On Wednesday 10 May 2006 16:21, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Le Mardi 09 Mai 2006 22:49, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers
>
> ...
>
> > libkcal2b
> > libkdepim1a
>
> It looks like these two have circular dependencies because libkdepim
> depends on libkcal, while a couple
On Saturday 13 May 2006 04:49, Neil McGovern wrote:
> The Debian testing security team is pleased to announce the integration
> of the secure testing archive to http://security.debian.org
Many congratulations to all involved. This is a great step forward.
pgpFr8qClVXrr.pgp
Description: PGP signa
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 07:31:56PM -0500, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > On an otherwise idle box even a process (re-)niced to 19 uses all the
> > CPU. That might be desirable often but in other cases (e.g. when
> > CPU temperature is an issue) you might still want to say "assign this
> > process o
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 12:47:31AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On an otherwise idle box even a process (re-)niced to 19 uses all the
> CPU. That might be desirable often but in other cases (e.g. when
> CPU temperature is an issue) you might still want to say "assign this
> process only xy% of C
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 12:35:50PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:35:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Seconds, since when do we consider the GPL to be viral?
> >
> > Don't know about you, but the FSF does - it has create
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:34:23PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Description : limits the cpu usage of a process
> > cpulimit is a simple program that attempts to limit the cpu usage of a
> > process (expressed in percentage, not in cpu time). This is useful to
> > control batch jobs, whe
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 23:59 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
[snip]
> Description : limits the cpu usage of a process
>
> cpulimit is a simple program that attempts to limit the cpu usage of a
> process (expressed in percentage, not in cpu time). This is useful to
> control batch jobs, when
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: gregor herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: cpulimit
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : Angelo Marletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://marlon80.interfree.it/cpulimit/
* Lice
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-12 15:01]:
> > As it turns out, bug blockers currently don't display information
> > about the package those bugs are in and what their status is (e.g. if
> > there's a patch already).
>
> But this could be added. It would be a nice feature to re
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As it turns out, bug blockers currently don't display information
> about the package those bugs are in and what their status is (e.g. if
> there's a patch already).
But this could be added. It would be a nice feature to request.
(Hint hint)
--
T
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-12 18:07]:
> I have filed the following meta bug to keep track of GCC 4.1 build
> failures in packages: #366820
As it turns out, bug blockers currently don't display information
about the package those bugs are in and what their status is (e.g. if
th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: gregor herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libnet-z3950-zoom-perl
Version : 1.08
Upstream Author : Mike Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/~mirk/Net-Z3950-ZOOM/lib/Net/Z3950/ZOOM.pm
* License
Hi Jerome,
Am Freitag, den 12.05.2006, 11:11 +0200 schrieb Jerome Warnier:
> Le jeudi 11 mai 2006 à 18:33 -0500, Santiago Ruano Rincón a écrit :
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: "Santiago Ruano Rincón" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * Package name: asterisk-prompt-es-co
> You shou
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: klone
Version : 1.1.0
Upstream Author : KoanLogic Srl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.koanlogic.com/kl/cont/gb/html/klone.html
* License : GPLv2 or later
Programmin
I can type -- slowly -- but I won't be doing any package maintenance
for three to six weeks.
Cheers,
Shaun
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I didn't hit this problem myself yet, but it has been mentioned on
sparclinux list that 4.1 currently miscompiles the sparc kernel.
Do you know if this still happens, and if so, whether someone has
tracked it down?
I only became aware of it a coup
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-12 18:07]:
> - Mon, May 29 - Mon, May 12: 2 weeks of coordinated NMUs. Please
>email me privately if you're interested in helping out.
> - Mon, May 12 - Thu, May 15: recompilation of the whole archive with
>GCC 4.1 on several architecture t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Ondrej Sury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: bonfire
Version : 0.3.0
Upstream Author : Philippe Rouquier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/bonfire/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> block 366820 by 339921
Bug#366820: Transition to GCC 4.1 for etch
Was blocked by: 275774 355163 355165 355189 355325 355326 355352 355396 355463
355598 355599 355663 355738 355739 355741 355744 355841 355980 355983 355986
355988 355989 355990 355992 3
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would do this regardless of who the maintainer was. I seem to recall
> possibly doing it for some Perl HTML package that was in a similar
> situation to Bacula in the late 90s, but I can't really remember. I'm
> sure you could dig up links.
It was the
* Riku Voipio ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:05:17PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:09:11PM +0200, Roberto Lumbreras wrote:
> > > The package has bugs, lots of them, and for that reason has been removed
> > > from testing, well done, unstable it is
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:31:58PM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:20:19PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>> (In fact, IMHO nothing should depends from perl-modules at all).
>>
>> Correct. I'd prefer that nothing did
also sprach Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.12.1254 +0200]:
> So cxxtools authors should allow you to use their code in your
> application even if they are not allowed to use your code in theirs?
> This is of course no unreasonable petition, but I suggest noone to
> fullfil it without
* martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060512 09:50]:
> also sprach Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.12.0758 +0200]:
> > This means that you need to either license your work under the
> > GPL, or a license which is compatible with the GPL. [It also means
> > that you'll need to provide yo
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 12 mai 2006 à 03:13 +0200, José Luis Tallón a écrit :
>
>> Please tell me how in hell can you justify accusing me of not testing my
>> packages, when you have obviously not done so.
>> You seem to have some fixation with uploading, don't you?? Six versions
>
John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 03:13:31AM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote:
>
> Jose,
>
> Before I comment on a few things, I want to make something clear to you.
>
> You have repeatedly accused me of having something personal against you,
> both in public and in private.
>
It defini
Hi, we are working for a distro. For that we are using a debian installer for installing the deb packages with a double click on a deb package and also incorporated into our distro. But the problem is:At the first time when we try to install we need to check the open with the deb_instal
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:35:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seconds, since when do we consider the GPL to be viral?
>
> Don't know about you, but the FSF does - it has created the LGPL because
> of this.
Actually, they don't. They consider the GPL
Le vendredi 12 mai 2006 à 03:13 +0200, José Luis Tallón a écrit :
> Please tell me how in hell can you justify accusing me of not testing my
> packages, when you have obviously not done so.
> You seem to have some fixation with uploading, don't you?? Six versions
> in 24h ?
> Instead of uploading m
Le jeudi 11 mai 2006 à 18:33 -0500, Santiago Ruano Rincón a écrit :
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: "Santiago Ruano Rincón" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: asterisk-prompt-es-co
> Version : 0.0.20060503
> Upstream Author : Avatar Ltda. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> Perhaps it fixed itself? :-)
yes it did.
The reason I posted is that, when I posted, the page
http://packages.debian.org/lightspeed
was showing the kfreebsd binary but not the i386 binary
that I had uploaded...I was very puzzled!
thanks for checking
a.
ps: it seem
also sprach Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.12.0758 +0200]:
> This means that you need to either license your work under the
> GPL, or a license which is compatible with the GPL. [It also means
> that you'll need to provide your source code, but one would hope
> you were going to do that
#include
* Miles Bader [Fri, May 12 2006, 03:08:47PM]:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just because something is also political statement doesn't make it
> > evil or wrong.
>
> Yup.
>
> I think it's rather rude to respond to an ITP by publicly questioning
> the choice of license
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:12:42PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> And what if dpkg knows about it and handle arch-independant packages in
> a different way?
There is nothing dpkg can do. Package-1.0 has a hardcoded reference to
/usr/share/foo/bar (provided by some other package) and expects it to b
34 matches
Mail list logo
