Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.07.17.1642
>> +0200]:
>>> The configuration has been lifted for the bounce handler. The
>>> special header is still required for any non d.o machine. But it's
>>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:15:22PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I don't disagree with this, but I have a different view on the issue:
> (1) The canonical place for the Homepage field, in other words the
> origin, must be / is the source package. Hence it is kept in the
> debian/control file of ea
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:05:09 +0200]:
> But data should be primarily represented (warning:
> mantra begins here) where they belong to. And if the Homepage
> information belong, as I hope we all agree upon, to a source package
> then there it should be represented.
I don't disagr
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:54:48PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Yes.
Thanks.
> It is, but current usage puts it in the description for binary packages.
> One may argue that it may be because there is no description in the
> source package, but I believe it's also more useful there:
I don't, I'l
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:27:18 +0200]:
> XB- stuff can be put in
> the source part and will be propagated to all binary packages?
Yes.
> More generally I've an objection to your proposal, the "Homepage"
> property is specific of a source package,
It is, but current usage puts i
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:03:55AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage
> No objection to that, but the header should be XB-Homepage, or XSB at
> most. (That is, it should appear in Packages.gz, and probably not in
> Sources.gz.)
Dato, I'm a bit ignorant on thi
* Raphael Hertzog [Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:11 +0200]:
> We still have the problem that people mailing the PTS directly won't reach
> the maintainer.
I would lock down [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is, only accept mail
which includes a _keyword in the address. And in my opinion, there would
be no need for
also sprach Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.07.18.1026 +0200]:
> There are dozens of reasons for not wanting to do that. The first
> one is that in many cases mailing lists are subscribed to the PTS.
> If the Uploader are following the ML, it's enough.
The real solution would of course
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.07.17.2113 +0200]:
> > > So this is a script to be run periodically?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I am beginning to like the idea less, though I understand the cause.
>
> Since the PTS knows about maintainers
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Ivan Baldo wrote:
>Wow thanks!!! Its wonderful now! :-)
>Just a tought: summary could tell that ATM is used for notifications of
> progression from unstable to testing, I find that particular option
> interesting exactly because of that.
>Thanks again!!!
Don
10 matches
Mail list logo
