On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 01:14:09PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I think this is an awful idea. This means that developers will no longer
> test their packages before uploading, and we will have more bugs than
> before. Why build X [0] when you don't "have to"?
>
> [0] No attack on Branden, but
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 07:53:19PM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> For another perspective, think about the ongoing work to support other
> kernels than Linux. Presently, promising work is apparently being done
> on both Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/FreeBSD kernels. There are
> already packages
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Chris Cheney
>
> | Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
> | strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that
> | ffmpeg was allowed into main.
>
> Accord
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:32:45PM +0100, xerces8 wrote:
> Hi!
>
> ( sorry for not properly replying, I'm using a webmail )
>
> Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
> How about the other MPEG stuff ?
> I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
>
> Regards,
> David Balazic
Its
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 07:33:43PM +0100, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> I'm wondering why I can't see many different 2.6 kernels on my Sarge
> systems any longer. I own a Via C3-based computer (an x86 for those who
> didn't know) and can find only -386 and -686 kernels which could
> possibly match.
>
>
Why doesn't dpkg use the -a flag to diff?
Chris
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 07:11:45PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> apt-spy and pciutils (and possibly others) contain methods to update
> a database integral to their operation.
>
> - `apt-spy update` downloads the list of available Debian mirrors
> to /usr/share/apt-spy (see #2
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:21:44AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 10:43:02PM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 12:12:29AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > > Can you supply some message-ids or subject lines or something so that we
&g
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:54:13PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 04:07:56AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> | Only GNOME applications should be in the GNOME Applications menu.
>
> Why?!
Yea, I thought that was somewhat odd. The only reason the non KDE items
are be
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 12:12:29AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Please cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] about bugs.debian.org problems in future.
> >
> > Can you supply some message-ids or subject lines or something so that we
> > can investigate? master's e-mail doesn't appear to be generally broken.
> > I
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:47:17PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:28:51PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> <...>
> > .desktop files are not bloated... period. They include i18n which for
> > you is
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 06:33:52PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:11:08PM -0600, Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > All that would do is make it consitently different from all other
> > distributions. Assuming that they list
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:36:30PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 03:35:53PM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > It also appears master's email is broken. Bugs I tried closing in one
> > email yesterday (via multiple [EMAIL PROTECTED]) have yet to be closed and
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 12:28:29PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:12:58AM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
> | Cameron Patrick wrote:
> |
> | > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:57:29PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> | >
> | > | > Because you gain *nothing*
> | > |
> |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:28:51PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
> >
> > > > In which format shall application packages store
> > > > their menu information.
their
"Categories:" section all that would be needed, if we wanted to be
different from other dists, is tweaking of how to break out the menu
hierarchy. It would not involve any modification of the .desktop files
themselves.
See section A.
http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/menu-sp
eks now since Debian was compromised, hopefully it won't
take too much longer for Debian to return to normal...
Thanks,
Chris Cheney
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Another point is do we really want an arch/port to be maintained by only
one person? IMHO there should be at least two people capable and
actually running the buildds for each arch, possibly more when they are
too busy with other things as appears the case with Ryan.
Chris
signature.asc
Descript
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 02:55:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op vr 14-11-2003, om 11:34 schreef Ingo Juergensmann:
> [...]
> > As a result and a sort of protest, I´ll stopped my m68k buildd, because I
> > don´t know m68k that much to be of any help for this port anymore. Therefore
> > my m68k
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Anyway, on the given topic, are "reverse-suggests" possible?
>
> Quoth debian-policy, section 7.2:
>
> |Enhances
> | This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite
>
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 11:39:38AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:13:18PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > At least, the ability to do
> >
> > apt-get source linux
> >
> > as it should always have been.
> >
> >
> > I think it's time we put an end to this euphemism called "t
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 08:17:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I challenge the assertion that this affects a large portion of users.
>
> In the past few months, I've installed woody on roughly 30-40
> different types of box, all aged 0-3 years, and only one was
> unsupported by woody (and that
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:47:30AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> So all it would take to make the tools handle this would be to somehow make
> apt aware of more revisions of packages. They're all in the pool after all.
> Short of making some king of humongous mega-Packages file with every revision
> o
t to using Knoppix with debootstrap.
So no Debian stable really is not an option for a large portion of
users. At least anyone who has a machine newer than when the kernel
on b-f was last updated in Woody's case is kernel 2.4.18 from
Feb 25 2002.
Chris Cheney
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 03:13:23AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I still need to get KDE 3.1.4 into sid and stablized. I hope for it to
> be ready to migrate into sarge by Oct 20 (including the 10 day wait
> time). From what Colin Watson mentioned to me earlier today there are
> some ot
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:20:39PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 09:51, Adam Conrad wrote:
> >
> > > Package: libtool
> > > Version: 1.5-3
> > > Severity: serious
> > >
> > > libtool fails to build fr
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 08:24:20PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:20:03PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > You aren't trying to make debian/rules a jam script are you?
>
> Even if he was, that would be fine if he knew how to do it properly.
It would?
4.8. Main building scrip
e some plans on getting Gnome 2.4 into sid and possibly
sarge but I don't know the current status of this plan. The Gnome team
wanted to insure that all of Gnome 2.2 was in sarge before transitioning
to Gnome 2.4.
Chris Cheney
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 04:58:34PM +0200, Henning Moll wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:27, Colin Watson wrote:
> > No, plain .so links are only needed for build-time linking, and
> > therefore live in development packages.
>
> Thank you for that information!
>
> But now i am in a bit of
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 06:12:17AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Actually the problem is somewhat lessened by the fact libtool generally
> doesn't put the .la path in dependency_libs and puts -lXrender instead.
>
> The *only* package I can see so far which has
> /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrender.la
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 02:58:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think the problem with .la files may be solvable by updating
> Build-Depends and -dev packages' dependencies to refer to libxrender-dev
> (>= 0.8.3-1), and/or libraries that are rebuilt against that version of
> libxrender-dev.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:30:56AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 07:33, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
> > Does anyone happen to know why .la files hardcode the paths to .la files
> > that they depend on?
> >
> To guarantee that you don't end u
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:26:45AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:33:01AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
> > Does anyone happen to know why .la files hardcode the paths to .la
> > files that they depend on?
>
> Anal-retentiveness wrt usin
Does anyone happen to know why .la files hardcode the paths to .la files
that they depend on?
For example:
dependency_libs=' -lm -L/usr/lib /usr/lib/libogg.la'
This is about to bite Debian hard with some of the XFree86 libraries
moving to /usr/lib.
Chris Cheney
---
# libvorbis.la -
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:57:37AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:59:10AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly into /usr/doc
> >
> > usr/doc/examples/ucbmpeg/mpeg_encode/nosearch.param graphics
/mpeg_encode/nosearch.param graphics/ucbmpeg
Chris Cheney
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:13:36AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Or, alternatively, this was the only crappy NMU that was noticed while
> quite a few others were made against ancient packages with inactive
> maintainers who didn't notice or didn't care. I'm not terribly
> interested in going throu
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:40:27AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Some users have approached me about my packaging on tvtime, which lives
> in main. It benefits greatly from libdscaler, a contrib package. They
> are asking that tvtime Suggests libdscaler. I thought that the
> appropriat
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:09:29PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:59:58PM -0500, Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:09:16PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:10:21PM
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:09:16PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:10:21PM -0500, Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > I also don't think it is a particularly good idea for aptitude to
> > default to installing sugges
ot against aptitude, or a better package management tool in
general, I just don't like the way aptitude currently "works".
Chris Cheney
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> I believe this is the bugs it would be most effective to actack when
> the packages I'm personally directly interested in. It can be hard to
> look at the RC-list and decide if the time is better spend fixing
> libtse3, libvorbisfile3
then.
Chris Cheney
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I noticed while verifying that the buildds weren't still using the buggy
g++ 3.3.2-0pre4 that some are using 3.3.2-0pre1 which is 6 weeks old. Is
there a particular reason some of the buildds are so out of date?
Chris
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:31:49PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > it is faster and wiser to fix your kernel-source-2.4.22 (unpatch is
> > useless,
> > leave to users to patch if they want) then all other
> > kernel-patch-
> > packages will be fine.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 06:08:17PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:34:39PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote:
>
> > A quick summary of this bug:
> > Arson, a KDE CD burning application, includes two .desktop files to
> > associate certain files with it:
> > /usr/share/mimelnk/app
Stephan,
Would it be possible to get the two desktop filesi mentioned below merged
into kdelibs so that arson and k3b are easily installable at the same time?
I can do the commit myself if you approve.
Thanks,
Chris Cheney
Debian KDE Maintainer
PS - Christian/Jean-Michel there is a new debian
r I don't know if
this is actually true.
Chris Cheney
pgp5prSRABZOD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:49:44PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> What recent change in the KDE releasing schema let you think that they will
> manage to get a really stable x.y.0 release [*] when it seems like it took 4
> minor releases in the 3.1 branch ?
>
> Naturally, no offense intended to th
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:34:18PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
> > KDE3.2 doesn't miss the deadline by 7 days, it misses the deadline by
> > almost two months:
> >
> > * October 15th
> >Final, last-minute, low-risk bug fixes only
>
> Monday September 29th, 2003: Preparing Beta1
> The HEAD branch is
(KDE 2.2 _will not_ stay in sarge!)
XFree 4.3.0 (Branden wants this to happen...)
Chris Cheney
[0] http://www.gnome.org/start/2.3/
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:10:01PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I've always thought KDE a wonderful example of what happens when you
> give commit access to just about anybody too.
>
> Scott
> (GNOME user)
Oh you mean the fact that KDE has rapid development... Yep. ;)
Chris
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:41:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
> Not to toot my own horn, but I was accepted in under one week. I took 2 weeks
> to read up on everything, then after I sent in my app, less than a week later
> I was acc
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:35PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Interessting analysis. Many things that hold up the release can only be
> > solved by active and experienced maintainers since the packages are often
> > es
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:29:54PM +0300, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> I am currently on NM process. And as far as I know, there have been
> totally over 700 developer of Debian officially.
>
> What I would like to point out here is, totally over the world claims
> that debian is being obsolete. New
another 10 days to migrate, and causes unneeded load on
the buildds, possibly with the packages no longer being able to be
built since gcc 3.3 is so anal now. (/me wonders how many RC bugs are
around just for gcc 3.3 related crap)
BTW - For those wondering Woody was released over a year ago...
Thanks,
Chris Cheney
PS - I apologize for sounding like an asshole, however this general
problem really does need fixing.
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 03:55:41PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote:
> Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> >
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:55:48AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * LapTop006 [Sun, Aug 03 2003, 03:13:57PM]:
>
> > > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> > > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> > > it.
> > How abo
that an old lib can
not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
it.
Chris Cheney
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman said:
> >I disagree. If I'm not mistaken, this is the definition of an RC bug.
> >If
> >the package has an RC bug, it is not releasable. If there is an RC bug
> >which does not imply that the package is unreleasa
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:36:58PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I feel a little like screaming.
-snip-
Ouch I didn't realize it was that bad :\
The list of problems I currently know about for KDE are:
1. ia64 gcc 3.3 bug
2. s390 glibc kernel header ptrace.h violates ISO C [0]
3. xfree86 4.2.
I think we determined on #debian-devel that the problem is that the
alpha, powerpc, and sparc buildds are broken and need manual
intervention to remove the sbcl package.
Chris
s not installed in it.
Why is this package being pulled in?!
Examples:
kdeadmin- alpha, powerpc
kdegraphics - alpha, powerpc, sparc
Thanks,
Chris Cheney
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:38:37PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:06:39PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>
> > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:50:15PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > If there are RC bugs to packages
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:06:17AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Recently I purged a package foo which had a configuration directory
> /etc/foo/. The package contained a number of conffiles in /etc/foo/ .
> I backed up some of these before the purge by copying them to other
> names, but leaving them
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 09:13:09PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 02:08:38PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:39:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > How do you expect menu to generate menus without an /etc/menu-method/
>
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:39:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> How do you expect menu to generate menus without an /etc/menu-method/
> directory ? Also autogenerated menus should go in /var.
Oops you are correct, for window managers that don't support the spec
natively we still need that dire
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:24:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:08:00PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > I have read it, and I have still difficulty to understand its
> > > full implication.
> >
> > The implication is basically that we use it as the format of our menu
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:16:12PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> I think you might be the "sucker". :) [ok, it's not a flame thing].
> Does the radeon driver support 3D accel for cards beyond the R1xx level?
> ie. something like Radeon 7500. I don't think that Radeon 8500, 8800, etc..a
> are supported
Are these drivers much better then than XFree ones or is there a reason
to be promoting nonfree drivers? I orginally packaged up the nvidia ones
in the way they are done due to the fact the XFree ones had no 3d
acceleration at all and that it was illegal to distribute nvidia's
binaries directly. A
/me coughs
;)
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 04:34:55PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030530 20:50]:
> > > I think making things consistent needs us to write them on our own,
> > > taking upstream entries as suggestions. In my eyes it is just
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 08:59:58PM +0200, Josef Spillner wrote:
> One day, SVG icons might be used, so there has to be some kind of flexibility.
> It would be nice to work towards collaboration with freedesktop.org, probably
> a fallback mechanism can be implemented.
> I personally do not want to
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:59:57AM +0200, Morten Brix Pedersen wrote:
> In implementing it, I have encountered some issues which I would appreciate
> input on.
>
> 1) The sections that are normally used within the Category field in a .desktop
> file isn't the same as with menu. Here I have decided
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 11:19:44AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030529 22:40]:
> > Yes, it is our task to make it *consistent*. It shouldn't be our task
> > to write menu entries from scratch, when upstreams can (and are) taking
> > on the task. Our menu s
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 14:12, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > - Imagine, for example, a developer files his
> > browser in Apps/Browsers instead of Apps/Net - What can we do about it?
>
> Um, patch it, just like we do for other upstream things
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:12:08PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I am not too sure I want this... One of the great things about our menu
> system is that it complies with a rather logical policy - menus are not
> overly nested. I don't know how is the .desktop format, but I understand
> it is just th
Is the Debian menu system going to convert to using the freedesktop
menu spec?
http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/menu/draft/menu-spec/menu-spec.html
As far as I know both Gnome and KDE follow it and possibly others.
Chris
Why not kick upstream into releasing 2.7.1 with proper soname bump to
libsensors2 (Make sure they are aware they screwed up...). Then upload
libsensors2, there are only 8 sources depending on libsensors1 now so
it wouldn't be a big deal to rebuild those few in any case.
Chris
sources depending on
On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 09:00:02PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Something related to #189750, perhaps?
>
> --
> Looks like excitement by repetition!
It is very unlikely that it is related to 189750, but it could be
something related to how fontconfig chooses fonts. For example the
medium font se
*** Please type your report below this line ***
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PR
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:45:32PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > sid=unstable - you know that, don't you?
> >
> > We need someone to test unstable, don't we? We can not realistically
> > test our distribution if the only people running it are those with many
> > computers who put it on one they
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 01:42:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm not sure where you get that from; woody was released July 20th last year,
> which is a little over 3/4th of a year ago, and uploads were being accepted
> into testing without special consideration up until pretty much a year ago
>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:26:23PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Nick Burkett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've just upgraded my sid system (i386) without
> > realising that libstdc++-pre6 is completely broken...
> > I've got an essay due in 24 hours which (was) being
> > written in lyx (whic
Turn on virtual terminal support...
Chris
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:48:01AM -0400, Morgon Kanter wrote:
> > -snip-
> > > * SSL
> > -snip-
> >
> > This is likely illegal if it is truely one binary and doesn't do the
> > kpart abstraction stuff... I really wish openssl would just vanish
> > someday.
>
> Time to start converting the wo
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:24:31PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-26
> Severity: wishlist
>
>
> * Package name: konqueror-embedded
> Version : 20021229_snapshot
> Upstream Author : Simon Hausman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Chitescu
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 06:38:34PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> It may be relatively cheap and easy for *you* to buy a two-year-old
> system, but I don't believe that in this case you are representative
> of nearly enough of our users to be a useful example.
I also find it hard to believe that th
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 05:06:56AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> No, if you disable cmov on i686, that won't make Athlons and P4s faster
> than simply using -march=i586. If all packages are available for i386,
> the C3 and K6 users just won't be able to use the fast packages but can
> still work. I
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 03:41:31AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le sam 26/04/2003 à 03:15, Chris Cheney a écrit :
> > i686 has been common for 6 years now (1997 P2/K6), so its hardly just in
> > the past two years. ;)
>
> Err, k6 is not a 686 as to my knowledge.
Be
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:36:56AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> What about the Via C3? That was introduced not too long ago, runs
> moderately quickly (~1GHz) with low power consumption, but IIRC doesn't
> support the i686 instruction set.
The issue with this appears to be a gcc bug with respe
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:15:25AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le ven 25/04/2003 à 04:46, Chris Cheney a écrit :
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:16:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Wrong. It was Red Hat who *instigated* the change in library names
> > >
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:06:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> If we really want to split i386 in 'compatible' and 'fast', the i686 border
> makes sense because users who care about speed probably bought the machine
> during the last two years and those should be i686 compatible.
i686 has been
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:27:57PM -0500, David Krider wrote:
> I know, I know. I've heard lots of people talk about how great it is,
> but, as far as I know, the bitmapped fonts under KDE in Sid are still
> messed up, and that's a show stopper for me.
Hopefully this will be resolved eventually or
Debian sid is roughly equal to most other distributions official
releases. One of the main reasons that Debian stable and testing are
always behind other distributions is due to the fact Debian requires
much more out of the packages, by requiring them to work on all
architectures and without major
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:16:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Wrong. It was Red Hat who *instigated* the change in library names
> upstream to allow the devel packages to be installed simultaneously,
> because they have no intention of trying to recompile GNOME 1 against a
> different libpng.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:02:22AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Q: Why don't we just say goodbye to binary-compatibility with other
> distros on those few corner cases ?
> A: I'm not against that, but some people in the project seem to be.
> Anyway, this is certainly not a move we can make with
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:17:46AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mer 23/04/2003 à 22:23, Josh Metzler a écrit :
>
> > Shuttle:/home/josh# apt-get -s install libpng3
> > Reading Package Lists... Done
> > Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > The following extra packages will be installed:
> >
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:40:50AM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Maybe, but not very many people run mkreiserfs frequently. For most
> users, mkreiserfs is performed once on installation, or close enough to
> not matter a lot.
What about the fact that most installers don't even show the output o
I followed Release Managers request on how to deal with the libvorbis
mess, if you have a problem with how it was dealt with bring it up on
irc. You should know this already but a message was sent out a week in
advance to the libvorbis breakage occuring so that maintainers would
about it. And no t
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
