On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:30:44 +0200
Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The current recommends situaton is bad, but as I see it we have two
> options:
> a) change policy and say recommends should really be suggests
> b) fix apt and go through the transition pain
c) mass bug filing without
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Brendon Costa wrote:
> EDoc++ binaries are currently around 20M. It does not require any
> special binutils etc, but will just use what is already available for
> the system. I am currently building a single non-policy conformant .deb
> package.
I think the concern is m
Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On Saturday 04 August 2007, Brendon Costa wrote:
>> EDoc++ binaries are currently around 20M. It does not require any
>> special binutils etc, but will just use what is already available for
>> the system. I am currently building a single non-policy conformant .deb
>> packag
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:49:56PM +1000, Brendon Costa wrote:
> The tarball of all source necessary to build EDoc++ is 25M and extracted
> it is: 47M.
> EDoc++ stores in its source tree patches against GCC along with the GCC
> original tarballs, and at build time will extract the gcc tarballs in
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 01:44:14AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> As the "target" user for this sort of package is a sysadmin type, I
> would saw it is an important enough detail that it should be in the
> short description.
But only in the relation: multi-threaded == bad. You need much more
k
Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I am not sure where the 1G comes from, unless talking about the
>> duplicity across various mirrors.
>
> No, this is an estimate based on the actual usage of pool/main/g/gcc-4.1 on
> current Debian mirrors. (12 archs * 3 versions * n binary packages)
>
> Your note on the
Hello:
I am developing a .deb package an all goes well but I have problems putting
it in the Applications menu of Gnome. I have modified the debian/menu.ex
file with this content:
?package(lkmonitor):needs="x11″ section="Apps/System" \
title="Linux Kernel Monitor" command="/usr/bin/lkmonitor" \
i
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 12:57:39PM +0200, JM Barrios wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I am developing a .deb package an all goes well but I have problems putting
> it in the Applications menu of Gnome. I have modified the debian/menu.ex
> file with this content:
>
> ?package(lkmonitor):needs="x11″ section="Ap
On Aug 03, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Give the user the tools to shoot himself into the foot. Besides, dash
> is already using the debconf dance, so why discriminate other shells
> that are fine to do it according to policy?
To reduce complexity. Complexity is bad.
> >bash (the
Hello all,
I've recently came up with some problems with the way reassign is
currently used: I filed a bug against Qt4 that had (serious) problems on
HPPA, making several packages FTBS (#435832). It turned out, as I should
have guessed, that this problems had already been reported in bug
#433
Thanks for answering me Pierre. I have read the hd_installmenu manpage and I
have applied it typing only dh_installmenu -v. The output of this command
was this:
install -p -m644 debian/menu
debian/lkmonitor/usr/share/menu/lkmonitor
echo "# Automatically added by dh_installmenu">>
d
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: pidgin-musictracker
Version : 0.4.1
Upstream Author : Arijit De <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/musictracker/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Des
Hello,
I'd like to give some news on my work. I've been working with the dpkg
team to prepare the integration of the new dpkg-shlibdeps... and during
that process we decided that a decentralized VCS like git would suit
better the need of the team (in particular so that Ian Jackson can more
easily
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 12:24:58PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 01:44:14AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > As the "target" user for this sort of package is a sysadmin type, I
> > would saw it is an important enough detail that it should be in the
> > short description.
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070804 16:22]:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 12:24:58PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > But only in the relation: multi-threaded == bad. You need much more
> > knowledge to handle concurrency correctly.
>
> Yes that's my reaction also.
>
> System admins might reg
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> When a bug filed against a package turns out to be a bug in one of the
> dependencies (including implicit ones, such as the kernel and so on...),
> instead of simply reassigning the bug to the faulty package
It's not always a good idea to do as yo
* Vincent Fourmond [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:34:31 +0200]:
> one should first clone it, then reassign,
This is sometimes done, but at maintainer's discretion only. Most likely
if it's a many-times reported bug.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debi
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Knowing those differences, I wonder if I should offer the possibility to have
> debian/.symbols.common that would complement what can be found in
> debian/.symbols. or if we need something more elaborated like
> an include mechanism or a syntax to rest
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> dpkg-gensymbols -plibcurl3 -Pdebian/libcurl3
> dpkg-gensymbols -plibcurl3-gnutls -Pdebian/libcurl3-gnutls
> (you should also create debian/.symbols file, see below
> to grab some pre-generated files)
> If you want dpkg-shlibdeps to generate smalle
Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
help of many people on IRC:
http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
* Bastian Blank:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 01:44:14AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> As the "target" user for this sort of package is a sysadmin type, I
>> would saw it is an important enough detail that it should be in the
>> short description.
>
> But only in the relation: multi-threaded ==
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > dpkg-gensymbols -plibcurl3 -Pdebian/libcurl3
> > dpkg-gensymbols -plibcurl3-gnutls -Pdebian/libcurl3-gnutls
> > (you should also create debian/.symbols file, see below
> > to grab some pre-generated
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>
>I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely as
> possible.
>
I like it. As I read the wiki page, I came up with several
"improvements." As I
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many people on IRC:
> htt
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely as
> possible.
It overall seems reasonable to me, although it surfaces other issues that
we've been somewhat ignoring. F
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many peopl
Sam Hocevar wrote:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many people on IRC:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It overall seems reasonable to me, although it surfaces other issues that
> we've been somewhat ignoring. For example, with a format for clearly
> expressing copyrights that vary per file, it raises the question if we
> should be noting such things. Mo
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely
> as possible.
One of the other good points of this proposal is that it explicitely
indicates the copyright and licensing of
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jan-Pascal van Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: luke
Version : 0.7.1
Upstream Author : Andrzej Bialecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.getopt.org/luke/
* License
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
I really like the idea, thanks for this proposal!
A comment about file patterns. For possible future needs I would go for
specifying clearly the semantic of file patterns, for exam
On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 12:21:46AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> System admins might regard multi-threaded as the key to high
> performance.
Your system admins sound rather odd. Lots of software is high performance
without ever using threads at all.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.n
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Do you strip the "well known symbols" you've seen on each arch so that
> one only has to specify the other symbols?
No, because they might change with the toolchain and we want to track that
properly...
> Or will each maintainer have to maintain one fi
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 10:41:25PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > Do you strip the "well known symbols" you've seen on each arch so that
> > one only has to specify the other symbols?
> No, because they might change with the toolchain and we want to t
* Sam Hocevar:
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many people on IRC:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/Pro
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 04:19:29PM -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
> I really like the idea, thanks for this proposal!
>
> A comment about file patterns
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 19:17 +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>I therefore would like your opinions about this proposal, its
> shortcomings, and a strategy to implement it quickly and as widely as
> possible.
I strongly support this initiative.
This would also allow package checkers to efficiently ve
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:24:49PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Or maybe pipes, they are even more unlikely in a filename.
I remember the problem in dak where ~ was used as field separator
because nothing contained tildes anyway... until version numbers did :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://w
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 23:24 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Also, it might be better to have comma separated file lists, instead of
> space separated lists. Filenames are more likely to contain spaces than
> commas (Notably, in big projects that have windows ports or that come
> from the windows world,
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> It's probably better to use a separate file. If there's a syntax
> error, you can't be sure if the file is in the old format, or if its a
> genuine error.
But the information must be in debian/copyright. Duplicating it is
not an option.
> Copyrig
On 11101 March 1977, Brendon Costa wrote:
>>> EDoc++ binaries are currently around 20M. It does not require any
>>> special binutils etc, but will just use what is already available for
>>> the system. I am currently building a single non-policy conformant .deb
>>> package.
>> I think the concern
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> A comment about file patterns. For possible future needs I would go for
> specifying clearly the semantic of file patterns, for example whether if
> the first matching pattern apply to a file (as it seems in your example
> on the wikipage) or wheth
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Adam Borowski wrote:
> What about providing a way to programmatically cathegorize licenses,
> something that would work for licenses other than different versions of GPL.
>
> I mean:
> * BSD4 (or "BSD4-like") for stuff with the advertising clause
> * BSD-like (as you used yo
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Some initial comments:
> - Even though the GPL/OpenSSL is mentioned explicitely in the rationale,
> the rest of the document doesn't mention a good way to handle it.
That has been mentioned to me several times already. I don't know yet
what the
Hi,
Short story:
# apt-get install mpich-bin
# dpkg -P mpich-bin
# symlinks /usr/share/man/man1/ | grep dangling
dangling: /usr/share/man/man1/clog2alog.1.gz -> /etc/alternatives/clog2alog.1.gz
dangling: /usr/share/man/man1/upshot.1.gz -> /etc/alternatives/upshot.1.gz
dangling: /usr/share/man/ma
On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 12:10:56AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>I guess it all comes to whether you look at the file asking "what are
> the licenses in the package?" in which case you may prefer to see most
> common licenses first, or "what license is file XXX?" in which case you
> read the file
> "John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> The software uses CDK (ncurses) to handle the user
John> interface, libxml2 to store the information, the zlib
John> library to compress the data and the library GpgMe to
John> encrypt and decrypt the data securely.
Th
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And there is more to come. The GPL version 3 is compatible with
> the CDDL, but the GPL version 2 isn?t. Which means that in the near
> future, GPLv2-only software cannot be distributed as part of a CDDL
> operating system such as Nexenta. We have no way
Le Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +0200, Sam Hocevar a écrit :
>Hello, I would like to gather comments about a proposal I have been
> thinking about during the GPLv2/v3 and GPLv2/CDDL discussions. I have
> finally written down what I have in mind here, and refined it with the
> help of many pe
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kumar Appaiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: flickcurl
Version : 0.11
Upstream Author : Dave Beckett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://librdf.org/flickcurl/
* License : LGPL 2.1 / GPL 2 /Apache 2.0
Programming Lan
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - One drawback of the greedy approach for organising the Files fields
>is that the most important copyright - the one of the programs which
>gives to the package its raison d'être - will never be at the top of
>the list.
For many packages,
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - One drawback of the greedy approach for organising the Files fields
>is that the most important copyright - the one of the programs which
>gives to the package its raison d'être - will never be at the top of
>the list.
For a large propor
* Others have mentioned the ordering problem that puts the main license
last. Seems that Packaging-Copyright at the top is another case of
this problem (see you've now removed that special case name, but the
debian/* data would still go there). "Most specific matching glob wins"[1]
might be
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Soeren Sonnenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: dsdp
Version : 5.8
Upstream Author : Steven J. Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Yinyu Ye <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/DSDP/
* License : BSD
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:13:16PM -0700, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
> * Having to munge the license text to fit it in the 822 format is one of
> the uglier bits of this proposal, especially since we don't require
> that license texts be DFSG free..
Surely, any license text, b
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:13:16PM -0700, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (...)
>> * Makes even more clear that debian/copyright is not the best place for
>> Source URLs. They rather stick out from the other data, and this would
>> be a great t
56 matches
Mail list logo
