Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
> >...
> >>
> >> However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime
> >> responsibility for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) wrote on 14.01.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
> ...
> >
> > However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime
> > responsibility for the package. This maintain
Ian Jackson wrote:
>Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
>...
>>
>> However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime
>> responsibility for the package. This maintainer's address should be
>> listed in the Group-le
Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
...
>
> However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime
> responsibility for the package. This maintainer's address should be
> listed in the Group-leader control field. The group leader has the
>
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 10:01:54AM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> >> Nope, the dreaded `exactly one maintainer' clause in 2.3.2 is still
> >> very much in place as of the latest policy.
> >
> >You're right. We should fix the policy. Anyone with good skills in
> >e
Enrique Zanardi wrote:
>> Nope, the dreaded `exactly one maintainer' clause in 2.3.2 is still
>> very much in place as of the latest policy.
>
>You're right. We should fix the policy. Anyone with good skills in
>english writing that wants to modify that clause?
How about the following:
On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 08:29:18PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > AFAIK, ther's nothing in the policy against maintainer groups.
>
> Nope, the dreaded `exactly one maintainer' clause in 2.3.2 is still
> very much in place as of the latest policy.
Yo
Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAIK, ther's nothing in the policy against maintainer groups.
Nope, the dreaded `exactly one maintainer' clause in 2.3.2 is still
very much in place as of the latest policy.
--
James
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> > "Debian boot floppies team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be
> > used.
>
> You have a chicken & egg problem here: @packages.debian.org just p
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 01:47:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> "Debian boot floppies team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be
> used.
>
> I wholehartedly agree that multi-maintainer groups should have a single
> responsible person,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> > "Debian boot floppies team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be
> > used.
>
> You have a chicken & egg problem here: @packages.debian.org just passes
> the mail on to the address listed in the Maintainer field
Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> "Debian boot floppies team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be
> used.
You have a chicken & egg problem here: @packages.debian.org just passes
the mail on to the address listed in the Maintainer field
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 15:40:23 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I agree that this would be a more pleasing solution. Currently the
> > > packages.debian.org address database is based on the maintainer
> > > addresses from the Packages file, so that would have to be
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 15:40:23 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I agree that this would be a more pleasing solution. Currently the
> > packages.debian.org address database is based on the maintainer
> > addresses from the Packages file, so that would have to be changed.
> > Joey?
>
> What do you
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 13:47:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I don't very much like either of "Compiler maintenance group
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" and "Enrique Zanardi " because
> > it does not structurally solve the problem it addresses.
> >
> > Instead, "Comp
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 13:47:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't very much like either of "Compiler maintenance group
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" and "Enrique Zanardi " because
> it does not structurally solve the problem it addresses.
>
> Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 07:47:20PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:21:31PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe we should use something like
> > > "Compiler maintenance group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", but I'
On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 07:47:20PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:21:31PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 17:29:24 +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > Could anyone please tell me why Galen is still listed as egcc mainatiner?
> >
> > Because
On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:21:31PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 17:29:24 +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Could anyone please tell me why Galen is still listed as egcc mainatiner?
>
> Because he is still the EGCS maintainer.
>
> > There were a lot of uploads by other
19 matches
Mail list logo
