On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 23:10 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It is my opinion that we would be better off dumping this
> whole shell specification thing in policy, standardizing on bash, and
> let it go.
I agree completely, for the reasons you indicate.
Thomas
signature.asc
Descript
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:55:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:52:06 +, Stephen Gran
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>
>>> > It would be nice if we could support all sorts of forms of
>>> > rebuilds, but in practice, what we tend to take seriously i
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:55:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I'm not arguing for being opaque, or eliding real problems in favor
> > of a fast release. I am just mentioning in passing that redoing
> > your build system on the fly mid-build can be expected to have a few
> > hiccups. We fr
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 19:41:40 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash in
>>> scripts is not considered a RC bug.
>> I can try to propo
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:52:06 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > It would be nice if we could support all sorts of forms of
>> > rebuilds, but in practice, what we tend to take seriously is the
>> > sort of FTBFS bugs that will affect the autobuilders. Since they
>> > bui
Hi all!
Thinking of changing the default behaviour of the devscripts "bts show"
(aka "bts bugs") command, and want to ask for opinions before I do so.
The BTS behaviour of http://bugs.debian.org/ has recently
changed. It used to resolve to:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=
whi
Hi All:
One final note, I sopke to upstream and he indicated that "SIXpack" would
his prefered name. And so it is now. As I mentioned previously, the
package name will remain "sixpack". Hopefully this is satisfactory for
you Charles.
Carlo
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, gregor herrmann wrote:
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo writes:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 08:36:08AM -0600, Kevin Glynn wrote:
>
> > Is anyone interested in apt-file? I have a proposed NMU that fixes
> > severity important bug #397381 and I am looking for a sponsor.
> >
> > There is also a more detailed patch that clo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Benjamin Mesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: umlet
Version : 7.0
Upstream Author : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.umlet.com
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Java
Description : simple, text driven U
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Peter Collingbourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: dot2tex
Version : 1.5.0
Upstream Author : Kjell Magne Fauske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.fauskes.net/code/dot2tex/
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Pyt
["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general.]
On 2006-11-11, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In all of the following discussion, no one has ever said
> anything about *WHY* policy states that clean must undo what build
> does. Unless we are clear on the r
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> Hi,
>
>
> In all of the following discussion, no one has ever said
> anything about *WHY* policy states that clean must undo what build
> does. Unless we are clear on the rationale for dictum, trying to
> resolve the issue is like
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 02:11:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 05:59:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> ...
> > > Option 3)
> > > * Set "Architecture: alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel
> > > powerpc sparc"
> > > * Ask ftp-master for removal of pac
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Giuseppe Benigno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: PDF-smp
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Giuseppe Benigno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.egregorion.net/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: bash
Description
Hi,
In all of the following discussion, no one has ever said
anything about *WHY* policy states that clean must undo what build
does. Unless we are clear on the rationale for dictum, trying to
resolve the issue is like playing blind man's bluff.
There are several reasons for
> Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach? I
> know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how
> best to deal with this issue. As you can tell from this patch, I favor
> the approach of documenting the specific features that we require and
> assu
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 06:33:10AM -0800, Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Version: 0.42.2ubuntu22-6
> Why do we need ubuntu version numbers in debian ?
Ubuntu is upstream for this package afaict from debian/copyright. And
0.42.2ubunt
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 06:33:10AM -0800, Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version: 0.42.2ubuntu22-6
Why do we need ubuntu version numbers in debian ?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 12:55:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:04 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Architecture: !s390
> > No, this syntax is not supported.
> What is needed to finally support it? It's been wanted for years now
> and is clearly better than not
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Firstly, should we be pointing to the SuS instead of POSIX
> (there is work going on a new version of the SUS), since it is open,
> and readily available on th 'net, and people can readily see it (as
> opposed
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: bouml
Version : 2.19.1
Upstream Author : Bruno Pagès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bouml.free.fr
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C++
Description : UML2 tool
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 08:36:08AM -0600, Kevin Glynn wrote:
> Is anyone interested in apt-file? I have a proposed NMU that fixes
> severity important bug #397381 and I am looking for a sponsor.
>
> There is also a more detailed patch that closes another four bugs and
> (I think) makes apt-file
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:45:31 -0600, Carlo Segre wrote:
> I would prefer, however, to keep the package name as "sixpack" rather than
> change it.
Just FYI:
There is a package called 'sixpack' containing a BibTeX editor [0] but
it's only 1) in my private repository and 2) in Ubuntu.
I never trie
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
If there is no technical concern, I would suggest that your binary would
be named SixPACK, to match what is used on upstream's website.
I would be rather reluctant to rename the sixpack binary of EMBOSS, as
it is a software suite which is very command
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:04 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Architecture: !s390
>
> No, this syntax is not supported.
What is needed to finally support it? It's been wanted for years now
and is clearly better than not having it.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally sign
25 matches
Mail list logo
