On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
> > succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
> > and it's front-ends, it seems re
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, set...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer Debian 4.0 because I feel it is more stable than 5.0.
Please define "more stable".
What are the problems which you have observed? Did you reported these problems?
Am I right?
Well, if we would *know* about this fact we probably would n
Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
> Who cares that file foo.c is licensed under GPL and bar.c under BSD?
> People that want to take the source and use it elsewhere. These people
> are obviously looking at the sources, and don't really need
> debian/copyright information.
Let's add that if you are reusing
I am trying to get ridge on the problem with lvm2. Therefore I have to
get some old packages from snapshot.debian.net. Unfortunately it seems
to be broken for some time now.
While the syntax you use doesn't seem to work anymore and /archive appears
empty it seems you can still browse directly t
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:37:48 +0100
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Well, the one thing that I think we need to clarify here is whether we
> > need to list the licenses for files that aren't source code for what goes
> > into the binary distri
Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> As I discovered that libsoup SVN trunk has libproxy as an optional build
> dependency, I stumbled upon this ITP, and found out that upstream has
> been made aware of this issue:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/libproxy/issues/detail?id=21
>
> Based on that bug, I assume tha
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:18:07PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Uh, what are you saying here? That we should use " * " to prepend
> items in itemized lists, so that it can be converted to HTML lists by
> packages.debian.org et al.? If not, what else?
Yes.
More generally, I believe we can bene
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:51:09 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Only, in this case, we need it abstracted (which it already is), and
> we need it to _remain_ abstracted.
>
> Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
> it will be either completely impossible, or
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:18:41 +
Neil Williams wrote:
> There is nothing in debian/copyright to help with that decision (nor
> should there be, before anyone suggests it, because that doesn't scale
> either).
Actually, I'm reconsidering that a bit - separate copyright files for
separate binary
Jim wrote:
Grammostola Rosea,
I want also to direct your attention to the kernel, as it has the
possibility to be more supportive of those specific needs, by having
low latency and real-time extensions patched and enabled. The debian
folks (especially "waldi" aka Bastien Blank will say some or
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:43:48 -0700
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I have been reading this discussion a bit and I've been wondering what
> > use-case you actually have for machine-readable debian/copyright files.
>
> This is quite different than having the *license terms* recorded in a
> machine-
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
> holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
> Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
> it unaccepta
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Grammostola Rosea
wrote:
> Mmh this is interesting, cause there is an realtime kernel available in the
> ubuntu hardy repo, but not in Debian yet. Would be nice if there was one
> which users could install. But I'm not an rt-kernel expert at all, so maybe
> I shou
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Jim wrote:
Grammostola Rosea,
I want also to direct your attention to the kernel, as it has the
possibility to be more supportive of those specific needs, by having
low latency and real-time extensions patched and enabled. The debian
folks (especially "waldi" aka Basti
Hello,
the dpkg team and the texinfo maintainer have laid out a plan to
get rid of dpkg /usr/sbin/install-info and start relying on
GNU's install-info when needed. This will involve some work to
transition properly. We have described our plan here:
http://wiki.debian.org/Transitions/DpkgToGnuInst
Hi All,
I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on Alioth.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its review.
The conversion and all other steps are working, but there's room for
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Do you really need real time kernel?
> Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes,
> "real time" is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel is
certainly very usef
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Do you really need real time kernel?
Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes,
"real time" is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel i
Hi guys,
I'm currently thinking about deduplication[1] on my Debian systems.
As you probably know, the whole thing about deduplication is that
replacing files with content with hardlink to other file(s) with the
exact same content is sometimes a good idea, at least to regain
(uselessly used) disk
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it unaccepta
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
> useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
> requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyright files.
> That's not a win, AFAICT.
Don't
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> I do use a real-time kernel on a Debian based system for one of my
>> customers (but I have to recompile the kernel anyway because I do other
>> customizations) and I have good reasons to do so because I can't suffer
>> serial overrun and I must e
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:44:18PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > PROPOSAL START
> > > ===
> > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > > Project, whi
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
> dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /usr for
> example).
> I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it "break" the
> hardlink before replaci
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
>
>> For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
>> dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /usr for
>> example).
>> I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it "br
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:09:25PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> > For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
> > dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /usr for
> > example).
> > I don't know how
Neil Williams writes:
> Is it really useful to have only a subset of packages using the
> format? Isn't only going to be the small packages that have no
> particular licence problems that would adopt it because it's almost
> trivial to do so? Unless maintainers of complex packages or packages
> w
Jerome Warnier wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /usr for
example).
I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. D
On 2009-03-24, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:09:25PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
>> > For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
>> > dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /
[Jerome Warnier]
> I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it "break" the
> hardlink before replacing a file or does it replace the file whatever
> its real nature is?
You know, given the time it takes to type a 20-line email, including
finding the appropriate Wikipedia article to li
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Jerome Warnier]
>
>> I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it "break" the
>> hardlink before replacing a file or does it replace the file whatever
>> its real nature is?
>>
>
> You know, given the time it takes to type a 20-line email, including
> fi
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Jerome Warnier wrote:
>> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
>>>
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good
idea, as
dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under
/usr for
>>>
hiya,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:29:08PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
> Alioth.
>
> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
>
> Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its rev
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:29, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hi All,
> I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
> Alioth.
>
> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
>
> Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its review.
> Th
In article <49c8dcdb.90...@beeznest.net> you write:
>Before the upgrade, the file is a hardlink (because I hardlinked it
>manually), then it tries to upgrade the file/hardlink. Does it "break"
>the hardlink* before upgrading the file or does it overwrite the
>file/hardlink and all of its "siblings"
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:34:09PM +0100, Jerome Warnier
wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > Jerome Warnier wrote:
> >> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> >>>
> For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good
> idea, as
>
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> In article <49c8dcdb.90...@beeznest.net> you write:
>
>> Before the upgrade, the file is a hardlink (because I hardlinked it
>> manually), then it tries to upgrade the file/hardlink. Does it "break"
>> the hardlink* before upgrading the file or does it overwrite the
>> fi
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:40:05PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Additionally, I'm looking for a post-commit hook that can send the
> commit diff via email to a ml + tagpending the bugs in the diff. I'm
> pretty sure someone out there has this script ready yet, so let's
> share :)
i mentioned this o
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:34:09PM +0100, Jerome Warnier
> wrote:
>
>> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>>
>>> Jerome Warnier wrote:
>>>
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
>
>
>> For fi
Jerome Warnier (Di 24 Mär 2009 14:58:35 CET):
>
> The question here is: which one is the hardlink to the other? :-P
You can't distinguish hardlinks from each other - in the sense of
original and link...
They are just different directory entries referring to the same file system
object.
Bes
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 03:11:17PM +0100, Jerome Warnier
wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:34:09PM +0100, Jerome Warnier
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jerome Warnier wrote:
> >>>
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tiago Bortoletto Vaz
* Package name: tapiir
Version : 0.7.2
Upstream Author : Maarten de Boer
* URL : http://www.iua.upf.es/~mdeboer/projects/tapiir/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : A tool for
Am Dienstag, den 24.03.2009, 14:40 +0100 schrieb Sandro Tosi:
> Additionally, I'm looking for a post-commit hook that can send the
> commit diff via email to a ml + tagpending the bugs in the diff. I'm
> pretty sure someone out there has this script ready yet, so let's
> share :)
If you have your
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 15:30, Manuel Prinz wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 24.03.2009, 14:40 +0100 schrieb Sandro Tosi:
>> Additionally, I'm looking for a post-commit hook that can send the
>> commit diff via email to a ml + tagpending the bugs in the diff. I'm
>> pretty sure someone out there has this
Sandro Tosi writes:
> I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
> Alioth.
>
> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
>
> Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its review.
> The conversion and all other steps are wo
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Sandro Tosi writes:
>
>> I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
>> Alioth.
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
>>
>> Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its review.
>> The co
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> i have something based on an earlier hook by adeodato, which does
> the former (commit msg+diff):
>
> http://git.debian.org/?p=users/seanius/vcs-hooks/git-post-receive-diff.git
>
> note that this is not post-commit but post-recieve (i.e. after a push to
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:39:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Sadly it doesn't extract closes: from debian/changelog but only from the
> commit notice (and in dpkg's case I tend to not mention debian
> bugs in the commit log but only in debian/changelog).
yes, it was designed to work more in
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Sandro Tosi writes:
>>
>>> I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
>>> Alioth.
>>>
>>> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
>>>
>>> Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Do you really need real time kernel?
Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two
quotes,
"real time" is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any fe
Jerome Warnier wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Jerome Warnier]
> >
> >> I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it "break" the
> >> hardlink before replacing a file or does it replace the file whatever
> >> its real nature is?
> >>
> >
> > You know, given the time it takes
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
> explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
What I did manually was something like
find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort (or similar tools, make sure they're
sorted in a way as dpkg would so
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:42:17PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
> > explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
>
> What I did manually was something like
>
> find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc'
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> ... now it is only the two of us which needs to stop talking and start
> proposing patches as needed :-)
Before patches, I've created a page on Debian wiki to better articulate the
proposal:
http://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade
I'll update this page regularl
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> I'm curious as to why no one is looking at the index node numbers
> themselves.
Because the second field of "ls -l" is "hardlink count" and is enough
alone to conclude:
> 7342643 -rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 101992 Apr 4 2008 ls
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
>> explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
>
> What I did manually was something like
>
> find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort (or similar tools, make sure they'r
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello developers,
>
> I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
>
On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
>> We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
>> of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
>> most upstream source packages, why do we second-guess upstream teams?
>
> It'
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:52:28AM -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
> > find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort (or similar tools, make sure they're
> > sorted in a way as dpkg would sort the versions) | while read i; do
> > git-import-dsc $i
> > done
> >
>
> git-import-dscs (note the extra s on the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Neil Williams writes:
>>
>>> We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
>>> of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
>>> most upstream source packages, why do we sec
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> ,
> | 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> |notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> |documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> `
>
> Do we ever distribut
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg
> is a symlink, so they have no copyright.
All such binaries have a hard dependency on a package that does include
copyright, but that's a good point. I don't know if legally that hard
depen
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:47:37AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
> > holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
> > Whatever justificat
Reinhard Tartler a écrit :
>> Not completely. If you have the tarballs of the released versions you
>> can import and merge them.
>
> can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
> explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
We did that inside the OCaml team to mi
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:32:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
>
> > And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg
> > is a symlink, so they have no copyright.
>
> All such binaries have a hard dependency on a package that does include
>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:19:36PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > But we do distribute binaries in the debs - and debian/copyright is
> > not only for the source but also ends up in the deb.
> Actually, Policy does not make mandatory for the .deb file to contain
> a copyright file at all:
>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
> clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
> changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary
> will fix t
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>> I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
>> useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
>> requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyri
Stéphane Glondu writes:
> Reinhard Tartler a écrit :
>>> Not completely. If you have the tarballs of the released versions you
>>> can import and merge them.
>>
>> can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
>> explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
>
> We
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> ,
>> | 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> |notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> |documentation and/or other materials provided with the distr
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:26:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
> that had better be never. If the intent is for this to be broadly
> adopted, the specification should be fixed as early as possible, and we
> should not ado
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
>> Nice sound bite. But a spec or a standard's big value comes if
>> it is fixed to be widely accepted, even if it means that some parts of
>> the standard are "optional".
>
> I hope that you will contribute your opinion when DEP 5 has a draft to
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
> clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
> changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary
> will fi
Bill Allombert writes:
> So we already allow packages to reference other packages for license
> informations.
With the important requirement that the referenced package that
contains the license information must also be installed on every
system where the referring package is installed (because
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:52:22PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
> > clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
> > changes w
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
> debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
> rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not after
> we got the n
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
> > it will be either completely impossible, or it will take two or three
> > stable releases to do it). It was trouble enough to implement
> > invoke-rc.d.
>
> Who would want to do
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
> that had better be never.
Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
solicited (though it is currently inefficiently gathered and
processed, and that needs to be addressed)
Hello,
I want to by a slim laptop, but the last time that was buy a laptop was
a Toshiba Portege R100 and still I have not 3D support.
I don't want to make a wrong decision, so can you please recommend the
best slim laptop today supported fully support on linux?
Thank you very much in advance
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:40:02AM -0300, gusti wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to by a slim laptop, but the last time that was buy a laptop was
> a Toshiba Portege R100 and still I have not 3D support.
> I don't want to make a wrong decision, so can you please recommend the
> best slim laptop
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, gusti wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to by a slim laptop, but the last time that was buy a laptop was
> a Toshiba Portege R100 and still I have not 3D support.
> I don't want to make a wrong decision, so can you please recommend the
> best slim laptop today supported fully sup
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
>> debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh
>> bureaucratic rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
>> that had better be never.
>
> Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
> solicited (though it is currently inefficiently gathe
Noah Slater wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
>> debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
>> rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, no
Dear all,
there has been a lot of talk about the machine-readable format. The wiki page
on which the proposal was started attracted almost 500 modifications, but for
this reason became progressively unreadable with time. We (Steve Langasek, Noah
Slater and I) are currently preparing a synthethic v
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm curious... What do you think *is* the "Debian way of doing things
> like this" ?
Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP was needless bureaucracy.
I'm hardly likely to argue with you about what constitutes the Debian way, but
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There are 215
packages waiting [1] about half of which have been there 3 or more
weeks.
Last time I asked [2], the result was a large thread discussing what
manual work is done in processing NEW. I suggest reading through that
thread before
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> If the spec is being bruited under the understanding that
> the flaws do not matter
Who's doing that? Of course the flaws matter.
> So answering criticism of the current spec with "well, it is not
> going t
Sorry, you right.
Mauro Lizaur wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, gusti wrote:
Hello,
I want to by a slim laptop, but the last time that was buy a laptop was
a Toshiba Portege R100 and still I have not 3D support.
I don't want to make a wrong decision, so can you please recommend the
best sli
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon?
It was processed recently. One of the packages I uploaded to NEW just got
approved. It's not being processed horribly quickly, but it *is* being
processed.
> In the case of a SONAME bump of an already-accepted
Harald Braumann dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:57:45AM +0100]:
> > Only, in this case, we need it abstracted (which it already is), and
> > we need it to _remain_ abstracted.
> >
> > Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
> > it will be either completely impossible, or
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:54:42AM -0500]:
> Err, isn't munin a hugely complex beasty, that has to be
> configured for the network, and usually lives on a signle machine and
> polls others? and does alerting and graphing and is a pain to
> configure? On the other ha
Marco d'Itri dijo [Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:14:53PM +0100]:
> > trouble for embedded or limited ones. I don't do embedded personally so I
> > have no idea how udev fares there, but I can tell you that vservers and udev
> > don't go well together. Udev expects a real system where there's none and
>
> I think 95% of the users of the linuxaudio.org community (LAU mailinglist)
> uses a realtime kernel (CONFIG_HZ_1000 + Mingo patch (!?)). Discussion if
> it is still needed bumps up there once in a while, for example:
>
> http://linuxaudio.org/mailarchive/lau/2009/3/10/153190
>
>
> But till now pe
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney
wrote:
...
>Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format for
> .debian/copyright apparently exist, but I don't understand their
>position yet :-)
I'd be one of those.
Whenever you add new structural rules on a file it creates
Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100]:
> This theory does not match the project history in any way.
> vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient
> level of support to be valid to be called for vote:
>
> The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 80
Stephen Gran dijo [Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:23PM +]:
> > Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> > rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> > proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
>
> You're aware that you can
Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]:
> Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
> > Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
> > process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
> > to the poin
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this
> thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_ a
> ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might just be
> recognized as an important viewpoint to take into cons
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney
> wrote:
> ...
> >Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format
> >for .debian/copyright ? apparently exist, but I don't understand
> >their position yet :-)
>
> I'd be one of those.
Thank you for you
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
