[Cc me on replies, thanks]
Hi Jose and Anibal,
You did sponsor packages for Christian Sánchez before, do you know if
he is still active in Debian or how could I contact him?
I failed to contact him on two ocasions: about an RC bug[1] in
libfile-sharedir-perl, and about his ITP[2] of libopenoff
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 498 (new: 60)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 118 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reques
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 16:33 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> So if any of the hardware that requires non-free firmware to operate and
> currently works in etch was to not work with Lenny, then that's
> completely unacceptable?
>
> If that's the case, then there is no way EVER to make Debian comply
Martín Ferrari wrote:
[...]
>
> If it's of any use, the PET project has a implementation from scratch
> of Debian version comparison, made by reading policy and dpkg code.
> The only bug I know of is that it doesn't reject some invalid
> versions.
>
To be more precise:
$ ./test pet.pl
pet.pl fa
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>> The buildd log pages, e.g. [1], used to be sorted by package version
>> (or maybe build date). However that is no longer the case.
>
> It seems that build.php relies on the results of opendir/readdir to be
> in order and that assumptio
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> In this specific case, he was already CCed on Steve's mail which began
> this thread...
Didn't notice it, sorry for the noise.
>
> Adam
Cheers,
Raphael Geissert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> For the sake of 10 binary firmwares, you want to make whole Debian
> depend upon non-free ? Wow, what an achievement.
>
> No, please, we don't accept regressions as a solution.
So if any of the hardware that requires non-free firm
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:47:00PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> There are SDKs called "Builder" where you will have NEVER source code,
> even as Developer, since the "Builder" create an IMAGE which will be
> uploaded into the the SRAM of a Microcontroller (I have some 8051
> compat
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:10:48AM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Curently I am building a hardware where the parts cost arround 40US$ per
> device (@10.000) and using the same microcontroller with a "big" FLASH
> memory would mke this Hardware arround 5 US$ in final production more
> expens
On Oct 30, 2008, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether they are plugins or modules or whatnot is irrelevant here.
I'm not sure on what policies your statement is based on, but clearly
to me what defines a package is not just an artifact of upstream
packaging that Debian itself is
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Anyways, the information is: I don't intend to maintain or run
> bts-link anymore[2], it is up for adoption. If the BTS people wish
> to inherit the beast they come first, but any motivated group of
> people are welcomed.
I'd really be glad if someone
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:23 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I have some experience with radios. The FCC requires all radios to be
> certified before they can be sold, and there is a requirement that you
> must not make a device that is easily modifiable to operate outside
> the limits put forth
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 17:34 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> So now as a Manufacturer I have the choice between
>
> 1) Use a huge NV/FLASH/EEPROM Memory which make the Hardware maybe
> 10-20 Euro more expensive and I will lost customers.
>
> 2) Use huge external SRAM (makes the Hardware exp
package powersaved
reopen 503991
thanks
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:28:36AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> > Package: powersaved
> > Version: 0.15.20-3
> > Severity: serious
> >
>
> This severity is totally exagerrated. wishlist would have been much more
>
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 01:48 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
>
> Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
No, it's not part of Debian. No
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:47:56PM +, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> if i understand things correctly than option 2 is what we are trying to
> do with the kernel in the moment (correct me if i am wrong), and the
> only thing i am saying is that having a package A which will not work
> (in some cases) w
I'll add my two cents.
I have some experience with radios. The FCC requires all radios to be
certified before they can be sold, and there is a requirement that you
must not make a device that is easily modifiable to operate outside
the limits put forth by the FCC. In this case, it would be illegal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 04:52:58PM +, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Pierre Habouzit 2008-10-30 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Anyways, the information is: I don't intend to maintain or run bts-link
> > anymore[2], it is up for adoption. If the BTS people wish to inherit the
> > beast they come first, bu
Am 2008-10-30 17:49:40, schrieb Giacomo A. Catenazzi:
> But most of the firmwares are outside wireless communication.
Right, but they are some like the one from me.
> How many manufacturers was sued because users burn the monitors
> (it was very easy) or other hardwares (e.g. try with hdparam) ?
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:47:56PM +, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > For the sake of 10 binary firmwares, you want to make whole Debian
> > depend upon non-free ? Wow, what an achievement.
>
> ok, i think i came across in a wrong way
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-10-29 22:52:52, schrieb Thomas Bushnell BSG:
I am sure, my enterprise is not the only one wondering about such
requirement to let users modify firmware of sensibel hardware which CAN
destuct the whole computer since they have to leafe out some stuff to
Re: Pierre Habouzit 2008-10-30 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Anyways, the information is: I don't intend to maintain or run bts-link
> anymore[2], it is up for adoption. If the BTS people wish to inherit the
> beast they come first, but any motivated group of people are welcomed.
If the BTS folks don't wa
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> doesn't that sound reasonable to you?
Yes maybe, but on the other hand, arent ppl used to the fact that the kernel
does not know about some available modules? Thats the whole idea of modules
(and plugins in other situations like media encoders).
Gruss
B
Am 2008-10-29 22:52:52, schrieb Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> > I am sure, my enterprise is not the only one wondering about such
> > requirement to let users modify firmware of sensibel hardware which CAN
> > destuct the whole computer since they have to leafe out some stuff to
> > get it into
ok, i think i have just woken up and must have mixed up a few unrelated
things in my previous mail(s). please disregard everything i said...
thanks robert
--
Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 21:11, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can this be fixed? The current situation is less than useful since
>> the latest build is buried in other output.
>
> If someone could attest to
> http://buildd.debian.org/~tviehmann/cmp_versions_php.txt
> (transla
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> For the sake of 10 binary firmwares, you want to make whole Debian
> depend upon non-free ? Wow, what an achievement.
ok, i think i came across in a wrong way, because that is certainly not
what i want!
but look at it this way: if
Le Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:31:44AM -0500, William Pitcock a écrit :
>
> non-free is not enabled by default. Suggests/Recommends:
> would be technically feasible though.
… but Recommends would not be welcome, as "No unmet recommends" was a release
goal of Lenny.
http://release.debian.org/lenny/go
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:34:47AM +, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> we relax the "main" requirements insofar that a package that depends
> on another package in non-free may stay in main (and doesn't have to
> go to contrib).
For the sake of 10 binary firmwares, you want to make whole Debian
depend u
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jelmer Vernooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: monodevelop-versioncontrol-bzr
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Author : Levi Bard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jelmer Vernooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : https://launchpad.n
On 30/10/08 at 13:50 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 21, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure that filing lots of bugs about missing Depends on
> > update-inetd really delays the release. Chris Lamb is fixing those bugs
> > faster than I file them anyway ;)
> WTF? Packa
On Oct 21, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that filing lots of bugs about missing Depends on
> update-inetd really delays the release. Chris Lamb is fixing those bugs
> faster than I file them anyway ;)
WTF? Packages other than inetd daemons MUST NOT depend on update-inetd
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Angel Abad (Ikusnet SLL)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libsvn-look-perl
Version : 0.12.442
Upstream Author : Gustavo Chaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/SVN-Look/
* License : GPL3+
Pro
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 à 12:07 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> > Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That would be
> > much more useful than useless babbling on mailing lists.
>
> Of course that’s Ben Hutchings. Sorry for mista
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
>
> Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
One way to resolve this dilemma is to realize t
jai is a member of Digg and would like to send you an invitation. With Digg
you can help promote and share news to the millions of Digg viewers with a
single click (Digging a story). It is free to join and only takes a minute to
sign up!
To accept this invitation follow this URL:
http://digg.c
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:58:12PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2008-10-27 17:01:50, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> > Jeff Carr wrote:
> >
> > > But the opencore case is the easy case, hybrid chips don't even have
> > > source. The firmware blob is often generated when you fabricate the
> > > ch
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:40:03PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2008-10-28 09:33:07, schrieb Tristan Seligmann:
> > Again, assuming I'm not misspeaking, that form of the work is already
> > what we have.
>
> ACK ;-)
>
> Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
> Michelle Konzack
In whi
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:33:27PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2008-10-28 02:45:31, schrieb Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo:
> > If it's not clear by now, people are not arguing that hardware should
> > not be used if it is not free hardware (either it is feasible or not to
> > distribute or
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:07:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That would be much
> more useful than useless babbling on mailing lists.
if you are talking about these [0], i certainly do not own any of these
pieces of hardware...
cu robe
Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 à 12:07 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That would be much
> more useful than useless babbling on mailing lists.
Of course that’s Ben Hutchings. Sorry for mistaking you, Ben.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org
Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 à 10:34 +, Robert Lemmen a écrit :
> the current situation concerning firmware blobs and dfsg-freeness is a
> bit sad, among other things because there really isn't too much we can
> do about it in the short run.
Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. Tha
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:31:44AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Not possible, non-free is not enabled by default. Suggests/Recommends:
> would be technically feasible though.
true, perhaps we even need a special dependency type. but these are
implementation issues. isn't the general route (put
* Thomas Viehmann [Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:11:09 +0100]:
> If someone could attest to
> http://buildd.debian.org/~tviehmann/cmp_versions_php.txt
> (translated from the perl that udd uses) being wrong in only harmless
> ways (except showing that C->Perl->PHP with the last step being done by
> someone
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 10:34 +, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
> the current situation concerning firmware blobs and dfsg-freeness is a
> bit sad, among other things because there really isn't too much we can
> do about it in the short run. so how about some practical proposal that
> we
Hi,
"ginstall" is the name of the GNU project's variant of "install" on systems
that ship with an implementation that does not have GNU extensions.
On Debian, the default "install" binary is the GNU one, so there is no need
to rename.
Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
hi everyone,
the current situation concerning firmware blobs and dfsg-freeness is a
bit sad, among other things because there really isn't too much we can
do about it in the short run. so how about some practical proposal that
we can actually implement in a reasonable timeframe that gets us in a
b
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:42:56PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2008-10-29 00:39:40, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> > How exactly do you propose to load the firmware, if not through a JTAG
> > port? Back in the world of production hardware which Debian runs on,
> > ASICs tend to have power-on-res
Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 22:10 -0200, Alexandre Oliva a écrit :
> > Because the kernel is perfectly usable without the firmwares.
>
> But how about the specific modules that require them, the ones that
> got this sub-thread started in the first place? It doesn't make sense
> to me to frame t
On Wed,29.Oct.08, 22:11:27, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> I am not realy sure, 50.000 customers would accept hardware which cost
> 45 US$ instead of 40 US$ because there are 2-3 OSS frickler which want
> access to the source because they want to fix something.
>
> Do you would give the FIXES bac
Am Donnerstag, den 30.10.2008, 01:48 -0500 schrieb William Pitcock:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
>
> Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
"Thus, although non-fr
51 matches
Mail list logo
