Bug#182474: KDE metapackage (was: Where is kdenetwork, where is Chris?)
> ... and the > prospect of a simple kde metapackage for easy installation for newbies seems > a farfetched dream. I'll adopt meta-kde if Chris isn't taking it (it's currently orphaned, though there's no wnpp bug AFAICT). If I don't hear otherwise in a few days I'll fix it up and do a new upload. Ben.
Re: GAP's (non)freeness ?
Some more questions : http://www.gap-system.org/~gap/Info/faq.html#Obtain4 2.4: Are there RPMS or DEB files for Linux? We would like to be able to offer source and binary distributions packaged for the popular Linux package formats (Red Hat and Debian mainly) but so far we have not been able to find the manpower to prepare these. Well, you said that you know about the debs, and you are not happy with them. >>2.3: Why do you use ZOO? ZIP is so much nicer. >>The problem is that many Windows and Mac users do not have reliable tools >>to unpack gzipped tar archives, while we have a single source file that >>provides everyone with unzoo at the cost of one extra step. So, my proposal is to you : 1. I will update the license in all the files (putting a copyright headers on the files) 2. Help create updated DEB out of the CVS wait, they are now available 4.3 is here : http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200212/msg01214.html 3. I will supply you with cvs patches to fix the copyright issue. 4. The debian source packages are great, because they can be used as a normal tgz. That way you can avoid this entire zoo issue. TGZ works fine on all systems. please advice as how you want to handle this? mike = James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: GAP's (non)freeness ?
Thanks for the offers, and obviously we can't stop you taking the released version of GAP and repackaging it as you wish, but I think we'll take out time and think through how we'd like to proceed on this one. GAP is a big complicated piece of software (or set of pieces) and there are lots of things we need to think about: 1. Which files are actually source files? This is not always obvious 2. How we would break the system up into packages and what the dependencies between them would be? 3. What paths, configuration options and so on to use for a Debian or RPM version? 4. Whether it is time to abandon zoo (which is becoming troublesome from a compressing side on MacOS)? 5. Version and bugfix numbering issues. We say that GAP is copyright us and distributed under the GPL. and we have a one-line copyright header in many files. We include a copy of the GPL In the distro. I am happy to change any old language which might be seen as incompatible with the GPL. I am not sure why this is not adequate. I am not willing to rush into adopting any particular scheme of packaging or copyright labelling without discussion among the developers and some thought, just because it is the convention. Many of the developers will be meeting around the end of the month. We can discuss these issues then and consider what changes to make for the next major release, probably in the summer. Steve Linton > So, my proposal is to you : > 1. I will update the license in all the files (putting a copyright > headers on the files) > > 2. Help create updated DEB out of the CVS > wait, they are now available 4.3 is here : > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200212/msg01214.html > > 3. I will supply you with cvs patches to fix the copyright issue. > > 4. The debian source packages are great, because they can be used as a > normal tgz. That way you can avoid this entire zoo issue. TGZ works > fine on all systems. > > please advice as how you want to handle this? > > mike -- Steve LintonSchool of Computer Science & Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Computational Algebra University of St AndrewsTel +44 (1334) 463269 http://www.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~sal Fax +44 (1334) 463278
Re: GAP's (non)freeness ?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks for the offers, and obviously we can't stop you taking the > released > version of GAP and repackaging it as you wish, but I think we'll take > out > time and think through how we'd like to proceed on this one. That is why I am asking. To be honest, I have a huge open task list : http://wiki.dotgnu.org/DotGNUPeople_2fMikeDuPont I dont want to add too much more. >From the mails that I have seen, and from the FAQ: I conclude the following : Correct me if i am wrong 1. You do not support the current debian packaging because there is no mention of it on the webpage. 2. You are not aware of how far it is, it seems to have 3.4 covered in testing. > GAP is a big complicated piece of software (or set of pieces) and > there are > lots of things we need to think about: > > 1. Which files are actually source files? > This is not always obvious Source files are files that are interpreted by a program to produce results. A program. For logical programs, and if you put them under the GPL, then you get into a very tricky licensing issue. That means you cannot make non-free tools that are derived works of the GPLed code. If you are getting into the issue of logical and reflective programming languages, then this opens up the same issues that I have been researching into with the introspector : seem my latest mail on fsl-discuss : http://lists.alt.org/pipermail/fsl-discuss/2003-February/000718.html This may be interesting to you : http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:6391:200301:bhkfkonfkjemkcebmknk#b > 2. How we would break the system up into packages and what the > dependencies > between them would be? you can make different debs for each lib. Debian will handle all those packages. Take a look at perl. > 3. What paths, configuration options and so on to use for a Debian or > RPM version? There are standards for debian, it is handled by the installer routine. > 4. Whether it is time to abandon zoo (which is becoming troublesome > from a > compressing side on MacOS)? Well, zoo is not compatible with debian packages, the standard for dpkgs are tgz. I would suggest that you use debian source packages for your standard source package distro, they are the best. > 5. Version and bugfix numbering issues. ok, that is your decision. > > We say that GAP is copyright us and distributed under the GPL. and we > have a > one-line copyright header in many files. We include a copy of the GPL > In the > distro. I am happy to change any old language which might be seen as > incompatible with > the GPL. I am not sure why this is not adequate. you mean the language of the license statement? I am just offering to put a standard header. You dont need it. > I am not willing to rush into adopting any particular scheme of > packaging or copyright labelling without discussion among the > developers and > some thought, just because it is the convention. that is why i asked. ;) > > Many of the developers will be meeting around the end of the month. > We can > discuss these issues then and consider what changes to make for the > next major > release, probably in the summer. > looking forward to hearing from you. mike = James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: GAP's (non)freeness ?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:49:09AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote: > Correct me if i am wrong > 1. You do not support the current debian packaging > because there is no mention of it on the webpage. > > 2. You are not aware of how far it is, it seems to have 3.4 covered in > testing. I think it is rather a documentation/website issue that anything else. Changing the GAP license was a huge work for the GAP team and there is probably still piece of documentation that need to be updated. Switching PARI/GP to the GPL take about one year to the PARI team, so I am not surprised it take sometime to the GAP team since GAP is larger than PARI. The GAP team is fully aware of the Debian packages, only they do not have a Debian machine to test them. I have reported other minor issues in the website to them in the past. Please do not bother them more that it is neccessary. Cheers, Bill.
Bug#122460: marked as done (c-cpp-reference: bad package name)
Your message dated Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:47:30 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#122460: fixed in c-cpp-reference 2.0.2-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Dec 2001 22:47:33 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 04 16:47:33 2001 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from anorien.asf.alaska.edu [137.229.34.38] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 16BOLc-zq-00; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:47:33 -0600 Received: from bkerin by anorien.asf.alaska.edu with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 16BOLG-0005ml-00; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:47:10 -0900 From: Britton Leo Kerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: c-cpp-reference: bad package name X-Reportbug-Version: 1.37 X-Mailer: reportbug 1.37 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:47:10 -0900 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: Britton Leo Kerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: c-cpp-reference Version: N/A; reported 2001-12-04 Severity: normal The package name seems to imply general c and c++ documentation, and in no way indicated that it is for use with KDevelop. -- System Information Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux anorien 2.4.16 #1 Tue Nov 27 12:37:49 AKST 2001 i586 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE= --- Received: (at 122460-close) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Mar 2003 16:52:36 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 04 10:52:36 2003 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from auric.debian.org [206.246.226.45] (mail) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 18qFee-YV-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:52:36 -0600 Received: from katie by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18qFZi-00058p-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:47:30 -0500 From: Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.32 $ Subject: Bug#122460: fixed in c-cpp-reference 2.0.2-1 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:47:30 -0500 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of c-cpp-reference, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1.diff.gz to pool/main/c/c-cpp-reference/c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1.diff.gz c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1.dsc to pool/main/c/c-cpp-reference/c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1.dsc c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1_all.deb to pool/main/c/c-cpp-reference/c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1_all.deb c-cpp-reference_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/c/c-cpp-reference/c-cpp-reference_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated c-cpp-reference package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:09 +0100 Source: c-cpp-reference Binary: c-cpp-reference Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.2-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Changed-By: Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Description: c-cpp-reference - C and C++ programming reference Closes: 122460 Changes: c-cpp-reference (2.0.2-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New maintainer. * New upstream version. * The reference is now accessible without KDevelop (closes: bug#122460). * Updated description. * Bumped standards-version to 3.5.8. Files: 5b73573a9bc75de691e20281151a2469 654 devel optional c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1.dsc b096b1a6a69bdbcb8072d6ce2e3833c1 1391424 devel optional c-cpp-reference_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz 84408c4330248ffea937f4b310f49c3c 2712 devel optional c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1.diff.gz 7f43aff6df2c882f6b9a7a04460c21ae 946568 devel optional c-cpp-reference_2.0.2-1_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ZNYhw3ao2vG823MRAtwsAJ9J9gwiYXwAtMcNsb4k9Doj0uTzAQCfTUP6 OOPOG7/CW1fx/IxY60hnzr0= =yDau -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#183414: bug: bug and entering numbers
Package: bug Version: 3.3.10.1 Severity: wishlist I am blind and can't see if at the moment when I start bug, my numlock is on or off, so it would be fine if it doesn't continue immediately when asking for severity, since I can miss entering the correct number; i doubt sometimes and then I enter a number using the keys &é"'(¶è!ç in capslock, but using the num keypad is easier. My two options are: - setting the numlock on when answering severity grade, - or you should press enter before it continues to be sure to have entered a number, - or it will beep and doesn't continue as long s you hadn't entered a valid number. -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Kernel Version: Linux bluestar 2.4.18-586tsc #1 Sun Apr 14 10:57:57 EST 2002 i586 unknown Versions of the packages bug depends on: ii bash 2.05a-11 The GNU Bourne Again SHell ii debianutils1.16 Miscellaneous utilities specific to Debian. ii file 3.37-3.1 Determines file type using "magic" numbers
