On 11/15/05, Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > In the following email Chris suggests that I add support for bit
> > torrent magnet:// URLs under Gnome2 in the Azureus package by setting
> > the gconftool-2 parameter /desktop/gnome/url-handlers/magnet/command
> > to cal
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:11:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
> not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
> documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
> instrumentation of an annual Debia
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 07:34:58PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > * Once dependencies are fulfilled for all architectures, request
> > binNMU's for all other packages depending on a library package with
> > a changed package name.
> > If a source upload is necessa
PLEASE RESUBMIT USING OUR ONLINE SUPPORT FORM
Thank you for contacting 7Search.com!
In order to better serve our customers, an online support center is available.
Please resubmit your question or request to the 7Search Staff using our online
support form:
http://7search.com/support
Please cli
Ryan Murray writes ("master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be
> able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This mail is being
> removed from the
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ryan Murray writes ("master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> > problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be
> > able to be delivered
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:02:21AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Given that anyone with wanna-build access for an arch can fire off a binNMU,
> I don't know if it's feasible to provide a comprehensive list; but I've
> already been asked about keeping the amd64 maintainers in the loop, so I can
> c
On 14-Nov-05, 20:22 (CST), Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You trust them, but not any user of Debian will want to trust them so
> much. Some will want some degree of confidence that the binaries are
> clean...
Then they need to download the source, examine it, and build the binary.
W
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Niko Tyni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gtkglk
Version : 0.3
Upstream Author : Evin Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/programming/glk/implementations/
* License : LGPL
Descr
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:17:29AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If you're interested in making this happen I'll be happy to give
> > you any info I can;
> 2) Any advice on how to test patches to ftp-master code before
> submitting them? My o
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> Based on specifics (well... more-specific vaguenesses) mentioned by Ryan
> elsewhere, I don't believe this is the case. Chiark appears to be on the
> wrong continent to be attached to the user in question, and reducing one to
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > * It is unfortunate that (a) master has such a lax spam policy and
> >that (b) Debian developers cannot choose to make their @debian.org
> >address unuse
Hello All,
while preparing an upload of gcc-2.95 which fixes its worst problems
I wondered how many users of it are actually left. 9 packages in
unstable still declare a build dependency on gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95,
this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
maintenance for etch.
On Nov 15, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, there is another important point: I don't really want a
> debian.org address.
Me neither. In the past the debian-admins suggested that they would
consider allowing to disable them if somebody else implemented
everything needed to do it.
--
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
> maintenance for etch.
No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
that end users have the same luxury.
--
Dave Carrigan
Seattle, WA, USA
[
On Nov 15, Dave Carrigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
> that end users have the same luxury.
Can you point us to some examples of such programs?
Also, are you sure that users will not just be able to install the
2.95 packages f
Dave Carrigan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
> > maintenance for etch.
>
> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
> that end users have the same luxury.
T
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unacknowledged NMU for > one year, either update or remove:
>
>Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> gccchecker Build-Depends: gcc-2.95
I recently filed a request to have this package removed. It is
not maintained upstream and valgrind is a be
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Malloc debugging, #285685 suggests it is broken for > 300 days now,
> either update or remove:
>
>Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ccmallocBuild-Depends: g++-2.95 [alpha arm i386 m68k
> mips mipsel p
Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> [I don't want a debian.org address either]. In the past the
> debian-admins suggested that they would consider allowing to disable
> them if somebody else implemented everything needed to do it.
Do we know what would be needed
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > Malloc debugging, #285685 suggests it is broken for > 300 days now,
> > either update or remove:
> >
> >Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ccmalloc Build-Depends: g++-2.95 [
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unacknowledged NMU for > one year, either update or remove:
> >
> >Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > gcccheckerBuild-Depends: gcc-2.95
>
> I recently filed a request to have this package removed. It is
> not maintai
On Nov 15, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [I don't want a debian.org address either]. In the past the
> > debian-admins suggested that they would consider allowing to disable
> > them if somebody else implemented everything needed to do it.
> Do we know what would be needed ?
An updat
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> maintenance of
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [redirecting this to -devel; discussions of ftp team NEW queue policies are
> off-topic for -release.]
Sorry, my mistake. I'm adding debian-beowulf because that's where some
of PETSc's users are.
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:13:47PM -05
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> while preparing an upload of gcc-2.95 which fixes its worst problems
> I wondered how many users of it are actually left. 9 packages in
> unstable still declare a build dependency on gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95,
> this makes it IMHO a plausi
[Christopher Crammond]
> Suppose you have a repository stuffed full of binary packages, in
> this case Debian Packages. If you were unlucky enough to have them
> in a rather un-organized fashion, I was just wondering if the package
> file itself would provide said information to allow me to write
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 05:15:28PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I understand that, and the whole proposal. And it will break a lot of
> > > things for many of my users, who need to use old versions of the -dev
> > > packages at th
[Alexander Schmehl]
> Curently it's quite easy to run unstables lintian, debootstrap and
> pbuilder on system running stable for the other packages. So I don't
> see a big problem creating and testing packages on a stable system.
It would make more sense to me to run lintian *inside* pbuilder, t
[Steve Langasek]
> python-dev provides an interface that packages can build-depend on
> which gives them both /usr/bin/python, and a set of development tools
> from the corresponding version of python. This is not analogous to
> petsc-dev, which only depends on the versioned -dev package.
The on
30 matches
Mail list logo
