The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 187 (new: 6)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 90 (new: 4)
Total number of packages requeste
Dear who may concerns,
Pls allow me to ask following questions
from Japan.
If you know it, we would appreciate if you
could reply to question.
On WDM(Windows Driver Model), we try to
keep memory by "ExAllocatePoolWithTag" API
But, we
can not keep more than certain capacity, though there
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 12:35 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (Followups to -vote)
>
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
> > debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
>
> As Matthew pointed o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: NIIBE Yutaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: QwikWeb
Version : 0.7.1
Upstream Author : Kouichirou Eto <2005 at eto.com>
* URL : http://qwik/jp
* License : GNU GPL
Description : Communication tool which integrate
Greetings -devel,
It is my pleasure to announce the creation of a project to create a
common power-management framework[1] for Debian (and eventually, the
world). This idea, in various forms, has been discussed several times
in the past[2][3] with a generally positive response. These ideas have
Steffen,
On 1 December 2005 at 08:57, Steffen Moeller wrote:
| Dear Dirk,
|
| one should indeed discuss if the packages should remain in the distribution,
| but please not because I am a bit behind in maintenance. I promise updates
I disagree about the 'not'. It is _precisely_ because of the
(Followups to -vote)
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
> debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
As Matthew pointed out in [0] this expectation of privacy isn't really
that strong, fundam
On Don, 01 Dez 2005, Karl Berry wrote:
> Regretfully, Dr. Shinsaku unambiguously replied to me that he wishes to
> restrict XyMTeX distribution. So I'll be taking it out of TeX Live for
> next year.
Thanks Karl for asking. I am rebuilding texlive debian packages now
without xymtex.
Best wishes
> A cryptographer friend of mine recently attended the NIST Hallowe'en
> Hash Bash (http://www.csrc.nist.gov/pki/HashWorkshop/index.html), and
> made a few notes in his blog:
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/sevenstring/7326.html
>
> His suggestion there was "stick to SHA2 (or maybe Whirlpo
* Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051202 00:33]:
> This has been suggested before; the standard counterargument is "what
> about closing an ITP?"
Then why not make a check (source package of bug and changelog are the
same) or (bug to be closed is an ITP)?
Yours sincerely,
Alexander
--
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:33:11PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Roberto C. Sanchez]
> > Is there a way to not allow changelog entries to automatically close
> > bugs assigned to other packages?
>
> This has been suggested before; the standard counterargument is "what
> about closing an ITP?
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:45:53PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> I just had a bug that I opened (#339832) closed by a changelog entry in
> a new debconf upload. This is apparently a typo, as the changelog entry
> claims that the bug it was closing was related to a Swedish translation
> update
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
> Is there a way to not allow changelog entries to automatically close
> bugs assigned to other packages?
This has been suggested before; the standard counterargument is "what
about closing an ITP?"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thursday 01 December 2005 23:45, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Is there a way to not allow changelog entries to automatically close
> bugs assigned to other packages?
This sounds like a usefull restriction. I've seen enough cases where the
wrong bug was closed to see the benefit of this.
If the
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Genannt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libparams-util-perl
Version : 0.07
Upstream Author : Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~adamk/
* License : GPL
Description : Perl exten
I just had a bug that I opened (#339832) closed by a changelog entry in
a new debconf upload. This is apparently a typo, as the changelog entry
claims that the bug it was closing was related to a Swedish translation
update.
My bug was a wishlist bug against gmessage asking for it to become an
alt
As dicussion follows, I decided to formalize a proposal for a real
declassification of the content on -private.
As I said before, if we're going to choose which material is made
public, we can't call it "declassification".
The main points are:
1) Everything except financial information about oth
Karl Berry wrote:
> Regretfully, Dr. Shinsaku unambiguously replied to me that he wishes to
> restrict XyMTeX distribution. So I'll be taking it out of TeX Live for
> next year.
I'm very sorry to hear that my inquiry resulted in the removal of XyMTeX
from TeXLive. :-( It is a really useful tool.
Em Qui, 2005-12-01 às 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> a) The post contained sensitive material.
> In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
> material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
> teams accepted, then the material should be
Regretfully, Dr. Shinsaku unambiguously replied to me that he wishes to
restrict XyMTeX distribution. So I'll be taking it out of TeX Live for
next year.
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:16:29 +0900
From: Fujita Shinsaku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry)
Subject: Re: XyMTeX licensin
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:56:48PM +, Dave Holland wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > I think the default behaviour should be to keep the post private, not to
> > open it up. That is, if the author and other individuals do not reply,
> > the message is
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> I think the default behaviour should be to keep the post private, not to
> open it up. That is, if the author and other individuals do not reply,
> the message is kept hidden.
>
> The primary reason for this is that the existing mes
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
...
> - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
> will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
> to comment;
I think the default behaviour should be to keep the post pri
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Jérôme Marant wrote:
>
>> What is this supposed to mean? If no comments have been made by the
>> author for eight weeks, messages will be automatically declassified?
>> It looks like a kind of opt out to me.
>
> True. It may be an idea to have
Here are the urls I didn't find for my other post:
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/nb/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/03/13/0
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec2000/full_papers/rao/rao.pdf
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/NewsBruiser-2.6.1/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/04/06/0
http://en.w
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> a) The post contained sensitive material.
>
> In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
> material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
> teams accepted, then the material should be redacted from the
> post, a
On Thursday 01 December 2005 15.32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> + - If the author indicates he does not wish to be associated with a
> + post, any identifying information is redacted from that post,
> + and any quotes in subsequent posts, but the rest of the material
> + is published.
Hello,
Jérôme Marant wrote:
What is this supposed to mean? If no comments have been made by the
author for eight weeks, messages will be automatically declassified?
It looks like a kind of opt out to me.
True. It may be an idea to have another proposed amendment reversing the
logic, and see
Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
> that list that are three or more years old, with the following
> exceptions:
>
> - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
> will be
Hello
on an uptodate etch I get:
# apt-get source samba
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Unable to find a source package for samba
# apt-cache policy samba
samba:
Installed: 3.0.20b-2+b1
Candidate: 3.0.20b-2+b1
Version table:
*** 3.0.20b-2+b1 0
990
Hi,
Rationale:
I have been thinking about the kinds of reasons for not
wanting to have a post to -private published. I came up with two
major (reasonable) scenarios:
a) The post contained sensitive material.
In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
m
Netdump is the network dump facility. It's purpose is to transfer an image of
a machine's memory over the network when it crashes for the purpose of
debugging.
The main advantage of using the network over disk is that network hardware is
often simpler than storage hardware (and easier to opera
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This means that it's dangerous to commit yourself to the contents of a
> document, using a digital signature, unless you fully understand the
> meaning of each byte in the document.
So how do the MD5 sums of .debs end up in a Packages file signed with
Florian Ragwitz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 08:05:02PM +0100, Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy) wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libfile-copy-recursive-perl
Version : 0.16
Upstream Author : Daniel Muey <
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libsundials-serial
Version : 2.1.1
Upstream Author : Peter Brown, Aaron Collier, Keith Grant, Alan Hindmarsh,
Steve Lee, Radu Serban, Dan Shumaker, Carol Woodward
*
Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 11:56 +0100, Frank Küster a écrit :
> We are trying to *get* both into the archive; and I don't see how
> texlive could replace tetex for etch. But I agree with you that we
> should reconsider the question later.
In this case, I have to agree with you.
> Personally, I
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 19:08 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> The source of teTeX is a *subset* of TeXLive's source, modulo versions.
>> >
>> > Then we definitely shouldn't need two copies of it!
>>
Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 19:08 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> The source of teTeX is a *subset* of TeXLive's source, modulo versions.
> >
> > Then we definitely shouldn't need two copies of it!
>
> Er, it sounds to me like what people are saying i
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > [Frank Küster]
>> >> > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example?
>
>> >> Why do we need N packages that prov
Has the tech-ctte decision regarding the output format of md5sum [0] been
withdrawn in some form? It seems to be back to the old format:
$ md5sum http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg00032.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The source of teTeX is a *subset* of TeXLive's source, modulo versions.
>
> Then we definitely shouldn't need two copies of it!
Er, it sounds to me like what people are saying is: "Yeah it would be great
and desirable to have no duplication between tet
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Frank Küster]
> >> > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example?
> >> Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
> > That's not equivalent.
"Thijs Kinkhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, November 30, 2005 18:34, Nico Golde wrote:
>> [...]
>> Please consider reading this:
>> http://www.us.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html
>> #s-mia-qa
>
> You mean where it says "It is also allowed to post a query to
>
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Frank Küster]
>> > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example?
>>
>> Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
>
> That's not equivalent. An equivalent question would be more like "why
> do we need N packa
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Ondrej Sury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: mozilla-thunderbird-locale-cs
Version : 1.07debian
Upstream Author : Czilla Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.czilla.org/
* License : Mozilla Public License 1.1
45 matches
Mail list logo
