Quoting Benjamin Drung (bdr...@debian.org):
> Am Donnerstag, den 08.11.2012, 20:35 + schrieb Jon Dowland:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:29:02PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > Hm, I filed two unblock requests after that deadline, but before reading
> > > the announce mail about it.
> >
> >
On 9 November 2012 00:54, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:39:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Dmitrijs Ledkovs writes:
>>
>> > I would like to have a nocompress Debian build option that will skip any
>> > compression/optimisation at build time.
>>
>> > Specifically dpkg-buildd
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:39:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs writes:
>
> > I would like to have a nocompress Debian build option that will skip any
> > compression/optimisation at build time.
>
> > Specifically dpkg-builddeb and dpkg-source should use not use any
> > compress
On 9 November 2012 00:33, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs writes:
>
>> Gzip is ok, but many packages these days use xz -9 --extreme deb options
>> which is not fast at all on my pandaboard nor on my cloud instances with
>> capped CPU & memory. Using such compression is good for release de
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: 486 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 138 (new: 3)
Total number of packages request
Dmitrijs Ledkovs writes:
> Gzip is ok, but many packages these days use xz -9 --extreme deb options
> which is not fast at all on my pandaboard nor on my cloud instances with
> capped CPU & memory. Using such compression is good for release debs,
> but not in developer testing. It wastes develop
On 8 November 2012 23:39, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs writes:
>
>> I would like to have a nocompress Debian build option that will skip any
>> compression/optimisation at build time.
>
>> Specifically dpkg-builddeb and dpkg-source should use not use any
>> compression methods.
>
> Why
Dmitrijs Ledkovs writes:
> I would like to have a nocompress Debian build option that will skip any
> compression/optimisation at build time.
> Specifically dpkg-builddeb and dpkg-source should use not use any
> compression methods.
Why do you think this would be of any benefit? gzip compressi
Am Donnerstag, den 08.11.2012, 20:35 + schrieb Jon Dowland:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:29:02PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Hm, I filed two unblock requests after that deadline, but before reading
> > the announce mail about it.
>
> You don't state whether the decision impacts them or no
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves
* Package name: hybserv
Version : 1.9.2
Upstream Author : Patrick Alken and Dinko Korunic
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/hybserv2/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : IRC
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Peter Samuelson writes:
> > ...But it does bring up the question of why intel-microcode and
> > amd64-microcode are not built on kFreeBSD or the Hurd. Maybe those
> > kernels lack a CPU microcode interface?
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/faq/compatib
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 07:21:30PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Apologies for the lack of clarity in the d-d-a posting - the new
> acceptance criteria are for unblocks filed after 11:54:49 + today.
No problem - thanks for the clarification!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:29:02PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Hm, I filed two unblock requests after that deadline, but before reading
> the announce mail about it.
You don't state whether the decision impacts them or not, but so it goes…
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lis
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 07:13:45PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 8. November 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > As far as I can see Mr Crockford _enjoys_ being asked to change his
> > license. So no, please don't feed the troll.
>
> As much as I think this licence is stupid (from my free s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Florian Schlichting
* Package name: libunix-configfile-perl
Version : 0.06
Upstream Author : Steve Snodgrass
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Unix-ConfigFile/
* License : GPL-1+, Artistic
Programming Lang: Perl
De
Hi!
Peter Samuelson writes:
> ...But it does bring up the question of why intel-microcode and
> amd64-microcode are not built on kFreeBSD or the Hurd. Maybe those
> kernels lack a CPU microcode interface?
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/faq/compatibility-processors.html
Though I rather doubt the li
> On Donnerstag, 8. November 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > And an annoying technical detail makes it suboptimal to add the microcode
> > > packages as a recommendation of the firmware-linux-nonfree package.
> > ...which is that dpkg does not support architecture-specific relations
> > in binary
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 19:13, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 8. November 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > As far as I can see Mr Crockford _enjoys_ being asked to change his
> > license. So no, please don't feed the troll.
> As much as I think this licence is stupid (from my free software point of
On Donnerstag, 8. November 2012, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Hm, I filed two unblock requests after that deadline, but before reading
> the announce mail about it.
get a lawyer, quick!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
I would like to have a nocompress Debian build option that will skip
any compression/optimisation at build time.
Specifically dpkg-builddeb and dpkg-source should use not use any
compression methods.
Similarly other tools can optionally listen on that variable e.g.
skipping pkgmangler and dh_scou
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 8. November 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > And an annoying technical detail makes it suboptimal to add the
microcode
> > packages as a recommendation of the firmware-linux-nonfree package.
> ...which is that dpkg does not support architecture-specific relations
> in binary pack
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 8. November 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> As far as I can see Mr Crockford _enjoys_ being asked to change his
> license. So no, please don't feed the troll.
As much as I think this licence is stupid (from my free software point of
view), I don't think he should be called a troll,
Am Donnerstag, den 08.11.2012, 19:21 + schrieb Neil McGovern:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:18:55PM +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:40:18PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > Which policy applies to #685913 (and all the other open unblocks)? The
> > > policy announced at the
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:18:55PM +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:40:18PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Which policy applies to #685913 (and all the other open unblocks)? The
> > policy announced at the beginning of the freeze or the current policy?
>
> …or the time the unblo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libtins
Version : 0.2
Upstream author : Matías Fontanini
* URL : http://libtins.sourceforge.net/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C++
Description : C++ library for manipulating raw network packets
This
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Martin Steghöfer"
* Package name: throttle
Version : 1.2
Upstream Author : James Klicman
* URL : http://klicman.org/throttle/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : bandwidth limiting pipe
throttle
On 06.11.2012 23:24, Moray Allan wrote:
There will be some Debian packaging and bug-squashing tutorials, and
ideally some actual bug-squashing, this coming weekend in Banja Luka.
Dates: 2012-12-10 and 2012-12-11 (starting 11 a.m. local time)
These dates look like December 10/11 and not Novembe
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:40:18PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Which policy applies to #685913 (and all the other open unblocks)? The
> policy announced at the beginning of the freeze or the current policy?
…or the time the unblock was filed?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> On 06/11/12 17:05, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Still, it did lead me to a possible cause: I am not trying to modprobe
> > "microcode" in the intel-microcode postinst. This can indeed cause the
> > failure to update microcode at p
* Leo 'costela' Antunes , 2012-11-08, 16:25:
Ansgar has recently made an MBF against all packages including the
problematic JSON license term "The Software shall be used for Good, not
Evil". From what I've seen, most - if not all - of the affected
packages are using in-source libraries copyrigh
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:25:51PM +0100, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ansgar has recently made an MBF against all packages including the
> problematic JSON license term "The Software shall be used for Good, not
> Evil". From what I've seen, most - if not all - of the affected packages
>
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:25:51PM +0100, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> Should we maybe try again? As Ansgar
> mentioned in one bugreport, the license is considered non-free not only
> by us, but by Fedora as well[1] (and it's also notOSI-recognized)
FWIW, by FSF too: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/
Hi,
Ansgar has recently made an MBF against all packages including the
problematic JSON license term "The Software shall be used for Good, not
Evil". From what I've seen, most - if not all - of the affected packages
are using in-source libraries copyright JSON.org, which AFAIK means
convincing a s
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> The policy and diff from the start can be found at
> http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html
Which policy applies to #685913 (and all the other open unblocks)? The
policy announced at the beginning of the freeze or the current pol
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:09:51PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> > Unblocks and Freeze Policy
> > --
> > ...
> > We're also reducing the acceptance criteria [RM:POLICY] - we're now only
> > going
> > to accept:
> > ...
>
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Unblocks and Freeze Policy
> --
> ...
> We're also reducing the acceptance criteria [RM:POLICY] - we're now only going
> to accept:
> ...
Which policy applies in the case of unblock requests that are pending
action by
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 07:01:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I'd like to go ahead with a "Severity: wishlist" mass bug filing to
> kindly ask maintainers to add the missing header. The proposed mail
> template for mass-bug is attached.
This is now done, status page is at:
http://bugs
37 matches
Mail list logo
