On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Ricky Zhou wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Ricky Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: smolt
> Version : 0.9.8.3
> Upstream Author : Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:25:58AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 09:28:46PM -0400, Ricky Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: Ricky Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > * Package name: smolt
> > Version : 0.9.8.3
> >
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:59:13AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So is anything ever valid other than openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver as a
> > dependency? I keep getting confused on the rules around using virtual
> > packages. Would rlinetd |
On 7/29/07, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Description : Fedora hardware profiler
>
> If you have interest in packaging this, maybe you'll have interest to
> package this too:
> http://hardware4linux.info/server/download/
Ricky, perhaps you could make Fedora aware of hardwar
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:31:10 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>Probably not, but in this case common sense would have been enough since
>update-inetd does not depend on anything else.
Common sense? Is that the thing one cannot commonly expect?
Greetings
Marc
--
---
On Jul 29, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would even be more helpful if this could be summarized *and* filed
> as bugs with a clear suggestion of what should be done. I'm maybe a
Depend/Recommend/Suggest just "inet-superserver" or "openbsd-inet |
inet-superserver" (depending if
On Jul 29, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does *not*
> depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends on the
> availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its maintainer
> scripts to run
On Jul 29, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't openbsd-inetd priority:standard? That's enough to make the
> real-package unnecessary, afaik (and that lets the default inetd be
> changed simply by changing the priorities of the packages, rather than
> the dependencies of lots of packag
Tim Hull wrote:
>
>
> I knew about that, though it's not actually an official Debian
> repository (to my knowledge).
If I were looking for a date that was tall yes compact, what would you
tell me? How about a date with fair brown eyes?
What you are asking for is a contradiction. There are only two
> I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers
> apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their
> packages a dependency on update-inetd.
Are you asking for a flamewar? I really don't see any justification for
beeing attacked by you in such a way.
Th
Hi,
(Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
This is call for help for DebianDOC SGML infrastructure update to cope
with new UTF-8 environment for lenny. (Especially for PS and PDF
output.)
The volunteer should have some understandings on:
* SGML
* perl
* POSIX shell
* encoding (tradition
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Are you aware of backports.org?
But backports are recompiled packages from testing, and for instance
testing is still with iceweasel 2.0.0.3. How is it possible to improve this?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:40:32 +0530
"Kartik Mistry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: deb-gview
> Version: 0.1.2
> Severity: important
> Tags: patch
>
> While viewing debian/copyright of deb-gview (using deb-gview), I found
> that it has only GPL listed in copyright file.
Correct.
> But, sin
On Sunday 29 July 2007 12:42, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 29, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does
> > *not* depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends
> > on the availability of the update-inetd
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:01:43AM -0400, Tim Hull wrote:
>
> In my mind, many of the complaints that "Debian doesn't release often
> enough" could be mitigated this way, and it would be nice to see at some
> point.
>
In *my* mind, many of the complaints that "Debian doesn't release often
enough"
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:14:23PM +0200, ciol wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Are you aware of backports.org?
>
> But backports are recompiled packages from testing, and for instance
> testing is still with iceweasel 2.0.0.3. How is it possible to improve this?
>
Packages get held back from te
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jan Hauke Rahm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA224
* Package name: sa-learn-cyrus
Version : 0.2.4
Upstream Author : Hans-Jürgen Beie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.pollux.franken.de/hjb/ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Marco,
Am So den 29. Jul 2007 um 13:57 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> > The update-inetd package is finally a good way to have a system with no
> > inetd installed (or the ill situation that two (inetd and xinetd) are
> > installed the same time). Caus
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Torsten Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package name: QScintilla2
Version : 2.1
Upstream Author : Phil Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL : http://www.riverbankcomputing.co.uk/qscintilla/index.php
License : GPL
Programming
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas GOIRAND <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: php-http-upload
Version : 0.9.1
Upstream Author : Tomas Von Veschler Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://pear.php.net/package/HTTP_Upload
* License : LGPL
Programming
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 29, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Isn't openbsd-inetd priority:standard? That's enough to make the
>> real-package unnecessary, afaik (and that lets the default inetd be
>> changed simply by changing the priorities of the packages, ra
ciol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Are you aware of backports.org?
> But backports are recompiled packages from testing, and for instance
> testing is still with iceweasel 2.0.0.3. How is it possible to improve
> this?
If you want to run absolutely bleeding edge code, you
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But: AFAIU, /etc/inetd.conf is now owned by any package, because it's
> used by several packages and updated by update-inetd. I think it makes
> sense for service packages, like samba, to update inetd.conf even though
> no inet-superserver is installed
On Jul 29, Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that inet-superservers that use the traditional inetd.conf
> should depend on update-inetd as their way of implementing the update-inetd
> interface. Packages that provide services to be served by inet-superservers
> shoul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 29, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you want a system without an inetd then do not it install one and do
> > not install packages depending on it. It's really that easy.
> Sorry but I think you didn't understand what I tryed to e
On Sunday 29 July 2007 16:22, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> But: AFAIU, /etc/inetd.conf is now owned by any package, because it's used
Just to make myself clear: s/now/not/
--
Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at bei
On 7/29/07, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ciol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Are you aware of backports.org?
>
> > But backports are recompiled packages from testing, and for instance
> > testing is still with iceweasel 2.0.0.3. How is it possible to impro
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 04:23:56PM -0400, Tim Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ciol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Russ Allbery wrote:
> >
> > >> Are you aware of backports.org?
> >
> > > But backports are recompiled packages from test
"Tim Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, I guess I'm getting the impression that Debian and its users are
> more oriented towards the mission-critical server than the average
> desktop user. I.e. - you're competing more with OpenBSD than with
> Windows Vista or even Ubuntu (which is, of co
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:10:49 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:01:43AM -0400, Tim Hull wrote:
>In *my* mind, many of the complaints that "Debian doesn't release often
>enough" are simply ignorant or selectively ignoring reality. If you
>hear someone m
Hi,
I am perplexed by this.
If you go to http://bugs.debian.org/hpodder, you will see under the
outstanding bugs section, several bugs that have been closed for some time.
These bugs remain closed (were not reopened), the BTS page for each bug
knows about that, yet they are still listed under
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 05:09:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am perplexed by this.
>
> If you go to http://bugs.debian.org/hpodder, you will see under the
> outstanding bugs section, several bugs that have been closed for some time.
> These bugs remain closed (were not reopened),
John Goerzen wrote:
> I am perplexed by this.
>
> If you go to http://bugs.debian.org/hpodder, you will see under the
> outstanding bugs section, several bugs that have been closed for some time.
> These bugs remain closed (were not reopened), the BTS page for each bug
> knows about that, yet
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:15:47AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> thank hurd-i386 for this. (or any arch where your package does not
> build). I wish the bts would ignore non RC archs by default :|
Just for the record, bugscan (and by extension these days, britney) ignores
non-RC archs.
/* St
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 16:22 +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>
> But: AFAIU, /etc/inetd.conf is now owned by any package, because it's
> used by
> several packages and updated by update-inetd. I think it makes sense
> for
> service packages, like samba, to update inetd.conf even though no
> inet-s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ttf-atarismall
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author: Thomas A. Fine
* URL : http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/x11fonts.html
* License : See below
Description : Very small 4 x 8 font
This is named atari sma
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:44:24 +0200, Marc Haber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Unstable is an unreleased development version
This part is true.
> and not supposed to be in use on end users' systems.
And I am not sure where this part comes from. I've been running
unstable on all
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:28:12PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > In the case of Iceweasel, stable already has 2.0.0.5, as this was a security
> > update. There is supposed to be a testing security team, but evidently they
> > haven't gotten around to the Iceweasel fix. Honestly, it is a bit weird
>
>
> > > In the case of Iceweasel, stable already has 2.0.0.5, as this was a
> security
> > > update. There is supposed to be a testing security team, but
> evidently they
> > > haven't gotten around to the Iceweasel fix. Honestly, it is a bit
> weird -
> > > but a fact of the release system - th
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:13:48AM -0400, Tim Hull wrote:
> > > > In the case of Iceweasel, stable already has 2.0.0.5, as this was a
> > security
> > > > update. There is supposed to be a testing security team, but
> > evidently they
> > > > haven't gotten around to the Iceweasel fix. Honestly,
On Saturday 28 July 2007 18:09:09 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 211227d8-5b0a-4ff4-8837-915d24867d33
> [ 1 ] Choice 1: Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers
> [ 2 ] Choice 2: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Dele
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:40:15 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:13:48AM -0400, Tim Hull wrote:
>> Isn't this why the testing security team was formed, to address situations
>> where there needs to be security fixes for testing like this? Is it still
>> ope
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:34:27 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And I am not sure where this part comes from. I've been running
> unstable on all my end user systems for 11 years now. I would say the
> local policy f whether or not to use unstablke on an end user system
>
43 matches
Mail list logo
