On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:15:01 -0500, William Ballard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:23PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > I think I'm of the "it's a low-level tool, you can shoot yourself in
> > the foot if you insist on it" school.
>
> Then the problem is source pac
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2005-01-12
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: didiwiki
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Matthew Allum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://didiwiki.org/
* License : GPL
Description : simple WikiWikiWeb implementation with
Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >* New upstream release (closes: #270944, #277543). It's less than two
> > weeks since this was released; may you contract an interesting
> > venereal disease.
>
> Is this really called for in changelogs? Note that the
Steve Greenland dijo [Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 07:00:45PM -0600]:
> Guess what? This is not a paid support forum, or a commercial
> organization. This is a *community*. Communities have cultures,
> traditions, in-jokes, etc. You can either choose to be part of that
> community, and learn to be part of
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:23PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I think I'm of the "it's a low-level tool, you can shoot yourself in
> the foot if you insist on it" school.
Then the problem is source packages force you to use this low level too.
That's why I said I will never install a pack
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:23:19PM +1100, Vincent Ho wrote:
> entitled to be precise when saying that the files are not removed (as
> canvassed by Cameron), but overwritten. Please accept gracefully that
And *I'm* being precise when I said "foo 1.0" is removed and not
replaced. A package is not
What would be the impact on (c)debootstrap of changing the operation
of dpkg? I haven't looked at the exact sequence in a while, but IIRC
those partially-installed states have valid uses in a debootstrap run.
For instance, an unconfigured package may not be ready for normal
use, but may get some
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:43:21AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> They ain't there no more. You can't use them.
William, you aren't using 'remove' in the same sense Scott and Cameron
were. Remember this started when Cameron posited a sequence of
operations that dpkg might be going through. Sc
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
> >
> > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
> > terms of the licenc
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 00:06 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 20:28 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >> >> > Do you *really* think that RTFM means "Go read the documentation,
> >> >> > that's what it's for"?
>
> >> >> Yes, that's w
Em Ter, 2005-01-11 Ãs 23:18 +0100, Pierre Habouzit escreveu:
> The fact is, that I have php skills/knowledges, mysql skills/knowledges,
> but I do not know perl enough, nor python, nor pgsql at all, and it's
> hard to pretend knowing how to write such a policy. And it appears to
> me that gather
Anthony Towns writes:
> If you come at it from the view of "what'll involve the least
> complexity for users, me, and other developers", keeping the same
> package name is usually the right answer.
>
> Bumping the version in the -dev isn't a real problem, but bumping
> random other package names
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
>
> Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
> terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need
> to now (eg dist
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:27:28AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Sensible options are ev56 and ev67; ev5 is not particularly useful,
> since it has the same instruction set as the baseline ev4, only
> different scheduling. -mieee is default anyway on Debian's gcc.
If you have the time, hardw
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:52:58PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> Note that MMX will be removed from the next glibc 2.3.4 upload. It
> will provide only SSE2 (and CMOV, debian-specific for only VIA C3
> processor).
Well, there's hand-crafted MMX code, so it's runtime checked. I guess
that w
On 10-Jan-05, 15:31 (CST), Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Then what about keeping jokes for our private messages to our
> friends ? Your suggestion to go back to classes is, to my standards,
> definetly rude. As it does not add anything to your message, I do not
> understand
On 10-Jan-05, 13:55 (CST), Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland dijo [Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 06:44:24PM -0600]:
> > Not really called for, but I understand the frustration with people who
> > have nothing better to do than nag, and (for the second bug) without
> > even checking t
On 10-Jan-05, 16:47 (CST), Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand -- we need to decide whether we want time-based
> releases. Other projects have had great successes with them, but they
> might not be right for Debian.
Of course, those other projects don't have worry abou
[No Cc needed, as per list policy]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:47:42PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > it's _quite_ true that you don't need to play with include_path.
> > your library has to know it's installed
> > into /usr/share/php/ and either :
> > * use some __FILE__ magic in its requires/
Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 20:28 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> >> > Do you *really* think that RTFM means "Go read the documentation,
>> >> > that's what it's for"?
>> >> Yes, that's what it means.
> IMNSHO, RTFM still has an acerbic edge to it.
Of cours
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:55:21PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Bottom line: I still think that it would be a good idea to be able to
> install different architectures within debian.
i believe that you can try already, with dpkg by using
--force-architecture and --root=dir. this way you could
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:36:22PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > Someone, sometime wrote: (Sorry, lost the attribution at some point)
> > > Some people have pointed out that other PHP programs go to /usr/share
> > > as well. Just to complem
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:27:11AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> No, but it is for a -source package.
? Think about what you're saying. It's "anathema" to install it? Or
"anathema" to force you to install it? I checked and several of the the
*-source packages Suggest the utils; som
El mar, 11-01-2005 a las 02:21 -0500, William Ballard escribiÃ:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:07:52PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > in ways that were not backwards-compatible: automatically pulling in the
> > -utils could render the system networkless before you've even started to
> > *build* the
> it's _quite_ true that you don't need to play with include_path.
> your library has to know it's installed
> into /usr/share/php/ and either :
> * use some __FILE__ magic in its requires/includes
> * already use requires on /*php files
>
> And I assume a lots of intern libraries are do not know
> > /usr/share/appname/php
>
> I go with /usr/share/appname/www to signify that is the web-root of
> my install. Some (redhat-infected people, I guess) use
> appname/htdocs.
>
> > /usr/share/appname/lib
>
> That'd work, or if you're interested in making it a more useful
> library, you could put it
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:04:55PM +0100, Kees Leune wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:20:03 +0100, Pierre Habouzit
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMHO, web apps should be installed in /usr/share/*appname*/
>
> Agree; it seems that most of the responses boil down to that. The next
> question then
Hi Frank!
Good to hear from a debian and TeX master!
On Die, 11 Jan 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> Have you read our draft "Debian teTeX policy"? It's at
> http://people.debian.org/~frank/Debian-TeX-Policy/. I would be grateful
> if you
>
> - would take this as a guideline and adhere to it
>
> - g
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:20:03 +0100, Pierre Habouzit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> as a php web app packager, I should say that the policy is a real mess,
> since there is no policy (and I really hope to become a DD soon, in
> order to work on one with other interested people).
Sign me up. I
Le Mar 11 Janvier 2005 23:10, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > as a php web app packager, I should say that the policy is a real
> > mess, since there is no policy (and I really hope to become a DD
> > soon, in order to work on one with other i
Dear all!
On Mit, 12 Jan 2005, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > > .../bin/-/
> > No, this is a violation of the FHS, which is included by reference in Debian
> > policy. You would, at a minimum, have to use /usr/lib instead of
> > /usr/share.
>
> But wasn't what he's trying to do the original
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> as a php web app packager, I should say that the policy is a real mess,
> since there is no policy (and I really hope to become a DD soon, in
> order to work on one with other interested people).
You don't have to. In fact, you should try your best t
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:20:03PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> as a php web app packager, I should say that the policy is a real mess,
> since there is no policy (and I really hope to become a DD soon, in
> order to work on one with other interested people).
There's no need to be wearing you
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:12:43PM -0800, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> I recall there's a tool that builds small .deb packages that Provides
> some dependency, without doing any actualy work. What package is this
> tool in? Try as I might, I haven't been able to find it.
equivs
Frank
>
> Thanks,
> Sha
Op di, 11-01-2005 te 13:12 -0800, schreef Shaun Jackman:
> I recall there's a tool that builds small .deb packages that Provides
> some dependency, without doing any actualy work. What package is this
> tool in? Try as I might, I haven't been able to find it.
'equivs'
This is really a question fo
I recall there's a tool that builds small .deb packages that Provides
some dependency, without doing any actualy work. What package is this
tool in? Try as I might, I haven't been able to find it.
Thanks,
Shaun
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 03:57, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > * Chris Cheney
> >
> > | Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
> > | strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me
> > | that ff
Once upon a time Scott James Remnant said...
>
> Actually, this vastly depends on the package, but yes, in general an
> unpacked-but-not-configured package is not yet usable. And nor should
> it be.
Then wouldn't it make sense to avoid this state is possible? An unusable
package is obviously of
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:25:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Best would be (if this is allowed according to the policy) to put
> > everything under
> > /usr/share/texlive/
> > where there are
> > .../bin/-/
>
> No, this is a violation of the FHS, which is included by refere
> That's not enough a reason to go with lib/ in Debian IMHO. Have a
> look on share/, and you will find that pratically everything
> arch-independent goes in there. php itself does this.
>
> Another hint that Debian doesn't make much of a distinction between
> executables and data is the lack of
Frank Küster wrote:
Do I understand right that you recommend not to use libfoo1-dev,
libfoo2-dev generally, but that the most recent version should be just
libfoo-dev? The Debian library packaging guide gives the opposite
advice, to use libfoo-dev always, but I have learned that this
document does
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:42:17PM +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote:
> Hi all,
> Occasionally, upgrading a Debian unstable (or testing) system results in
> breakage. Sometimes the bugs are not immediately detected, or they are not
> easily located to a single package, especially if the upgrade in question
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 07:10:42PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> If you didn't want the package to be unpacked before its dependencies
> are installed, you'd just check the dependencies before unpacking.
Or use apt.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > Some people have pointed out that other PHP programs go to /usr/share
> > as well. Just to complement: Perl modules also get installed to
> > /usr/share if they are not architecture-specific. Python seems not to
> > be that way, as its standard sys.path
Hi,
how should I properly approach the removal of a package which I
maintain?
Package in question is mozilla-firefox-locale-da which is to be replaced
by mozilla-firefox-locale-da-dk (not maintained by me) from source
package mozilla-firefox-locale-all.
Unfortunetaly, mozilla-firefox-locale
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 19:30 +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> * Scott James Remnant [Tue, Jan 11 2005, 08:19:21AM]:
>
> > > dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the
> > > installation of foo-modules_2.0
> > >
> > dpkg does not abort the installation, the installation concludes
#include
* Scott James Remnant [Tue, Jan 11 2005, 08:19:21AM]:
> > dpkg unpacks the data contents (data.tar.gz) of foo-modules_2.0 into
> > their final location in the filesystem (possibly overwriting the
> > contents of the package being replaced)
> >
> > dpkg then checks dependencies of fo
Hi!
In order to ease my maintainance tasks, I'm going to split the kfreebsd5
package into two source packages, as follows:
kfreebsd5-source
Provides packages "kfreebsd5-source" and "kfreebsd5-headers"
kfreebsd5
Build-Depends on "kfreebsd5-source"
Provides package "kfreebsd5"
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:18:49 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2005-01-11 Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just upgraded to cdrecord version 2.01+01a01-2.[1] I found that with
>> permissions -rwsr-xr-- on /usr/bin/cdrecord [2] that I was able to
>> record a CD without having to become roo
sean finney:
> this package seems to work for me without any major problems (so far,
> anyway...), and it in fact seems to have fixed a couple problems from
> which i was quietly suffering on my thinkpad.
OK. Thank you for testing it!
--
Pelle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:16:47AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The files are not removed.
They ain't there no more. You can't use them.
You can't use the new files either until you do the things you specify.
If, for some reason, you cannot do the things you specify
(because the things wh
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 04:16:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The other benefits of installing packages more quickly -- working out if
> you've screwed up the upload, or that they don't build -- already happen
> in response to the package getting accepted anyway.
Having the Maintainers file s
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > | This is a canonical example of a network-downloader package.
| >
| > No, they download something and unpacks it on a file system. They
| > don't feed the data they download into some device.
|
| So you think the key d
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Dear DDs!
>
> [Please Cc me]
>
> I am one of the contributers to the TeXlive project and we are in the
> process of packaging texlive as debian packages.
Have you read our draft "Debian teTeX policy"? It's at
http://people.debian.org/~frank/Debian-
Hi Norbert,
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:21:40AM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> I am one of the contributers to the TeXlive project and we are in the
> process of packaging texlive as debian packages. Herein some questions
> have arisen, the most prominent ATM is:
> Are there any facilities to put
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have conveniently
> > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic
Hello Joerg,
* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-11 11:52]:
> On 10165 March 1977, Nico Golde wrote:
>
> >> Right. I've checked with my boss and he's happy. It helps that we're
> >> about to start opening up some of our code anyway, so any conflict
> >> would be disappearing. I'll start
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
>
> > The fact that we have conveniently
> > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far
> > does not make it go away.
>
> It is my understanding th
GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mesa upstream uses -mcpu=ev5 -mieee on alpha. Is that ok? Where does
>> this belong into? /usr/lib/ev5?
>
> IIRC, alpha does not define any hwcaps.
There's a patch for this, which works fine, but wasn
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:07:36PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Kees Leune dijo [Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 02:19:18PM +0100]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am preparing an ITP for a PHP application that is currently under
> > development at my place of employment. While thinking about packaging
> > it, I was wonder
Dear DDs!
[Please Cc me]
I am one of the contributers to the TeXlive project and we are in the
process of packaging texlive as debian packages. Herein some questions
have arisen, the most prominent ATM is:
Are there any facilities to put binaries of different architectures
into debian packages?
Op di, 11-01-2005 te 13:21 +1100, schreef Sam Watkins:
> I accidentally posted the following to debian-user this morning, it was
> supposed to go to debian-devel in this thread; please excuse me
> re-posting it.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > It's impos
Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you're bumping a library soname, you should do precisely one of
> precisely two things:
>
> (a) Bump the revision of the library package
> (eg libfoo1.deb -> libfoo2.deb, libfoo.deb -> libfoo5.deb, whatever)
>
> Optionally bump the revision of the -dev package'
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050110 23:35]:
> FWIW, our experiences with Ubuntu shows that having fast dinstall
> cycles is very helpful. You can sit and codevelop with people
> uploading to the archive as you go and letting other people in on what
> you are doing rather than having priv
Patrzę w ekran, a to William Ballard pisze do mnie:
> .1 Releases aren't for adding functionality which was created after
> the .0 release. It's for finishing the stuff you postponed doing
> so you could ship.
So why is the Sarge to be 3.1? I think that it differs so much from Woody
(take only t
On Monday 10 January 2005 23:03, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 13:24 -0600, schreef Ron Johnson:
> > > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:14 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Do you *really* think that RTFM means "Go read the documen
Op di, 11-01-2005 te 06:31 +0900, schreef Charles Plessy:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote :
> > 'RTFM' means "Go read the documentation, that's what it's for".
>
> It also contains the "F word", which is related to the act of
> having sex.
Sex is the very m
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But since this is what you prefer I'll happily do this (as quoted
> above), and file a RC bug against grisbi to have it recompiled against
> the new library. It's easier for me to maintain anyway. If that hoses
> grisbi in such a way that the gris
Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 22:43 +0200, schreef George Danchev:
> On Monday 10 January 2005 22:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 15:12 -0500, schreef William Ballard:
> > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > > dpkg -I on the resulting package and look
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> * Chris Cheney
>>
>> | Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
>> | strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that
>> | ffmpeg was allowe
On 2005-01-11 Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just upgraded to cdrecord version 2.01+01a01-2.[1]
> I found that with permissions -rwsr-xr-- on /usr/bin/cdrecord [2] that
> I was able to record a CD without having to become root first using
> dev=/dev/hdc and kernel 2.6.10 [3].
> Do any o
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 18:51 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> Once upon a time Scott James Remnant said...
> > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:15 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> >
> > > dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0
> > > dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modules_2.0
> > > dpkg complains that f
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:58 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:53:57AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:35 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > > dpkg doesn't remove
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 22:13 -0800, Rich Rudnick wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 20:38 +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
> > 10.01.2005 pisze Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > > > 'RTFM' means "Go read the documentation, that's what it's for". I
> > > > personally find it far more rude to go on a
74 matches
Mail list logo
