On 12161 March 1977, Russell Coker wrote:
> Below are two messages I have received after attempts to upload a new
> refpolicy package. I first tried via FTP but the 3G Internet connection I'm
> using gives me a 10.0.0.0/24 address with NAT that doesn't support FTP, so I
> ended up with a zero
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay up to date
> (by providing as little information as possible in their advisories);
> webkit (for the most part except for Apple announcements) makes it
> easy. This means security fixes are go
Le mardi 29 juin 2010 à 02:57 -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
> Losing mozilla wouldn't be that significant of an loss since there
> are plenty of other good options nowadays (webkit, konquerer, chromium,
> etc.), which wasn't the case a year or so ago.
I would love to get rid of it, but unfortun
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alastair McKinstry
* Package name: xgks
Version : 2.6
Upstream Author : UCAR/Unidata
* URL : http://xgks.sourceforge.net/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C, Fortran
Description : X11 Graphical Kernel System
XG
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> and engage in poor supportability/secuirity practices (using embedded
> code copies instead of system libraries) [0]. This path is
> unnacceptable for Debian.
>
> In my personal opinion, the only viable option left is to drop all
>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:57:20AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> [1]. A Chromium extension named "AdBlock" exists, but it merely hides the
> junk after downloading them -- so you merely don't see them while still
> being subjected to slowdown, having your bandwidth stolen, being tracked,
> having a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:00:30PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:57:20AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > [1]. A Chromium extension named "AdBlock" exists, but it merely hides the
> > junk after downloading them -- so you merely don't see them while still
> > being subjecte
On 06/29/2010 03:57 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> [1]. A Chromium extension named "AdBlock" exists, but it merely hides the
> junk after downloading them -- so you merely don't see them while still
> being subjected to slowdown, having your bandwidth stolen, being tracked,
> having advertising scripts
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 04:57:53AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On 06/29/2010 03:57 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > [2]. Chromium doesn't even understand the concept of session cookies. It
> > does allow purging cookies at exit -- but that applies to all cookies,
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 04:06:17PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Below are two messages I have received after attempts to upload a new
> refpolicy package. I first tried via FTP but the 3G Internet connection I'm
> using gives me a 10.0.0.0/24 address with NAT that doesn't support FTP,
Are you
On 06/29/2010 05:16 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Uhm, and that gets me what? It would nuke all cookies, including those
> which are supposed to last beyond the session.
Touche. I misread your post, and Chromium's ability to do this by
default. Apologies.
--
. O . O . O . . O O . . . O .
.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Antti J. Salminen"
* Package name: cpupowerd
Version : 0.2.1
Upstream Author : Markus Strobl
* URL : http://cpupowerd.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL-2
Programming Lang: C
Description : daemon for frequency an
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ralf Treinen
Package name:dose3
Version: 0.7
Upstream Author: Pietro Abate
URL: http://gforge.info.ucl.ac.be/frs/download.php/160/dose3-0.7.tar.gz
Licence: GPL >=3
Programming Language: OCaml
Tentative Description:
Dose3 is a framework made o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Andrew O. Shadoura"
* Package name: twms
Version : 0.01q
Upstream Author : Darafei Praliaskouski
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/twms/
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang: Python
Description : tiny WMS service
On 29.06.2010 14:48, Antti J. Salminen wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: "Antti J. Salminen"
>
>
> * Package name: cpupowerd
> Version : 0.2.1
> Upstream Author : Markus Strobl
> * URL : http://cpupowerd.sourceforge.net/
> * License : GPL-2
On 29/06/2010 16:00, Michael Biebl wrote:
> What features does it have over existing packages?
And why not using ondemand? Is AMD support bad?
--
Yves-Alexis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.deb
Le dimanche 27 juin 2010 à 14:27 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> The problem is that we don't properly distinguish between "foo needs
> bar during installation or foo's installation will fail" and "foo
> needs bar to be installed or foo will not work". One could express
> this via Recommends, but the
Le mardi 29 juin 2010 à 16:05 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
> On 29/06/2010 16:00, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > What features does it have over existing packages?
>
> And why not using ondemand? Is AMD support bad?
Well, some CPUs (like the L110) don’t support it with a stock kernel.
I haven’t
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 04:10:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 29 juin 2010 à 16:05 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
> > On 29/06/2010 16:00, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > > What features does it have over existing packages?
> >
> > And why not using ondemand? Is AMD support bad?
>
> W
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:57:20 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > and engage in poor supportability/secuirity practices (using embedded
> > code copies instead of system libraries) [0]. This path is
> > unnacceptable for Debian.
> >
> >
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
Same question as for Md with volatile:
apt-cache rdepends xulrunner-1.9.1 libmozjs2d libwebkit-1.0-2
What do you do with these packages ? backports too ? Do you
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:37:46 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay up to date
> > (by providing as little information as possible in their advisories);
> > webkit (for the most part except for Apple an
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:21:52 +0200
Luk Claes wrote:
>Will they also not be usable anymore with identi.ca and similar twitter
>like services? If not, there is no reason to have them dropped AFAICS.
I haven't known about similar services are there, thanks!
However, at least remove "twitter"
Hi Carlos,
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:28:00 +0200
Carlos Galisteo wrote:
> Waiting for qoauth [1].
Thanks! I haven't heard about it. Choqok author seems to make a fork from
that, see http://momeny.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/kde-oauth/#comment-248
>Please, notice that oauth may imply some issues ab
Hi Sune,
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:25:10 + (UTC)
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> plasma-widgets-addons (microblog widget)
Thanks, added. Is plasma part of KDE, right? If so, as Carlos suggests
qoauth (or forked one) will help that if someone would package it, I guess.
--
Regards,
Hideki Yamane
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:37:46 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay up to date
> > > (by providing as little information as possibl
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:39:57 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:37:46 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:29:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
>
> Same question as for Md with volatile:
>
> apt-cache rdepends xulrunner-1.9.1 libmozjs2d libwebkit-
On 2010-06-29, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
> Same question as for Md with volatile:
> apt-cache rdepends xulrunner-1.9.1 libmozjs2d libwebkit-1.0-2
> What do you do with
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:03:19 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 29 juin 2010 à 02:57 -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
> > Losing mozilla wouldn't be that significant of an loss since there
> > are plenty of other good options nowadays (webkit, konquerer, chromium,
> > etc.), which wasn't the
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> Thanks, added. Is plasma part of KDE, right? If so, as Carlos suggests
> qoauth (or forked one) will help that if someone would package it, I guess.
Noah Meyerhans (choqok maintainer) took over the qoauth ITP some days
ago, so I'm sure th
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> The point I was trying to make in that paragraph is that there are two
> browser codebases (webkit and mozilla) that need to be supported, which
> could be halved by dropping one.
As long as there are people to support both, why d
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:06:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:29:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
> >
> > Same question as for Md w
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:31:09 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:06:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:29:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > No, my proposal is to move the package
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > The point I was trying to make in that paragraph is that there are two
> > browser codebases (webkit and mozilla) that need to be supported, which
> > could be halved by dropping one.
>
> As long as there ar
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:35:19 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > The point I was trying to make in that paragraph is that there are two
> > > browser codebases (webkit and mozilla) that need to be supported, which
>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:56:45PM +0200, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote on 2010-06-21 22:22:
> > There've been several bootloader-related threads here of late, and
> > grub2, lilo, and syslinux all seem to have fairly active work happening
> > on them. (For all I know the same may b
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:36:54AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:22:35PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > There've been several bootloader-related threads here of late, and
> > grub2, lilo, and syslinux all seem to have fairly active work happening
> > on them. (For a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:54:55PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > Waiting for qoauth [1].
>
> Thanks! I haven't heard about it. Choqok author seems to make a fork from
> that, see http://momeny.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/kde-oauth/#comment-248
There's no need for a qoauth fork. The change is be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> plasma-widgets-addons (microblog widget)
OAuth support added upstream:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=242048
Cheers,
Marcus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkwqP1sACgkQXjXn6T
Hi!
Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
> No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
You don't know the current policies WRT packages in backports and about
their reasoning, do you?
Best regards,
Alexander
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
>
> > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
>
> You don't know the current policies WRT packages in backports and about
> their reasoning, do
Michael Gilbert schrieb am Tuesday, den 29. June 2010:
Hi,
> In my personal opinion, the only viable option left is to drop all
> mozilla and mozilla-depending packages from main, and provide them in
> backports (as suggested already in another message in this thread).
> Backports' rolling relea
Hi!
* Michael Gilbert [2010-06-29 21:50:31 CEST]:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
> >
> > > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
> >
> > You don't know the current pol
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:35:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> This apparently well-meaning idea that we can improve Debian's
> security etc by talking people out of doing jobs that they have
> volunteered to do, and are doing, is a recent trend that I really
> don't understand.
Amen.
On Tue, Jun
* Philipp Kern [2010-06-28 11:55:22 CEST]:
> On 2010-06-28, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > If there is no manpower to do better than this then I feel that it would
> > be more honest to just use volatile.
>
> The catch-all for "I can't maintain this stuff properly"[1] is not volatile,
> but backports.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Michael Gilbert
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
>>
>> > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
>>
>> You don't know the current pol
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:25:06 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Michael Gilbert [2010-06-29 21:50:31 CEST]:
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > > Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
> > >
> > > > No, my proposal is to move the packag
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:26:04 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:35:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > This apparently well-meaning idea that we can improve Debian's
> > security etc by talking people out of doing jobs that they have
> > volunteered to do, and are doing, is
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:39:20PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Philipp Kern [2010-06-28 11:55:22 CEST]:
> > On 2010-06-28, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > If there is no manpower to do better than this then I feel that it would
> > > be more honest to just use volatile.
> > The catch-all for "I ca
Hi,
On Dienstag, 29. Juni 2010, Colin Watson wrote:
> DebConf recorded video is usually very good (is that the case for all
> BoFs?),
It pretty much depends where the BoF is scheduled. As I understand it, there
might be several rooms for BoFs to happen, but only the two main room will be
covere
* Joachim Wiedorn [Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:03:02PM +0200]:
> Michael Prokop wrote on 2010-06-18 23:48:
> > we - the initramfs-tools maintainers in Debian - want to provide a
> > solid initramfs-tools version for squeeze. The new release 0.97 is
> > expected to fix many longstanding problems. It w
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:07:27 -0400 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Hopefully restating clearly this time: my proposal is to no longer
> distribute mozilla packages in the main stable repository; instead they
> can be maintained in backports (or volatile) at the choosing of the
> maintainers of those packa
Michael Gilbert writes:
> In the following lists, I break down the advantages and disadvantages of
> each approach. If there are other thoughts, I would be happy to see
> them included.
> Advantages of switching to backports:
> - very simple for the maintainers to keep up to date with respect t
2010-06-28, Hideki Yamane:
> Hi,
>
> As I reported in Bug#587420, all twitter client should support OAuth since
> twitter
> will discard basic auth. If they not, we should drop them from Squeeze
> release.
>
> These lists are assumed to be affected packages (got with "apt-cache search
>
Dear Alexander, backport.org people, and everybody,
If I understand correctly, it is planned to incorporate the backports.org
service as an official Debian repository.
I would like to know if the policy of use for backports.debian.org has already
been discussed, drafted or decided. In particular:
I just noticed that the chromium-browser package releases in Debian
GNU/Linux unstable are synced version-for-version with the google-chrome
beta package provided by the 3rd party Google Linux repository. Is this
intentional? What's the rationale behind using the beta releases for
chromium-browser
Hi,
> Dear Alexander, backport.org people, and everybody,
>
> If I understand correctly, it is planned to incorporate the backports.org
> service as an official Debian repository.
Thats true.
>
> I would like to know if the policy of use for backports.debian.org has already
> been discussed, d
Hi!
Am 29.06.2010 22:52, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
>>> I believe I do. Backports are for recompilations of unstable packages
>>> for the stable releases.
>> Thanks for excellently stating that you do *not* know about what is
>> backports about and for, you couldn't have done that better.
> The s
59 matches
Mail list logo
