Package: general
Severity: normal
i'm very sorry to report a other/general bug but because i could not
figure out which package is responible for the behavior i try this.
my system slows down after some hours of activity (4-6). i use that
system as desktop, using linux 2.6.16, xorg (dual screen)
Glad that you guys will take care of this, as it is way over my head.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 07:38:10AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(...)
> Issues: (1) Quality.
> sysklogd has 105 open bugs: 3 important (1 with patch), 43 normal (11 with
> patches), 11 minor (4 with patches), and 19 wishlist (some of which are
> really quite important, such as 44523)
Please, wh
On 22 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow stated:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 22 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow outgrape:
>>> I think that Policy 8.2 is fully applicable to your package
>>> then. It is a MUST directive so your unwillingness to allow
>>> multiple versions of y
On Sun, 21 May 2006 15:55:53 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random
> opinions on this decision *don't* matter.
What is it, then?
A constitutional monarchy?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
* Michael Prokop:
> Using:
>
> invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || true
> /etc/init.d/$PACKAGE stop || true
>
> would be a replacement already used in some packages like for
> example at, binfmt-support, dnsmasq, drbd0.7-utils, freeradius, hal,
> scanlogd, sl-modem-daemon, snort.
I suppose it would
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 368511 gnome-ruby
Bug#368511: Removal of libgtk1.2 ruby bindings (meta-bug)
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `gnome-ruby'.
> block 368511 by 368512
Bug#368511: Removal of libgtk1.2 ruby bindings (meta-bug)
Was not blocked by any bugs.
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:34:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > the project by not consulting you first is so much bullshit, because *they*
> > are the ones who bear the primary liability from distributing these
> > packages, and other developers (as opposed to mirror operators) bear none at
>
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 23:25:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> You're correct. So can you give reasonable and legitimate reasons why
>>> "one might not wish to follow" the "you must" guidelines in this
>>> instance?
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 04:48:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Remember that for non-free, we provide no guarantee except for the
> > notice that we're allowed to distribute. We don't even guarantee that
> > some end-user might actually be legally all
Juha Jäykkä wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I was digging around a problem with a user not being able to access his
> cdrom even though the user belongs to group cdrom (as reported by "groups
> user") and the cdrom device is mode rw- group cdrom. It was immediately
> clear this is a libnss-ldap issue, since the p
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 22 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow outgrape:
>> I think that Policy 8.2 is fully applicable to your package then. It
>> is a MUST directive so your unwillingness to allow multiple versions
>> of your library to coexist does not affect the violation.
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> By reading your email, I feel you are acknowledging the fact the
> ftp-masters cabal (I can't name it otherwise after seeing their behavior
> IRL) is treating other developers as second-class contributors who
> should just do as th
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:51:21AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> And whether it's a democratic republic or some other form of hybrid
>> mostly depends on whether you consider ftp-master to be a delegate
>> position or a somewhat independent check, a que
Hello,
this issue has been discussed some time ago:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/08/msg00299.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/08/msg00298.html
I would like to hear your current opinion about this topic. IMHO
removing a package should "just work" and currently this
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libcolt-java
Version :
Upstream Author : Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://dsd.lbl.gov/~hoschek/colt/
* License : BSD(ish) and LGPL
Programming Lang: Ja
On Monday 22 May 2006 06:56, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > On Monday 22 May 2006 13:35, you wrote:
> > > Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings
> > > and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenari
Package: general
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
I wish we could stop shipping the Ruby bindings for libgtk1.2.
(libgtk1.2 being completely obsolete)
The rdepends show:
bee% apt-cache rdepends libgdk-imlib-ruby1.6 libgtk-ruby1.6 libglade-ruby1.6
libgdk-pixbuf-ruby1.6 libart-ruby1.6 libgnome-r
Am 2006-05-14 23:08:09, schrieb Hamish Moffatt:
> Without wishing to join the mob,
>
> e) it's difficult to install versions of packages not available from
> your regular sources.list. For example if you build a new (version of a)
> library package and then an application that uses it and want to
Am 2006-05-14 18:19:56, schrieb Carlo Segre:
> even better, just put the pbuilder/result in a user-readable and writable
> volume (/home/pbuilder for example) and run pbuilder as a normal user all
> the time.
This is what I do.
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
--
Linux-User #280138 with the L
Hi Eduard,
Am 2006-05-14 11:26:48, schrieb Eduard Bloch:
> > a) unbuildable
> > b) uninstallable
>
> Only in the hands of unworthy[tm].
Not realy...
> > Right solution is to use pbuilder, which will:
> >
> > a) always ensure that package can be built using unstable
> > b) keep your build envi
Hello Wouter,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 04:49:49PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On 5/19/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why would they have to work with dash?
>
> If the difference in speed is indeed that insane, that's nice.
>
> I
> Juha> These are different, why? According to man id "id" and "id
> Juha> " are the same.
> The first one shows the groups that are assigned to the current
> process, the second one shows the default list of groups the user will
> get when logging in again.
Ach, I did not know this, but i
On 22 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow outgrape:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 19 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow outgrape:
>>
>> setools is in the list, and contains libraries that it uses
>> itself, but does not break it up into multiple installed
>> packages. Setools is mo
On 22 May 2006, Juergen A. Erhard verbalised:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> [...] They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and
>> random opinions on this decision *don't* matter.
>
> Wow, thanks for telling us. I thought the Debian developers e
Josselin Mouette skrev:
They are the ones to tell other people what to do in general.
Uh, they do? I must have missed my list of assigned tasks from the
ftp-master team, then.
[...]
They are the ones preventing me from working on GNOME 2.14 because
packages are stuck in NEW.
Nobody is
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings
>> > and not automatons, I can't see any rea
Hi.
I reported [1] over a month ago, and also fixed it with some i18n on the side.
I've also looked at [2] and solved it, however packing some additional Perl
modules. I'm only a maintainer, my uploads being sponsored by David Moreno
Garza. How should I proceed in order to at least get [1] fixed A
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 03:34:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> What, prey tell, does Debian do in relation to the non-free archive that
> does not involve "distributing"?
Sorry for not being precise enough. I was talking about the indemnify
clause that worries me. And you cannot get rid of thi
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 13:35, you wrote:
> > They won't sue us for distributing Java. If they do, all we have to do
> > is point the Judge to the press coverage of this change of license, and
> > to the fact that Debian was mentioned
Cade,
http://au.geocities.com/matriarch85106
Wilbert Dillon, Ref. qqz7978
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> I hope this special treatment has nothing to do with the sun-ubuntu deal
>> announced a few days ago.
>
> What relationship could you possibly suspect between this event and
> processing
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings
> > and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenario in which we could
> > be sued and
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their
> > software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his
> > statement is legally no
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libgeo-postcode-perl
Version : 0.15
Upstream Author : William Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Geo-Postcode/
* License : Dual GPL/Artistic
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their
> > software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his
> > statement is legally no
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
> > (2) Upstream status.
> > There hasn't been a new upstream for sysklogd since 2001.
> > All of the others are active upstream.
>
> Have you checked if SuSE's syslog-ng is heavily patched? If it's
> mostly alright, it's probably
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The difference would be that while you would act against the original
> author's wishes if you were to put warez on your server, the same isn't
> true about Sun Java. In fact, Sun explicitely asked us to please
> distribute their so
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> I hope this special treatment has nothing to do with the sun-ubuntu deal
> announced a few days ago.
What relationship could you possibly suspect between this event and
processing of this package in Debian's queue/new?
--
- mdz
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
> > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > [...] They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random
> > > opinions on this decision *don't*
Hex Star wrote:
Hmmm...interesting...the other time someone posted something explicit
and someone replied to it and pointed it out, everyone joined in and
investigated it...this time the person who points it out gets
criticized...go figure...I always get the short end of the stick...
I don'
Hi!
On Monday 22 May 2006 13:35, you wrote:
> They won't sue us for distributing Java. If they do, all we have to do
> is point the Judge to the press coverage of this change of license, and
> to the fact that Debian was mentioned as one of the distributors asked
> to please distribute Jav
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:22:25AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Heya,
>
> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Java flamewar]
> > DPL, I wonder Why the Sun-Java package is not handled the same as any
> > other package. What makes it so special that it deserves special
> > treatm
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> How does sending directly to from reportbug to an ISP's smarthost
>> validate the user's email address better than sending directly from
>> reportbug to a HTTP POST somewhere?
> I'm talking about an HTTP a
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:03:25PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> > And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I
> > as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even
> > if I ask, but i
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their
> software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his
> statement is legally not binding and the license says you are not
> allowed to offer it. Then yo
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:50:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by removing
> > java!
>
> Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez on
>
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>license agreement; and (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun
>and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities,
>settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees)
>incurred in connection with any claim, lawsui
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:51:21AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:26:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> That would make Debian, at most, a republic, not a democracy.
>
> > Would you care to elaborate and explain it isn't
Heya,
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Java flamewar]
> DPL, I wonder Why the Sun-Java package is not handled the same as any
> other package. What makes it so special that it deserves special
> treatment?
>
> Isn't this a discrimination against all other packages? :-)
ACK. This is the
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:24:38AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 08:01 +0200, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
> > Wow, thanks for telling us. I thought the Debian developers elected a DPL
> > every year. Of course, since I'm not one, I got that wrong.
>
> You seem to be thinking
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:29:05AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:50 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez
> > on my server I couldn't become legal again by just removing it. My
> > prior action would still g
Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 01:46, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:06:42AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > I personally thinks it hurts our users, and as a secondary effect,
> > us. Beeing distributable is a property that should not be depends
> > upon the time, the color of your ha
Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I
> as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even
> if I ask, but instead people are just told to shut up.
Even people in Oaxtepec have lear
On 5/22/06, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:50 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez
> on my server I couldn't become legal again by just removing it. My
> prior action would still get me sued, does
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:50 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez
> on my server I couldn't become legal again by just removing it. My
> prior action would still get me sued, doesn't it? And no, just saying
> I thought it was okay, does
On 5/22/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the word "estoppel" only has meaning in jurisdictions deriving
> from English common law, I think it'd be silly to assume it works the
> way you think it does in any of the other jurisd
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:26:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That would make Debian, at most, a republic, not a democracy.
> Would you care to elaborate and explain it isn't a democratic republic
> then?
Debian's delegate system makes it very stro
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> No I don't answer to "shut up". I answer to stop now because Anthony Tows
> responded to all the questions and give a precise course of action on how
> we can continue improving the situation concerning the java licensing.
So he sh
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 12:34:00PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> In that case, ftpmasters accepted it, end of discussion. You HAVE to
> accept decisions of delegates within Debian, that's how we can effectively
> work.
But that means that ALL delegates have to be either elected or appointed
by
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:25:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you*
> > say. The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do
> > in
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:26:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> [...] They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random
> >> opinions on this decision *don't* matter.
>
> > Wow, thanks for telling us. I thought the Debian developers elected a
> > DPL every year. Of course, sin
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:27:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> - Allow arch specific depends
>>> I propose to use "Depends: : (>= 1.2-3)" as syntax for
>>> thses. While for etch no pac
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 19 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow outgrape:
>
> setools is in the list, and contains libraries that it uses
> itself, but does not break it up into multiple installed
> packages. Setools is moving rapidly rnough that I do not intend to
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Adam Céile (Le_Vert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm packaging theses tools, right now !
* Package name: cobalt-panel-utils
Version : 1.0.2
Upstream Author : Jeff Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gentoo.404ster.com/projects.p
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > This is the whole point of the discussion.
>
> Not that I can see. Your preceding post focused on the *who* and the *how*
> of the decision, *not* on the what.
This is all entangled. Had this decision been taken in a transparent
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 08:01 +0200, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
> Wow, thanks for telling us. I thought the Debian developers elected a DPL
> every year. Of course, since I'm not one, I got that wrong.
You seem to be thinking that a democracy equals that everyone has a say
in every decision. Have yo
On Sun, 21 May 2006 23:25:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sun, 21 May 2006 20:20:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> It's an important document and certainly something that every developer
>>> should read and endeavor to follow where it makes sense, b
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 22:56 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 22:38 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> > Given this legal background of yours, could you please help by using that
> > to improve the licence, instead of just complaining about how others
> > handled it? Please
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Indeed, they will bear the *primary* liability. However if legal action
> > is taken against them or our mirror operators because of their decision,
> > the whole distribution process m
70 matches
Mail list logo
