If that's intended, then it needs to be done in such a way that even
low-to-moderately-skilled user can set it up with ease.
I know it's silly to even mention that, but unfortunatelly, user
friendliness and good documentation (good for users, not only for
developers!) are still, ehm, not a mat
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:20:02AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
>> I have been told by two different developers that licences using the
>> 4-clauses BSD licence as a template are free or non-free
>
> Sounds like some DD could use a licensing refresher course. 4-clause BS
Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> e.g.
> build: test_stable patch build-stamp
> instead of
> build: patch build-stamp
That would be good to be add in cdbs. I think we might want to have it
more flexible to allow it to work for CDDs too but I liked it very
much :-D
--
O T A V
Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060822 11:04]:
> > > 2) [technical] Remove the single point of failure by adding a
> > > Distribution: field to debian/control, say. The package will be
> > > rejected if t
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:20:02AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I have been told by two different developers that licences using the
> 4-clauses BSD licence as a template are free or non-free
Sounds like some DD could use a licensing refresher course. 4-clause BSD has
always been considered fre
Dear all,
I have been told by two different developers that licences using the
4-clauses BSD licence as a template are free or non-free (one opinion
per develop per).
There is a software that I definitely want to see in Debian and it is
covered by such a licence. Can somebody remind me whether I
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:42:46PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> The Dear Project Leader wrote:
> > Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead
> > of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed
> > it, given it was a major accidental change t
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:30:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Drew Parsons wrote:
> > Unfortunately it's happened against, this time with the upload of
> > xorg-server (xserver-xorg-core) 1:1.1.1-3, accidentally uploaded to
> > unstable instead of experimental. An easy enough mistake, it's only
> >
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jeremie Corbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: quicksynergy
Version : 0.3.2
Upstream Author : César Blum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://quicksynergy.sourceforge.net/
* Licens
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 02:45:38PM +0100, John Talbut wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain the official Debian set up for pwc based web cams?
>
> ..
>
>> The only Debian package for pwc is pwc-source . According to the copyright
>
* Uwe Hermann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 01:36:35PM +0300, Linas ??virblis wrote:
> > Oh come one guys. So instead of providing QEMU + QEMU Acclerator, a
> > partially free solution, we just go for totally non-free one? VMware was
> > not an option when there actu
Drew Parsons wrote:
> Unfortunately it's happened against, this time with the upload of
> xorg-server (xserver-xorg-core) 1:1.1.1-3, accidentally uploaded to
> unstable instead of experimental. An easy enough mistake, it's only
> one little field in a changelog file.
'2:' is not any worse than '1
On Tue August 22 2006 13:04, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Given that downloads like Debian ISOs are already putting a heavy
> bandwidth load on the servers and that they are already shared among
> many servers, I don't think it is a good idea to encourage users to
> load several servers at once with o
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 01:36:35PM +0300, Linas ??virblis wrote:
> Oh come one guys. So instead of providing QEMU + QEMU Acclerator, a
> partially free solution, we just go for totally non-free one? VMware was
> not an option when there actually was no alternative to it, so why is it
> an opti
Le jeudi 17 août 2006 à 11:48 -0400, Anthony L. Bryan a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Metalinks might be helpful on Debian's download page for CD/DVD images. You
> could have a single quick link to your ISOs that contains all the
> mirror/p2p/checksum info in it.
>
> Metalinks, a cross platform vendor neutra
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060822 11:04]:
> > 2) [technical] Remove the single point of failure by adding a
> > Distribution: field to debian/control, say. The package will be
> > rejected if the two fields in control and ch
Drew Parsons a écrit :
The Dear Project Leader wrote:
Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead
of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed
it, given it was a major accidental change to a rather core library just
as that library shoul
On 8/19/06, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it was recently brought to my attention that the documented method
for using the dbconfig-common hooks in a maintainer's postrm script
was non-compliant wrt policy 7.2. policy stipulates that packages
can not require use of programs from any non
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 02:45:38PM +0100, John Talbut wrote:
> Can anyone explain the official Debian set up for pwc based web cams?
..
> The only Debian package for pwc is pwc-source . According to the copyright
> information fro this package:
I've got one of these devices and found it
Can anyone explain the official Debian set up for pwc based web cams? After a
good few hours of trying to work it out, this is what I have come up with.
My usb set-up seems to be working OK under udev. lsusb reports:
Bus 001 Device 001: ID :
Bus 001 Device 002: ID 046d:08b2 Logitech, I
On 7/31/06, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Michael,
how can we get description for specific packages? There are some pages
of the debian web site, such as in the debian-med area [1], which
contain package descriptions that have therefore have already been
translated in some langu
Summary: - Unstable users,
please place xserver-xorg-core 1:1.0.2-9 on
hold,
or retrieve it from testing
or fetch your latest video driver from
experimental.
- Users of testing and stable are not affe
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:10:46PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lionel Elie Mamane:
>> Well, I have found one. Myself. You just have to interpret the part
>> after the second point as the integer part of an infinitesimal:
>> Let ε be an infinitesimal, that is a strictly positive number
>> (
Norbert wrote:
> * Drew Parsons wrote:
> > 3) [policy] Manual processing by ftp-masters when changing distro.
>
> The distribution wasn't changed.
It was in the case of the xserver-xorg upload. 1:1.1.1-2 had been sent to
experimental, 1:1.1.1-3 was sent to unstable.
Drew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: m16c-flash
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Thomas Fischl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.fischl.de/thomas/elektronik/r8c/r8c_flasher.html
* License : GPL
Programming
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:12:44AM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Drew Parsons wrote:
> > 3) [policy] Manual processing by ftp-masters when changing distro.
>
> The distribution wasn't changed.
The version of the uploaded xorg-server package was higher than the
version in experimental, and
We have stated:
> 3) [policy] Manual processing by ftp-masters when changing distro.
> Their decision is automatic rejection by default unless there is a
> changelog entry explicitly stating the distro change is occurs. This
> need only apply for uploads to unstable (or stable), not for uploads to
This is already a rather elderly thread, but I think I have some new info
on it.
First, this *only* seems to occur on X sessions started by gdm.
Second, pam_group.so has nothing to do with it.
Third, I removed all local accounts and groups (other than system users
and groups). This is also why i
* Drew Parsons wrote:
> 3) [policy] Manual processing by ftp-masters when changing distro.
The distribution wasn't changed.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060822 11:04]:
> 2) [technical] Remove the single point of failure by adding a
> Distribution: field to debian/control, say. The package will be
> rejected if the two fields in control and changelog do not match.
or just make dpkg-buildpackage fail if that happ
The Dear Project Leader wrote:
> Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead
> of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed
> it, given it was a major accidental change to a rather core library just
> as that library should've been frozen.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:24:06PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> No sign of what it actually did, no sign of whether the answer was
> yes or no. Yes, there is some stuff in there. But not always enough.
> Sometimes it spits out what the compile command was, and the code used,
> and sometimes it
32 matches
Mail list logo
