Le dimanche 19 octobre 2008 à 13:45 +0200, Guido Loupias a écrit :
> This is a slightly modified version of the code that is in libnotify_init()
> which I put in my own program to redirect the output (error->message) to a
> logfile because I wasn't sure how to redirect g_message() (which is what
On Mon,20.Oct.08, 00:51:03, s. keeling wrote:
> Just curious, but why 2 & 3? Why isn't 1 considered the simplest
> solution? xterm is ca. 300k. What Seyon users can't afford 300k disk
> space or its RSS?
>
> vi's installed on every *nix box on the planet. Why shouldn't xterm
> be on every X
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 477498 initscripts
Bug#477498: smbfs: Shutdown & Reboot scripts try umount CIFS but CIFSD is
killed first
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `initscripts'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
D
Sound to me like the cifs startup script need to register their pid to
avoid killall killing them at shutdown. The mechanism is already
provided by initscripts, now the packages needing it just need to use
it.
Which package starts this daemon? This issue should be reassigned
there.
Happy hackin
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> Sound to me like the cifs startup script need to register their pid
> to avoid killall killing them at shutdown. The mechanism is already
> provided by initscripts, now the packages needing it just need to
> use it.
Another alternative is to flag the mounted volume in /etc
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tatsuya Kinoshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: goby
Version : 0.94
Upstream Author : Kazu Yamamoto
* URL : http://www.mew.org/~kazu/proj/goby/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Emacs Lisp
Description : WYSIW
Peter Pentchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 05:48:02PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
>> * Peter Pentchev [Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:37:21 +0300]:
>>
>> > Description : Utility to read variables from a configuration file
>>
>> Please mention "INI-style" in the short descri
Hello Pierre,
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the problem here is somehow very generic, and that using a
> virtual package like proposed in the bug report (#500176) doesn't scale
> well. Especially for dns daemons. Packaging two of them myself (nsd3
> that is an authoritativ
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I would think at least a meaningful justification in the bug report is
>> required
>
> Well, apply common sense. In all of the bugs I recently tagged, the
> DFSG violation is usually a formal problem, s
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> trying to follow the social contract?
Yes, they have.
Furthermore, the FTP team (which is supposed to be in charge of DFSG
enforcement) has decided to
Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> > trying to follow the social contract?
>
> Yes, they have.
What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
fix these bugs?
I do
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:48:50AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> While fixing
> these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's hardly something
> that can be done in the last few weeks before releasing.
If I may make a suggestion, instead of trying to justify that Debian should
chan
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> > > trying to follow the social contract?
> >
> > Yes, they have.
>
> What if, inste
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> > trying to follow the social contract?
>
> Yes, they have.
>
> Furthermore, the FTP team (which
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:57:24AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Sound to me like the cifs startup script need to register their pid to
> avoid killall killing them at shutdown. The mechanism is already
> provided by initscripts, now the packages needing it just need to use
> it.
> Which pa
Hi everyone, <--- will be referred to as "you"
Stephen Gran said:
> This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >
> > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> > > trying to follow the
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> Btw, I'm looking for supporters for a GR to stop this gross violation
> of the SC. Any DDs who read this, please let me know if you're
> interested.
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
| http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_0
Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 16:34 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
> > fix these bugs?
>
> I did...
And you deserve kudos for that. But that doesn’t make t
Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 16:34 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
> > fix these bugs?
>
> I did...
And you deserve kudos for that.
But still, it is unre
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 06:15:57PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>
> What are the release and ftp team supposed to do here? Sure, I can
> type in "dak rm linux-2.6" and see what happens
Move it to non-free. Then have it go to NEW the next time it's uploaded,
and go through the usual DFSG-ness ch
Damnit, sent mail instead of moving to drafts. Sorry for the double
sending.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`-our own. Resistance is futile.
signature.asc
Description
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> You cannot ask, so late in the release process,
Some of these bugs have been known for *years*. In one of them, I even got
a reply saying something along the lines of "I was expecting this one".
--
Robert Millan
The DRM op
Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 19:30 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > You cannot ask, so late in the release process,
>
> Some of these bugs have been known for *years*. In one of them, I even got
> a reply saying something alo
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> > trying to follow the social contract?
>
> Yes, they have.
>
> Furthermore, the FTP team
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
> ,
> | http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
> | General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
> `
>
> To get a special dispensation for
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:48:57AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >
> > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> > > trying to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
> compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.
Note that there is currently activ
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems we relied primarily on the release team, which has betrayed
> the goals of the project,
I do not accept to be called names because I firmly believe that
Debian's goal is to distribute the best possible free software to our
users. All of our wor
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> I queried Robert on IRC and told him that he does not have a realistic
> scenario of fixing the bug and that he would need to come up with a
> working NMUable patch to in order to even have a viable proposition to
> move things forward.[1]
>
> What ar
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
> > compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> > thing, to give time to
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 20:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Apparently, our control structures are not reliable enough to _enforce_
> what we have decided. It seems we relied primarily on the release team,
> which has betrayed the goals of the project, and only count on the FTP
> team as a fallback,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20-10-2008 16:32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> I queried Robert on IRC and told him that he does not have a realistic
>> scenario of fixing the bug and that he would need to come up with a
>> working NMUab
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:46:18PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems we relied primarily on the release team, which has betrayed
> > the goals of the project,
>
> I do not accept to be called names because I firmly believe that
> Debian'
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:41:16 -0500]:
> Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> trying to follow the social contract? Is releasing on schedule more
> important than the SC?
When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:38:00 +0200]:
> (If you must know, I also /personally/ believe that it's the task of
> those who feel betrayed to prove the release team wrong, and not the
> opposite.
(If the release team fail to realize by themselves, I mean, should that
happen.)
--
Adeoda
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> I do not accept to be called names because I firmly believe that
> Debian's goal is to distribute the best possible free software to our
I do not think anyone has any problems with us distributing
*free* software. It is the non-free pa
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:33:49PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:46:18PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It seems we relied primarily on the release team, which has betrayed
> > > the goals of the project,
> >
> >
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:31:00PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:48:50AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > While fixing
> > these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's hardly something
> > that can be done in the last few weeks before releasing.
>
> If I
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:23:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 20:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Apparently, our control structures are not reliable enough to _enforce_
> > what we have decided. It seems we relied primarily on the release team,
> > which has betra
Josselin Mouette schreef:
If you are running a panel applet, the
probable cause is that the bonobo-activation-server process from the
previous session is still running and is setting this environment
variable.
This appears to have been the culprit. I added the snippet below to the server
file an
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> For me, believe it or not, it's very important not to betray the rest of
> developers with the actions I take in my role as a release person. Which
> is *not* to say I won't take any actions that makes feel one particular
> developer betrayed. But I do
Hi,
This email is an edited excerpt from Sven Luther, sent via
private email. I am sending in a version I am happy to defend posting,
and will try to convey as much of what Sven said as I am comfortable
forwarding. I have marked where I paraphrased what Sven said.
manoj
> On M
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would think at least a meaningful justification in the bug
> > report is required
>
> Well, apply common sense.
Common sense, i.e. the policy, social contract, and DFSG that are each
agreed in commo
Robert Millan wrote:
>> > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
>> > > trying to follow the social contract?
>> >
>> > Yes, they have.
>>
>> What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
>> fix these bugs?
>
> I did...
You contribut
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:14:15 -0500]:
Hi,
> But developers are not the only infliences on your decision. You
> have agreed to abide by the social contract, have you not? That, too,
> should dictate how you act within your delegated role.
[...]
> There is nothi
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to fix
> > > this means we will
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 10:55 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
> > ,
> > | http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
> > | General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20-10-2008 19:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:14:15 -0500]:
[...]
>> So, could you explain your view of the issue here, without
>> bringing in feeling of betrayal, which I do not comprehend?
>
> I agreed
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I agreed to abide by the social contract, but I happen to think that
> these lenny-ignore tags at hand are acceptable in order to get a release
> out, /and/ I also believe that a majority of the developers happens to
> think the same (otherwise I wouldn
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
> everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
> could also step up to th
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:22 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 16:34 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
> > > fix these bugs?
> >
Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, bugs don't get magically fixed.
> You didn't do anything substantially about them, so you can hardly
> complain.
These specific bug reports describe instances where the Debian project
breaks its own promises, which is why their severity is ‘s
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > > > We need the relevant maintainers
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
> to use them. One of these tools is britney, and another is the possibility
> of saying that certain bugs will not stop the release from happening.
> Unstable
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think that we should not just assume that the developers think
> that violating the DFSG is acceptable just to release a new version. I
Sure, but we shouldn't assume the contrary either, and it seems to me
that a lot of
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I think that we should not just assume that the developers
> > think that violating the DFSG is acceptable just to release a new
> > version.
>
> Sure, but we shouldn't
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think that we should not just assume that the developers think
>> that violating the DFSG is acceptable just to release a new version. I
> Sure, but we shouldn't assume
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
>> to use them. One of these tools is britney, and another is the possibility
>> of saying that certain bugs w
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> ... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
>> be considered responsible for it? They "just" decide (and kudos for
>> all their
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
>>> ... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
>>> be considered responsible for it?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
be
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it's not the release team that is violating a foundation document.
> It's Debian as a whole and it's happening now, not when we release
> or not.
This is an important distinction, thank you.
> The only thing we did as a release team is to make clear that w
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hmm. I am not so sire it is nonsense. Yes, the release
> > team is not alone in this, and, really, all of us are somewhat to
> > blame for not helping the kernel team fix the DFSG violations.
> > But I don't think that
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> We didn't decide to release yet...
Fair enough.
>> Now, if we are all so very eager to have these bugs go away, we
>> have no objections to an NMU with the patches that have been posted on
>> -kernel mailing list, right? (Note: some of t
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
>> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
>> everyone wo
65 matches
Mail list logo
