RE: Auto. security upgrades

Thierry Laronde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02 Mar, 2000 12:38 > On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 09:59:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [...] > > Maybe, if a prompt could be arranged... > > It should default to leaving the package on hold, however. > > > > Well, there are two problems : > > 1) It's much

RE: Auto. security upgrades

I'm not sure removing a package on hold is a good thing, after all the admin places it on hold as a specific action to indicate that normal package management should not touch it until the admin decides otherwise. Maybe, if a prompt could be arranged... It should default to leaving the package on

RE: Processed: Changed email address

The messages are probably from packages where debian-qa is the maintainer, and maintainer mail is then directed to the mailing list. Usually the messages do not come that frequently, but the release has caused all sorts of bug related activity also on qa owned packages. Try to encourage people to

RE: What Debian-qa policy for sorting packages?

Goal of Debian is to the best free distribution there is. Some place more emphasis on best and some on free, but in cases like this there is no doubt, the other package is: - more free - better (Debian) maintained - actively developed - less buggy so leaving this out will increase both freeness and

RE: Comments on Debian Quality Assurance (long)

Hi, this is quite long, since there are so many related issues here. I try to touch on some, but not all are even mentioned. What is quality in Debian? == When discussing quality of Debian three separate but interconnected issues should be addressed: A) quality of softwa

RE: Debian 2.1 updates on CD image?

This is just a quick note, and may be even incorrect, I haven't been following that closely. There are several ways to get current snapshot images: - commercial vendors will do it (for USD 7-10 per CD + p&p) - you can have local mirror and create image yourself with a tool like YACS, usage exp

RE: release critical bugs of grace

If it is a name change of package, shouldn't it be then: provides xmgr replaces xmgr conflicts xmgr which should ensure (?) removal of xmgr when grace is installed and still satisfy dependencies, if there are any or are they really meant to coexist peacefully in one machine? t.aa Mark Br

RE: Processed: Fixed in NMU libapache-asp-perl 0.11-2

Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, July 06, 1999 11:31 AM > On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 11:28:01AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If the package is maintained by QA, then it should be a > > maintainer upload, I presume. > > Then the bugs would get closed. > > > > Am I missing something obvio

RE: Processed: Fixed in NMU libapache-asp-perl 0.11-2

Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, July 06, 1999 9:23 AM > On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 10:28:48PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:24:36PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > > > It has been closed (i've done it) but the severity fixed > > > comes from the > > >

RE: Signature for QA?

Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Friday, April 02, 1999 5:08 PM > > On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 11:41:33PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > [...] > [...] > > > means ASCII To Postscript, although it is quite obvious). > > Santiago complains > > that the package actually converts iso-8859-1 to >

RE: Signature for QA?

Josip Rodin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 4:28 PM > > On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 02:49:18PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > > only about a signature, that > > tells the maintainer, that the person, who contaced him works in the > > QA-Team and contacts him, because there's