On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > > > For that matter, why is it important that Debian provide support for
> > > > coinstallability with older packages that are, evidently, not important
> > > > enough themselves to be supported by Debian?
> > > In contrast, lib
Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 03:09:03PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Quoting Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Jérôme Marant schrieb:
>
Is it currently possible to upload amd64 packages to ftp-master?
>
>>> No.
>
If not, is there any upl
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I guess so, but I haven't seen any status update about this.
>> Are there even people working on it?
>
> According to what I've heard, it's not so much an issue of "working on
> it", but simply "doing it", i.e. something in the scale of a 30-minute
> c
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 03:10:37PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Quoting Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > * Jérôme Marant:
>> > > Is it currently possible to upload amd64 packages to ftp-master?
>> >
>> > amd64 is not yet part of the archive. It
Quoting salahuddin pasha ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> hello all
>
> i am
> salahuddin pasha (also known as salahuddin66)
> 19 male
> from Bangladesh, Dhaka
>
> interested both in
> ---
> 1. Bengali localisation
> 2. maintain apps (deb) for Debian.
> -
Andy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:48:30PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>> Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with
i just join there
thanks a lot
On 11/19/05, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting salahuddin pasha ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > hello all
> >
> > i am
> > salahuddin pasha (also known as salahuddin66)
> > 19 male
> > from Bangladesh, Dhaka
> >
> > interested both in
> > -
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:08:12PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Summary of problem: compilation with g++ gives "undefined reference"
> for references to some STL template function instantiations, despite
> using -frepo (which AFAIK should automatically recompile something to
> instantiate all missi
* Steinar H. Gunderson:
> -frepo is an optimization switch, designed to avoid multiple instantiations
> of the same template (reducing its size). You should be able to compile just
> fine without it, but your binaries will be bigger.
Thanks to the .gnu.linkonce sections, the finaly binary should
Hello,
Proposal:
Using the "Enhances:" field a bit more, so that packages that are
related become really so.
Examples:
Package: libapache2-mod-foobar
Enhances: apache2
Package: foo-game-levels
Enhances: foo-game
Package: (phpgroupware|webmin|zope|openoffice)-foobar
Enhances: (
2005/11/19, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> BTW, you are _linking_ with -frepo as well, right?
I've tried both with and without [at link time], it doesn't seem to
affect the compiler's behavior.
-MIles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
2005/11/19, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks to the .gnu.linkonce sections, the finaly binary should be of
> the same size. Compilation time might increase, though.
Really? I only started using -frepo because my executable had become
bloated, and it seemed to help quite a bit; I'll h
2005/11/19, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Really? I only started using -frepo because my executable had become
> bloated, and it seemed to help quite a bit; I'll have to try again
> without...
Ok, I tried it without -frepo, and you're absolutely right -- the
binary is bigger, but only by 277
Hi,
Enrico Zini suggested something like:
> Package: phpgroupware-foobar
> Enhances: phpgroupware
Good idea, will do.
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR
Hello.
I'm working on new package for FUSE[1]. Sad to come clean, but I screwed
previous package(s) up. There are plenty of bugs wrt debconf questions and
actions after them. There is also request[2] to simplify or even remove
questions at all.
Now I'm undecided what to do. The idea was to ask
2005/11/19, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> FWIW he currently does a. Rejecting at SMTP time causes backscatter on
> forwarded mail, as the forwarding host cannot reject because it
> already has accepted the mail.
And usual way to deal with this is to set:
ignore_errmsg_errors_after = 7d
I
hi,
On 2005-11-13, Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is Christopher L Cheeney submerged? There are new upstreamversions
> of libvorbis and vorbis-tools available which fix a lot.
Adeodato Simó is looking into this (#339846).
bye,
- michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
Andy Smith writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> Instead of either side in this debate saying "Not my problem, you
> should do this..." how about reaching some compromise? It sounds
> like in the short term, Ian needs to discard some mail instead of
> rejecting, and in the long
Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> * Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the
> >malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or
...
> It's his choice to do either (a) or (b) or (
Anthony Towns writes:
> Hrm, thinking about it, I guess zsync probably works by storing the
> state of the gzip table at certain points in the file and doing a
> rolling hash of the contents and recompressing each chunk of the file;
> that'd result in the size of the .gz not necessarily being the
>From time to time, someone announces an intention to package some tiny
script or program, and people suggest including it in some other
package instead to avoid pollution of the archive with lots of tiny
packages. Although I understand the reasoning and the issues here
(additional overhead for e
"=?iso-8859-15?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 03:10:37PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>>> Quoting Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> > * Jérôme Marant:
>>> > > Is it currently possible to upload amd64 p
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While we are it ... I noticed that removal of packages from the official
> debian archive are not propagated to the amd64 archive. E.g. query
> packages.debian.org for the "editex" source package.
>
> Is that known?
No. removals should propagate to
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:27:33PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> impediments (like licensing problems), do people generally think that
> it's reasonable to do this even if the other packages aren't really
> part of the upstream package? If so, are there usual mechanisms for
> doing this? What a
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2005/11/19, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> FWIW he currently does a. Rejecting at SMTP time causes backscatter on
>> forwarded mail, as the forwarding host cannot reject because it
>> already has accepted the mail.
> And usual way to dea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jay
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>>From time to time, someone announces an intention to package some tiny
> script or program, and people suggest including it in some other
> package instead to avoid pollution of the archive with lots of tiny
> packages.
> I really hope [...] you can find a sponsor!
I don't really think he needs one. Look at the email address..
--
Please do not sent any email to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] - all email not
originating from the mailing list will be deleted automatically. Use the
reply to address instead.
--
To UNSUBS
hi jay,
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:27:33PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> From time to time, someone announces an intention to package some tiny
> script or program, and people suggest including it in some other
> package instead to avoid pollution of the archive with lots of tiny
> packages. Alt
On 12:27 Sat 19 Nov 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> little. I'm not sure that, as an upstream author, I would necessarily
> want the debian version of my package to be bundled with other
> software that was similar in functionality but otherwise unrelated to
> my package.
I don't agree with this, t
On 15:34 Fri 18 Nov 2005, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> Who does a developer have to fuck around here to get his key deleted?
That's the way it is.
--
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GPG: C671257D
Cuando yo nací, la
sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi jay,
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:27:33PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> I'm not sure that, as an upstream author, I would necessarily want
>> the debian version of my package to be bundled with other software
>> that was similar in functionality but
* Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 02:11:43PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I expect you could do it though I havn't tried myself because I'm not a
> > big fan of smtp-level rejects exactly for these reasons. I just accept
> > and then discard (at least f
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 18:42 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > While we are it ... I noticed that removal of packages from the official
> > debian archive are not propagated to the amd64 archive. E.g. query
> > packages.debian.org for the "edi
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > * Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the
> > >malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "John V. Belmonte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: lua51
Version : 5.1.0
Upstream Author : Lua Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.lua.org/
* License : MIT
Description : Simple, extensible, embeddable pr
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
I'm working on new package for FUSE[1]. Sad to come clean, but I screwed
previous package(s) up. There are plenty of bugs wrt debconf questions and
actions after them. There is also request[2] to simplify or even remove
questions at all.
Now I
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>
>>From time to time, someone announces an intention to package some tiny
> script or program, and people suggest including it in some other
> package instead to avoid pollution of the archive with lots of tiny
> packages. Although I understand the reasoning and the issues
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> Who does a developer have to fuck around here to get his key deleted?
Same one he has to fuck to get a new key added, presumably.
It's a pity the DPL hasn't anointed a less-busy person with authority to
alter the keyring.
--
ksig --random|
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:30:12PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are a few packages that can build mingw32 cross-compile packages,
I use the mingw debian package to crosscompile openssl, gnutls, zlib,
expat, gpg-error and curl... but I use ad-hoc scripts (the ones that use
a recent
Hello Jay,
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> My inclination would be decline requests to add unrelated packages to
> psutils, but I thought I'd solicit input from others in case someone
> has some perl (oops, pearl) of wisdom that I have overlooked. Thanks!
IMHO (and I have suggested this particulary for
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Jay,
>
> Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> My inclination would be decline requests to add unrelated packages to
>> psutils, but I thought I'd solicit input from others in case someone
>> has some perl (oops, pearl) of wisdom that I have overlooked. Thank
Hi Bartosz,
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> Let's say I'm going to remove debconf questions at all. To keep user's
> system clean I should remove chosen group, but... because of some
> bugs[3][4][5] it's possible to leave system non-working after that.
How about just leaving the old group rot?
Hi folks. I've just uploaded Mit Kerberos 1.4.3-1 to experimental.
I'm writing to you because your package links against the main
kerberos library (libkrb53) and I'd like you to confirm that the
Kerberos support in your package still works against this version.
The public ABI and API of MIt Ker
(this mail was CC'ed to debian-admin but I messed up in the To field)
Since yesterday, I'm afraid that my IP address 81.56.227.253 is listed
on bugs.debian.org among addresses which get a "Go away" answer when
requesting a specific bug report (http://bugs.debian.org/xx)
>From discussions I ha
44 matches
Mail list logo
