Does it seem ironic to others that documents titled "Request for
Comments" can't be quoted while making comments on them?
(This is a flame of the current IETF, which has goals contrary to the
people who originally designed the Internet.)
--
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Oh dear, Ted T'so just uploaded it and assumed maintainership...
> I assume what was meant was that a prospective DD was interested in
> adopting the package?
But Ted T'so could be his sponsor now that he has hijacked judy.
I've cc-ed Eduardo Cermeño as I think he's not on this list yet.
Act
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:26:18AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> In another post I mentioned that the only reason I have a local mail daemon
> setup on some machines is to allow reportbug to work. It occurs to me that
> perhaps (*PERHAPS*) during the install we could query:
what about cro
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Package name: par2
> Version : 0.2
> Upstream Author : Peter Brian Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://parchive.sorceforge.net/
> * License : (GPL)
> Description : Parity Archive v2
> This utility applies th
On Sunday 13 July 2003 02:24, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> I would lean towards exim4 configured for local delivery only. It is a
> sane default for just about every system. The admins who know they want
> another MTA can easily replace exim and the users who have no clue what a
> MTA does have
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 11:44:38AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > "AT" == Anthony Towns writes:
> BB> Hmm? Are you saying that sarge is definitively well over a
> BB> year away?
> AT> If he is, he's wrong.
> Hubris! Famous last words! The pride what cometh before a fall!
Not hu
On Sunday 13 July 2003 06:26, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
>
> I know, but that location (/var/mail/root) is discouraged, isn't it? The
> admin shouldn't read his/her mail under uid 0. That's why I think that
> exim should ask this question when it is configured for local delivery (or
> in "newbie" mode
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:10:39PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Package: libvibrant6-gl
> Depends: whatever, libgl1
> Replaces: libvibrant6
> Conflicts: libvibrant6
>
> (no Provides:)
>
> And in the shlibs for libvibrant6:
>
> libvibrant 6 libvibrant
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 06:51:57PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Note furthermore that there's a certain assumption about upstream not
> being of the "it's binary forwards compatible" persuassion (what
> happens if upstream decides to introduce a new function call but not
> modify the SON
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-13
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: par2
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Peter Brian Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://parchive.sorceforge.net/
* License : (GPL)
Description : Parity Archive
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Right. I would moreover like for the GL variant to supersede the
> non-GL variant when both are installed, since that's what the
> GL-neutral higher-level libraries will be linking against.
Let me sketch something for you...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:42, Nenad Antonic wrote:
> However, it looks like initrd/cramfs is not yet stable enough, and
> building a number of different kernels for different architectures might
> be simpler solution for my needs at the moment.
The main problem with the initrd is that it is ver
> "AT" == Anthony Towns writes:
BB> Hmm? Are you saying that sarge is definitively well over a
BB> year away?
AT> If he is, he's wrong.
Hubris! Famous last words! The pride what cometh before a fall!
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So to restate, you have two libraries which export similar ABIs, but not
> identical; the GL-enabled version of the library exports additional
> entry points which are only of use to a subset of callers. You want to
> supply distinct .so links for each
Sebastian Rittau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:51:07PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
>> It seems then that our options are as follows.
>>
>> (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix.
>> (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is not
>> release-critica
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are you trying to use initrd anyway? It's much easier to build
> the drivers into the kernel.
Now, I must agree with that.
At the begining, it looked as a good idea to compile one kernel which
can be used on scsi and ide systems, etc. S
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:00:10 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> If you installed exim4 and used frontend=noninteractive or just press
> on every debconf-question you should end up exactly with this:
> local delivery only.
In this case, it was the exim3 package, which had a non-debconf
configuration
On 13-Jul-03, 07:48 (CDT), Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> If you installed exim4 and used frontend=noninteractive or just press
> on every debconf-question you should end up exactly with this:
> local delivery only.
But that's several more questions that many users, especi
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Anyway I think it can be unlikely to remove empty files when they are
> linked from others files. E.g. a .html having a link to another empty
> .html. In such a case having the empty html file is better than having
> no html at all to avoid future browser complains.
I t
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:08:03PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > > Bah, the Technical Committee takes months, sometimes over a year, to do
> > > something even as seemingly uncontroversial as voting in opposition to
> > > whichever solution Branden Robinson proposes.
> > So? This is more than eno
Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> Since woody didn't release with exim4 at all, I'm all for releasing with
> exim 3 by default
Releaseing with exim 3 is not an option unless someone converts it to
use debconf for configuration. Sorry.
>, having exim 4 there for people who want it, and then
> in sarge+1
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:07:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> This strikes me as a good idea, unless someone has a legit reason to
> include an empty documentations file in a package. So speak up if you
> do. Maybe a zero length TODO could be considered to have some implied
> meaning, but I've seen
Micha? Politowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:21:05 +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> [...]
>> Fair enough. Is the upgrade path from exim3 to exim4 utterly smooth?
>> If not, we should make it optional which to choose, if it is utterly
>> smooth then let's have exim4 by de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
unsubscribe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBPxFZJRPJoalLltY2AQKh3Qf9FkHTBo1K4/hFdqZL23SMNZNCoUhMkb8/
yleJvILBgWKbi57M2hshLDovSpJIHPKA7tFdHatqRDHi8pRGv0JWnGSDKr3pxtnj
62voIwpkRjIvjtdnqPPBdLsaxnfPhvOwl+S9CXaEBNa1F
debian-devel@lists.debian.org $BMM(B
(B
$B#3!$#1#5#01_$G#7#9#6!$#0#0#01_2T$0J}K!!*L5NA$G65$($^$9!*(B
(B
$B%a!<%k$NAw\$7$/$O$3$A$i$r$4Mw$/[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-(B
(Bhttp://www.soho-7.com/cgi-bin/c2/index.cgi?ID=C-0073200&PG=index
Sebastian Kapfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:50:07 +0200, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>> Enough of a Linux system assumes that a MTA is present that not
>> installing any would be wrong. Asking an user which MTA they want is
>> equally wrong because many users have no clue w
Daniel Silverstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Fair enough. Is the upgrade path from exim3 to exim4 utterly smooth?
It is not utterly smooth but as smooth as I could make it.
> If not, we should make it optional which to choose, if it is utterly
> smooth then let's have exim4 by default, o
On Sun, 2003-07-13 at 19:55, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:30:08 +0200, ZHAO Wei wrote:
> >
> > I, for one, don't want there be a MTA by default. At least not a running
> > daemon there.
>
> What about inetd (which is IMHO the current default)?
Indeed I don't want inetd on my
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:17:50PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > > Answer 1: Nobody asked the right to change the content of the file
> > > RFC234
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:55:12 +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:30:08 +0200, ZHAO Wei wrote:
>
> >> So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
> >
> > I, for one, don't want there be a MTA by default. At least not a running
> > daemon there.
>
> What about inetd (which is I
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:21:05 +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
[...]
> Fair enough. Is the upgrade path from exim3 to exim4 utterly smooth?
>
> If not, we should make it optional which to choose, if it is utterly
> smooth then let's have exim4 by default, or at minimum a 'one of' choice
> of things
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:30:08 +0200, ZHAO Wei wrote:
>> So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
>
> I, for one, don't want there be a MTA by default. At least not a running
> daemon there.
What about inetd (which is IMHO the current default)?
--
Best Regards, | Hi! I'm a .signature viru
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:50:07 +0200, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Enough of a Linux system assumes that a MTA is present that not
> installing any would be wrong. Asking an user which MTA they want is
> equally wrong because many users have no clue what one is.
I strongly support this. A week or
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:25:02PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Daniel Silverstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since woody didn't release with exim4 at all, I'm all for releasing with
> > exim 3 by default, having exim 4 there for people who want it, and then
> > in sarge+1 swapping it over f
Daniel Silverstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:31:51AM +0200, Joey Hess wrote:
>> For sarge we have two options for the default MTA in base:
>> a. replace exim with exim4
>> b. no MTA installed by default, add a MTA task
>> So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
>
Joey Hess writes:
> So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
IMO yes.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:17:50PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > Answer 1: Nobody asked the right to change the content of the file
> > RFC23423.txt and distribute it as is. This would clearly be wrong and
> >
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:06:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Anybody else get a bad cryptographic signature on the message to which I
> am replying?
AOL.
--
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 13 July 2003 06:32, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:14:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > To punt this to the Technical Committee is to stall a solution for
> > potentially a very long time.
> >
>
> My suggestion: Add a "Recommends: libqt3-compat-headers" to libqt3-dev.
This is indeed what I would add were I to do an NMU, and I would
include it in the list of solutions that I see as satisfactory were I to
put it to the TC.
b.
> > Bah, the Technical Committee takes months, sometimes over a year, to do
> > something even as seemingly uncontroversial as voting in opposition to
> > whichever solution Branden Robinson proposes.
>
> So? This is more than enough time. This problem is to be fixed in sarge ...
Hmm? Are you s
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:17:50PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> Answer 1: Nobody asked the right to change the content of the file
> RFC23423.txt and distribute it as is. This would clearly be wrong and
> it would be ok to ask for a file rename, for a clear notice changes
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:31:51AM +0200, Joey Hess wrote:
> For sarge we have two options for the default MTA in base:
> a. replace exim with exim4
> b. no MTA installed by default, add a MTA task
> So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
Since woody didn't release with exim4 at all, I'm all
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:51:07PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> It seems then that our options are as follows.
>
> (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix.
> (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is not release-critical.
> (iii) Resort to the technical committee.
> (iv) Keep
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:14:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Bah, the Technical Committee takes months, sometimes over a year, to do
> something even as seemingly uncontroversial as voting in opposition to
> whichever solution Branden Robinson proposes.
So? This is more than enough time. T
On Sun, 2003-07-13 at 16:31, Joey Hess wrote:
> For sarge we have two options for the default MTA in base:
>
> a. replace exim with exim4
> b. no MTA installed by default, add a MTA task
>
> So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
I, for one, don't want there be a MTA by default. At least no
Ok, people. Even if I'm not native speaker, I'll now try to sum up the
flamewar we just had about the RFC licencing. Don't get me wrong here. In
fact I personnaly have no fixed opinion about this. I just want to be able
to fix the tons of RC bugs involved by this issue, close them, get other
bugs d
> I wouldn't do it. Suppose you were the Qt maintainer, and you made a
> technical choice that some people disagree with
You mean a technical choice with a significant negative impact on users that
breaks compatibility with upstream and every other linux distribution
and that most (not some) peo
Ben Burton writes:
> Hi ho, it's time for another rant from me regarding the
> libqt3-compat-headers split.
> (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix.
> (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is not
> release-critical.
> (iii) Resort to the technical committee.
> (iv
On Sunday 13 July 2003 01:31, Joey Hess wrote:
> For sarge we have two options for the default MTA in base:
>
> a. replace exim with exim4
> b. no MTA installed by default, add a MTA task
>
> So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
I would lean towards exim4 configured for local delivery only.
David B Harris wrote:
> However, if b) is chosen ... doesn't this cry for a category, not a
> task? Or perhaps even a one-off frontend that lets one select from the
> list of 'grep-available -FProvides -sPackage mail-transport-agent'?
Not really, that's what aptitude is for. You would chose the ta
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> How does one discover these templates then? Is this a
> hit-or-miss effort based on the packages I may have installed on my
> machine? Seems to me that makes it very likely that the user shall be
> bombarded with identical questions on install then; I think this
>
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:31:51 +0200
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For sarge we have two options for the default MTA in base:
>
> a. replace exim with exim4
> b. no MTA installed by default, add a MTA task
>
> So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
I would opt for a) personally. Exim
For sarge we have two options for the default MTA in base:
a. replace exim with exim4
b. no MTA installed by default, add a MTA task
So do we want there to be a MTA by default?
--
see shy jo
pgphtlTJ6VHOZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Anybody else get a bad cryptographic signature on the message to which I
> am replying?
Yes.
pgpZxCz9N79cb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:40:06 -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 01:20:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Given that the check is done before asking any question in the
>> postinst, if you do install all three of the packages, the first
>> one whose posti
> I suppose there's always the option of NMUing, and hoping it sticks --
> then taking it up with the tech ctte. if it doesn't...
This is more or less what I was thinking of. The impression I get is
that the Qt maintainers have shifted their stances on this issue from
defense to apathy. Though
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:14:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> To punt this to the Technical Committee is to stall a solution for
> potentially a very long time.
> If you're certain you're right, and you can get the NMU correct, the
> only people who will complain will be the package maintai
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 11:51:18PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:51:07PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > It seems then that our options are as follows.
>
> > (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix.
> > (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is no
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 09:13:06AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:07:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > This strikes me as a good idea, unless someone has a legit reason to
> > include an empty documentations file in a package. So speak up if you
> > do. Maybe a zero length
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 11:20:57AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> So, who does DAM report to?
In actual fact, no one in particular.
> Who can do something about this extremely long wait?
Theoretically, the DPL.
--
G. Branden Robinson| "To be is to do" -- Plato
Debian
Anybody else get a bad cryptographic signature on the message to which I
am replying?
--
G. Branden Robinson| The noble soul has reverence for
Debian GNU/Linux | itself.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://people.debia
62 matches
Mail list logo
