Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The point is that I want to massage some parts of the configuration
> > and not others. I want the others to continue to get updated by the
> > normal package installation process.
>
> So is the
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The point is that I want to massage some parts of the configuration
> and not others. I want the others to continue to get updated by the
> normal package installation process.
So is the whole thing essentially a workaround for dpkg's current
la
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Arjan Oosting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: drift
Version : 2.1.0
Upstream Author : John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://repetae.net/john/computer/haskell/DrIFT/
* License : MIT
Description : type se
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please spare me your moralizing when you don't even read my post very
> closely and I was already in favor of the current way Debian handles it.
I wasn't moralizing; I'm sorry if I misunderstood your note. Many
people here have failed to understand
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:27:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Good lord, what are we arguing about then :-)
> > Do people who edit their exim config (I never do on my desktop)
> > really have a hard time grasping #include files?
>
> You'v
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> The point is that I want to massage some parts of the configuration
> and not others. I want the others to continue to get updated by the
> normal package installation process.
>
> If I use the one-big-file method, I can't really do this.
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Good lord, what are we arguing about then :-)
> Do people who edit their exim config (I never do on my desktop)
> really have a hard time grasping #include files?
You've missed the point of the many-small-files config. As a happy
user, let me explain
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:36:54PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> that is irrelevant to the user perspective, IMHO). They produce the
> same initial configuration in any case. The only difference from a user
Good lord, what are we arguing about then :-)
Do people who edit their exim config (I neve
This one time, at band camp, William Ballard said:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:02:00AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Furthermore, how does a thing being "standard" help the user in his
> > choice? The user only thinks of his own needs, thus a correct
> > wording would be "pick A if you don't
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:02:00AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Furthermore, how does a thing being "standard" help the user in his
> choice? The user only thinks of his own needs, thus a correct wording
> would be "pick A if you don't care". However the current wording is even
> better; the qu
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> > > Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every
> >> > > machine
> >> >
> >> > Actually, that's not quite the case (as a number of users of Linux's ARP
> >> > implemen
Le vendredi 18 février 2005 à 19:29 -0600, Steve Greenland a écrit :
> > And the fact exim4 diverges from upstream has *absolutely nothing* to do
> > in a debconf note. Debconf is here to promt users, not to document
> > changes.
>
> But how would it hurt to say that choice A is more standard?
Mo
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And the fact exim4 diverges from upstream has *absolutely nothing* to do
> > in a debconf note. Debconf is here to promt users, not to document
> > changes.
>
> But how would it hurt to say that choice A is more standard?
What is "more standard"?
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jesus H. Christ. Read the original post to this thread. It was a
> complaint about how the upstream docs were not consistent with the
> debian config.
Huh? The original post AFAICT of this thread consisted of Marc Haber
complaining that it was inappr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > > Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every
>> > > machine
>> >
>> > Actually, that's not quite the case (as a number of users of Linux's ARP
>> > implementation have found), though it's a good approximation.
On 18-Feb-05, 17:45 (CST), Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Such a question will never help them. Why the hell would a newbie care
> of a package diverging from upstream (if he understands what an upstream
> is)?
Jesus H. Christ. Read the original post to this thread. It was a
compla
Hi
> > > Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every
> > > machine
> >
> > Actually, that's not quite the case (as a number of users of Linux's ARP
> > implementation have found), though it's a good approximation.
>
> Indeed. For Linux, nodes have IP *numbers* which are
Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> But can one get a C compiler at all (at least a Debian-supplied one)
>> without also pulling in an appropriate libc-dev? I would think
>> that "I need to compile $userspace package" *did*
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The reason given in the origional thread was that these Depends are not
> > solely for building Debian packages (when Build-Essential is reasonable to
> > expect), but for "I need to c
Le vendredi 18 février 2005 à 14:15 -0600, Steve Greenland a écrit :
> On 18-Feb-05, 09:06 (CST), Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Le vendredi 18 f??vrier 2005 ?? 08:37 -0600, Steve Greenland a ??crit :
> > > No where in the Debconf note does it say which is "the upstream way".
> >
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 20:35 +0100, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (I assume everybody is on -devel, like I am, and as it seems the problem
> sits between keyboard and chair, no bug report either).
>
> This might very well be, as I didn't compile the kernel myself (I just
> use the standard kerne
Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The reason given in the origional thread was that these Depends are not
> solely for building Debian packages (when Build-Essential is reasonable to
> expect), but for "I need to compile $userspace package", which does *not*
> require B-E be installed, ac
Scripsit Eric Lavarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, basically, your saying that the right way to do this kind of
> things is to use the corresponding kernel-headers package, and apt-get
> tells me that I need as well kernel-kbuild to build "out-of-tree
> kernel modules" which seems to be exactly what
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 20:08 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:16:24 -0500, Greg Folkert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Except I'd rather see --keepcomments as
> >default and changed to --removecomments. My only gripe, pretty minimal.
>
> And fixed soon. #295735.
Wow, I didn't eve
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 06:54 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:01:45 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If something like this is different, then not only should Debian
> >supplied documentation reflect the change, but a list of differences
> >should appear in README.Debi
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 14:24 -0800, Blunt Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:31:20 +, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scripsit Blunt Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > As a general note, I find it annoying, frustrating, and confusing
> > > whenever ANY debian package has
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:15:16PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> And J. Hassler asked:
> > Does it tell you which is the upstream way? Most new users won't know.
>
> At which point Tollef quoted the debconf question, and the answer is
> "no, it doesn't."
>
> And yes, it does belong there.
I t
* Steve Greenland:
> And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:
>
>The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configuration,
>while the other choice is a Debian innovation that works better with
>large installations or ISPs needing to support many vir
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 21:37 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:15:16PM -0600, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> (...)
> > And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:
> >
> >The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configurat
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 06:50:50PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> >
> > *) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which
> > needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation
> > of having o
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:15:16PM -0600, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
(...)
> And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:
>
>The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configuration,
>while the other choice is a Debian innovation that works
Hi,
i got a question regarding package updates.
If I have a source pack-1.1 from which some packages including
pack-gui-lang-de-1.1_2 (Provides: pack-gui-lang) are build.
Now i want to build the languages in seperade packages say
pack-lang-de-1.1. How can it be done to force an update between th
On 18-Feb-05, 09:06 (CST), Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le vendredi 18 f??vrier 2005 ?? 08:37 -0600, Steve Greenland a ??crit :
> > No where in the Debconf note does it say which is "the upstream way".
>
> This has nothing to do in a debconf note.
Sigh. Did you read the thread?
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 06:30:42PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
> > reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
> > situation with libc-
> ii debianutils2.12.0 Miscellaneous utilities specific to Debian
> ii exim 3.36-13An MTA (Mail Transport Agent)
>
> Is there anyone who encountered the same problem or is this
> Alpha specific or even specific to my machine?
This should be fixed in debianutils 2.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:43:48 +0100, Wouter Verhelst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, yes, but it works in many more cases, and it's what upstream
>supports.
Frankly, upstream is not quite interested any more in supporting
convert4r4. I have forwarded a bug report regarding the script
upstream, an
Hi,
(I assume everybody is on -devel, like I am, and as it seems the problem
sits between keyboard and chair, no bug report either).
This might very well be, as I didn't compile the kernel myself (I just
use the standard kernel-image-2.6.10-1-k7 package) but used
kernel-source-2.6.10 with the .
Nail a redhead on secretly
http://underpartnerbrachycatalectic.com/sse/
offa-dis : underpartnerbrachycatalectic.com/yap/
The dolphin metamorphism dignify .
She bridgeable jacksonville truly consummate inexpiable .
bryozoa cardinal classroom sieglinda .
lava stadia am funnel exposit .
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 03:07:49PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:51:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In all but the most complex cases, migrating exim v3 to exim v4 involves
> >running /usr/sbin/exim_convert4r4 on /etc/exim/exim.conf, and copying te
> >r
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 04:09:31PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> BugScan reporter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Package: tex4ht (debian/main)
>> > Maintainer: Debian QA Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > 219482 [ UI] tex4ht: Documentation source fil
Clint Byrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, can someone please tell me how messages like the one below, and
> others, aren't indicative that debian should drop s390, mipsel, and
> maybe hppa from the list of architectures? How about we release for
> i386, sparc, and powerpc, and let the others r
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
>
> *) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which
> needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation
> of having only a pure-virtual package.
Why does that rule exists anyway? It's al
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
> reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
> situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package.
>
> The summary is this:
>
> *) The 'li
First let me say that I mean no offense to the debian community, or any
of the people in the forwarded message. I'm frustrated and I want to see
things improve...
Now, can someone please tell me how messages like the one below, and
others, aren't indicative that debian should drop s390, mipsel, an
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 04:09:31PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> BugScan reporter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Package: tex4ht (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Debian QA Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 219482 [ UI] tex4ht: Documentation source file missing
> >
> > Package: texgd (debian/main)
>
Respected Sir
Please tell me the standard or more efficient
version of mdnsresponder which can be use on linux
platform with dns-based service discovery
protocol.and
multicast dns client.
If possible please tell me the approach to
implement the dns-sd and the api which can
From: Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: problem of savelog
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:55:15 +0100
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:25:18 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> If your exim 3 configuration was generated by eximconfig,
Le vendredi 18 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 08:37 -0600, Steve Greenland a Ãcrit :
> No where in the Debconf note does it say which is "the upstream way".
This has nothing to do in a debconf note.
> And does it default to "one big file"?
Yes.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
BugScan reporter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: tex4ht (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Debian QA Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 219482 [ UI] tex4ht: Documentation source file missing
>
> Package: texgd (debian/main)
But actually tex4ht has two RC-bugs (both tagged sarge-ignore, but the
pac
On 17-Feb-05, 15:07 (CST), Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * John Hasler
> | Does it tell you which is the upstream way? Most new users won't know.
>
> The Debian exim4 packages can either use a single monolithic file
> (/etc/exim4/exim4.conf.template) or about 40 small files in
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:25:18 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> If your exim 3 configuration was generated by eximconfig, exim4 will
>> try to guess your answers you have given when configuring exim3, and
>> will pre-seed debconf accordin
From: Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: problem of savelog
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:06:45 +0100
> >Fine to hear this can be done "today's morning". Is the configuration
> >migrated to the new version (mine is pretty simple), or does one have to
> >start anew?
>
> If your exim 3 config
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:51:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In all but the most complex cases, migrating exim v3 to exim v4 involves
>running /usr/sbin/exim_convert4r4 on /etc/exim/exim.conf, and copying te
>resulting file to /etc/exim4/exim4.conf.
Actually, this is deprecated.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:53:20 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> Thanks for your infomation. I met the same problem today's morning
>> so I changed exim to exim4 ;-)
>
>Fine to hear this can be done "today's morning". Is the configuration
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:53:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
> > Thanks for your infomation. I met the same problem today's morning
> > so I changed exim to exim4 ;-)
>
> Fine to hear this can be done "today's morning". Is the configuration
> mig
On Friday 18 February 2005 13:33, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
[...]
> FWIW, I think developer.php gives a useful DDPO, but I'm a bit puzzled
> why also some kinds of per-developer or even per-package information
> is all also generated from developer.php. The file as it is is already
> quite large
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tomasz Melcer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: trayer
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Maciej Delmanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://fvwm-crystal.berlios.de/files/files/trayer/
* License : MIT
Description
Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Thanks for your infomation. I met the same problem today's morning
> so I changed exim to exim4 ;-)
Fine to hear this can be done "today's morning". Is the configuration
migrated to the new version (mine is pretty simple), or does one have to
start
Le vendredi 18 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 12:12 +1030, Ron a Ãcrit :
> Hi,
>
> Are you aware of this:
>
> /usr/include/pngconf.h:310:2: #error png.h already includes setjmp.h
> with some additional fixup.
>
> It occurs if you (or any other header you include) #include
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Igor Genibel wrote:
> On Thursday 17 February 2005 20:56, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > One purpose of the new.html on newraff is to have less (or none)
> > script running on merkel that wastes CPU cycles playing around with
> > .changes files. Merkel is the wro
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:35:42PM +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Merging all these into one package will not do much harm to the user
> > (who will be able to install a 2M package on top of his 250MB KDE
> > installation to get all the choice of GUI themes he would ever
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I had a similar experience when I reported bugs in Unstable on the list
> and was roundly flamed for not reading bug reports.
reportbug is pretty helpfull here, however some packages do have a very
large list, so misssing an already reported bug can hap
Le vendredi 18 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 12:35 +0100, Marcin Orlowski a Ãcrit :
> It enforces you to fetch and install 9 additional components you simply
> do not want. Going that way, why do not put i.e. all the PHP modules in
> one deb? or even better - we shall have it all with apache. or even better
> we
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: eric pareja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: kxstitch
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Stephen Allewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://kxstitch.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Description : cross-stitch patter
Adeodato Simó wrote:
name of the package would be kde-style-asteroid.
I'd appreciate that you consider using such scheme, for both
individual and aggregate packages.
I'll rename the packages on next release. Thanks for spotting that.
Regards,
--
"Daddy, what "Formatting drive C:" means?"...
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Why not? What harm does it do?
It enforces you to fetch and install 9 additional components you simply
do not want. Going that way, why do not put i.e. all the PHP modules in
one deb? or even better - we shall have it all with apache. or even better
we shall have one big "w
From: Alexandre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: problem of savelog
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:47:29 +0100
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:08:15PM +0100, Alexandre wrote:
> > Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> >
> > > Is there anyone who encountered the same problem or is this
> > > Alpha specific or even speci
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 08:48:20AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've recently uploaded (to experimental only) new Snort 2.3.0 packages
> (based on the release made by the Snort team last January 25th). One of the
> main reasons I've uploaded this to experimenta
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:08:15PM +0100, Alexandre wrote:
> Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>
> > Is there anyone who encountered the same problem or is this
> > Alpha specific or even specific to my machine?
>
> Same problem here, on my alphastation which I use as a mailserver.
Mail I received from an
69 matches
Mail list logo
