On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:01:22 +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the
>> jihad against circular dependencies is making any such
>> distinctions.
> Is the word "jihad" meant to mean "holy, and aggressive, war to
> spread
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:48:02AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> So certain bugs can be marked $STABLE-ignore to allow transient rc
> issues to be ignored for a release and will become no-ops after release.
> Are you suggesting that each package can have a related list of
> non-transient bugs that sho
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061024 23:53]:
> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt
> directives that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug
> opened on policy with severity important for every one of them.
I hope to have time post-etch-release to do
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
> [...]
Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion until
after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
discussion, but I really have already to many open very urgent tasks at
my hands.
Cheers,
Andi
--
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> One can appreciate work done to reduce un-needed circular
> dependencies without bying the cool aid that all circular
> dependencies are bad and must be eliminated at all costs.
>
> I appreciate the former, I thi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Is the word "generally" here an error? I read this as implying the
>> normal meaning of "should" -- that not everything which violates a
>> "should" mandate is a bug.
>
>
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> The only clean way to do this is IMO a dedicated upgrader tool. This
> tool could then have special rules for the following issues:
I don't know if we need such a tool, but it would be definitely helpful if
we had a mechanism to give "hints" to aptitu
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:04:54 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Because your choice of mapping blurs the distinction between
>> one-time exceptions for RCness (e.g., due to GRs for DFSG issues),
>> vs. policy violations that the rele
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 07:01:22AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the jihad
> > against circular dependencies is making any such distinctions.
>
> It that's the case, I'm not sure this is the best way to make the
> point. I'm actua
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
> > [...]
>
> Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion until
> after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
> discussion, but I really have already to ma
On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help to
> release on December 4th at all till after that date?
No, the release is no reason to stop everything else.
--
bye Joerg
Snow-Man: Please don't talk to me. You have demonstra
* Moritz Muehlenhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) :
> That would be much appreciated.
The package "tinymce" has just been uploaded to the NEW queue. FYI it's
the first package handled by the Webapps Team.
You can grab the sources form our SVN repository:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/webapps-common/packages
Moin,
there is one issue with the newer debian kernels, as they have SMP enabled:
as documented in bugs #376089 and #378323, apm poweroff does not work
anymore.
A possible solution is to put
options apm poweroff
somewhere under /etc/modprobe.d/ and regenerate the initrd. IMHO it would b
* Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 09:49]:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> >> Is the word "generally" here an error? I read this as implying the
> >> normal meaning of "should" -- that
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:01:04AM +0200, Henning Glawe wrote:
> A possible solution is to put
>
> options apm poweroff
>
argh. stupid typo. should be:
options apm power_off
--
c u
henning
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Is there any reasonable possibility that it will make it into Etch?
Thanks
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 04:36:42AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Is there any reasonable possibility that it will make it into Etch?
libc6 is frozen (at 2.3.x -- I assume you mean 2.4, not 2.5?), so no.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
* Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 04:36]:
> Is there any reasonable possibility that it will make it into Etch?
No, of course not. We cannot put a copletely new and untested libc in
at this point of the release cycle. In fact, we don't even have 2.4
because there are a number of arch
* Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 11:48]:
> > Is there any reasonable possibility that it will make it into Etch?
> libc6 is frozen (at 2.3.x -- I assume you mean 2.4, not 2.5?), so no.
2.5 came out a few days ago.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRI
* Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 11:37]:
> Is there any reasonable possibility that it will make it into Etch?
No.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/25/06 04:53, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 04:36]:
>> Is there any reasonable possibility that it will make it into Etch?
>
> No, of course not. We cannot put a copletely new and untested libc in
> at t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> That might explain some trouble with X on obscure video chipsets
>> recently reported on debian-amd64 then.
>
> On any architecture other than i386, Xorg builds use the x86emu backend
> rather than the vm8
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If I'm reading the function int10LinuxLoadSubModule in
>> os-support/linux/int10/linux.c right, it shouldn't matter. vm86 will
>> return ENOSYS, which will cause vm86_tst to fail, which will cause the
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>>> [Ian Jackson]
>>> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
>>> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
>>
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand we need to make concessions towards a release (like
> concentrating on fixing bugs instead of introducing new major upstream
> changes) but it shouldn't block Debian's progress in all areas.
> You must understand that if Manoj is not fixing
Ron Johnson a écrit :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/25/06 04:53, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>> * Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 04:36]:
>>> Is there any reasonable possibility that it will make it into Etch?
>> No, of course not. We cannot put a copletely n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/25/06 06:27, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Ron Johnson a écrit :
>>
>> On 10/25/06 04:53, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>>> * Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 04:36]:
[snip]
> For m68k and hurd, I have sent a mail to the porters a few months ago,
On 10/25/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was
intended to be non-normative with alternate and equivalent wording,
which makes it easier to grep for "must". This still needs to be
done for should (which I often replace
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:35:13 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
>> [...]
> Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion
> until after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
> discussion, but
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any harm in refining the changes and
> building consensus over time? The change document can exist as a
> talking point, and you can still come in and provide us your input
> when you have time (post etch).
Personally, I would see it as a
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:35:07 -0300, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 10/25/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was intended to
>> be non-normative with alternate and equivalent wording, which makes
>> it easier t
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Dear Luk,
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:16:59 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Hi,
>
>> Hi Manoj
>
>> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
>> don't help to release on December 4th at all till after th
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help
>> to
>> release on December 4th at all till after that date?
>
> No, the release is no reason to stop everything else.
>
It was not meant that way at a
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:08:36 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there any harm in refining the changes and building consensus
>> over time? The change document can exist as a talking point, and
>> you can still come in and provide us
> I do think that there is a whift of dogma around the current
> crusade against all circular dependencies, whther or not the
> installation phase actually cares about the dependency or not. Oh
> dear -- have I now offended all Christians?
Well, dunno...:-)
Seriously speaking, I think
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Next, I removed clauses that said that all the requirements of
> policy must be met for a package to be in main or contrib; we know
> that is not true.
>
> I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:51:26 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
>>
>>> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
>>> don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
>>
>> No, the re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/25/2006 11:21 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 10/25/06 06:27, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>>>Ron Johnson a écrit :
>>>
On 10/25/06 04:53, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>* Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 04:36]:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>For m
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Next, I removed clauses that said that all the requirements of
>> policy must be met for a package to be in main or contrib; we know
>> that is not true
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > - Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
> > + Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
> > several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
> > this se
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:51:26 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
>>>
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
don't help to release on December 4th at all till af
Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
> It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
> start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release time...
Topics that are long overdue should, by definition, be discussed and
worked on *now*, regardless of whether "now" happens t
* Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
> Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
>
> > It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
> > start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release time...
>
> Topics that are long overdue should, by definition, be discuss
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:48:02AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Are you suggesting that each package can have a related list of
> non-transient bugs that should be marked (with a new tags called )
> ignore-this-policy-violation where this can be attached to any package
> related bug for any length of
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I appreciate the work done by Bill on that issue and I currently do
> > not have the feeling that it is run with the intents you seem to put
> > in the word "jihad".
> One can appreciate work done to reduce un-needed cir
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:31:42 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061024 23:53]:
>> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt directives
>> that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug opened on
>> policy with severity impor
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:39:14 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
>> Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
>>
>> > It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
>> > start to discuss topics that are long overdue near
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:43:56PM +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> we have a cmake class, proposed for inclusion in cdbs:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377524
> I use it at least on strigi and kde4 packages.
Dunno if it's the same, but I have one that is working on libwibble-dev
Hi, I just wanna know if there are any problems regarding the License or something else that make these packages actually unavailable?
Thanks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/25/06 18:50, eduardo.oliva barruzi wrote:
> Hi, I just wanna know if there are any problems regarding the License or
> something else that make these packages actually unavailable?
$ wajig policy compiz
compiz:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 0
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 23:18, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Either of these would be fine (though looking at the size of
> libselinux1, I wonder if there are any numbers behind the burden
> theory?), but that would be a more intrusive change for openssh than
> I am willing to make as a
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The only normative words are MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and
> RECOMMENDED. I am considering using upper case where we expect
> conformance.
Didn't the definitions of MUST/SHOULD/MAY get removed in your patch though?
Cheers,
aj
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:39:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
> > Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
> >
> > > It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
> > > start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release ti
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:21:39AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/25/06 06:27, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Ron Johnson a écrit :
> >>
> >> On 10/25/06 04:53, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> >>> * Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 04:36]:
> [
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > @@ -3195,8 +3112,8 @@
> >
> >Additionally, packages interacting with users using
> >debconf in the postinst script should
> > - install a config script in the control area,
> > -
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:43:34 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > I appreciate the work done by Bill on that issue and I currently
>> > do not have the feeling that it is run with the intents you seem
>> > to put
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:44:38 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > @@ -3195,8 +3112,8 @@
>> >
>> >Additionally, packages interacting with users using
>> >debconf in the postinst sc
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:44:53 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The only normative words are MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and RECOMMENDED. I
>> am considering using upper case where we expect conformance.
> Didn't the definitions of MUST/SH
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 20:42, Kevin Mark wrote:
> When Sarge was released, amd64 was not officially released but had an
> unofficial release. why not do the same with the hopes tha etch+1 will
> see m68k in relase shape?
AMD64 is a modern architecture. M68k is an architecture that saw its pr
I am interested in getting build-dependencies for a source package on
a system using aptitude. In the past I've used apt-get build-dep, but
that was on systems managed with apt-get. I think aptitude won't know
about apt-get's selections, and may toss the packages at the first
chance (or perhaps g
60 matches
Mail list logo
