Hi,
We used to see openser 1.2 on stable etch package repositories, but
could you please explain why the apt repository now listing openser 1.1
as stable etch? I've been using openser 1.2 and I apt-get it 4 months
ago. Why I can't get it anymore?
Thank you,
/Jared Lee/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Jared Lee - Exetel Pty Ltd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We used to see openser 1.2 on stable etch package repositories, but
> could you please explain why the apt repository now listing openser 1.1
> as stable etch? I've been using openser 1.2 and I apt-get it 4 months
> ago. Why I can't get it an
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 01:48:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11403 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > So tagging a key as belonging to a particular host is insufficient - we need
> > the full authorized_keys semantics for setting key options (from=, command=,
> > no-port-forwarding, no
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 09:02:18PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> > Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
> > maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
>
> Sure. For me it is not necessarily about "teams", but more a
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Basically I and several others have been asking to add something that
> > effectively (and more explicitly than in the current proposal) says:
> >
> >Please consider before you NMU if just contacting the maintainer
> > isn't likely to more effective
Le Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:07:45AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
>
> While I agree with this principle, I have one comment: IMO posting a
> patch (with explanation of what it fixes and why, and that an NMU to
> DELAYED has been uploaded) to the BTS is an appropriate way to notify
> the maintainer.
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a
> > couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a
> > couple of weeks or so.
I agree that w
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 484024 sugar
Bug#484024: sugar init problem
Warning: Unknown package '-'
Warning: Unknown package 'window'
Warning: Unknown package 'manager'
Warning: Unknown package 'from'
Warning: Unknown package 'olpc'
Bug reassigned from package `sugar -
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> What is the difference for the maintainer between these? Not the time
> required for M; in all cases, the most M needs to do to prevent the NMU
> from happening is writing a mail to N (and the BTS). The only
> difference is what to say ("please cancel t
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:01:00AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > While I agree with this principle, I have one comment: IMO posting a
> > patch (with explanation of what it fixes and why, and that an NMU to
> > DELAYED has been uploaded) to the BTS is an ap
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > What is the difference for the maintainer between these? Not the time
> > required for M; in all cases, the most M needs to do to prevent the NMU
> > from happening is writing a mail to N (an
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > No, I don't, I agree with you that this would be unacceptable.
> >
> > Right, and that is where our opinions _do_ differ fundamentally.
>
> You don't agree that I agree with you?
OK, I misread that. Sorry.
The fundamental thing we disagree on is tha
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 02:07:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > > No, I don't, I agree with you that this would be unacceptable.
> > >
> > > Right, and that is where our opinions _do_ differ fundamentally.
> >
> > You don't agree that I agree with you?
>
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:07:07 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a
> > > couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Exp
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 14:42:46 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I personally think that *none* of them[1] meet the DFSG.
Yes, you've said that multiple times now.
> Unfortunately, FTP-masters seem to disagree with me...
> Anyone who would like to read further details on my view on the topic
> co
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will re
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think Expat has any significant additional feature. Expat is
> usually used as the name to avoid the ambiguity caused by referring to
> MIT, X11 or BSD (each of which has used several very different licences
> over time) and for an explicit inclusion o
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > I propose to add "NMUs are usually not appropriate for
>> > team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
>> > instead." to the bullet list.
>>
>> It really depends on the team. There are sma
No, Openser 1.2 was on main etch repositories. I installed 2 new box
with openser 1.2 with apt-get repositories last month so i know. Somehow
it goes backward to 1.1.
Jared
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Jared Lee - Exetel Pty Ltd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We used to see openser 1.2 on s
Hi folks,
Just a heads-up for now. We're now 5 weeks on from the point when I
started sending out my survey to lots of different teams and
project-related lists. I deliberately announced a generous 4-week
deadline at the time, to allow people a reasonable amount of time to
respond. I also chose to
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:17:12AM +1000, Jared Lee - Exetel Pty Ltd wrote:
>No, Openser 1.2 was on main etch repositories. I installed 2 new box
>with openser 1.2 with apt-get repositories last month so i know. Somehow
>it goes backward to 1.1.
No, they weren't. I've just checked through all th
21 matches
Mail list logo
