On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Like lintian, your list falsely includes packages that use cdbs to build,
> which automatically updates config.{sub,guess}.
There doesn't seem to be a bug on lintian about this, please file one.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/Pa
On Saturday 25 April 2009 02:51:40 Bradley Smith wrote:
> In light of the recent outdated config.{sub,guess} discussion I have
> decided to generate a list[0] of packages that have these files from before
> June 2006, which is when the AVR32 architecture was added.
> The list was generated using l
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Speaking of which, where can one read more about that port? Are there
> build logs available (one might want to ease your task and keep an eye
> on them for some given packages at least)?
http://avr32.debian.net/
http://ftp-avr32.debian.n
Bradley Smith (25/04/2009):
> In light of the recent outdated config.{sub,guess} discussion I have
> decided to generate a list[0] of packages that have these files from
> before June 2006, which is when the AVR32 architecture was added.
Speaking of which, where can one read more about that port?
Bradley Smith writes:
> The list was generated using lintian 2.2.9 with this[1] patch. It is
> obviously possible that there are false positives in this list since the
> files might be not be actually used in the build, or they are copied from
> the host on clean etc. Please let me know if this i
Hi,
In light of the recent outdated config.{sub,guess} discussion I have
decided to generate a list[0] of packages that have these files from before
June 2006, which is when the AVR32 architecture was added. The number
of affected packages comes to 620, and obviously filing 620 bugs seems
like the
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 19:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > Okay. So I take it then that you would be against separate packaging
> > for Linux-Libre for Debian, and prefer instead to apply all its
> > changes to Debian's Linux?
No, but I am committed to separating sourceles
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: christoph.en...@spellbreaker.org
* Package name: fizmo
Version : 0.6.2
Upstream Author : christoph.en...@spellbreaker.org
* URL : http://spellbreaker.org/~chrender/fizmo/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C, C++
Descr
On Friday 24 April 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > rdate ist not a replacement for ntpdate - it does not use the ntp
> > protocol but the time protocol (builtin inetd) - So making
> > ntpdate depend on rdate is not a solution as it changes the protocol
> > and i dont think all nt
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> rdate ist not a replacement for ntpdate - it does not use the ntp
> protocol but the time protocol (builtin inetd) - So making
> ntpdate depend on rdate is not a solution as it changes the protocol
> and i dont think all ntp servers also open/support the time protocol.
rda
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:30:36AM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> - For Squeeze: a package "ntpdate" which depends on rdate and
> provides a wrapper script, used to emulate ntpdate's main functionality
> (set the system's clock) in terms of rdate and mark it as deprecated
>
> - For Sque
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" wrote:
> The easiest way for me to fix this is to do 'chmod +r
> /etc/apt/trusted.gpg' in the cupt's postinst. As this file contains only
> public gpg public keys, this should not harm anything.
An alternative would be to instruct the user to do the change, if you
cannot ge
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Steffen Moeller wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steffen Moeller
* Package name: profit
Version : 3.1
Upstream Author : Andrew Martin , Graig T. Porter
* URL : http://www.bioinf.org.uk/software/profit/
* License : non-free, n
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:30:36 +0200, José Luis Tallón
wrote:
> - For Squeeze: a package "ntpdate" which depends on rdate and
>provides a wrapper script, used to emulate ntpdate's main functionality
>(set the system's clock) in terms of rdate and mark it as deprecated
Isn't rdate what we tried
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steffen Moeller
* Package name: profit
Version : 3.1
Upstream Author : Andrew Martin , Graig T. Porter
* URL : http://www.bioinf.org.uk/software/profit/
* License : non-free, non-redistributable
Description : struct
Hi
On Freitag, 24. April 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Adeodato Simó writes:
>
> > To an hypothetical person that would deeply care about not running
> > non-free software, does that provide any real gain/benefit/improvement
> > over running a kernel full of request_firmware() calls, and never
> > i
Hello developers,
I am implementing a package manager named 'cupt' for Debian for the aim
to provide future APT replacement using the same archive infrasctucture
avoiding however some hard-to-fix APT bugs.
One of already present cupt features - checking of Release gpg
signatures in every run, not
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
>> Okay. So I take it then that you would be against separate packaging
>> for Linux-Libre for Debian, and prefer instead to apply all its
>> changes to Debian's Linux?
>
> I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I feel the urge to weigh in.
>
> I think
Ben Finney (24/04/2009):
> Think of it as “defense in depth”, ensuring that there is more than
> one barrier to undesirable elements.
Having to enable contrib/non-free and to pull stuff from there being of
course insufficient?
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Mathieu Malaterre (24/04/2009):
> I am trying to understand some license issue I am having. Could
> someone let me know if the following is compatible with a debian
> package:
You usually want -legal@ for that.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
Package name: antico
Version: 0.1
Upstream Author: [Giuseppe Cigala ]
URL: [http://www.antico.netsons.org/]
License: [GPL]
Description: [Antico
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Mathieu Malaterre
wrote:
> What I do not understand is implementation such as CharLS, which declare:
...
> Ref: http://charls.codeplex.com/
On an unrelated note, please do not package this until upstream fixes
the security issues that are mentioned on the website
Hi there,
I am trying to understand some license issue I am having. Could
someone let me know if the following is compatible with a debian
package:
>From the [For License Of Certain Hewlett-Packard Patents Relating To
Lossless and Near-Lossless Image Compression] page (*)
The following stateme
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> Hmm, wouldn't it be better to look for the newest version instead of
> "first one that's newer"? The above would work on a buildd where there is
> nothing in $HOME or under /usr/local, but could break on user's machines
> if they have a scrip
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:37:01PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> cur_v=`echo "$timestamp" | sed s/-//g`
>
> for path in \
> "$HOME/.config/automake" \
> /usr/local/share/automake \
> /usr/local/share/misc \
> /usr/share/automake \
> /usr/share/misc \
> ; do
>
> if test -x "$path/co
25 matches
Mail list logo
