also sprach Manoj Srivastava [2009.06.23.0325 +0200]:
> Now, Madduck wants us to say that there is no need for this
> broader identity verification mechanism, that oe should just trust
> him, and there shall be a means of smiting evil doers just the
> same -- but after debconf 6 --- his track reco
also sprach Russ Allbery [2009.06.23.0158 +0200]:
> > However, if you want to tie that key owner to a real person, to
> > somehow (my speculation) bring down the wrath on the community
> > on someone who does something nasty or subverts the DMUP or
> > causes the FSM to weep, well, you need the m
Hi,
as suggested on debian-user I repost my question here (sorry for the
cross post, but I think it's better than send to individual emails to
both lists, feel free to remove the other list)
I'm currently packaging some "internal" software named gds with the
great CDBS package. However, I have a
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Mon, Jun 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Going back to the previous discussion in debian-devel about signing a
>> key for which the only IDs are pseudonyms, I personally would do
>> that, but only if I knew the person personally and knew they were the
>> person who u
On Mon, Jun 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> So while signing keys is not about governments, as Russ said, it
>> is about establishing identity, and government issued identity
>> documents are better proxies for establishing that than I can be
>> bothered to
On Mon, Jun 22 2009, martin f krafft wrote:
> Does it matter whether I have a passport that carries my name, or
> whether the name on my key, with which I consistently identify
> myself in Debian, is actually my own name? Why would anyone care?
This is getting silly enough that we probabl
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> However, if you want to tie that key owner to a real person, to
> somehow (my speculation) bring down the wrath on the community on
> someone who does something nasty or subverts the DMUP or causes the FSM
> to weep, well, you need the meet and greet and key
Darren Salt writes:
> Perhaps this?
>
> * Install the binaries in /usr/lib/root.
> * Provide wrappers such as the following in /usr/bin:
>
> #! /bin/sh -e
> export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/root"${LD_LIBRARY_PATH:+:}$LD_LIBRARY_PATH}"
> exec /usr/lib/root/"$(basename "$0")" "$@"
It's genera
I demand that Bill Allombert may or may not have written...
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:43:16PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 21:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[snip]
>> ROOT has libraries named like libMatrix, libPostscript, libPhysics,
>> libMath, and so on -
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Harry Rickards
* Package name: antihex
Version : 0.02-1
Upstream Author : Zhaolei
Maintainer : Harry Rickards
* URL : https://sourceforge.net/projects/antihex/
* License : GPL, version 3
Section : math
Mathieu Malaterre (22/06/2009):
> Sorry this might be dumb, but I cannot get the *.commands to be signed
> as expected:
Use dcut.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:34:06PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> $ gpg --sign --armor gdcm.commands
>
> It creates a separate .gpg file instead of appending the signature to
> the actual *.commands file...
Uh, I don't think you want --armor. That signs the text and then
ascii-armors the ent
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11789 March 1977, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>
>> I had a network issue and had to re-run dupload a second time. Now a
>> partially *.changes files was updated, and I cannot do anything
>> anymore:
>
> Either wait for the files to time out
On 11789 March 1977, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> I had a network issue and had to re-run dupload a second time. Now a
> partially *.changes files was updated, and I cannot do anything
> anymore:
Either wait for the files to time out - or read the README in the
directory you try to upload to, loo
Hello,
I had a network issue and had to re-run dupload a second time. Now a
partially *.changes files was updated, and I cannot do anything
anymore:
$ dupload --force gdcm_2.0.10-5_amd64.changes
dupload note: no announcement will be sent.
Checking signatures before upload..signatures are o
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 07:27:17PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Zobel-Helas [2009.06.20.0127 +0200]:
> > If you care about any data you might have there please get it while you
> > can.
> >
> > Current plan is to shut down current gluck by end of June (so in about
> > 10 day
also sprach Martin Zobel-Helas [2009.06.20.0127 +0200]:
> If you care about any data you might have there please get it while you
> can.
>
> Current plan is to shut down current gluck by end of June (so in about
> 10 days).
Where is popcon being run now? DNS says bellini, but gluck still
seems t
Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
> Practically, I do see problems in the US, too: do you think a US court
> would grant you copyright if the only statement in a file were "(C)
> 2009, cate"?
The copyright office has a webpage that explains some of these
issues at http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl101.html:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:22:17AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
> > Practically, I do see problems in the US, too: do you think a US court
> > would grant you copyright if the only statement in a file were "(C)
> > 2009, cate"?
>
> Explicit copyright notice is not required
Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
> Speaking for germany (as I already did in this thread), you have to
> disclose your identity in court to make use of your civil rights. IOW
> you cannot lay claim to your copyright if you are not identified as
> the copyright holder. A pseudonym is then only helping (AFAI
On Monday 22 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I think it's worth getting some thoughts on this before filing a bug
> > about it (or not).
>
> Just see it's already been discussed to some extend in
> http://bugs.debian.org/254311.
And after looking a bit cl
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:02:59AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
>
> > but I don't think is is usable in open source. Editors/publishers are
> > required to know the real name,
>
> Why are editors/publishers required to know the real name?
>
> Maybe this is a juri
Mathieu Malaterre, le Mon 22 Jun 2009 17:36:31 +0200, a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Mathieu Malaterre, le Mon 22 Jun 2009 16:13:58 +0200, a écrit :
> >> My question is simply: how do express that only one Binary package
> >> requires a particular Build-De
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> but I don't think is is usable in open source. Editors/publishers are
> required to know the real name,
Why are editors/publishers required to know the real name?
Maybe this is a jurisdiction-dependent issue? I don't know of any such
constraint in the US, but
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-06-22, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Philipp Kern writes:
>>> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that
>>> collapsed "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is
>>> that we lost information about what needs to be built where. "any"
>>> i
On 2009-06-22, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes:
>> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that collapsed
>> "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is that we lost
>> information about what needs to be built where. "any" if there is one
>> i386 and one al
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mathieu Malaterre writes:
>
>> Let's consider one source package 'foo' which can be build using a
>> --enable-super-duper-3rd-party-lib. My control file is then:
>>
>>
>> Source: foo
>> Build-Depends: super-duper-3rd-p
On Monday 22 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> I think it's worth getting some thoughts on this before filing a bug
> about it (or not).
Just see it's already been discussed to some extend in
http://bugs.debian.org/254311.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a sub
Mathieu Malaterre writes:
> Let's consider one source package 'foo' which can be build using a
> --enable-super-duper-3rd-party-lib. My control file is then:
>
>
> Source: foo
> Build-Depends: super-duper-3rd-party-lib
> ...
>
> Package: libfoo
> ...
>
> Package: libfoo-s
Philipp Kern writes:
> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that collapsed
> "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is that we lost
> information about what needs to be built where. "any" if there is one
> i386 and one all binary package is just plain wrong, IMH
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
la, 2009-06-20 kello 08:56 +0200, David Paleino kirjoitti:
Is material copyrightable under a nickname, instead of a realname?
Yes, in all jurisdictions I am aware of. It's called a pseudonym and
tends to be explicitly recognized by copyright laws.
but I don't think is i
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 16:13:58 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> My question is simply: how do express that only one Binary package
> requires a particular Build-Depends package, but the other remaining
> Binary package should be fine ?
>
You don't.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Mathieu Malaterre, le Mon 22 Jun 2009 16:13:58 +0200, a écrit :
>> My question is simply: how do express that only one Binary package
>> requires a particular Build-Depends package, but the other remaining
>> Binary package should be fine
Christian Holm Christensen writes:
> This could be very bad for the root-system package set. ROOT has
> libraries named like libMatrix, libPostscript, libPhysics, libMath, and
> so on - i.e., very general names. For that reason I moved all the
> packages into the subdirectory /usr/lib/root to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Peter Pentchev
* Package name: mbuffer
Version : 20090215
Upstream Author : Thomas Maier-Komor
* URL : http://www.maier-komor.de/mbuffer.html
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: C
Description : tool for buffering
I think it's worth getting some thoughts on this before filing a bug about
it (or not).
Here's the use case:
$ mount | tail -n2
nfs-server:/project on /srv/project type nfs4 (rw,[...])
/srv/project/kernel on /home/fjp/projects/kernel type none (rw,bind)
So, an NFS share is mounted and a subdir f
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Alexander
Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Mathieu Malaterre schrieb:
>
>> My question is simply: how do express that only one Binary package
>> requires a particular Build-Depends package, but the other remaining
>> Binary package should be fine ?
>
> You can't.
Mathieu Malaterre, le Mon 22 Jun 2009 16:13:58 +0200, a écrit :
> My question is simply: how do express that only one Binary package
> requires a particular Build-Depends package, but the other remaining
> Binary package should be fine ?
Mmm, I guess that's more a question for debian-mentors? d
Hi!
Mathieu Malaterre schrieb:
> My question is simply: how do express that only one Binary package
> requires a particular Build-Depends package, but the other remaining
> Binary package should be fine ?
You can't. You specify build-depends for _source_ packages, which in turn
build the binar
hi,
I am reposting a previous post under a different Subject line,
hoping to get more (read: any) feedback.
I am currently maintaining the gdcm package:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gdcm.html
Is is written in -somewhat- portable C++ and should build with any
decent C++ compiler. However
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:43:16PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 21:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > In Policy Bug#519941, it was proposed to remove the Policy permission
> > for packages to modify ld.so.conf in exceptional circumstances. The
> > im
On 2009-06-22, Olivier Berger wrote:
>> Following Joss's mail to -release@, the following answer came:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/06/msg00216.html
> OK... so, how comes these dependencies aren't reflected in
> http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=gnome-desktop
On 2009-06-22, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
> is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
> architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
> Architecture: amd64 i386 all
> which lintan complains about:
> E:
Hi all,
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 21:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In Policy Bug#519941, it was proposed to remove the Policy permission
> for packages to modify ld.so.conf in exceptional circumstances. The
> implication would be that all packages which do this will need to either
> move their libr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Johannes Schauer
* Package name: gsm0710muxd
Version : 1.13
Upstream Author : Michael Dietrich
* URL : http://pyneo.org
* License : GPL2+
Programming Lang: C
Description : GSM 07.10 Multiplexer
pyneo mobile sta
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Johannes Schauer
* Package name: python-pyneo
Version : 1.13
Upstream Author : Michael Dietrich
* URL : http://pyneo.org
* License : GPL3
Programming Lang: Python
Description : pyneo mobile stack: basis librarie
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
> is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
> architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
> Architecture: amd64 i386 all
> which lintan complains about
Le lundi 22 juin 2009 à 03:51 +0200, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
> Aaron M. Ucko (21/06/2009):
> > [Copying the original poster because I'm not certain he's subscribed;
> > apologies for any resulting duplication.]
>
> [AFAICT, he is, since he replied in some threads previously. ;)]
Sure am I (on
Shaun Jackman (21/06/2009):
> I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
> is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
> architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
> Architecture: amd64 i386 all
> which lintan complains about:
> E: eagle s
49 matches
Mail list logo
