Re: RFH: linux-2.6 patch needs tester

Am Donnerstag 23 November 2006 07:43 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > I wrote a patch for the linux-2.6 source top enable 64bit kernels for > i386 as we had in sarge. I've tested the patch on amd64 and i386 so I > know native builds will work. You wrote in #379090: "Without that flag the build trie

Re: Accepted jokosher 0.2-1 (source all)

Am Donnerstag, den 23.11.2006, 07:45 +0100 schrieb Daniel Holbach: > Hello Florian, Sorry everybody. I woke up too early today to recognize the forced Reply-To. Have a nice day, Daniel signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Re: Accepted jokosher 0.2-1 (source all)

Hello Florian, Am Mittwoch, den 22.11.2006, 17:17 + schrieb Florian Ragwitz: > jokosher (0.2-1) unstable; urgency=low > . >* New upstream release. >* Update 10_desktop_file for 0.2. >* Location of installed files changed slightly. > + Modify debian/jokosher.sh and debian/jok

RFH: linux-2.6 patch needs tester

Hi, I wrote a patch for the linux-2.6 source top enable 64bit kernels for i386 as we had in sarge. I've tested the patch on amd64 and i386 so I know native builds will work. What I can't properly test (for lack of hardware) is cross compiling linux-2.6. I'm looking for someone with !i386,!amd64

Bug#399958: ITP: tclap -- Templated command-line argument parser

Package: wnpp Owner: Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Severity: wishlist * Package name: libtclap-dev Version : 1.1-0 Upstream Author : Mike Smoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL or Web page : http://tclap.sourceforge.net/ * License : BSD (see below) Description : Tem

Re: ITP: PySparse - a sparse linear algebra extension for Python

On 11/20/06, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Second, I may need some advice on the license: Copyright (c) 2001-2003, ETH Zurich and Roman Geus All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the follo

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 01:15 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit > requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages > "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to > "make bash go away". I suggest removing th

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit requirement > for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages "need" bash to make > them work. someone may then provide a patch to "make bash go away". This would conflict with Policy 3.5, w

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Okay, here's try number two. I tried to incorporate the feedback from > various people. Please critique. > > --- debian-policy-3.7.2.2/policy.sgml 2006-10-02 15:36:50.0 -0700 > +++ /home/eagle/dvl/policy/policy.sgml2006-11-20 22:35:59.0

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:54:47PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 11:52:38PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > > gpg --recv-keys A70DAF536070D3A1 && (gpg --export -a A70DAF536070D3A1 | > > > > apt-key add -) > > > > > > Uh, don't forget the part about verifying tha

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 11:52:38PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > gpg --recv-keys A70DAF536070D3A1 && (gpg --export -a A70DAF536070D3A1 | > > > apt-key add -) > > > > Uh, don't forget the part about verifying that the key is actually > > signed by the ftpmasters. Skipping that step pretty much

Seeking sponsor for MaxDB r-c upload

Hi, as my regular sponsor is out of town I am looking for someone to sponsor the upload of the latest maxdb-7.5.00 package that fixes a release-critical bug for etch (#398413). I would be very grateful if someone could take the time to upload the package. The .dsc and .diff.gz as well as binary .d

Re: Question about "Depends: bash"

On 2006-11-22, Michelle Konzack wrote: [] > I am using things like > > Arrays > ${#NAME} In dash there is one, but i don't know about `*' and `@' there. > ${parameter:-word} > ${parameter:=word} Both work. > ${parameter:offset} > ${parameter:offset:length} Here you know what and w

Re: Bug#398752: nvi package should provide virtual package editor

severity 398752 wishlist clone 398752 -1 reassign -1 debian-policy retitle -1 (Re-)Add "editor" to virtual package list block 398752 by -1 thankyou (adding CC:d-policy, last time to CC:d-devel) Hi Eddy, > Well, some people provided some (good) counter examples, but they seem > unreplied. > Look

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:09:58PM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Noone answered, yet, why this key is not in debian-archive-keyring package. > I thought that the whole idea was to make it available before it gets used. > That would be the easiest (install it at installation time) and > "apt-key

Re: Question about "Depends: bash"

On 2006-11-22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Oleg Verych > >| o `arrays' bashizm -> tmp=$@ ; set -- $ARRAY ; use_array $@ ; set -- $tmp > > This is in no way equivalent (with dash): > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ set -- "abcd efg" "hij" > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ echo $@ > abcd efg hij > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\

Re: Question about "Depends: bash"

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 07:31:37PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: [snip] > ${#NAME} > ${parameter:-word} > ${parameter:=word} These are supported in SuSv3 compliant shells too. > ${parameter:offset} > ${parameter:offset:length} These are not. > disown You actually use job-control i

Re: Question about "Depends: bash"

Am 2006-11-20 02:48:10, schrieb Oleg Verych: > On 2006-11-18, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Regarding the discusion about POSIX and sh I have a grave problem. > > > > My scripts (or better programs) are using #!/bin/bash because I use > > BASH specific extensions. > > Please, list the

Bug#399893: ITP: flashrom -- A universal flash programming utility

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: flashrom Version : svn-r2497 Upstream Author : LinuxBIOS developers * URL : http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/browser/trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom * License : G

Re: azureus upload

On 11/22/06, Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/22/06, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 01:25:54PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > > >On 11/19/06, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Simple fix for you: Upload a new one, ie slightly changing

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

Julien Cristau ha scritto: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 14:53:38 +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > >> that package is only 2 days old and did not transition to etch yet >> >> so it is too early to start signing etch archives with it >> >> and it empties the whole idea : to restore my trust path , I >> w

Re: azureus upload

On 11/22/06, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 01:25:54PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > >On 11/19/06, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Simple fix for you: Upload a new one, ie slightly changing upstreams > >> version number. > > Any comments on this mig

Re: Bug#398752: nvi package should provide virtual package editor

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (please keep me in CC) Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: > Hi Eddy, > (CCing d-devel, joining Christoph Haas' thread) > >> The nvi package is an editor, but in spite of that it does not provide >> the virtual package "editor". >> >> Please add this Provi

Re: Progress report on CodeFestAkihabara, macbook Debian installation experience

> I've just followed the instructions on the http://wiki.debian.org/MacBook wiki > to install Debian etch RC1 (i386) on my new core 2 macbook. I also tried > installing etch RC1 (amd64), but I failed because the refit package isn't > built > for amd64: > > admin/refit_0.7-3: Failed by buildd_ia

Re: azureus upload

On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 01:25:54PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > >On 11/19/06, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Simple fix for you: Upload a new one, ie slightly changing upstreams > >> version number. > > Any comments on this migration from contrib to main? You already got the above

Re: p.d.o and f.d.o inconsistency

On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 10:15:33PM +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote: > Question is: p.d.o doesn't reflect actual status of the packages? It is always outdated by at least a day, due to mirroring/syncing etc. issues. There might be additional issues which makes it temporarily outdated even more someti

Re: Question about "Depends: bash"

* Oleg Verych | o `arrays' bashizm -> tmp=$@ ; set -- $ARRAY ; use_array $@ ; set -- $tmp This is in no way equivalent (with dash): [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ set -- "abcd efg" "hij" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ echo $@ abcd efg hij [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ echo $1 abcd efg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ tmp="$@" [EM

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 14:53:38 +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > that package is only 2 days old and did not transition to etch yet > > so it is too early to start signing etch archives with it > > and it empties the whole idea : to restore my trust path , I > will have to manually download that

just wait more next time, Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

actually, there is no need for tons of documentation: the usage of the package debian-archive-keyring should really automate the whole thing, as long as it is done correctly: 1) release team generates new key and new package debian-archive-keyring 2) users install it : in postinst, /usr/bin/apt-

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

Luca Capello ha scritto: > Hello! > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:09:58 +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote: >> Noone answered, yet, why this key is not in debian-archive-keyring >> package. > > It's there since the last update: > = > debian-archive-keyring (2006.11.22) unstable; urgency=low > > * Non

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

Hamish Moffatt wrote: > But you need to be able to validate that package in some fashion too. In this case it's validated using the other signature on the packages file, which is made with a key that apt already knows about. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: double GPG signature in Release files

uh I see that there is a thread on that a. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

C-x $ (Re: First draft of review of policy must usage)

On 2006-10-25, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [] > + > +For arch dependent packages, binary-arch must > +exist, since it is used by the build daemons to auto +*buld* packages. The binary-indep target should > +also exist. If one

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

Martin Zobel-Helas ha scritto: > > gpg --recv-keys A70DAF536070D3A1 && (gpg --export -a A70DAF536070D3A1 | > apt-key add -) > $ gpg --recv-keys A70DAF536070D3A1 gpg: requesting key 6070D3A1 from hkp server keyring.debian.org gpgkeys: key A70DAF536070D3A1 not found on keyserver gpg: no valid Open

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > But Hendrik Sattler is perfectly right and this knowledge has to be stored > at prominant places like: > > a) installation manual > b) apt-key.8 > c) perhaps somewhere else Should the apt-get warning message be changed to refer to apt-key.8?

double GPG signature in Release files

hi I use amd64 here ; recently all tools (aptitude, debmirror) started complaining that archives are not properly signed ; here is a snippet of code to show the situation: $ cd /var/lib/apt/lists $ for i in *Release ; do echo === $i ; \ gpg --verify $i.gpg $i && echo OK ; done

Bug#399844: ITP: samba4wins -- a full featured replicating WINS server for UNIX

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Michael Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: samba4wins Version : 1.0.5 Upstream Author : Stefan Metzmacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba4WINS/debian/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

Hello! On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:09:58 +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Noone answered, yet, why this key is not in debian-archive-keyring > package. It's there since the last update: = debian-archive-keyring (2006.11.22) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload. * Add Etch release key

Folder option + Text link on your home page

Dear Sir/Madam, I represent a start up company called Evolgence an online marketing firm that is into content. I have just visited your website www.debian.org and have liked what I seen. I would like a text link on your home page that leads to a content based folder ho

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

Am Mittwoch 22 November 2006 11:05 schrieb Hamish Moffatt: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 09:48:46AM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > > Or even better: > > # gpg --keyring /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg --check-sigs > > A70DAF536070D3A1 > > > > I just assume that receiving the keys via the debian

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

On Wednesday 22 November 2006 07:22, Andreas Tille wrote: > But Hendrik Sattler is perfectly right and this knowledge has to be > stored at prominant places like: > > a) installation manual > b) apt-key.8 > c) perhaps somewhere else > > Could maintainers of a) and b) (and perhaps c) ;-)

Re: bash features (Re: Question about "Depends: bash")

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:12:14AM +, Oleg Verych wrote: > On 2006-11-21, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Oleg Verych writes ("Re: Question about "Depends: bash""): > >> o `arrays' bashizm -> tmp=$@ ; set -- $ARRAY ; use_array $@ ; set -- $tmp > > > > This is another piece of bad advice: this approach

bash features (Re: Question about "Depends: bash")

On 2006-11-21, Ian Jackson wrote: > Oleg Verych writes ("Re: Question about "Depends: bash""): >> o `arrays' bashizm -> tmp=$@ ; set -- $ARRAY ; use_array $@ ; set -- $tmp > > This is another piece of bad advice: this approach is buggy if the > arguments might contain whitespace, which is often th

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 09:48:46AM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Or even better: > # gpg --keyring /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg --check-sigs > A70DAF536070D3A1 > > I just assume that receiving the keys via the debian-keyring package ist more > trustworthy than via a random public ser

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

Am Dienstag 21 November 2006 23:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:50:29PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Martin Zobel-Helas] > > > > > gpg --recv-keys A70DAF536070D3A1 && (gpg --export -a A70DAF536070D3A1 | > > > apt-key add -) > > > > Uh, don't forget the part about verifyin

Bug#399818: ITP: liblogger-syslog-perl -- a simple wrapper over Syslog for Perl

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: liblogger-syslog-perl Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~sukria/Logger-Syslog-1.0/lib/Logger/Syslog.pm * License