Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/22/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [Olaf van der Spek]
>> > I've been wondering, would it be an idea (for the long-term) to use
>> > (more) distributed ... or p2p concepts to reduce the dependency and
>> > load on central s
Hello
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:39:04PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:57:58PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:21:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > `Depends'
> > > This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be
> > >
Otto Wyss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since around last October, I've considered to make my concept for a
> modern package distribution public but I wanted to wait until
> Debian/sarge was released which is now the case. And since the Debconf5
> in Helsinki is just around the corner it's about t
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) foo and foo-data. There is usualy no reason for foo-data to depend on
>> foo. foo-data does not provide user-visible interface, only data, so it
>> does not need to depend on foo.
>
> However, we have some users randomly filing bugs on
> foo-data t
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 07:39:16PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps we should just move to section libs any package which is
>> useless by itself, and it's only useful in combination with others,
>> much like libraries, but without requiring t
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le vendredi 24 juin 2005 à 17:21 +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>> I see two easy case:
>>
>> 1) foo and foo-data. There is usualy no reason for foo-data to depend on
>> foo. foo-data does not provide user-visible interface, only data, so it
>> does
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> >>
> >> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
> >> I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
kernel developers.
Greetings
Marc
--
--
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 13:12 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva a écrit :
>> Why not simply puting the loader inside the library package? If the
>> loader should always be together with the library, then make them one
>> package and be done with it.
>>
>>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> > >>
> > >> Would it break kernel
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:51:52PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> In all that cases, you can _either_:
>>
>> 3) change the shlibs file to document the dependency on the library, e.g
>> change libfontconfig1.shlibs to
>> libfontconfig 1 libfontconfig1
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Em Qui, 2005-06-23 Ã s 12:39 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escreveu:
>> OK. That is what I am looking for. I want to completely replace the
>> two packages that cannot coexist with the new icewmcp package.
>> Currently, I must use dummy packages fo
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
The gcc version recommended by upstream is still 2.95.
Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/23/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Well, a new header would be nice, of course. But it would mean a
>> > change in policy, that's why I was thinking of using the existing
>> > ones.
>> Changing the meaning of existing field
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> writes:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:22:33 -0400 (EDT), Freddie Unpenstein <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>> > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS,
>>> > separation, etc.)
>
>>> xinetd begone. There is no justification for usi
Johann Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
> For a few weeks there are discrepancies between some "Packages" files
> and the files in the ./pool/ directory. Unfortunately the debian-mirrors
> list is dead since the end of 2003. Therefore I try to ask this list, if
> you know anything about
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello
>
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:39:04PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:57:58PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:21:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> > > `Depends'
>> > > This declares an
Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> > > >>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:44:23AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Horms wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > >
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
2.2 went also in deep freeze for
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
> >
> > This is of course one of the reasons why user
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4
[please don't CC-me, I'm subscribed]
Em Seg, 2005-07-04 às 11:20 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow escreveu:
> A source package can build binary packages with different versions.
>
> E.g. icewmcp 1.0-1 source could build:
>
> icewmcp 1.0-1
> iceme 1.0.0-12.1
> iceperf 1:1.2-3
Simply by having a Versi
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo S
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libssh
Version : 0.11
Upstream Author : "Aris Adamantiadis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://freshmeat.net/redir/libssh/54537/url_homepage/www.0xbadc0de.be
*
Hi everybody,
I'm looking for a sponsor for the libssh package :
* Package name: libssh
Version : 0.11
Upstream Author : "Aris Adamantiadis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.0xbadc0de.be/?part=libssh
* License : LGPL
Description : SSH and SCP library
* Package name: mazeofgalious
Version : 0.62
Upstream Authors: Santi Ontanon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.braingames.getput.com/mog/
* License : Not defined yet (will try to work this out with upstream)
Description : The Maze of Galious
It's no
Hi,
can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
Jed can have the look and feel like emacs or the KDE editor. Can I ask
the admin, what should be the default?
Have
[Joerg Sommer]
> can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
> feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
> abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
This depends on how you use it. If you read the current value from
the existing configuration file,
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Joerg Sommer]
> > can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
> > feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
> > abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
>
> This depends on how you use it.
OTOH,
hi,
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 01:33:45PM +, Joerg Sommer wrote:
> can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
> feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
> abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
not necessarily, depending on how you go about i
Hi!
Joerg Sommer [2005-07-04 13:33 +]:
> can I use debconf to ask the admin what should be the default look and
> feel for the editor jed? The developers-reference manual tells us to not
> abuse debconf. Is this an abuse?
>
> Jed can have the look and feel like emacs or the KDE editor. Can I
Penis enlargement breakthrough!
http://www.siratu.com/ss/
I can see the time when every city will have one.
Don't compromise yourself, you are all you've got.
Mental health increases as we pursue reality at all cost.
A successful marriage is an edifice that must be rebuilt every day
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [please don't CC-me, I'm subscribed]
>
> Em Seg, 2005-07-04 Ã s 11:20 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow escreveu:
>> A source package can build binary packages with different versions.
>>
>> E.g. icewmcp 1.0-1 source could build:
>>
>> icewmcp 1.0-1
Le lundi 04 juillet 2005 à 11:00 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > * librsvg2-2 depends on librsvg2-common because most applications
> > linking to librsvg2 also expect the SVG loader to be available.
>
> So on all systems both packages will always be installed together. Why
> have two pac
On 7/4/05, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not sure how exactly the current mirrors work, but syncing
> > (primary) mirrors between eachother instead of all from a master may
> > be an idea.
>
> Mirrors are stacked in a tree (
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But that doesn't realy solve the problem on its own. It would be nice if
> packages could be consistently taged with "Application:
> yes|no|" signifying that this package is usefull on its own
> (foo), will never be used alone (foo-data, libfoo) o
Special Announcement:
Good Day, I have been instructed by my head office to alert you to the fact
that your file has been reviewed and there now are a few potential options for
you to consider.
Please note that this issue is time sensitive and that your previous credit
situation is not an iss
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:05:21PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> True. But for example, is the current apt-get capable of contacting
> another mirror if and only if the primary fails?
For package downloads apt will try the sources in the order listed in
sources.list, only trying subsequent on
[Lionel Elie Mamane]
> I recently found some packages in at an IMHO totally wrong priority
> in Debian.
Yeah. I've been grumbling about optional vs. extra for years. Nobody
wants to consider his own packages 'extra' because every maintainer
feels his own packages are Really Useful. This is a s
On 7/4/05, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:05:21PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>
> > True. But for example, is the current apt-get capable of contacting
> > another mirror if and only if the primary fails?
>
> For package downloads apt will try the sources i
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libcrypt-dh-perl
Version : 0.06
Upstream Author : Benjamin Trott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-DH/
* License : Dual GPL/Artistic
Desc
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But that doesn't realy solve the problem on its own. It would be nice if
>> packages could be consistently taged with "Application:
>> yes|no|" signifying that this package is usefull on its own
>> (fo
Hi,
> >>[0] http://www.debconf.org/debconf5/keysigning
> >
> >A list of names of accepted keys is listed at [1].
> >
> >[1] http://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc5-names.txt
> >
> >Please send your key if you haven't done so. You have a little more
> >than a week to send it. The deadline is the
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:33:09AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>
>Hi,
Hello Junichi,
[0] http://www.debconf.org/debconf5/keysigning
>>>
>>>A list of names of accepted keys is listed at [1].
>>>
>>>[1] http://people.debian.org/~anibal/ksp-dc5-names.txt
>>>
>>>Please send your key if you haven
Hi,
> The package can be downloaded at http://dgnr.free.fr/repository, or
> with apt-get with "deb http://dgnr.free.fr/ repository/"
From the look of it, your packaging looks wrong.
You're probably creating a package that ignores SONAME versioning.
--- libssh-0.11.orig/debian/shlibs.local
+++
Body Wrap at Home to lose 6-20 inches in one hour.
With Bodywrap we guarantee:
you'll lose 6-8 Inches in one hour
100% Satisfaction or your money back
Bodywrap is soothing formula that contours,
cleanses and rejuvenates your body while
reducing inches.
http://denumerable.loseweightsy
Urgent Announcement:
Good Day, I have been instructed by my head office to alert you to the fact
that your file has been reviewed and there now are a few potential options for
you to consider.
Please note that this issue is time sensitive and that your previous credit
situation is not an issu
Quoting Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> OTOH, if there is a sensible default (and there is for jed), just pick
> one and be done with it. No need to burden the admin with yet another
> question.
I beg to disagree here. As long as an appropriate priority is used
(here, probably low) and t
49 matches
Mail list logo
