Quoting Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> OTOH, if there is a sensible default (and there is for jed), just pick
> one and be done with it. No need to burden the admin with yet another
> question.
I beg to disagree here. As long as an appropriate priority is used
(here, probably low) and t
Urgent Announcement:
Good Day, I have been instructed by my head office to alert you to the fact
that your file has been reviewed and there now are a few potential options for
you to consider.
Please note that this issue is time sensitive and that your previous credit
situation is not an issu
Body Wrap at Home to lose 6-20 inches in one hour.
With Bodywrap we guarantee:
you'll lose 6-8 Inches in one hour
100% Satisfaction or your money back
Bodywrap is soothing formula that contours,
cleanses and rejuvenates your body while
reducing inches.
http://denumerable.loseweightsy
Hi,
> The package can be downloaded at http://dgnr.free.fr/repository, or
> with apt-get with "deb http://dgnr.free.fr/ repository/"
From the look of it, your packaging looks wrong.
You're probably creating a package that ignores SONAME versioning.
--- libssh-0.11.orig/debian/shlibs.local
+++
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:33:09AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>
>Hi,
Hello Junichi,
[0] http://www.debconf.org/debconf5/keysigning
>>>
>>>A list of names of accepted keys is listed at [1].
>>>
>>>[1] http://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc5-names.txt
>>>
>>>Please send your key if you haven
Hi,
> >>[0] http://www.debconf.org/debconf5/keysigning
> >
> >A list of names of accepted keys is listed at [1].
> >
> >[1] http://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc5-names.txt
> >
> >Please send your key if you haven't done so. You have a little more
> >than a week to send it. The deadline is the
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But that doesn't realy solve the problem on its own. It would be nice if
>> packages could be consistently taged with "Application:
>> yes|no|" signifying that this package is usefull on its own
>> (fo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libcrypt-dh-perl
Version : 0.06
Upstream Author : Benjamin Trott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-DH/
* License : Dual GPL/Artistic
Desc
On 7/4/05, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:05:21PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>
> > True. But for example, is the current apt-get capable of contacting
> > another mirror if and only if the primary fails?
>
> For package downloads apt will try the sources i
[Lionel Elie Mamane]
> I recently found some packages in at an IMHO totally wrong priority
> in Debian.
Yeah. I've been grumbling about optional vs. extra for years. Nobody
wants to consider his own packages 'extra' because every maintainer
feels his own packages are Really Useful. This is a s
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:05:21PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> True. But for example, is the current apt-get capable of contacting
> another mirror if and only if the primary fails?
For package downloads apt will try the sources in the order listed in
sources.list, only trying subsequent on
Special Announcement:
Good Day, I have been instructed by my head office to alert you to the fact
that your file has been reviewed and there now are a few potential options for
you to consider.
Please note that this issue is time sensitive and that your previous credit
situation is not an iss
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But that doesn't realy solve the problem on its own. It would be nice if
> packages could be consistently taged with "Application:
> yes|no|" signifying that this package is usefull on its own
> (foo), will never be used alone (foo-data, libfoo) o
On 7/4/05, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not sure how exactly the current mirrors work, but syncing
> > (primary) mirrors between eachother instead of all from a master may
> > be an idea.
>
> Mirrors are stacked in a tree (
Le lundi 04 juillet 2005 à 11:00 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > * librsvg2-2 depends on librsvg2-common because most applications
> > linking to librsvg2 also expect the SVG loader to be available.
>
> So on all systems both packages will always be installed together. Why
> have two pac
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [please don't CC-me, I'm subscribed]
>
> Em Seg, 2005-07-04 Ã s 11:20 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow escreveu:
>> A source package can build binary packages with different versions.
>>
>> E.g. icewmcp 1.0-1 source could build:
>>
>> icewmcp 1.0-1
Penis enlargement breakthrough!
http://www.siratu.com/ss/
I can see the time when every city will have one.
Don't compromise yourself, you are all you've got.
Mental health increases as we pursue reality at all cost.
A successful marriage is an edifice that must be rebuilt every day
Hi!
Joerg Sommer [2005-07-04 13:33 +]:
> can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
> feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
> abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
>
> Jed can have the look and feel like emacs or the KDE editor. Can I
hi,
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 01:33:45PM +, Joerg Sommer wrote:
> can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
> feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
> abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
not necessarily, depending on how you go about i
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Joerg Sommer]
> > can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
> > feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
> > abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
>
> This depends on how you use it.
OTOH,
[Joerg Sommer]
> can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
> feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
> abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
This depends on how you use it. If you read the current value from
the existing configuration file,
Hi,
can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
Jed can have the look and feel like emacs or the KDE editor. Can I ask
the admin, what should be the default?
Have
* Package name: mazeofgalious
Version : 0.62
Upstream Authors: Santi Ontanon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.braingames.getput.com/mog/
* License : Not defined yet (will try to work this out with upstream)
Description : The Maze of Galious
It's no
Hi everybody,
I'm looking for a sponsor for the libssh package :
* Package name: libssh
Version : 0.11
Upstream Author : "Aris Adamantiadis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.0xbadc0de.be/?part=libssh
* License : LGPL
Description : SSH and SCP library
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libssh
Version : 0.11
Upstream Author : "Aris Adamantiadis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://freshmeat.net/redir/libssh/54537/url_homepage/www.0xbadc0de.be
*
[please don't CC-me, I'm subscribed]
Em Seg, 2005-07-04 às 11:20 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow escreveu:
> A source package can build binary packages with different versions.
>
> E.g. icewmcp 1.0-1 source could build:
>
> icewmcp 1.0-1
> iceme 1.0.0-12.1
> iceperf 1:1.2-3
Simply by having a Versi
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo S
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
> >
> > This is of course one of the reasons why user
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello
>
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:39:04PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:57:58PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:21:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> > > `Depends'
>> > > This declares an
Johann Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
> For a few weeks there are discrepancies between some "Packages" files
> and the files in the ./pool/ directory. Unfortunately the debian-mirrors
> list is dead since the end of 2003. Therefore I try to ask this list, if
> you know anything about
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
2.2 went also in deep freeze for
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> writes:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:22:33 -0400 (EDT), Freddie Unpenstein <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>> > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS,
>>> > separation, etc.)
>
>>> xinetd begone. There is no justification for usi
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:44:23AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Horms wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > >
Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> > > >>
Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/23/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Well, a new header would be nice, of course. But it would mean a
>> > change in policy, that's why I was thinking of using the existing
>> > ones.
>> Changing the meaning of existing field
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
The gcc version recommended by upstream is still 2.95.
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Em Qui, 2005-06-23 Ã s 12:39 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escreveu:
>> OK. That is what I am looking for. I want to completely replace the
>> two packages that cannot coexist with the new icewmcp package.
>> Currently, I must use dummy packages fo
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:51:52PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> In all that cases, you can _either_:
>>
>> 3) change the shlibs file to document the dependency on the library, e.g
>> change libfontconfig1.shlibs to
>> libfontconfig 1 libfontconfig1
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> > >>
> > >> Would it break kernel
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 13:12 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva a écrit :
>> Why not simply puting the loader inside the library package? If the
>> loader should always be together with the library, then make them one
>> package and be done with it.
>>
>>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
kernel developers.
Greetings
Marc
--
--
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> >>
> >> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
> >> I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le vendredi 24 juin 2005 à 17:21 +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>> I see two easy case:
>>
>> 1) foo and foo-data. There is usualy no reason for foo-data to depend on
>> foo. foo-data does not provide user-visible interface, only data, so it
>> does
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 07:39:16PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps we should just move to section libs any package which is
>> useless by itself, and it's only useful in combination with others,
>> much like libraries, but without requiring t
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) foo and foo-data. There is usualy no reason for foo-data to depend on
>> foo. foo-data does not provide user-visible interface, only data, so it
>> does not need to depend on foo.
>
> However, we have some users randomly filing bugs on
> foo-data t
Otto Wyss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since around last October, I've considered to make my concept for a
> modern package distribution public but I wanted to wait until
> Debian/sarge was released which is now the case. And since the Debconf5
> in Helsinki is just around the corner it's about t
Hello
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:39:04PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:57:58PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:21:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > `Depends'
> > > This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be
> > >
Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/22/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [Olaf van der Spek]
>> > I've been wondering, would it be an idea (for the long-term) to use
>> > (more) distributed ... or p2p concepts to reduce the dependency and
>> > load on central s
49 matches
Mail list logo
