The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Guidelines docs on ftp.debian.org.

On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Chris Fearnley wrote:

> 'Dirk.Eddelbuettel@qed.econ.queensu.ca wrote:'
> >
> >I think I made my point now. I would appreciate it if others could join the
> >debate. Maybe we could even have a "poll" or a "vote"?
> 
> Since you asked.  I think a canonical revision field pattern should be
> /recommended/ but not required.  I prefer to allow for developer
> flexibility.  Even if something were required, it would take months
> for all the developers to update their packages.  Hence dpkg-ftp will
> need to be flexible anyway ... for many months.

I just looked through the packages file I'm currently using.  It's
not up to date, but it's fairly recent.  Out of 324 packages listed
there, I find the following list of packages listed there which do not
have a revision field:

    dpkg
    lrzsz

The other 322 packages do have a revision field.

I don't think that it'd necessarily take months for all developers
having packages without a revision field to update their packages.