Hi all,
Due to the recent changes in keyring policy I need to get some
signatures on my 4096bit key. I'm going to be attending Linaro Connect
next month where I hope there should be a few DDs who I can either
track down individually in the hallways or if anyone else is in the
same situation as me
On Monday 20 February 2006 06:40, Christian Perrier wrote:
> The project could also include the maintenance of font-related tools,
> such as fontforge or defoma (which seems mostly abandoned, but
> probably requires solid knowledge or Perl and cryptic
> programming...:-)).
As several people have
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I request an adopter for the freetype package.
Due to a new job I haven't had any time to work on FreeType in the last
few months. As such I would like someone to adopt it. A team would
probably be best, there's lots of difficult issues with this package
and it requ
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 12:05, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Device driver development for embedded systems? There are embedded
> > systems, including x86-based, that run kernels which fail to compile with
> > gcc >= 3.x.
>
> In that case you likely need as well an older binutils version, which
>
On Thursday 14 July 2005 17:14, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> The current recommendation I'm trying to give is:
>
> Package: libXXX-dev
> Conflicts: libXXX-dev
> Provides: libXXX-dev
>
>
> Thus, it won't contradict with your requirement to
> be able to just build-depend on libXXX-dev.
I may be wron
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 21:27, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Hi.
>
> As many of you might remember, back in 2003 Matthew Wilcox created
> an overview page for the last g++ transition from 2.95 to 3.2/3.3.
> You can still find it at
> http://people.debian.org/~willy/gcc-transition/ (but the log file
>
On Friday 17 June 2005 17:08, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they
> are ready to give us this right because they trust us). Of course the
> right is revocable ... but that doesn't matter. When they decide to stop
> granting us this right
On Friday 17 June 2005 12:10, Sam Watkins wrote:
> some of these packages are useful and interesting, and I feel they
> should not be removed from unstable at least. perhaps they could be
> moved to a different section which is not necessarily stabilized for
> release.
http://archive.debian.org/
On Friday 17 June 2005 13:40, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > It's only compilable in its current state with g++-2.95 (regarding
> > compilers in Debian stable). There is a single error when compiling with
> > g++-3.4 which I am unable to fix (as I don't know the STL at all).
>
> Thanks for investigating
On Friday 17 June 2005 07:04, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 06:18:06PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > iceme -- A graphical menu editor for IceWM [#227054]
> > * Orphaned 520 days ago
> > * Package orphaned > 360 days ago.
> >
> > icepref -- Yet another configuration to
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 23:09, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I would be very thankful for links to aprorpiate search-and-replace
> > expressions or compatibility functions. Once I was searching for
> > this kind of stuff I failed.
>
> I don't have any links I'm afraid. I only learnt GTK+ 2.0, and never
On Friday 10 June 2005 15:27, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I'm in the process of adopting a package (freetype2) that builds a udeb.
> > Would updating this package now require manual intervention from the
> > release team?
>
> Yes, for the moment getting that into testing requires release-team
> approv
On Friday 10 June 2005 05:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
> We're leaning towards possibly keeping udeb-generating packages frozen
> during etch still because they require manual intervention for syncing
> udebs into testing; this means separating the source packages that create
> udebs (which as a clas
This package hasn't had a maintainer upload in 12 months. It is currently at
version 2.1.7 whilst upstream is in the process of releasing 2.1.10. These
new releases include some quite critical bugfixes and visual improvements.
Is this package being actively maintained? I volunteer to help out w
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:16, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Would you please contribute your suggestions (either improve bits at that
> > page or somewhere else) of how to improve things. Thanks.
>
> What makes you think I have any?
A lack of familiarity with your posts?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thursday 02 June 2005 06:40, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > If Debian treated our upstreams this way, I'd be suprised if we ever got
> > any patches accepted upstream.
>
> Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way.
> Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primaril
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:07, Rich Walker wrote:
> Even within these categories there is some need for finer grain.
>
> For example, groupware clients are mostly "easy, end-user, corporate"
> groupware servers are mostly "impossible, sysadmin, corporate, server"
If you are installing a groupware
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 19:55, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > This would be rather arbitrary and probably be liable to cause
> > disagreements.
>
> Not much more so than with the priorities for the alternatives system.
>
> I find this quite an interesting idea, really.
Alternatives are down a fairly na
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 19:06, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> El Martes 31 Mayo 2005 19:41, Mark Edgington escribió:
> > Pardon me if this has already been discussed, but I wonder if there
> > should be a tag in debian packages indicating the a minimum proficiency
> > level that a user should hav
On Thursday 19 May 2005 13:24, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> anyone interested?
>
> > > 2. Erlang -- Concurrent programming language
> > > 3. erlang-doc-html -- HTML documentation for Erlang.
> > > 4. erlang-manpages -- Manpages for Erlang.
These are taken by François-Denis Gonthier.
> > > 5. w
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:35, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is not an imaginary problem, after all, in principle.
>
> Let's see, as I wrote before, my installation has *thousands* of files
> in /usr/lib and, in some filesystems, this can add up to a very large
> time (and ab-use of dentry cache m
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
> used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we please discuss real world
On Thursday 17 March 2005 03:16, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
> ... and probably not for (that is, not unless you tell me otherwise):
> > HPGL
> > HTML
> > HTTPS
Traditionally I think these would use "an". Even if you pronounce "h" as
"haich" rather than "aich" as another poster pointed out, many wor
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:59, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> My main gripe with the proposal, as it currently stands, is that it
> provides a solution for problems that haven't been discussed in detail,
> without much space for improvements.
I agree. I think there is a spectrum of measures that could
On Monday 07 March 2005 23:38, Ben Hill wrote:
> Are there any UK meetings / keysignings for Debian Developers (and
> others :-) )?
Try the debian-uk list:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/debian-uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
On Tuesday 22 February 2005 14:01, John Hasler wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
> > resulting binaries and compare those; it's not as if any difference
> > between the two compiled binaries would constitute an error...
>
> The i
On Tuesday 25 Jan 2005 14:59, Ron Johnson wrote:
> You have the option to *not* install them on your machine. John
> Ashcroft is not holding a gun to your head making you install it.
>
> I want to have more options than just to do or do not install
> dosage. What's wrong with that?
1. File a wi
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 15:46, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > And every set top box manufacturer pays for their MPEG-2 (or MPEG-4)
> > licenses.
>
> Those are the patents for the transport mechanisms. Still not the decoders.
Sigh. You seem to have a talent for picking subjects for argument that you
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 12:56, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > > It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
> >
> > Encoders only, not decoders. Decoders for anything probably cannot be
> > patented.
>
> Really? AFAIR every producent of mobile mp3 player had to pay patent
> gr
On Sunday 12 Dec 2004 00:43, Bruce Perens wrote:
> 1. The manufacturer's concerns regarding the proprietary nature of
> information about their device that is below the bus.
> 2. The fact that misprogramming the device at that level can damage the
> hardware.
> 3. They aren't going to want to supp
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 16:07, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Have you taken a look at what hot-babe actually looks like? I suspect
> you haven't. I don't think it will "offend" anyone.
I have looked at it. And I don't think it is an acceptable thing to ship as
part of an operating system. I am an athei
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:24, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Which is a fine point of view if you are making a political point. But as
> > far as I am aware we are trying to make an operating system.
>
> Sure. So we should not censor ourselves.
I don't see how that follows from what I said.
Here's a
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:13, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is. if we want people in Arabia to be able to possess Debian
> > disks.
>
> The solution to censorious regimes is not to say, "well, ok, we'll
> censor ourselves so you don't even have to bother
On Tuesday 07 Dec 2004 20:26, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I don't think this holds. Censoring is editing for ideological
> > reasons, which is a subset of editing. It has nothing to do with who
> > does it. A censor is a third party, and editor is a third party, at
> > least in literary terms.
>
>
On Tuesday 07 Dec 2004 01:51, Stephen Gran wrote:
> I have to say, this is ridiculous. Do I, living in the US or Europe,
> have to take into account the laws about sensuality (note, not sexuality,
> since these pictures barely qualify for that word) that mirror operators
> in Iran or Saudi Arabia
On Monday 06 Dec 2004 10:01, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The difference being that editing is a choice made by the person doing
> the work, while censorship is a choice made by an otherwise unrelated
> person in the same organisation.
>
> Editing would be if the maintainer decided to remove the
> pac
On Monday 06 Dec 2004 06:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Stupidly enough, you have committed the idiotic mistake of
> assuming that everyone holds to your premises, that firstly,
> tolerating intolerance is somehow a good thing -- why should it be is
> beyond me.
Oh, this is about intolerance i
On Friday 03 Dec 2004 00:11, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Umm, the linux kernel, the purity tests, and the offensive
> fortunes are not G rated, so can't be given to minors without
> parental consent. I guess that makes it illegal in the united
> states.
You can't distribute text with the word "
On Friday 03 Dec 2004 09:49, Joerg Wendland wrote:
> Will Newton, on 2004-12-02, 19:57, you wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 07:35, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > Ok, Yes, if push comes to shove, I'll be happy to stand trial for the
> > > inclusion of hot-babe in ma
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 20:48, Adam Majer wrote:
> China would *appear* to be one,
>
> http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/28/china.bibles/
> http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=28012002-054849-9679r
If you follow the links you'll find they refer to a man charged with
involvement
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 07:50, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No. We are talking about "distributing" hot-babe. Debian never has
> > and probably never will distribute "teh Intarnet". We cannot stop
> > people doing anything with Debian that is within license terms once
> > it is installed, but we ca
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 07:48, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Who gets to decide for each case? Usually it is the person who
> does the work who makes the decision -- the packager, in this
> case. The only way to override that is call in the tech ctte -- but
> this is not a technical issue. Yup, a
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 00:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > It seems to me this is the sensible solution. When we could not
> > export crypto from the US for legal reasons we created non-US. Now I
> > think it is as significant an issue to distribute items such as
> > hot-babe.
>
> Cool, we legiti
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 04:43, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, that doesn't work. There's some base level of stuff that's so
> > unlawful we don't include it because it would cut off far too much of
> > the userbase (or cause them to commit illegal act
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 09:27, David Weinehall wrote:
> > So far so sarcastic. IMO if it can be demonstrated that distributing
> > something is illegal we should think about not distributing it.
>
> And, as demonstrated elsewhere in the thread, whoops goes
> bible-kjv-text.
I know of no country w
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 07:35, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Ok, Yes, if push comes to shove, I'll be happy to stand trial for the
> inclusion of hot-babe in main.
I can't see how that choice is yours to make.
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 22:15, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Anybody who can't obtain porn using only the tools provided on a
> Debian CD is a total moron. You might as well complain that the
> internet is bad, just because it's primarily used as a vehicle for
> delivering porn.
No. We are talking ab
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 22:44, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> These nebulous authorities also frown upon various other
> things, depending on your jurisdiction -- games of chance, the
> bible, games promoting violence, texts promoting freedom ..
>
> Descending to the lowest common denominator shal
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 21:30, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There are a number of locations where gambling is illegal, as
> are all games of chance.
That's "gambling" as in "wagering a stake on a game of cards" not gambling as
in "playing cards".
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 21:35, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Right. We should not have games like quake, doom, or
> nethack,. since they promoite murder and mayhem and eating of
> corpses.
So far so sarcastic. IMO if it can be demonstrated that distributing something
is illegal we should think a
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 11:15, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Well, guess what? I live in the American South, and I'd like to
> give away disks to young geeks and wannabees without having to
> worry about whether his/her parents or teacher would wig out.
Subjective.
Legal issues are one thing, subjectiv
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 17:12, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > We need to discuss this point and find a technical way of solving the
> > first.
>
> erotic.debian.org
It seems to me this is the sensible solution. When we could not export crypto
from the US for legal reasons we created non-US. Now I
On Tuesday 16 Dec 2003 17:21, Joel Baker wrote:
> Point #4: For at least the one proposed name ('Nienna'), it is, in fact,
> representable (properly) in US/ASCII. Even the rest are all representable
> in a clearly identifiable degenerate form (that is, no worse than many
> Europeans already have t
On Tuesday 16 Dec 2003 01:44, Joel Baker wrote:
> Appropriate? As much as any of the Valar would be; he's certainly on the
> list. But since we know of at least 4 active ports, one name isn't going to
> be enough...
I would hope whatever name chosen is pronounceable, spellable, reasonably
short
On Monday 10 Nov 2003 19:54, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> We refuse to accept it blindly because it's wrong. There have been
> cases when architecture-specific optimisations have made programs run
> slower (recently the instruction ordering for that via i686 chip
> comes to mind); GCC gets it wrong fr
On Tuesday 04 Nov 2003 05:47, Greg Stark wrote:
> to list the available revisions then explicitly
>
> apt-get install libc6:2.3.2-8
>
> Actually this wouldn't really have helped my friend at all because he was
> unlucky enough that the *first* version of libc6 from unstable that he saw
> happened
On Wednesday 02 July 2003 08:18, Niall Young wrote:
> How about a postrm::downgrade hook to reverse any changes made in the
> new version's preinst::upgrade so that when the old version's
> preinst::upgrade is applied you're not left with a potential mix of
> configuration?
It would be cool if:
Is there any place where someone could advertise jobs that would be suitable
for Debian developers?
On Friday 18 April 2003 16:15, Colin Walters wrote:
> Perhaps I've been overly strong with the rhetoric. Let me give two
> realistic scenarios where this "manage foo with debconf?" fails.
Also the scenario:
3) Guy who has to install lots of boxes that aren't desktops
I have to arrange for the i
On Tuesday 16 Apr 2002 4:04 am, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> Well, it seems that you almost need 4.2.0 for Woody anyway, if it is
> going to work with any recent hardware (unless you are aiming for
> servers only). Or are you going to hack 4.2.0 display drivers into 4.1.0?
As it happens 4.2.0 seems
On Wednesday 10 Apr 2002 3:36 pm, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> As a last resort I can NMU it, even if I'm not very in touch with the
> package nor with the upstream sources.
When I prepared the NMU libxslt greater than 1.0.12 needed a newer libxml2
than was available in the archive. Now it should
On Saturday 06 Apr 2002 7:35 pm, Will Newton wrote:
> Quite simple fixes:
>
> - Fixes build on hppa and quite possibly others.
> - Bump version number to replace older packages correctly. (RC bug)
> - Fix a minor bug in the description.
>
> Packages and di
On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 3:20 pm, David Starner wrote:
> Why? Considering how close to the release we are, and how easy it is,
> why not do it now? It certainly won't interfer with the maintainer
> closing them.
OK, done. I just don't want to step on anyone's toes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 2:44 pm, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Since you're not a maintainer, you shouldn't close them. However, you can
> tag them "fixed", by sending 'tag fixed' commands to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, if Craig hasn't done it by the end of today I will do that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Saturday 06 Apr 2002 4:16 pm, Will Newton wrote:
I have still not had any response to this. Can anyone tell me the correct
procedure for getting these bugs closed?
The changelog looks like this:
ilisp (5.11.1-7) unstable; urgency=low
* well 125744 was fixed, but I put the files in the
Quite simple fixes:
- Fixes build on hppa and quite possibly others.
- Bump version number to replace older packages correctly. (RC bug)
- Fix a minor bug in the description.
Packages and diff are here:
http://www.misconception.org.uk/will/debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
(I have CCd to debian-devel in case you are on holiday or otherwise
indisposed to close these)
ilisp is being removed from woody because of a bug that is fixed but not
closed. According to your changelog the following bugs are fixed, but are not
closed:
125744
140049
138669
137011
98132
12885
On Saturday 06 Apr 2002 3:42 pm, Will Newton wrote:
> > ilisp
>
ilisp is in fact fixed, it's just the bug has not been closed yet due to a
typo in the changelog. I'll email the maintainer.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Saturday 06 Apr 2002 1:24 pm, Anthony Towns wrote:
> velocity werken.xpathantlr
These are all pretty much bug free (antlr has a couple of wishlist bugs) but
a jikes bug is keeping them out of testing. Does anyone who knows jikes have
any idea if this can be fixed soon, or is it a bi
69 matches
Mail list logo
