ory. We wouldn't need to provide the tedious and laboratory QA
tasks concerning security and integration efforts, but could still
provide our users with such software.
Footnotes:
[1] http://handbrake.fr
[2] http://www.xbmc.org/wiki/?title=XBMC_for_Linux_port_project
[3] http://bugs.debian.o
tion: how to remove bad or MIA DMs?
How to we remove bad or MIA DDs?
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nly suspect
that Joey thinks that a dedicated list could encourage DSA to write more
emails about infrastructure topics.
(what a sentence)
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
pgp87i0wCxHRw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
be the more widespread one.
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
pgptj75ZtX948.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ur
package wasn't touch since the change on the launchpad buildds.
If you insist on having your package rebuilt, feel free to contact me
privately.
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
pgpbIeiyWHtl7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd very welcome their opinions of the current situation regarding the
^ to hear
> high backlog of applicants at FD and DAM stage, and what 'outsiders' can
> do to help them to clear the backlog.
(Given that
I understand the current practice correctly).
I'd very welcome their opinions of the current situation regarding the
high backlog of applicants at FD and DAM stage, and what 'outsiders' can
do to help them to clear the backlog.
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, K
Loïc Minier wrote:
> I think Ubuntu has also two upload keyrings, one for people approved to
> upload to main (the officially supported set) and one for people
> allowed to upload to universe (more or less the rest).
This is correct, and in both groups (the keyrings are actually launchpad
grou
ian? Or can we live with an less
intrusive approach?
I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time
frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for
all.
--
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Dies i
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep
> > up.
>
> They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
> whi
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
> > >
> > > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to
> > > not
> > > send patches directly to the BTS,
> >
> > Please give a reference to
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
> > > corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
