package: debian-policy
Summary:
Policy should disallow uploads for multiple distributions. Specifically
this means same version uploads to "stable unstable".
History:
Running a buildd, I have the problem of builds that come in for stable
and unstable. Currently this means the buildd performs
71 matches
Mail list logo
