On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Note that adding a release (squeeze) without a git package will not
> solve the problem: the git/lenny package will not be removed from
> the system without an explicit action of the administrator.
> And the administrator can alread
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> When a binary package is renamed or split, as well as if several packages are
> merged under a new name, transitional packages are normally created, which
> depend on the new packages, which in turn Replaces and Conflicts with, and
> possibly Provides, the old packages.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francois Marier
* Package name: gource
Version : 0.11
Upstream Author : Andrew Caudwell
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/gource/
* License : GPLv3+
Programming Lang: C++
Description : graphical source control vis
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Peter Samuelson
wrote:
> Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a
> project name that has been around since ... I don't know,
> but the Debian package goes back to 1997.
In what way is it hostile? Do you really believe that
leaving things the w
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:26:38PM +0200, Christoph Anton
Mitterer wrote:
> 2) Package installation already downloads something and
> installs this e.g. some font packages (msttcorefonts) or
> documentations (susv2/3) do this.
Personally I dislike this mode of operation. I don't like
lots of code
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ansgar Burchardt
* Package name: libtry-tiny-perl
Version : 0.02
Upstream Author : Yuval Kogman
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Try-Tiny/
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : Perl module provi
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:51:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
What I'm trying to discuss here is that Debian Developers who package
their own software as Debian native packages should be allowed to do so
Hi Wouter and everybody,
it seems to me that the difficulties
On 9/18/09, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Michael S Gilbert schrieb:
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:26:38 +0200 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Some time ago, I've wrote several bug reports to packages, that download
>>> files from some non
Michael S Gilbert wrote:
> you could host just the hashes for the external files (signed with
> your key) on your site. then you wouldn't have to duplicate
> upstream's data files nor spend (much) of your own bandwidth (since
> the hash files should be fairly small in most cases).
>
> or maybe th
On 2009-09-18, Tom Feiner wrote:
> Looks like this method works well for clamav-data and other similar packages
> which needs to update databases frequently on stable/oldstable.
clamav-data is scheduled for deletion as soon as volatile moves onto
ftp-master, so that's no precedent. (I.e. there i
Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-09-18, Tom Feiner wrote:
>> Looks like this method works well for clamav-data and other similar packages
>> which needs to update databases frequently on stable/oldstable.
>
> clamav-data is scheduled for deletion as soon as volatile moves onto
> ftp-master, so that'
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:06:21 +0300, Tom Feiner wrote:
> Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 2009-09-18, Tom Feiner wrote:
> >> Looks like this method works well for clamav-data and other similar
> >> packages
> >> which needs to update databases frequently on stable/oldstable.
> >
> > clamav-data is sched
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael S Gilbert schrieb:
> On 9/18/09, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Michael S Gilbert schrieb:
>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:26:38 +0200 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Hi.
Some time ag
Hi,
starting from Python 2.6, the Debian packages look for modules in a
different directory: /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages instead
of /usr/lib/python2.X/site-packages. This is handled transparently by
python-central and python-support, but at install time, distutils (the
thingy behind “python s
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 23:13 +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> 4) The package downloads insecure code and directly executes it.
I'd have counted these to (1),... because downloading and "just"
installing means automatically, that it's likely to be executed at some
point.
Of course it's even worse if thi
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 12:37 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Personally I dislike this mode of operation. I don't like
> lots of code running in postinsts as root to perform e.g.
> downloads (examples: flashplugin-nonfree) and subsequent
> processing (unpacking, running shell scripts, etc.).
Of course,.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gaudenz Steinlin
* Package name: sinfo
Version : 0.0.33
Upstream Author : Jürgen Rinas
* URL : http://www.ant.uni-bremen.de/whomes/rinas/sinfo/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C++
Description : Monitoring tool
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 23:02 -0400, Michael S Gilbert wrote:
> checksums are a good start, but if the data itself is non-free (or
> closed or obscured), then how can you be sure it is not malicious?
Of course not at all but we should try to secure as much as possible
and close as many holes as p
Le vendredi 18 septembre 2009 à 21:18 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> * 246 packages don’t, but should work as well provided that we
> ensure python-central is fixed.
I forgot to explain how exactly it needs to be fixed.
> * python-central needs a NMU to
> handle /usr/lib/py
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 18:19 +0300, Tom Feiner wrote:
> Geoip upstream provides the source of these binary databases, so all we need
> to do is find a consistent and reliable way to get new database updates, built
> from source by debian and propagated through the usual apt repositories. This
> look
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 12:22 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> however, i think that since these packages are depending on information
> outside of the debian archive, most (if not all) should be hosted under
> the contrib section (since users without internet access will encounter
> reduced/limited f
Dear developers,
There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it
not yet cleared for building packages against it.
If your package Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev, please change to 'libjpeg-dev'
(without the 62) to ease the transition.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red s
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it
> not yet cleared for building packages against it.
>
> If your package Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev, please change to 'libjpeg-dev'
> (with
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it
> not yet cleared for building packages against it.
>
> If your package Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev, please change to 'libjpeg-dev'
> (with
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Therefore, a number of packages have to be fixed before they can work
> with python2.6. Practically speaking, this is the only thing that
> prevents python2.6 from entering unstable. This is a first attempt at
> listing packages needing to be fixed.
Thank you for this
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If there are no objections, I will submit a MBF for those 75 packages in
> a few days.
Go ahead, we have waited too much for python 2.6 already.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a s
26 matches
Mail list logo
