Hi Robert,
On 24.11.2013 23:07, Robert Millan wrote:
>>> This would simplify things a lot. We could move all of them to libzfs1
>>> and then we'd only have 2 binary packages (plus 2 udebs).
>>>
>>
>> yes, that works.
>
> Is everyone okay with this approach?
>
> Arno, what do you think?
this is
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
FreeBSD license http://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=License:FreeBSD
(#FreeBSD) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD
This is the ori
Hi,
On 24/11/13 22:38, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> Look the changelog:
> http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/g/gnome-shell/gnome-shell_3.8.4-5_changelog
>
> Now Gnome Shell and GDM can run for us?
I don't think it has been tested yet in jessie/sid, but in theory they
It's not just lack of interest, they purposely want to make their
product unportable. Too bad for them, I guess... it's not like GNOME is
the only available DE.
Look the changelog:
http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/g/gnome-shell/gnome-shell_3.8.4-5_changelog
Now Gnome Shell
On 24/11/2013 22:10, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> So we can do it as long as they're all in a _library_ package? I.e. not
>> in zfsutils.
>>
>
> correct.
>
>> This would simplify things a lot. We could move all of them to libzfs1
>> and then we'd only have 2 binary packages (plus 2 udebs).
>>
>
>
On 24 November 2013 20:24, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 24/11/2013 15:12, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> That does not impose one binary package per library though. You can
>> ship multiple shared libraries in a single binary package (each with
>> it's own soname). The requirement is that the debian pack
On 24/11/2013 16:49, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote:
>> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is official Debian port, and thus Debian packages
>> and packagers support kFreeBSD.
> Sorry, but that's not what I see...I dont see any interest from Gnome
> maintainers for kFreeBSD for example, just throw the job for
On 24/11/2013 15:12, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> That does not impose one binary package per library though. You can
> ship multiple shared libraries in a single binary package (each with
> it's own soname). The requirement is that the debian package name
> versions SONAMES collectively (as in if any
On 24/11/2013 14:56, Arno Töll wrote:
> We provide those libraries by policy. The Debian policy requires that
> libraries are proper versioned and the name of the binary package
> changes whenever the SONAME changes. This does not really apply to us
> here, because we're the only consumers of these
Wait Beta 4, put in sid and allow the migration to testing, but not
include it in installer yet, at least while RC is not released...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://li
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is official Debian port, and thus Debian packages
and packagers support kFreeBSD.
Sorry, but that's not what I see...I dont see any interest from Gnome
maintainers for kFreeBSD for example, just throw the job for kFreeBSD
porters =/.
Debian is not a GNU project, and does n
On 24 November 2013 13:56, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 24.11.2013 13:26, Robert Millan wrote:
>> IIRC we don't provide -dev packages because their ABI is not stable.
>> Nobody outside of zfsutils uses them, and judging by the dependencies in
>> upstream source tree, it seems there are no
Hi Robert,
On 24.11.2013 13:26, Robert Millan wrote:
> IIRC we don't provide -dev packages because their ABI is not stable.
> Nobody outside of zfsutils uses them, and judging by the dependencies in
> upstream source tree, it seems there are no candidates to use them
> (other than zfsutils):
We p
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:22:23 +0100
Source: freebsd-glue
Binary: freebsd-glue
Architecture: source kfreebsd-amd64
Version: 0.1.15
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: GNU/kFreeBSD Maintainers
Changed-By: Robert Mi
Robert Millan writes:
> On 23/11/2013 22:59, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> * eclipse
>> for kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386.
>
> I'm surprised that it builds. Last time I tried eclipse_3.8.1-4, a small
> patch was needed (see attachment).
>
> Any idea if this is still useful? I can't see why JAVA
freebsd-glue_0.1.15_kfreebsd-amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
freebsd-glue_0.1.15.dsc
freebsd-glue_0.1.15.tar.gz
freebsd-glue_0.1.15_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:38:41 +0100
Source: kfreebsd-kernel-headers
Binary: kfreebsd-kernel-headers
Architecture: source kfreebsd-amd64
Version: 9.2~5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: GNU/kFreeBSD Maintainers
kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~5_kfreebsd-amd64.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~5.dsc
kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~5.tar.gz
kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~5_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host
Is there any reason to keep all those separate library packages?
libnvpair1
libnvpair1-udeb
libumem1
libumem1-udeb
libuutil1
libuutil1-udeb
libzfs1
libzfs1-udeb
libzpool1
libzpool1-udeb
Currently they're a waste of space. Specially in D-I where each udeb
consumes additional metadata.
IIRC we do
On 24/11/2013 02:45, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 23/11/2013 22:53, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> kfreebsd-amd64
>> kfreebsd-i386
>
> Most of the bugs affecting one of these also affect the other. I think
> it makes sense to add a single tag to cover both.
FWIW, I think dpkg resolved this quite nicely by
Now that they're already making BETA releases, should we put snapshots
in unstable already?
Allow them to migrate to testing?
Include them in D-I boot menu?
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact lis
On 16/11/2013 17:26, Robert Millan wrote:
> See:
>
> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=243023
>
> Given that MAXLOGNAME is mirrored in and available to
> userland, this opens a few questions:
I've audited the getlogin / getlogin_r / setlogin family of functions.
My findings
On 24/11/2013 06:02, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> Take that up with FreeBSD Project, the upstream of the FreeBSD kernel.
> There is nothing that Debian can do here.
>
> Debian simply takes upstreams and puts them together in a usable
> binary distribution.
Furthermore, we have very good relation wit
23 matches
Mail list logo
