Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
> *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?
I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
On 26/04/2010 08:42, Mike Hommey wrote: > I'd say usually namespaces in packages names are prefixes, so > browser-plugin-* would make sense. On 26/04/2010 09:52, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if > you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. Ok so in the end browser-plugin-* should be preferred? That's fine, parole is not yet out of NEW so I can still make the change. Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd54bfe.2000...@debian.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
On 26/04/2010 09:52, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: >> We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with >> *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*? > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if > you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. > > Cheers. > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd5514b.8080...@free.fr
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
> > you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable.
>
> If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone.
I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ...
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#579231: ITP: mricron -- magnetic resonance image conversion, viewing and analysis
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Michael Hanke * Package name: mricron Version : 0.20100422.1 Upstream Author : Chris Rorden * URL : http://www.cabiatl.com/mricro/mricron/index.html * License : BSD Programming Lang: Pascal Description : magnetic resonance image conversion, viewing and analysis GUI-based visualization and analysis tool for (functional) magnetic reasonance imaging. MRIcron can be used to create 2D or 3D renderings of statistical overlay maps on brain anatomy images. Moreover, it aids drawing anatomical regions-of-interest (ROI), or lesion mapping, as well as basic analysis of functional timeseries (e.g. creating plots of peristimulus signal-change). . This package also provides 'dcm2nii' that supports converting DICOM and PAR/REC images into the NIfTI format. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426115441.16504.66274.report...@meiner
Bug#579233: ITP: libhtml-template-dumper-perl -- Output template data in a test-friendly format
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" * Package name: libhtml-template-dumper-perl Version : 0.1 Upstream Author : Timm Murray * URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-Template-Dumper/ * License : GPL2+Artistic Programming Lang: Perl Description : Output template data in a test-friendly format HTML::Template::Dumper helps you to test HTML::Template-based programs by printing only the information used to fill-in the template data. This makes it much easier to automatically parse the output of your program. Currently, data can be outputed by Data::Dumper (default) or YAML. Note that the underlying HTML::Template methods are still called, so options like strict and die_on_bad_params will still throw errors. -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.4 APT prefers stable APT policy: (899, 'stable'), (100, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426121009.29666.53510.report...@jaldhar.brainfood.com
Re: bindv6only again
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś: > I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's > been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of > net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the > impression that people agree that the change was a mistake. Not again... > May I therefore most humbly suggest that Debian should revert the change > to the default (/etc/sysctl.d/bindv6only.conf), and thus become once > again compatible with what RFC 3493 says and most application developers > expect? On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administrator, applications expecting specific setting are broken anyway (on Linux), no matter what RFC says and what default on Debian is. And ability to change the default is definitely feature, not a bug. If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not in testing) didn't manage that. There are really no reasons to revert. Jarek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426141405.ga32...@vilo.eu.org
Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote: > If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it > explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to > http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not > in testing) didn't manage that. There are really no reasons to revert. Did you read this mailing list? (or even that bug to the end). Because you're stating something false. Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004261646.17113.tipos...@tiscali.it
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if > > > you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. > > > > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. > > I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have 1. browser-plugin-* 2. browserplugin-* 3. *-browserplugin 4. *-browser-plugin I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). Opinions? -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: bindv6only again
>> unless I've missed something, I'm under the impression that people >> agree that the change was a mistake. > Not again... What do you mean? The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still the one that people don't want. > On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administrator, I am aware of that. It is the default value that we are speaking about. > applications expecting specific setting are broken anyway (on Linux), > no matter what RFC says and what default on Debian is. This is of course nonsense. Choosing the default value that is incompatible with all other Unix systems (with the exception of OpenBSD) and then complaining about applications being broken doesn't strike me as a particularly productive attitude. Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87633e5kpn@pirx.pps.jussieu.fr
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still > the one that people don't want. It's the one that I want. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426151705.ga26...@scru.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: > 1. browser-plugin-* > 2. browserplugin-* > 3. *-browserplugin > 4. *-browser-plugin > > Opinions? I like #3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426151154.ga26...@scru.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
>=20 > Opinions?=20 I would prefer 1. or, slightly less, 4. --=20 Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:17:05 Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still > > the one that people don't want. > > It's the one that I want. > You could still change it, right? -- Salvo Tomaselli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004261735.45100.tipos...@tiscali.it
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 05:35:45PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > You could still change it, right? So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software, just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically make Hudson less broken. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426154204.ga26...@scru.org
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:46:17PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote: >> If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it >> explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to >> http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not >> in testing) didn't manage that. There are really no reasons to revert. > Did you read this mailing list? (or even that bug to the end). > > Because you're stating something false. 560238 is blocked only by 579033, end of bug report mentions also wine, which I've missed. Reports against other packages are already closed. Am I missing something else? On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administrator, > > I am aware of that. It is the default value that we are speaking about. > >> applications expecting specific setting are broken anyway (on Linux), >> no matter what RFC says and what default on Debian is. > > This is of course nonsense. Choosing the default value that is > incompatible with all other Unix systems (with the exception of OpenBSD) > and then complaining about applications being broken doesn't strike me > as a particularly productive attitude. My point was, that applications claiming compatibility with Linux cannot assume particular value of bindv6only regardless of RFC or any value Debian chooses. I've reported bugs about incompatibility with bindv6only=1 before the whole discussion popped up. We are not incompatible with other Unices, only with few buggy applications. Jarek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426153500.ga7...@vilo.eu.org
Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:42:04 Clint Adams wrote: > So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software, > just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically > make Hudson less broken. You have a missconception of "broken". POSIX has a default value, the developers will read the POSIX documentation and tell you to screw you if you do a bugreport saying that if you voluntarily make your system non-compliant then their software doesn't work. Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004261802.15602.tipos...@tiscali.it
Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:35:00 Jarek Kamiński wrote: > 560238 is blocked only by 579033, end of bug report mentions also wine, > which I've missed. Reports against other packages are already closed. Am > I missing something else? Read this mailing list, some packages were mentioned. > My point was, that applications claiming compatibility with Linux cannot > assume particular value of bindv6only regardless of RFC or any value > Debian chooses. I've reported bugs about incompatibility with > bindv6only=1 before the whole discussion popped up. That application (which i maintain btw) claims compatibility with posix, not with linux. > We are not incompatible with other Unices, only with few buggy > applications. Being posix compliant is not a bug. The only reason i applied the patch is because i didn't want the package to be broken. I still believe the patch didn't fix any bug. Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004261810.53442.tipos...@tiscali.it
Gendiri Peka requests anonymous contacts sharing
Hi, Last chance! Just a reminder, Gendiri would like to share approved contacts with you on Boxbe. Use this link: https://www.boxbe.com/register?tc=2507996854_389827864 This message was sent at the request of alfin...@boxbe.com. If you want to opt-out of invitations from Boxbe members, use this link: https://www.boxbe.com/unsubscribe?email=debian-de...@lists.debian.org&tc=2507996854_389827864 Boxbe, Inc. | 2390 Chestnut Street #201 | San Francisco, CA 94123
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon Apr 26 18:02, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > You have a missconception of "broken". > POSIX has a default value, the developers will read the POSIX documentation > and tell you to screw you if you do a bugreport saying that if you > voluntarily > make your system non-compliant then their software doesn't work. Default does not mean "only permittable". If POSIX allows it to be set to either value, then no matter what the _default_ is, not coping with either is a bug. I don't believe that very many people are suggesting that not working with bindv6only=1 is not a bug which should be filed and fix when it occurs in the archive, nor that it should not be configurable to whatever setting we do not choose as the default. I agree - programs which don't work with the current setting are broken and should be fixed - but that does not mean we should go out of our way to exhibit such brokenness to our users. This seems like too much being contrary because it's technically allowed and declaiming the results not to be our problem, even though it breaks a lot of systems. I think we should change the default back _and_ work towards fixing all the applications, without making them instantly RC buggy in the mean time. It smacks of 'uncoordinated transition' to me. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ...
> Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have
>
> 1. browser-plugin-*
> 2. browserplugin-*
> 3. *-browserplugin
> 4. *-browser-plugin
>
> I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.).
> Opinions?
Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-)
Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't
seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling
about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is
"we don't particularly care", as long as it is consistent.
I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please
set up one somewhere and post just a participation link.
Thanks for attempting to standardize this!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: bindv6only again
Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit : > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still > > the one that people don't want. > > It's the one that I want. Good. Now if you or one of those who advocate this “broken by default” behavior could provide patches for gdm3, this would be more productive. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 18:30:29 Matthew Johnson wrote: > Default does not mean "only permittable". If POSIX allows it to be set to > either value, then no matter what the _default_ is, not coping with either > is a bug. Default: a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/default Can you post your definition of the word "default" and your source? Because if we don't speak the same language we aren't going to understand each other. Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004261952.41469.tipos...@tiscali.it
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:30:14 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> > > the one that people don't want.
> >
> > It's the one that I want.
>
> Good. Now if you or one of those who advocate this “broken by default”
> behavior could provide patches for gdm3, this would be more productive.
>
Not that I advocate the broken current default, but here's a
not-even-build-tested patch against master.
Cheers,
Julien
From: Julien Cristau
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:42:16 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] xdmcp: disable IPV6_V6ONLY for ipv6 listening sockets
This allows ipv4 connections mapped to ipv6, in case the system default
is backwards.
Signed-off-by: Julien Cristau
---
daemon/gdm-xdmcp-display-factory.c |8
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/daemon/gdm-xdmcp-display-factory.c
b/daemon/gdm-xdmcp-display-factory.c
index 447833d..87a0d1a 100644
--- a/daemon/gdm-xdmcp-display-factory.c
+++ b/daemon/gdm-xdmcp-display-factory.c
@@ -411,6 +411,14 @@ create_socket (struct addrinfo *ai)
return sock;
}
+#if defined(ENABLE_IPV6) && defined(IPV6_V6ONLY)
+ if (ai->ai_family == AF_INET6) {
+ int zero = 0;
+ if (setsockopt(sock, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, &zero,
sizeof(zero)) < 0)
+ g_warning("setsockopt(IPV6_V6ONLY): %s",
g_strerror(errno));
+ }
+#endif
+
if (bind (sock, ai->ai_addr, ai->ai_addrlen) < 0) {
g_warning ("bind: %s", g_strerror (errno));
close (sock);
--
1.7.0.5
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:54:53 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:30:14 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > > > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> > > > the one that people don't want.
> > >
> > > It's the one that I want.
> >
> > Good. Now if you or one of those who advocate this “broken by default”
> > behavior could provide patches for gdm3, this would be more productive.
> >
> Not that I advocate the broken current default, but here's a
> not-even-build-tested patch against master.
>
And the chooser part...
From: Julien Cristau
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:00:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] chooser: disable IPV6_V6ONLY
Signed-off-by: Julien Cristau
---
gui/simple-chooser/gdm-host-chooser-widget.c |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gui/simple-chooser/gdm-host-chooser-widget.c
b/gui/simple-chooser/gdm-host-chooser-widget.c
index e694728..0c8f46c 100644
--- a/gui/simple-chooser/gdm-host-chooser-widget.c
+++ b/gui/simple-chooser/gdm-host-chooser-widget.c
@@ -544,6 +544,13 @@ xdmcp_init (GdmHostChooserWidget *widget)
widget->priv->socket_fd = socket (AF_INET6, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
if (widget->priv->socket_fd != -1) {
widget->priv->have_ipv6 = TRUE;
+#ifdef IPV6_V6ONLY
+ {
+ int zero = 0;
+ if (setsockopt(widget->priv->socket_fd, IPPROTO_IPV6,
IPV6_V6ONLY, &zero, sizeof(zero)) < 0)
+ g_warning("setsockopt(IPV6_V6ONLY): %s",
g_strerror(errno));
+ }
+#endif
}
#endif
if (! widget->priv->have_ipv6) {
--
1.7.0.5
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > On Monday 26 April 2010 18:30:29 Matthew Johnson wrote: > > Default does not mean "only permittable". If POSIX allows it to be > > set to either value, then no matter what the _default_ is, not > > coping with either is a bug. > > Default: a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence > of a choice made by the user. > > Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/default > > Can you post your definition of the word "default" and your source? > Because if we don't speak the same language we aren't going to > understand each other. There's no conflict here. The definition quoted says nothing about default meaning "only permittable", exactly as Matthew claims above. If the software doesn't work properly when either of the permissible values is set when it is possible for the software to handle either value correctly, the software is buggy. It may not be a bug that you rush to fix, but it certainly is one. If the upstream maintainer doesn't want to apply patches necessary to work properly with either value set, that's their purview, but it doesn't make the software non-buggy in Debian. Don Armstrong -- LEADERSHIP -- A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with autodestructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. -- The HipCrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p256-7) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426182207.gy21...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Bug#579278: ITP: trac-icalviewplugin -- Provides iCalendar feeds for ticket queries
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Al Nikolov * Package name: trac-icalviewplugin Version : 0.7889 Upstream Author : Xavier Péchoultres * URL : http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/IcalViewPlugin * License : GPL Programming Lang: Python Description : Provides iCalendar feeds for ticket queries This plugin provides iCalendar feeds for ticket queries as standard roadmap module. It use 2 optional custom fields for event date and duration. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426180920.5585.12713.report...@home-br0
Bug#579279: ITP: latexila -- LaTeX editor designed for the GNOME desktop
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Tanguy Ortolo Owner: Tanguy Ortolo * Package name: latexila Version : 0.2.0 Upstream Author : Sébastien Wilmet * URL : http://latexila.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL3 Programming Lang: C Description : LaTeX editor designed for the GNOME desktop LaTeXila is a LaTeX editor for GNOME. It integrates the various tools required for processing LaTeX documents. It provides menus, buttons and templates to assist with the edition and the compilation of documents. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426180948.12276.22346.report...@herbert.ortolo.eu
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 18:49 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... > > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have > > > > 1. browser-plugin-* > > 2. browserplugin-* > > 3. *-browserplugin > > 4. *-browser-plugin > > > > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). > > Opinions? > > Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-) > > Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't > seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling > about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is > "we don't particularly care", as long as it is consistent. > > I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please > set up one somewhere and post just a participation link. I setup a doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/2wmykvgy7ara5pd5 Please participate there. And yes, doodle is designed for schedules, but not for polls. ;) -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 20:40 +0200 schrieb Benjamin Drung: > Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 18:49 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > > I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... > > > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have > > > > > > 1. browser-plugin-* > > > 2. browserplugin-* > > > 3. *-browserplugin > > > 4. *-browser-plugin > > > > > > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). > > > Opinions? > > > > Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-) > > > > Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't > > seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling > > about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is > > "we don't particularly care", as long as it is consistent. > > > > I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please > > set up one somewhere and post just a participation link. > > I setup a doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/2wmykvgy7ara5pd5 > > Please participate there. And yes, doodle is designed for schedules, but > not for polls. ;) I create a new poll that allows yes/no/maybe: http://www.doodle.com/guafbbhipwskzr8a Please add yourself there. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Bug#579284: ITP: voxbo -- processing, statistical analysis, and display of brain imaging data
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Michael Hanke * Package name: voxbo Version : 1.8.5 Upstream Author : Daniel Kimberg * URL : http://www.voxbo.org * License : GPL-3 Programming Lang: C++ Description : processing, statistical analysis, and display of brain imaging data This is a toolkit for analysis of functional neuroimaging (chiefly fMRI) experiments and voxel-based lesion-behavior mapping. VoxBo supports the modified GLM (for autocorrelated data), as well as the standard GLM for non-autocorrelated data. The toolkit is designed to be interoperable with AFNI, FSL, SPM and others. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426190547.2782.68556.report...@meiner
Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 20:22:07 Don Armstrong wrote: > There's no conflict here. The definition quoted says nothing about > default meaning "only permittable", exactly as Matthew claims above. > > If the software doesn't work properly when either of the permissible > values is set when it is possible for the software to handle either > value correctly, the software is buggy. It may not be a bug that you > rush to fix, but it certainly is one. Set by whom? If the program itself doesn't change the setting, it will not expect it to be another one. There is a conflict, just pretending there isn't, doesn't make it go away. Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004262124.15557.tipos...@tiscali.it
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins
Benjamin Drung writes: > Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: >> > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if >> > > you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. >> > >> > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. >> >> I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... > > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have > > 1. browser-plugin-* > 2. browserplugin-* > 3. *-browserplugin > 4. *-browser-plugin > > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). > > Opinions? I think *-bwoser[-]plugin is a bad choice for 2 reasons (which you can consider one reason): A) apt-get install browser This will complete nicely to give me a list of plugins with options 1 and 2 and all the packages it completes have a common use case, to make my browser better. No such thing with options 3 and 4. B) Sorting in frontends (aptitude, ...) Again say you are looking for usefull plugins to add to your browser. With options 1 and 2 you get all the plugins in one blog and can easily scroll through them. With options 3 and 4 they will be scattered all over the place. I think the seperate groups formed by a common prefix in options 3 and 4 would be much smaller and less usefull to users than having all browser plugins in one block. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tyqyxc9q@frosties.localdomain
Re: bindv6only again
On Apr 26, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still Because: - nobody cares about the consensus in the peanut gallery - as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice > This is of course nonsense. Choosing the default value that is > incompatible with all other Unix systems (with the exception of OpenBSD) Actually it is my understanding that 1 is the only choice for all BSD systems (and Windows). -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > On Monday 26 April 2010 20:22:07 Don Armstrong wrote: > > If the software doesn't work properly when either of the permissible > > values is set when it is possible for the software to handle either > > value correctly, the software is buggy. It may not be a bug that you > > rush to fix, but it certainly is one. > > Set by whom? It doesn't matter who sets it. If the program doesn't work properly with either setting, and it's possible for it to work properly with either setting by patching the code, it's a bug that should be fixed. > If the program itself doesn't change the setting, it will not > expect it to be another one. If the program wants a specific behavior, it should call setsockopt appropriately. [But I'm unfortunatly unable to parse your full meaning particularly well.] Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426195908.ga21...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins
Am Montag, 26. April 2010 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > Benjamin Drung writes: > > Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: > >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > >> > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so > >> > > if you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. > >> > > >> > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. > >> > >> I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... > > > > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have > > > > 1. browser-plugin-* > > 2. browserplugin-* > > 3. *-browserplugin > > 4. *-browser-plugin > > > > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). > > > > Opinions? > > I think *-bwoser[-]plugin is a bad choice for 2 reasons (which you can > consider one reason): > > A) apt-get install browser > > This will complete nicely to give me a list of plugins with options 1 > and 2 and all the packages it completes have a common use case, to make > my browser better. No such thing with options 3 and 4. > > B) Sorting in frontends (aptitude, ...) > > Again say you are looking for usefull plugins to add to your > browser. With options 1 and 2 you get all the plugins in one blog and > can easily scroll through them. With options 3 and 4 they will be > scattered all over the place. > > > I think the seperate groups formed by a common prefix in options 3 and 4 > would be much smaller and less usefull to users than having all browser > plugins in one block. > > MfG Goswin > I think, 3 and 4 are the better choices than 1 or 2. IMO, the best choice might be 4. Let me just explain why: If people are looikng for something, they first look, what application it is in for. Browser plugins might be available for iceweasel, konqueror, opera whatever. So, the first choice is "iceweasel-", then what is it? Yes, it is for the "-browser", and at last, they see, yes, a "-plugin". I also imagine, that in the future, there might be iceweasel-"sound"-plugins, "video"-plugins, "flash"-plugins or whatever. I also imagine, there might be also not only plugins, but "tools", or maybe "modules". IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand and modular for future changes Cheers Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004262154.18997.hans.ullr...@loop.de
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: >> Benjamin Drung writes: >> > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have >> > >> > 1. browser-plugin-* >> > 2. browserplugin-* >> > 3. *-browserplugin >> > 4. *-browser-plugin > > I think, 3 and 4 are the better choices than 1 or 2. IMO, the best choice > might be 4. Let me just explain why: > > If people are looikng for something, they first look, what application it is > in > for. Browser plugins might be available for iceweasel, konqueror, opera > whatever. So, the first choice is "iceweasel-", then what is it? This discussion is about packages which provide an NPAPI-compatible plugin. This means that the plugin works for any browser which supports the standard NPAPI plugin interface. Therefore, there is no reason to have a specific browser name in the package name and should instead use a common naming convention. -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/i2t14ccba101004261318r168411cfv45731a4ee5fac...@mail.gmail.com
Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 21:59:08 Don Armstrong wrote: > It doesn't matter who sets it. If the program doesn't work properly > with either setting, and it's possible for it to work properly with > either setting by patching the code, it's a bug that should be fixed. It matters because in my view, the app expects it to be 0 unless the application itself had changed it. Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004262232.38760.tipos...@tiscali.it
[UNICOLOMBIA] Matriculas abiertas
Cordial saludo, Este correo es para informarle que desde este Lunes 26 de Abril hasta el día 29 de abril , estaremos recibiendo las matrículas para los Estudiantes que desean iniciar Diplomados el 03 de Mayo. NOTA : Si formaliza su matrícula antes del 28 de abril tiene el 20% de descuento : http://procesomatricula.unicolombia.edu.co Atentamente, Admisiones y Registro Unicolombia admisio...@unicolombia.edu.co www.unicolombia.edu.co Resolución 4720 de 2005 Educación en la Modalidad Virtual México - México City : (55) 8421 3577 Reino Unido - Londres : (44) 020 32863572 Estados Unidos - La Florida : (954) 357 39 28 Perú - Lima : (51) 17085495 España - Madrid : (34) 911880030 Argentina - Buenos Aires : (54) 1152391418 Chile - Santiago : (56) 25708445 Colombia (571) 813 58 09 Derechos Reservados Unicolombia®, si no desea recibir más correos enviar email con asunto borrar a sopo...@unicolombia.edu.co
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > On Monday 26 April 2010 21:59:08 Don Armstrong wrote: > > It doesn't matter who sets it. If the program doesn't work properly > > with either setting, and it's possible for it to work properly with > > either setting by patching the code, it's a bug that should be fixed. > > It matters because in my view, the app expects it to be 0 unless the > application itself had changed it. It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code is buggy. There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the default when it can easily enforce the particular value that it only works with. Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000309.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426210322.gb21...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote: > It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator > or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code > is buggy. > > There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the > default when it can easily enforce the particular value that it only > works with. Can you indicate me which part of the standard says that? Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004262321.55962.tipos...@tiscali.it
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins
"Hans-J. Ullrich" writes: > Am Montag, 26. April 2010 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: >> Benjamin Drung writes: >> > Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: >> >> > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so >> >> > > if you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. >> >> > >> >> > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. >> >> >> >> I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... >> > >> > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have >> > >> > 1. browser-plugin-* >> > 2. browserplugin-* >> > 3. *-browserplugin >> > 4. *-browser-plugin >> > >> > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). >> > >> > Opinions? >> >> I think *-bwoser[-]plugin is a bad choice for 2 reasons (which you can >> consider one reason): >> >> A) apt-get install browser >> >> This will complete nicely to give me a list of plugins with options 1 >> and 2 and all the packages it completes have a common use case, to make >> my browser better. No such thing with options 3 and 4. >> >> B) Sorting in frontends (aptitude, ...) >> >> Again say you are looking for usefull plugins to add to your >> browser. With options 1 and 2 you get all the plugins in one blog and >> can easily scroll through them. With options 3 and 4 they will be >> scattered all over the place. >> >> >> I think the seperate groups formed by a common prefix in options 3 and 4 >> would be much smaller and less usefull to users than having all browser >> plugins in one block. >> >> MfG Goswin >> > > I think, 3 and 4 are the better choices than 1 or 2. IMO, the best choice > might be 4. Let me just explain why: > > If people are looikng for something, they first look, what application it is > in > for. Browser plugins might be available for iceweasel, konqueror, opera > whatever. So, the first choice is "iceweasel-", then what is it? Yes, it is > for > the "-browser", and at last, they see, yes, a "-plugin". > > I also imagine, that in the future, there might be iceweasel-"sound"-plugins, > "video"-plugins, "flash"-plugins or whatever. I also imagine, there might be > also not only plugins, but "tools", or maybe "modules". By that reasoning you are advocating: 5. browser-*-plugin That would also work for apt-get install browser > IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand > and > modular for future changes > > Cheers > > Hans MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y6g9euzh@frosties.localdomain
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins
Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 23:58 +0200 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > "Hans-J. Ullrich" writes: > > > Am Montag, 26. April 2010 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > >> Benjamin Drung writes: > >> > Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: > >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > >> >> > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so > >> >> > > if you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. > >> >> > > >> >> > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. > >> >> > >> >> I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... > >> > > >> > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have > >> > > >> > 1. browser-plugin-* > >> > 2. browserplugin-* > >> > 3. *-browserplugin > >> > 4. *-browser-plugin > >> > > >> > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). > >> > > >> > Opinions? > >> > >> I think *-bwoser[-]plugin is a bad choice for 2 reasons (which you can > >> consider one reason): > >> > >> A) apt-get install browser > >> > >> This will complete nicely to give me a list of plugins with options 1 > >> and 2 and all the packages it completes have a common use case, to make > >> my browser better. No such thing with options 3 and 4. > >> > >> B) Sorting in frontends (aptitude, ...) > >> > >> Again say you are looking for usefull plugins to add to your > >> browser. With options 1 and 2 you get all the plugins in one blog and > >> can easily scroll through them. With options 3 and 4 they will be > >> scattered all over the place. > >> > >> > >> I think the seperate groups formed by a common prefix in options 3 and 4 > >> would be much smaller and less usefull to users than having all browser > >> plugins in one block. > >> > >> MfG Goswin > >> > > > > I think, 3 and 4 are the better choices than 1 or 2. IMO, the best choice > > might be 4. Let me just explain why: > > > > If people are looikng for something, they first look, what application it > > is in > > for. Browser plugins might be available for iceweasel, konqueror, opera > > whatever. So, the first choice is "iceweasel-", then what is it? Yes, it is > > for > > the "-browser", and at last, they see, yes, a "-plugin". > > > > I also imagine, that in the future, there might be > > iceweasel-"sound"-plugins, > > "video"-plugins, "flash"-plugins or whatever. I also imagine, there might > > be > > also not only plugins, but "tools", or maybe "modules". > > By that reasoning you are advocating: > > 5. browser-*-plugin > > That would also work for apt-get install browser Ok, I added it to the poll, but i doubt that it will win against browser-plugin-*. > > IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand > > and > > modular for future changes -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon Apr 26 23:21, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote: > > It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator > > or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code > > is buggy. > > > > There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the > > default when it can easily enforce the particular value that it only > > works with. > Can you indicate me which part of the standard says that? > If POSIX-compliant apps may only work with one setting then the standard would say "only this setting is compliant with POSIX". Since it does not, we must assume that a sysadmin choosing either value results in a POSIX-compliant system. If an application fails to work on such a system it must ipso facto not be POSIX-compliant and hence buggy. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 23:50 +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Mon Apr 26 23:21, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > > On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote: > > > It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator > > > or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code > > > is buggy. > > > > > > There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the > > > default when it can easily enforce the particular value that it only > > > works with. > > Can you indicate me which part of the standard says that? > > > > If POSIX-compliant apps may only work with one setting then the standard would > say "only this setting is compliant with POSIX". Since it does not, we must > assume that a sysadmin choosing either value results in a POSIX-compliant > system. If an application fails to work on such a system it must ipso facto > not > be POSIX-compliant and hence buggy. POSIX and SUS define the behaviour an OS must provide to applications, not to the administrator. In these contexts. 'default value' normally means the value that will be used unless the application overrides it. Linux provides many options to deviate from POSIX-conformance, and there are sometimes good reasons to use them (for example the relatime mount option), but we should be wary of doing so. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[OT] Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
Le Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung a écrit : > > I setup a doodle poll Dear Benjamin, I would like to recommend http://selectricity.org/ instead. In contrary to Doodle, Selectricity is free software. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100427010203.gc14...@kunpuu.plessy.org
360° SmartLine System: Es el Momento de Unirse. PRE LANZAMIENTO MUNDIAL
*¡Esta es una Gran * *Oportunidad de Ingresos de * *Posicionamiento GRATIS!* 360° SmartLine System *En los últimos 20 años, un puñado de líderes exitosos ha generado cerca de 1 Billón de dólares en ventas en sus respectivas empresas. Ahora han unidos sus fuerzas para crear algo tan innovador, tan único y tan revolucionario que **NO TE LO PUEDES PERDER*. http://lockyourspot.com/megainfopy ¿Has registrado ya tu posición en el Sistema SmartLine? Miles de personas lo están haciendo ya cada hora. Cada persona que se inscriba después de que tu lo hayas hecho estará en TU EQUIPO. ¡Esto es muy emocionante, y está a punto de mejorar! ¡El plan de compensación es tan innovador que seguramente será admirado y copiado! Los detalles serán publicados en breve. ¡Asegura tu Posición GRATIS! Vale la pena. ¡Confía en mí! No puedes permitirte el lujo de no afiliarte, ya que lo haces de forma GRATUITA ¡TENDRÁS UN SUELDO PARA TODA TU VIDA! Ser el primero aquí puede cambiar tu vida. En el momento de redactar este mensaje tengo ya MAS DE 30.500 MIEMBROS en mi línea descendente y me he registrado hace DOCE dias. ¡En serio! Según escribo este mensaje el número de registrados va aumentando tan rápidamente que cuando termine de escribirlo voy a tener que volver a actualizarlo ¡¡No pierdas el tiempo y regístrate AHORA!! http://lockyourspot.com/megainfopy Diles a todos tus conocidos acerca de esta oportunidad. Se beneficiarán de la oportunidad de consolidar definitivamente su posición y de los magníficos productos que pronto vendrán. ¡No guardes esta información para ti mismo! Piensa en ello como una gran manera de empezar a ayudar a los demás, empezando ahora mismo. ¡Lanzamiento el 15 de Mayo de 2010! P.D. No te olvides que todos los que se unan a esta oportunidad después de que tu lo hagas y vengan de dónde vengan, estarán en tu equipo de Smart Line ¡GANARÁS DINERO DE ELLOS! El momento lo es todo, así que corre la voz a todas las personas que te importan. Saludos y Exitos. Victor Hugo Cabral Skype: vigocans E-mail: megainf...@gmail.com http://lockyourspot.com/megainfopy -- http://www.forex4free.org/?ref=inversor Facil , seguro, sin riesgo , Inscribete y gana 200$ Easy. Safe. No risk. -- http://www.forex4free.org/?ref=inversor Facil , seguro, sin riesgo , Inscribete y gana 200$ Easy. Safe. No risk.
