On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> > I think it would be better to drop the sections altogether and use a
> > keyword-based system someone suggested a few months ago. The advantages
> > would be:
> > - ultimate fine-grainedness (?)
> > - no dillemas
> Users need a hierachical layout in order to find software. Keyword
> by themselves are not that much useful since they would be only appropiate
> to the language used. Several disadvantages:
>
> 1.- more difficult to translate than sections
Not true if the keywords are limited to a specifi
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 05:07:56PM +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I want to understand why the specific said: "C++ immature" ...
>
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/cppmapping.html
The ABI (Application Binary Inteface) for C++ is still in flux. A
st
>
> I want to understand why the specific said: "C++ immature" ...
>
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/cppmapping.html
>
> Would KDE be excluded based on this immaturity ?
>
> Thanks,
> Giovanni
Any C++ app is problematic today.
This went somewhat off-topic, but head
Previously Matt Wilson wrote:
> To:
>
> binbinLegacy uid/gid
> daemon daemon Legacy uid/gid
Definitely agreed.
Wichert.
--
_
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Previously Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
>I want to understand why the specific said: "C++ immature" ...
>
>http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/cppmapping.html
The C++ ABI is still evolving and changing every few gcc releases.
Wichert.
--
Il lun, 2002-04-22 alle 16:18, Rune B. Broberg ha scritto:
[snip]
> 0.9 compared to 0.89 would then be the same as 0.90 compared to 0.89?
> Not good.
NO. 0.9 < 0.89 because 89 > 9.
--
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Develope
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:15:45 +0200
Javier Fern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Users need a hierachical layout in order to find software.
> Keyword by themselves are not that much useful since they would be
> only appropiate to the language used. Several disadvantages:
>
> 1.- more difficult to
> > I think it would be better to drop the sections altogether and use a
> > keyword-based system someone suggested a few months ago. The advantages
i suggested this a few months ago. unfortunately i havn't reworked my
proposal yet, nor did i make a proof of concept especially for my new
enhanceme
"Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> Package: general
> Some samples of how sections could be divided:
Note that there are some special sections, that have
very clear-cut definitions. Namely:
libs: lib* packages go there
devel: lib*-dev packages go th
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:13:54AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 10:37:58AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > AFAIK, most packages which use debconf work ok when debconf is not
> > > installed.
> >
> > This one does '. /usr/share/
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:15:23PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> > I think it would be better to drop the sections altogether and use a
> > keyword-based system someone suggested a few months ago. The
> > advantages would be:
> > - ultimate fine-grainedness (?)
> > - no dillemas
George Kraft IV wrote:
The LSB's bin==1 requirement has been removed from the specification by the
LSB's newly formed "Specification Authority". Hopefully this will resolve the
user/group issue for Debian. The spec-auth group will meet biweekly to resolve
issues submitted to them; however, since
Jean-Michel Kelbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> "The file in kde-i18n is old. KBiff *used* to be included in kdenetwork
> a long time ago and there was some translations in kde-i18n as a result.
> When I removed KBiff from kdenetwork, those .mo files were never
> removed."
>
> S
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:07:07PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * David Starner
> | On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:18:41AM +0200, Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote:
> | > So to my mind kbiff.mo should be removed from kde-i18n-* package, isn't
> | > it ?
> |
> | Why bring it up here? Stuff like this should
The definitions need to be corrected. I would change:
binbinAdministrative user with some restrictions
daemon daemon Subprocess special privileges
To:
binbinLegacy uid/gid
daemon daemon Legacy uid/gid
Cheers,
Matt
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:33:36AM -0500, George Kraft IV wro
The LSB's bin==1 requirement has been removed from the specification by the
LSB's newly formed "Specification Authority". Hopefully this will resolve the
user/group issue for Debian. The spec-auth group will meet biweekly to resolve
issues submitted to them; however, since there is a backlog, the
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 09:23, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 08:27:09PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
> > > Does anyone know the whereabouts of my AM Jordi Mallach ? I've sent him
> > > 2 emails about two weeks ago and heard nothing from him ever since. Is
> > > he on a vacation or so
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Rune B. Broberg wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:58:21AM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> > Many developers don't consider those identical, though. I wonder if
> > fields should be zero-padded to equal width before comparison? So
> > comparing 0.01 and 0.1,
> I think it would be better to drop the sections altogether and use a
> keyword-based system someone suggested a few months ago. The advantages
> would be:
> - ultimate fine-grainedness (?)
> - no dillemas about where to put packages which fit in more than
>section (like x11 net-related prog
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 03:46:06PM +0200, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena wrote:
> As a suggestion, I would use the layout used by either the current Menu
> system, the GNOME or KDE proyect for the layout of applications together
> with some of our "special" sections (base).
I think it would be bet
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:58:21AM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Agustin Martin Domingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > point in versions is not decimal separator, but major or minor version
> > separator. So
> >
> > 0.1 == 0.01 == 0.1
> >
> > all means
> >
> > major version=0
> > first minor
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:58:21AM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Agustin Martin Domingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > point in versions is not decimal separator, but major or minor version
> > separator. So
> > 0.1 == 0.01 == 0.1
> > all means
> > major version=0
> > first minor version=1
> Ma
Agustin Martin Domingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> point in versions is not decimal separator, but major or minor version
> separator. So
>
> 0.1 == 0.01 == 0.1
>
> all means
>
> major version=0
> first minor version=1
Many developers don't consider those identical, though. I wonder if
fi
> What exactly do you mean by numerically? Is 0.1 == 0.01 == 0.1 ==
> 1.0 == 10 == 10? What should be watched out for?
>From the debian policy manual (section 4):
"The strings are compared from left to right.
First the initial part of each string consisting entirely of non-digit
charac
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 144046 wishlist
Bug#144046: general: Sections are not finely grained
Severity set to `wishlist'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, D
Package: general
Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-22
Severity: important
The current sections layout in Debian is mostly useless due to
the large size of the package database (in woody +- 9000, in potato
+- 4500). This is due to sections not being refined enough (we have not
changed them in the las
Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > that's right. dpkg compares numbers ... numerically. so 0.01 and 0.1 are
> > equivalent. then -6 > -3.
>
> What exactly do you mean by numerically? Is 0.1 == 0.01 == 0.1 ==
> 1.0 == 10 == 10? What should be w
commence Alan Shutko quotation:
> Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> that's right. dpkg compares numbers ... numerically. so 0.01 and
>> 0.1 are equivalent. then -6 > -3.
>
> What exactly do you mean by numerically?
Leading zeroes after the decimal point are ignored, by the lo
Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> that's right. dpkg compares numbers ... numerically. so 0.01 and 0.1 are
> equivalent. then -6 > -3.
What exactly do you mean by numerically? Is 0.1 == 0.01 == 0.1 ==
1.0 == 10 == 10? What should be watched out for?
--
Alan Shutko <[E
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Hi, i'm creating the cvs-autoreleasedeb package, and the version is
> growing, so I started at 0.01-1 and now I'm on 0.1-3. But when I tried
> to install it i received the following warning:
Call it 0.10-3.
Ivo
--
Norton SystemWorks 2002 includes a file erasure pr
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 08:27:09PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
> > Does anyone know the whereabouts of my AM Jordi Mallach ? I've sent him
> > 2 emails about two weeks ago and heard nothing from him ever since. Is
> > he on a vacation or something ? Or maybe my emails didn't get throught
> > to hi
* David Starner
| On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:18:41AM +0200, Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote:
| > So to my mind kbiff.mo should be removed from kde-i18n-* package, isn't
| > it ?
|
| Why bring it up here? Stuff like this should usually be resolved
| privately maintainer to maintainer. debian-kde would
Il lun, 2002-04-22 alle 13:51, Daniel Ruoso ha scritto:
> dpkg - aviso: rebaixando cvs-autoreleasedeb de 0.01-6 para 0.1-3.
that's right. dpkg compares numbers ... numerically. so 0.01 and 0.1 are
equivalent. then -6 > -3.
--
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contac
Hi, i'm creating the cvs-autoreleasedeb package, and the version is
growing, so I started at 0.01-1 and now I'm on 0.1-3. But when I tried
to install it i received the following warning:
Did I miss something?
dpkg - warning: downgrading cvs-autoreleasedeb from 0.01-6 to 0.1-3.
--
signature.as
dpkg - aviso: rebaixando cvs-autoreleasedeb de 0.01-6 para 0.1-3.
--
Atenciosamente,
Daniel Ruoso
Desenvolvimento de Sistemas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oktiva Telecomunicações e Informática
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:02:07AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > It's really ok at all that a preinst depends on debconf?
>
> It's mentioned in debconf-devel(8), so ...
I think the real question is -- why does a package need to ask a question
(via debconf) in preinst? I can't imagine but a few c
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:40:19PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> [debiandoc-sgml] now builds PDF and PS output in a bi-stable loop
> (so various Makefiles can now be cleaned up and bug #134701 is closed).
I've no idea about code or what you mean by "bi-stable", so excuse me if I'm
asking a
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 10:37:58AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > It's really ok at all that a preinst depends on debconf?
>
> It's mentioned in debconf-devel(8), so ...
I meant "depends" as in "fails horribly and not gracefully when
debconf is not inst
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 12:43:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > static /**/const char *const rcsid[] = { (const char *)rcsid, "\100(#)" msg
> > }
>
> I'm not sure what the \100 is for (why not have it a literal @ sign?
> something excessively clever is going on there), but I suspect that i
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 10:37:58AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> It's really ok at all that a preinst depends on debconf?
It's mentioned in debconf-devel(8), so ...
> AFAIK, most packages which use debconf work ok when debconf is not
> installed.
This one does '. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule' (
Hello all,
at 3.1.8-10.2 segfaults:
cadmium~$ at 04252002
warning: commands will be executed using /bin/sh
Segmentation fault
cadmium~$ at -Vl
at version 3.1.8
Bug reports to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Koenig)
Debian 2.2. In Woody this seems to be solved. I have no time to look into
this - sorry
It's really ok at all that a preinst depends on debconf?
AFAIK, most packages which use debconf work ok when debconf is not installed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Mark Purcell wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in replying. But I didn't receive your response directly
> (by default the BTS doesn't send followup messages to the bug submitter) .
Sorry, hope you get it directly now ...
> I'm running KDE. icewm also appears to need the full path
Am 21.04.02 um 16:08:17 schrieb Emanuele Aina:
> Someone (I don't remember who) said that odd numbers are better than
> even numbers, because summing or multipling even numbers you can only
> get even numbers...
Multiplying odd number always gives odd numbers. Not much gain.
Bye,
Mike
--
|=
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:18:41AM +0200, Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote:
> So to my mind kbiff.mo should be removed from kde-i18n-* package, isn't
> it ?
Why bring it up here? Stuff like this should usually be resolved
privately maintainer to maintainer. debian-kde would also be
appropriate, I suppose
Am Montag, 22. April 2002 09:18 schrieb Jean-Michel Kelbert:
> Hi,
>
> I made a package from kbiff : a mail notification utility.
> The source code include locales files : kbiff.mo
> However this file is also in kde-i18n-*. Then when I tried to installed
> the package I made, dpkg stop because it t
Hello
I've uploaded a new revision of the `autofs' package. It has been
built successfully on each platform except on arm.
The output log can be found at:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=autofs&ver=3.9.99-4.0.0pre10-1&arch=arm&stamp=1019355383&file=log&as=raw
The problem is that autoconf
Hi,
I made a package from kbiff : a mail notification utility.
The source code include locales files : kbiff.mo
However this file is also in kde-i18n-*. Then when I tried to installed
the package I made, dpkg stop because it tried to overwrite kbiff.mo
from kde-i18n-fr.
I asked the upstream author
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:18:09PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > console-common is part of base so changing the preinst at this point
> > of the freeze is not a good idea. Therefore, I will go ahead and add
> > a Pre-Depends on debco
50 matches
Mail list logo
