> "Greg" == Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg> A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask
Greg> himself at least four questions, thus:
Sample answers:
Greg> 1. What am I trying to say?
I am stupid.
Greg> 2. What words will express
Frans,
Thanks for that pointer. After trawling through some of the
mailing lists and searching for bug reports I found Robert Reif's
reply indicating this is related to drm and the fact that sparc does
not support cmpxcgh at the moment.
Still not sure how to exactly reproduce this, but I'll try t
On Monday 21 May 2007 23:51:24 Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Hi Weskey,
>
> Am Di den 22. Mai 2007 um 0:53 schrieb Wesley J. Landaker:
> > > If hardlinks are okay too, see the "perforate" package (I find this
> > > package hard to find, since the name is somewhat misleading). It's
> > > written in Perl.
>
Turbo Fredriksson dijo [Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:07:01AM +0200]:
> Frans> Debian cannot afford to have a broken kernel for a release
> Frans> subarch for that period of time. Kernel development moves
> Frans> too fast for that.
>
> Do we really NEED (read: _require_) the 'latest and gre
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Because software under the GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only
> software, while "GPLv2 or above" software is compatible with both.
> Developing or promoting GPLv3 software deliberately creates
> incompati- bilities (and I'm not only referring to link
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:07:01AM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> If I knew anything about kernel interior and development, I'd be happy
> to step up, but...
Why don't you step up and learn then?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> "Frans" == Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frans> Debian cannot afford to have a broken kernel for a release
Frans> subarch for that period of time. Kernel development moves
Frans> too fast for that.
Do we really NEED (read: _require_) the 'latest and greatest' (or whateve
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:10:06PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
[...]
> Those are good reasons. Those are different reasons than "static
> libraries are faster", which was the previous argument for keeping them.
No, that was "one" argument for keeping them, and the only one that I
could come up
On 22-May-07, 13:40 (CDT), Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:19:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Why should we spend time and space to provide something that doesn't
> > do anything useful?[1]
>
> I also once heard an argument that static libraries are
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lubos Kosco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: OpenGrok
Version : 0.4
Upstream Author : Chandan B.N, Trond Norbye, Knut Pape, Martin
Englund, Sun Microsystems
* URL : http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/opengrok
* License
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:19:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 20-May-07, 13:41 (CDT), Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:28:49AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > On 09-May-07, 04:02 (CDT), Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm not
On Mon, 21 May 2007 20:05:54 +1000, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> localStrict.te included below). I can compile my packages, and run
> Does localStrict.te really provide a benefit?
It quells any AVC messages; and some of them were quite
prolific. This way, any new message
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 16:41 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Frans, Cord, Martin, Pascal,
>
> I'm writing the listmasters because reading debian-user has become
> nearly unbearable for me (one of the sadly few DDs who bothers to read
> our user lists) due to volume and offensiveness/repetativeness of
> o
elw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems obvious that someone will *eventually* fix sparc32 support in
> the kernel upstream.
Why is that obvious? We were a huge SPARC shop and I don't think we have
any hardware left that can't run 64-bit SPARC code. I expect many sites
that were running SPAR
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 10:05 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 07:04:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:02:21AM +0300, Andrei Popescu a écrit :
> > >
> > > IMHO forcing people to take off-topic discussions out
> >
> > By the way, isn't debian-deve
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 16:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The main reason is the fact that sparc32 support is no longer being
> > maintained upstream for the kernel [2]. A result of that is that the
> > 2.6.21 kernel is currently broken, which forces the issue.
>
> It seems obvious that someone wi
The sparc32 port has been struggling for some time. Last month Jurij
Smakov, currently the most active Debian Sparc porter, raised the
question if support sparc32 should be dropped for Lenny [1].
The main reason is the fact that sparc32 support is no longer being
maintained upstream for the
On Tue, May 22, 2007, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ti, 2007-05-22 at 13:30 +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from
> > -legal and despite its concerns with the strategies developed in some
> > sections, Debian does consider it DFSG-free.
On ti, 2007-05-22 at 13:30 +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from
> -legal and despite its concerns with the strategies developed in some
> sections, Debian does consider it DFSG-free. Debian will however not
> push for its adoption, ma
[Cc:ing -legal, but please try to follow-up on only one list]
I am having a chat tonight with people from the FSF. Despite the
inevitable disagreements between Debian and the FSF, I am willing to
cooperate in a constructive manner on as many topic as possible. Here
are the topics we'll be di
Some fun suggestions
1 UK Style: Political correctness script that creates a virtual witch
hunt every time someone mentions anything off topic.
2 Fun Style: Debain developer membership requires a fee. The fee is a
tax to pay for rental of a meeting place. The meeting place is used to
settle di
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggested 1.2-3+s.lenny.1 in the past. More specifically:
>
> 1.2-3+a0... for local/vendor recompiles without source changes.
> 1.2-3+bXfor binary NMU
> 1.2-3+c0... for local/vendor changes with source changes
> 1.2-3+s... for security upda
Bonjour,
je viens par ce mail solliciter votre aide pour l'exécution d'une transaction
financière. J'aimerais investir dans l'immobilier ou un domaine prospère dans
votre pays que vous pourrez me conseiller.
J'ai Trois millions cinq cents mille Euros( 3.500.000 ) que je voudrais
investir
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How long should bugs be tagged pending in advance of an upload?
>
> Is it acceptable to tag a bug pending when fixed upstream and the
> maintainer is confident of an upstream release in under a week? (This
> is easy for me, I'm also upstream in many case
Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > granted there are things like this, but reproducible builds would be
>> > fantastic and well worth the effort.
>> If you're talking about "byte-for-byte identical builds", then no, that
>> would be a trem
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be better to unpack a package twice in two different
>> directories, build and clean in one dir and then compare the obtained
>> tree with the tree available in the other dir?
>
> I personal
On Monday 21 May 2007 22:56, Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How would that method cope with a cross-build? Emdebian has already
> > built some selinux packages from the Debian sources for a rootfs and
>
> We're talking about policy package dependencies, not about debian
> package dep
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:11:55 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to unpack a package twice in two different
>>> directories, build and clean in one dir and then compare the obta
Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 03:49:07PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 07:04:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:02:21AM +0300, Andrei Popescu a écrit :
> >
> > IMHO forcing people to take off-topic discussions out
>
> By the way, isn't debian-devel an off-topic place for this discussion?
I'm just following the off
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:36:14PM -0700, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Why should Debian developers spend the time setting up infrastructure
> for lists or IRC channels that, by definition even, have nothing to do
> with the Debian project? If the people who enjoy holding these
Compared to the cur
31 matches
Mail list logo
