Re: Bug#278027: RFP: ibm-acpi -- Driver for IBM laptops to extend ACPI support

On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 13:07:34 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > * Package name: ibm-acpi > > This has been integrated into the acpi.sf.net patch, so is fairly likely > to end up in the mainstream kernel before too long. Even if it gets integrated in the kernel (which I am not 100% sure abo

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update [Oct 24]

Michelle Konzack wrote: > Hello Martin and *, > > Am 2004-10-24 11:24:26, schrieb Martin Schulze: > > Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update > > == > > > > An up-to-date version is at . >

apt-proxy v2 and rsync

Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate method for fetching Packages files? It's the only mechanism I'm aware of that makes "apt-get update" over a 56Kb/s connection complete in a reasonable length of time. Am I missing something? Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu,

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for May 14, 2004

On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:52:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Cord Beermann: > > > I added a temporary(?) fix, and bounced the latest report to the list. > > Thanks, but it ended up in the archive (under the URL > ), > but

Re: Drop testing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/25/2004 12:44 AM, Eduard Bloch wrote: | Ehm... what is wrong with running stable with backports? Why do you not | install a such combination for your parents, what is wrong with that? | | - Missing few important pieces of software? Backport them

Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org

* Marcelo E. Magallon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041026 09:35]: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 01:37:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > Okay, it's a month old, but there hasn't been any since. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/09/msg5.html > > > "We are also still missing

debconf and backing up ... a bug?

debconf-devel(7) states that GO returns 30 if (a) it did not display a question (due to priority or seen status) or (b) the user chose to backup (with the backup capability) enabled. Is it just me, or is this a mistake? I mean, how are you supposed to distinguish between backing up and debc

[solved] debconf and backing up ... a bug?

also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.26.0956 +0200]: > (a) it did not display a question (due to priority or seen status) nevermind. db_input returns this... it's very weird. sometimes, the following echoes 30 in bash 3: db_input ... || true when in fact it never should.

SourceForge.net PR-Web Upgrade Notice.

i'm forwarding this to debian devel for people's attention because it would appear that debian has lost a quite large opportunity - by not having selinux available. l. - Forwarded message from "SourceForge.net Team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Hello, You are receiving this email because you

Re: Bug#278075: ITP: libical0 -- An implementation of basic iCal protocols

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:02:51 +0200 Sebastian Ley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Libical has been in Debian until some months ago, when it was removed from > unstable due to buggyness and unmaintaindness. Ok, I don't really want to introduce it again, so I've hacked plugin source to get it compil

Re: Drop stable (was: Re: Drop testing)

* Marco d'Itri wrote: > My solution? Stop releasing, and leave this to entities which are > motivated enough (or well-financed enough, which is the same thing) > to do it. You are about seven month too late. Or about five too early. Norbert

Re: Drop testing

Hi, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Maybe. What is the alternative? Continue with the current method and > release Edge... 2009 or so? The beast will be called "Etch", not 'Edge'. Its timing, for the most part, depends on a couple of sticklers like "multi-arch support", "archive split" and "resolve the GFD

Subversion / swig1.3

subversion depends on swig >= 1.3.22-2 which is in unstable. but it's not in testing yet because swig cannot be put into testing because it would break subversion 1.0.6-2 ;-) did I miss something or is this just a bug in the testing script and needs manual hinting? philipp

Subversion / swig1.3

subversion depends on swig >= 1.3.22-2 which is in unstable. but it's not in testing yet because swig cannot be put into testing because it would break subversion 1.0.6-2 ;-) did I miss something or is this just a bug in the testing script and needs manual hinting? philipp

Bug#278360: ITP: Package: libvcp-perl -- Architecture: all

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: Package: libvcp-perl Version : 0.9-snapshot-20040928 * URL : http://public.perforce.com/public/revml/index.html * License : BSD-like Description : Architecture: all vcp (and the Perl module VCP.pm) is a syst

Re: keysigning in vienna-austria

* Filippo Giunchedi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-25 01:10]: > I'm now in Vienna and I'm wondering if there's someone interested > in keysigning (and/or a coffee and/or a beer), please contact me. I'm forwarding this to the debian-at mailing list (see https://www.gibraltar.at/mailman/listinfo/debia

Bug#278371: ITP: libxml-autowriter-perl -- perl XML::AutoWriter - DOCTYPE based XML output

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: libxml-autowriter-perl Version : 0.38 * URL : http://www.cpan.org/pub/CPAN/modules/by-module/XML/ * License : GPL Description : perl XML::AutoWriter - DOCTYPE based XML output The package is required by othe

Re: Bugzilla package in need of help

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 09:55:19PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > In gmane.linux.debian.devel.mentors, you wrote: > > - I did not verify that the new .orig.tar.gz is indeed genuine > > md5sums are identical with upstream's tarball, I just double checked. > > > - the following duplicates the c

Kernel version 100

Just curious: any particular reason why the kernel version is reported as "100" on http://packages.debian.org/unstable/allpackages? kernel-image-2.6-386 (100) Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on 386. kernel-image-2.6-686 (100) Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/

Bug#278380: ITP: libipc-run3-perl -- perl IPC::Run3 - Run a subprocess in batch mode

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: libipc-run3-perl Version : 0.01 * URL : http://www.cpan.org/pub/CPAN/modules/by-module/IPC/ * License : various (GPL, BSD, Artistic) Description : perl IPC::Run3 - Run a subprocess in batch mode The package

Re: Kernel version 100

* Ladislav Bodnar wrote: > Just curious: any particular reason why the kernel version is reported > as "100" on http://packages.debian.org/unstable/allpackages? > > kernel-image-2.6-386 (100) > Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on 386. This is just a meta-package, which depends on the latest

Re: Bug#277582: ITP: kwin-baghira -- A MacOSX-like theme for Apple junkies ;)

José Luis Tallón [u] wrote on 25/10/2004 03:53: [I hope my post won't be doubled, my MUA just crashed exactly when I hit CTRL-enter to send the mail] Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 04:31:52AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: I would suggest a name like kde-$FOO-style to be used (e.g

Re: Kernel version 100

On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:15, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > Just curious: any particular reason why the kernel version is > > reported as "100" on > > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/allpackages? > > > > kernel-image-2.6-386 (100) > >     Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on 386. > > This

Re: Kernel version 100

Ladislav Bodnar wrote: > On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:15, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > > Just curious: any particular reason why the kernel version is > > > reported as "100" on > > > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/allpackages? > > > > > > kernel-image-2.6-386 (100) > > >     Linux kernel im

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

For reference, here are two points that came up on IRC: - The administrator has no place in /usr, it's the package manager's domain. - Tools keep MD5 sums for files installed. When a file in /usr changes, it is usually an indication of something fishy; thus, certain programmes wil

Re: keysigning in vienna-austria

On 26 Oct, 2004, at 15:17, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Filippo Giunchedi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-25 01:10]: I'm now in Vienna and I'm wondering if there's someone interested in keysigning (and/or a coffee and/or a beer), please contact me. I'm forwarding this to the debian-at mailing list (see h

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for October 22, 2004

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 06:30:02AM -0700, BugScan reporter wrote: > Bug stamp-out list for Oct 22 06:02 (CST) > > Total number of release-critical bugs: 726 ... > Number that are being ignored: 45 > Number on packages not in testing: 420 > Number concerning the next release (excluding ignored and

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > For reference, here are two points that came up on IRC: It's good that you keep us non-chatters informed. However: > - The administrator has no place in /usr, it's the package > manager's domain. > > - Tools keep MD5 sums for files installed

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

also sprach Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.26.1916 +0200]: > > Lastly, the policy promises that /usr can be read-only and > > guarantees software to be fully functional. > > Now, where is the possible policy bug? Section 9.1.1 of the policy. The software writes to /usr, which is to be

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

hey martin, On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 05:47:03PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > - The administrator has no place in /usr, it's the package > manager's domain. > > - Tools keep MD5 sums for files installed. When a file in /usr > changes, it is usually an indication of something fishy; t

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 07:16:47PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > For reference, here are two points that came up on IRC: > It's good that you keep us non-chatters informed. However: > > - The administrator has no place in /usr, it's the package >

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:45:15 +0200, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > also sprach Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.26.1916 +0200]: >> > Lastly, the policy promises that /usr can be read-only and >> > guarantees software to be fully functional. >> >> Now, where is the possible

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > also sprach Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.26.1916 +0200]: >> > Lastly, the policy promises that /usr can be read-only and >> > guarantees software to be fully functional. >> >> Now, where is the possible policy bug? > > Section 9.1.1 of t

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

Martin, On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 07:45:15PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.26.1916 +0200]: > > > Lastly, the policy promises that /usr can be read-only and > > > guarantees software to be fully functional. > > > > Now, where is the possible po

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

also sprach Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.26.2104 +0200]: > Again, what's the policy bug? #277816 < vorlon> Manoj: it's not a policy bug, just a shitty subject line. I guess I could not say it better. It's not a bug in the policy, just a bug according to policy. -- Please

Comparing FHS 2.3 and 2.1

Hi, I have been trying to determin the changes in FHS 2.3 (as opposed to FHS 2.1 that we already follow) to see what changes have occurred. 1) === FHS 2.3 adds: == 3.3: Specific Options The following directories, or

Re: SourceForge.net PR-Web Upgrade Notice.

* Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > i'm forwarding this to debian devel for people's attention because > it would appear that debian has lost a quite large opportunity - > by not having selinux available. Nothing in that message implied the lack of SELinux was why sf went t

Re: SourceForge.net PR-Web Upgrade Notice.

* Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton: > i'm forwarding this to debian devel for people's attention because > it would appear that debian has lost a quite large opportunity - [...] I'm surprised SourceForge didn't switch to AIX. Really. (They didn't upgrade to Mailman 2.1, by the way. *sigh*)

Re: RFS: kmenc15 - An advanced Qt/KDE MEncoder frontend.

On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:37, Shaun Jackman wrote: > For your package to go in contrib, your dependency -- mplayer -- must > exist in non-free. Really? I didn't know this. > Due to patent issues, mplayer cannot go in non-free I've heard of that.. if possible, I'm curious what the "issues" are

Re: racoon-tool with >1 algorithms

Marius, Sorry I have been unresponsive. I have been having a lot of trouble with my new Apple powerbook. The bluetooth is the last remaining bugbear, as I need all my keyboards working. Bluez looks like it has endianness issues with powerpc, and I have to get through that first as I need my

Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org

Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I haven't seen much need here. It's usually possible to track > down earlier package versions if I really need through, from Debian, or > snapshot.debian.net, or out of date mirrors (:)). Well it was handy to have my originals here when gnu.org was co

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for October 22, 2004

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 09:51:45AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > > For people who care about getting sarge out, it's not useful to put out > a report listing 726 bugs, only 150 of which matter, in a form that > makes it rather difficult to cleanly extract only the 150 that matter. > How about putting o

Re: Subversion / swig1.3

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:39:15PM +0200, Philipp Hug wrote: > subversion depends on swig >= 1.3.22-2 which is in unstable. but it's not > in testing yet because swig cannot be put into testing because it would > break subversion 1.0.6-2 ;-) > did I miss something or is this just a bug in the tes

Re: RFS: kmenc15 - An advanced Qt/KDE MEncoder frontend.

On Wednesday 27 October 2004 00:00, Shaun Jackman wrote: > Sorry, no link. The basic issue, though, is that MPEG 1/2/4 encoding > is encumbered by patents. OK, so my question is, what about xine? How come xine can be in Debian? AFAIK xine can open mpeg1 mpeg2 and mpeg4. > > Wait, when you said th

Re: Subversion / swig1.3

On 10/26/04 16:35:35, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:39:15PM +0200, Philipp Hug wrote: > subversion depends on swig >= 1.3.22-2 which is in unstable. but it's not > in testing yet because swig cannot be put into testing because it would > break subversion 1.0.6-2 ;-) > did I mi

Bug#278442: RFH: athcool -- Enable powersaving mode for Athlon/Duron processors

Package: wnpp Severity: normal I request assistance with maintaining the athcool package. The package description is: athcool is a small utility for enabling/disabling Powersaving mode for AMD Athlon/Duron processors. . By enabling Powersaving mode you can lower power consumption and CPU tem

Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org

On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:36:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 06:48:31AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > There are package that never enter testing and nobody notice because > > everyone use unstable (sometimes because of buggy dependencies). > > This isn't true: http://

Re: RFS: kmenc15 - An advanced Qt/KDE MEncoder frontend.

On Tuesday 26 October 2004 04:52 pm, Oded Shimon wrote: > On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:37, Shaun Jackman wrote: > > For your package to go in contrib, your dependency -- mplayer -- must > > exist in non-free. > > Really? I didn't know this. That's not surprising. Policy says (section 2.2.2, "T