On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:15:23AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> > Currently, it fakes FHS compliancy by creating various
> > symlinks (/usr/include/X11, /usr/bin/X11, /usr/lib/X11) to the appropriate
> > directories in /usr/X11R6. For 7.0, we need to make those symlinks become
>
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 20:31:53 -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> Ok, i'm not subscribed here so please cc me any responses directly.
>
> Before I propose my suggestion I want to outline my issues with how meta
> pkgs are done currently.
[...]
> The problem #2: Meta pkgs in debian are one way. Rem
Frank_Küster wrote:
> That sounds good, but wouldn't it be even better to have a symlink
> /usr/bin/debpython-minimal or so, pointing to the interpreter? Then one
> could still replace the interpreter by something else (by putting it
> into /usr/local/bin), for example in order to debug a particul
Dear Debian contributors,
I sent this invitation to participate in a survey to the list before.
Please consider answering if you didn't yet. We received lots of answers
but would like to get more. This is the last message on this subject; I
won't bother you anymore (until the results are avail
[Bart Martens]
> The Debian package flash-plugin is meant as an alternative or as a
> replacement for flashplugin-nonfree.
Why not just join forces with Takuo KITAME to maintain
flashplugin-nonfree, and update it to behave the way you want it? I
do not see the point of two installer packages for
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
>
>Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
>disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
>explicit infraction of specific portions of ou
Hi folks,
I have (in the httrack source package) a build-depends containing "zlib1g,
zlib1g-dev" - is there anything wrong with this dependency ? Some builders
seems to have troubles:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=httrack&ver=3.40.1-1&arch=ia64&stamp=1137978811&file=log&as=raw
http:/
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I think you're overly optimistic :-) Most of the simple RC bugs
> (related to the xlibs-dev transition) have been fixed; there aren't 90
> more like those. Those left are:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]:transition-xlibs-dev&repeatmerged=no
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:07:29AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I have (in the httrack source package) a build-depends containing "zlib1g,
> zlib1g-dev" - is there anything wrong with this dependency ?
Yes, you should not be build-depending on zlib1g.
> Some builders seems to have t
Hi,
I'll be in London from 25 Jan to 27 Jan and in Paris from 28 Jan to 1 Feb.
If someone wants to meet for a beer/tea/whatever please drop me an email,
in Paris I plan to visit the debian booth at Solutions Linux Expo, so that
might also an occasion to meet.
filippo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:42:54PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Later, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The primary aim of this change was to address the fact that there was no
> > consistent numbering scheme that satisfies the constraint
> > binNMU < security NMU < source NMU.
> The problems with t
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.3.6
Tags: patch
Hi folks,
Please consider the attached patch to update the developer's reference
description of recompile-only binNMU versioning so that it matches the
current behavior of dak and sbuild.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give m
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:39:00AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> Why not just join forces with Takuo KITAME to maintain
> flashplugin-nonfree, and update it to behave the way you want it? I
> do not see the point of two installer packages for macromedia flash.
> Please limit it to just on
[Alexander Sack]
> You mean take over the package?
If that is required, yes. But I suspect a friendly reenforcement of
the maintainer team is a better solution if one is able to get in
touch with the maintainer.
> Have you ever succeeded to get any communication started with Takuo
> during the l
[Couldn't find any list related to apt-cacher or apt-cacher2, and I
noticed some discussions of them on debian-devel, so I am CCing debian
devel. But if there is a better place to discuss this, please point
me to it, thanks!]
Hi Eduard and Jonathan,
Recently we started using apt-cacher2 extensiv
Le Lun 23 Janvier 2006 10:39, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
> [Bart Martens]
>
> > The Debian package flash-plugin is meant as an alternative or as a
> > replacement for flashplugin-nonfree.
>
> Why not just join forces with Takuo KITAME to maintain
> flashplugin-nonfree, and update it to behave th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Florian Ragwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: pyntor
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Josef Spillner
* URL : http://pyntor.coolprojects.org/
* License : GPL
Description : flexible and componized presentation pro
Hi,
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
was uploaded on Jan 18th:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2006/01/msg01818.html
Is this just a bug in the qa scripts, or worse?
Regards, Frank
--
Fran
Hi,
while I must admit that I was not at the latest IRC meeting where this
topic came up, I am now bitten by this problem.
I maintain a bunch of kernel modules that can be either patched onto a
kernel tree or built out-of-tree. No problem, have arch:all packages for
patch and source and arch
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
>
> I'm not convinced the c
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - "If a package has both Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep, it
> MUST have a build-arch target"
> Would probably catch 95% of all cases. So far, I know no existing
> packages that don't have those targets but use both B-D and B-D-I.
I know tons o
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Florian Ragwitz wrote:
Due to the minimal size and maximum configurability, Pyntor is a nice
alternative to conventional presentation programs.
What do you mean by "conventional" presentation programs. IMHO we
could differentiate into three groups of presentation program
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I think you're overly optimistic :-) Most of the simple RC bugs
> (related to the xlibs-dev transition) have been fixed; there aren't 90
> more like those.
I got home from work and have second thoughts about the email I
previously sent. I think I am a bit pissed off b
Frank Küster wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
>
> says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
> was uploaded on Jan 18th:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2006/01/msg01818.html
>
> Is this just a bug in the qa s
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> To summarize the proposals so far:
>
> - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if present".
>
> Has been tried, does not work.
AFAIK it is working as long as you assume debian/rules to be a Makefile,
which is a pretty safe assumpt
On 1/23/06, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > I think you're overly optimistic :-) Most of the simple RC bugs
> > (related to the xlibs-dev transition) have been fixed; there aren't 90
> > more like those.
>
> I got home from work and have second thoughts about the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:49:58PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Florian Ragwitz wrote:
>
> > Due to the minimal size and maximum configurability, Pyntor is a nice
> > alternative to conventional presentation programs.
>
> What do you mean by "conventional" presentation progr
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > To summarize the proposals so far:
> >
> > - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if present".
> >
> > Has been tried, does not work.
>
> AFAIK it is working as l
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:45:07PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> There have been various proposals on that matter, and it always boils
> down to the same chicken-and-egg problem:
>
> - policy documents existing practice, which is to invoke "build".
> - the existing practice cannot be changed be
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> Questions? Comments? Seconds?
Yet another proposal to solve this problem can be found in #229357
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > To summarize the proposals so far:
> > >
> > > - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if pres
Russ Allbery wrote:
> (Or is
> imake going away completely?)
Yep.
Imake is still being shipped for the benefit of third-party packages, but it
is not used by anything in Xorg 7.0 IIRC. Doing a quick check, I think very
few if any other packages in Debian use imake.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
CHASIB W ALSAEDI 614 Strathmore Ave
CHASIB W ALSAEDI 614 Strathmore Ave
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yep.
> Imake is still being shipped for the benefit of third-party packages,
> but it is not used by anything in Xorg 7.0 IIRC. Doing a quick check, I
> think very few if any other packages in Debian use imake.
I think you should perhaps check a li
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:31:08 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > To summarize the proposals so far:
>> >
>> > - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-a
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > > To summarize the proposal
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> >> To summarize the proposals so far:
> >>
> >> - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if present"
#include
* Anuradha Ratnaweera [Mon, Jan 23 2006, 06:24:08PM]:
> - Lazy online: we like apt-cacher to fetch a Packages/Release file
> only if it old as set by a timeout. So if one runs apt-get update
> many times during a short period, only the first one will need to make
> a HEAD/GET request.
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi
>
>> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
>>
>> says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
>> was uploaded on Jan 18th:
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2006/0
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8<--
The Debian Project asserts that
Works licensed under
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > Debian GCC Maintainers
> >gcc-snapshot
>
> no. must be a false positive.
Yes, didn't anchor the pattern and it matched stuff in
/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Joey Hess writes:
> Debian GCC Maintainers
>gcc-snapshot
no. must be a false positive.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:17:36PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > The difference between the two is that -q checks whether a target is
> > uptodate and return an appropriate exit code, while -p prints out the
> > data base (i.e. the
Frank Küster wrote:
> Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Frank Küster wrote:
>>>http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
>>>
>>>says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
>>>was uploaded on Jan 18th:
>>>
>>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-ch
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's a list of packages that install binaries into /usr/X11R6/bin and
> don't have lintian overrides for it. In spot checks, about a quarter of
> these packages use imake. And that's just the packages with binaries;
> there are a number of other packages that don't install
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:50:12PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
> > Hi,
> > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
> >
> > says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
> > was uploaded on Jan 18th:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > > one mi
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:08:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal,
> which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-indep in
> your debian/control file, you must also implement build-arch and/or
> build-indep.
>
>
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Imake is considered dead-except-for-routine-maintenance upstream as far
> as I can tell, so best practice would be to migrate away from it.
> Unless someone plans to adopt it.
imake the program, and xmkmf, are *probably* not that horribly difficult
t
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 20:31:53 -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:
Ok, i'm not subscribed here so please cc me any responses directly.
Before I propose my suggestion I want to outline my issues with how meta
pkgs are done currently.
[...]
The problem #2: Meta pkgs in debian are one way
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: cl-parenscript
Version : 1:20060122-1
Upstream Author : Manuel Odendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Edward Marco Baringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL or Web page : http://common-lisp.net/project/ucw/repos/parenscript
* Lice
* Wouter Verhelst [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:08:00 +0100]:
> And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal,
> which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-indep in
> your debian/control file, you must also implement build-arch and/or
> build-indep.
> Additionally,
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:22:24PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>Because the remainder of the Xorg 7.0 packages will require this change
> to have taken place, they will have to pre-depend upon an appropriate
> version of x11-common. As such, I'm writing to the list in accordance with
> policy.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 08:55:00AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> There is some software that contains hardcoded paths to executables in
> /usr/bin/X11; for example, sshd hardcodes the path to
> /usr/bin/X11/xauth. sshd stats whatever it thinks is the location of
> xauth to find out whether it can do
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:54:54PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right. The everything that you'd expect to go in to /usr/bin and
> > /usr/lib will install there, at least as far as Xorg goes. An example of
> > that is that the new xterm package installs
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:32:33AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:48:24AM -0500, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Right. The everything that you'd expect to go in to /usr/bin and /usr/lib
> > will install there, at least as far as Xorg goes. An example of that
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:48:33AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> > Right. The everything that you'd expect to go in to /usr/bin and /usr/lib
> > will install there, at least as far as Xorg goes. An example of that is
> > that the new xterm package installs to /usr/bin rather than
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:56:09PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've done that sort of X configuration hacking to make imake install
> things in appropriate locations and use the right compilers in the past.
> It's not fun work; it's painful, tedious, and exceedingly boring, and I
> wouldn't recomm
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
> bugs to rule out such
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sou
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sourc
Paul Johnson writes:
> Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is
> cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the
> debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or
> society...
Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sou
On 1/24/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
Hi again,
> * Anuradha Ratnaweera [Mon, Jan 23 2006, 06:24:08PM]:
>
> > - Lazy online: we like apt-cacher to fetch a Packages/Release file
> > only if it old as set by a timeout. So if one runs apt-get update
> > many times during a
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:56:56PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
#include
and thanks for your time to write such a useful note about how you and
others are keeping Debian great!
>
> It leads me to think Debian accounts should expire in a year of no
> activity and packages be automatically orphaned, but it
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 08:28:40PM +0100, Stefan Müller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a grammar developer and I started to work on Chinese. We use a
> development system that needs utf-8 input. I managed to set up
> everything for emacs 21.3. All I had to say was:
>
> (setq default-input-method \"chine
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:23:55PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> As said bvefore, if you activate this mode manually, this should be an
> easy feature to add on. How do you want to configure it?
>
> Eduard.
Hi Eduard,
I was just struck by your choice of phrase. It, in a way, expresses
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:08:57AM +0100, Amaya wrote:
> Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > I think you're overly optimistic :-) Most of the simple RC bugs
> > (related to the xlibs-dev transition) have been fixed; there aren't 90
> > more like those. Those left are:
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org
On 1/24/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> # Set the following value to the maximum age (in hours) for method A or to 0
> # for method B
> expire_hours=0
It seems that if a file is not found, i.e., apt-get update prints an
`Ign', isn't it a good idea to cache, or rather negative cache
70 matches
Mail list logo
