Aprenda a fazer jogos no PC

Ola caro amigo. Aprenda a fazer jogos e programas no seu computador pessoal. Vamos ao longo do nosso curso de programacao estudar varias linguagens de programacao assim como diversos sistemas informaticos. Entre no mundo maravilhoso dos jogos de video com os nossos tutoriais, ponha em prática o

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Thanks to Josh for starting this discussion. I think that you summarized most arguments very well in your mail. Am 12.10.2011 23:39, schrieb Josh Triplett: > Not every system needs an MTA, and I'd argue that today most systems > don't. End-user

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 at 16:02:09 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Josh Triplett wrote: > > End-user systems (desktops, laptops) typically handle mail via one > > or more smarthosts elsewhere, driven by MUAs that know how to talk > > SMTP. > > While this definitely is the current s

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sb, 15 oct 11, 10:26:06, Jonas Meurer wrote: > > Why not use tasksel for this? It should be easy to introduce a basic > server task which contains things like default MTA, SSH server, etc. > while a basic desktop task doesn't. Actually there already exists a "Mail Server" task[1]. Not very use

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:46:31AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 14 octobre 2011 à 11:32 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a > écrit : > > I seem to recall our super duper memory-bloated DEs were not even > > warning the user when something was screaming blood murder on the > > eme

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 12:36 +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : > Hell no. I'd go as far as labelling it a severity:critical bug. Go ahead, reporting bugs doesn’t necessarily get people to give a fuck. > If some part of the system has something important to say, you need to tell > it to the us

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:46:50PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 12:36 +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : > > Hell no. I'd go as far as labelling it a severity:critical bug. > > Go ahead, reporting bugs doesn’t necessarily get people to give a fuck. So "causes serious

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 14 octobre 2011 à 11:32 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a > écrit : > > I seem to recall our super duper memory-bloated DEs were not even > > warning the user when something was screaming blood murder on the > > emergency, alert and cri

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:46:50PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 12:36 +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : > > > Hell no. I'd go as far as labelling it a severity:critical bug. > > > > Go ahead, reporting bugs doesn’t necessa

RFC transitioning to gnutls28

Hello, gnutls28 (that is GnuTLS 3.x) has been available in experimental for quite some time. While the API breakage compared to gnutls26 (2.x) is not too bad, there are two major issues: * It uses nettle instead of gcrypt as crypto backend[1]. Packages that directly use gcrypt will need an addi

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:02:09PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Josh Triplett wrote: > > End-user systems (desktops, laptops) typically handle mail via one > > or more smarthosts elsewhere, driven by MUAs that know how to talk > > SMTP. > While this definitely is the current

DEP-5 for Upstream

Hi, I've read from time to time that DEP-5 should also work for upstream. Since SPDX looks to complicated to have it stored in the upstream repos, I wanted to use the more simpler, but still extreme useful DEP-5 in a license file. Is it ok to use DEP-5 for a LICENSE file and how should it be ch

Re: Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:35:13AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:17:38 +0200, "Bernhard R. Link" > wrote: > ... > > > - Taking time to download and install, which increases the time and > > > bandwidth needed to install or upgrade a Debian system. > > > > Please drop the

Re: aptitude weirdness wrt upgrades and keeps

Norbert Preining wrote: > In the current transition to gnome3 (or it seems) I press > U > to update all packages, and then it suggests me to remove 30 or > so packages. > > I know this game, normally I have to press "." a few times to come > to the solution that simply keeps some of the pa

Re: RFC transitioning to gnutls28

On Oct 15, Andreas Metzler wrote: > * It uses nettle instead of gcrypt as crypto backend[1]. Packages that Why? -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 09:53 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:02:09PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > End-user systems (desktops, laptops) typically handle mail via one > > > or more smarthosts elsewhere, driven by MUAs that kn

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Steve Langasek wrote: > "How do I deliver mail?" is a per-system setting, not a per-application > setting, and the move towards having MUAs talking SMTP directly to send > mail is a flawed model picked up on the Linux desktop from certain other > OSes. No, "How do I deliver mail?" represents a per

Re: DEP-5 for Upstream

Schrober wrote: > I've read from time to time that DEP-5 should also work for upstream. Since > SPDX looks to complicated to have it stored in the upstream repos, I wanted > to > use the more simpler, but still extreme useful DEP-5 in a license file. Is it > ok to use DEP-5 for a LICENSE file a

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 09:53:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hear, hear. "How do I deliver mail?" is a per-system setting, not a > per-application setting, and the move towards having MUAs talking SMTP > directly to send mail is a flawed model picked up on the Linux desktop from > certain oth

Re: Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Josh Triplett wrote: > What would it take to make this change? > > I will happily work to coordinate this transition. For me this thread raises two interesting questions. The first is the one Josh asks above, which has not been answered. How do we make decisions about the content of standard? How

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Jonas Meurer wrote: > Thanks to Josh for starting this discussion. I think that you summarized > most arguments very well in your mail. Thank you for your very clear explanation of the issue, as well. > Am 12.10.2011 23:39, schrieb Josh Triplett: > > Not every system needs an MTA, and I'd argue t

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 06:53:02PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Hear, hear. "How do I deliver mail?" is a per-system setting, not a > > per-application setting, > It's not per-system, or even per-user. > If I want to send mail from my personal address I should send it through > my own smartho

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 06:33:14PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 09:53:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Hear, hear. "How do I deliver mail?" is a per-system setting, not a > > per-application setting, and the move towards having MUAs talking SMTP > > directly to sen

Re: Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 08:34:52PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > The main reasons to stop having an MTA in standard: > - Starting a daemon at boot time, which slows down booting. This led me > to notice the problem in Debian Live: it took a non-trivial amount of > time for the boot process t

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:56:15 -0400 Joey Hess wrote: > My other question comes from policy: > > `standard' > These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited > character-mode system. This is what will be installed by default > if the user doesn't s

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 10:50 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit : > Well, if anything logs on emergency and alert levels, it is a bug if it is > *not* important enough to pester all logged users immediately. It is an > even more clearcut case. Let me ask the question otherwise: wha

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

* Neil Williams (codeh...@debian.org) [111015 22:23]: > The problem with "Standard" is that it is currently (and heavily) biased > towards multi-user servers and most of the replies in this thread which > decry the absence of an MTA would appear to come from those principally > concerned with serve

Re: RFC transitioning to gnutls28

Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 17:52 +0200, Andreas Metzler a écrit : > gnutls28 (that is GnuTLS 3.x) has been available in experimental for > quite some time. While the API breakage compared to gnutls26 (2.x) is > not too bad It doesn’t require large changes, but it can break in subtle ways. For ex

Re: Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 06:53:02PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Hear, hear. "How do I deliver mail?" is a per-system setting, not a > > > per-application setting, > > > It's not per-system, or even per-user. > > > If I want to send mail from my personal address I sho

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Josh Triplett writes: > Steve Langasek wrote: >> Needing to send mail through specific per-user smarthosts is the >> exception, not the rule. Most machines have a designated forwarding >> smarthost based on who their ISP is, not based on which email address >> someone wants to use. > Every ISP

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:29:56 +0200 Andreas Barth wrote: > * Neil Williams (codeh...@debian.org) [111015 22:23]: > > The problem with "Standard" is that it is currently (and heavily) biased > > towards multi-user servers and most of the replies in this thread which > > decry the absence of an MTA

Re: Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Andreas Barth wrote: > * Neil Williams (codeh...@debian.org) [111015 22:23]: > > The problem with "Standard" is that it is currently (and heavily) biased > > towards multi-user servers and most of the replies in this thread which > > decry the absence of an MTA would appear to come from those princ

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Josselin Mouette writes: > Let me ask the question otherwise: what kind of information do you think > is important enough to show to all logged users immediately? If the system runs out of memory and starts up the OOM killer, it would be nice to find some way to give the user a dialog to let the

Re: RFC transitioning to gnutls28

m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Oct 15, Andreas Metzler wrote: >> * It uses nettle instead of gcrypt as crypto backend[1]. Packages that > Why? Does that fix the problems with using GnuTLS in setuid programs? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On 2011-10-15, Josh Triplett wrote: > MTAs would need to advance quite a bit to get anywhere near as usable as > a MUA that speaks SMTP, not least of which in error reporting. (Most of > the people I know who run local MTAs have had at least one "all my mail > got stuck in a queue for one or more

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Joey Hess wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > > What would it take to make this change? > > > > I will happily work to coordinate this transition. > > For me this thread raises two interesting questions. The first is the one > Josh asks above, which has not been answered. How do we make decisions > a

Bug#645449: general: freezes on restore from suspend

Package: general Severity: important Using wheezy radeon 5450 with nonfree installed when restoring from suspend, I get a "split-screen" with half on top and half underneath, very slow when going to console, keep getting radeon restart messages have to reset to recover -- System Information: De

Re: aptitude weirdness wrt upgrades and keeps

On Sa, 15 Okt 2011, Josh Triplett wrote: > quickly by using the "reject" and "approve" mechanism. When you view Thanks for that hint, yes, that works actually much better. No I only have to remember it ;-) Best wishes Norbert -

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 at 16:02:09 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > End-user systems (desktops, laptops) typically handle mail via one > > > or more smarthosts elsewhere, driven by MUAs that know how to talk >

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On 10/15/11 22:06, Steve Langasek wrote: Needing to send mail through specific per-user smarthosts is the exception, not the rule. Most machines have a designated forwarding smarthost based on who their ISP is, not based on which email address someone wants to use. The exception to which rule?

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > If I want to send mail from my personal address I should send it > through my own smarthost. If I want to send mail from my work > address I *must* send it through the work smarthost (thanks to SPF). > I could possibly configure this at the MTA level, but

Re: Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Neil Williams wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:29:56 +0200 > Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Neil Williams (codeh...@debian.org) [111015 22:23]: > > > The problem with "Standard" is that it is currently (and heavily) biased > > > towards multi-user servers and most of the replies in this thread which >

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:59:58AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > On 10/15/11 22:06, Steve Langasek wrote: > >Needing to send mail through specific per-user smarthosts is the exception, > >not the rule. Most machines have a designated forwarding smarthost based on > >who their ISP is, not based

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Adam Borowski writes: > This is not about outside mail, it's about local mail that originates > from the system itself, cron jobs and so on. > And I seriously hope no one proposes to remove cron. I think it's pretty obvious that we need some way of notifying people about cron errors other than

Re: DEP-5 for Upstream

> Btw. when is the next debian-policy release that should include DEP-5.. and > therefore provide a good url for the VERSIONED_FORMAT_URL? Dear Franz, The final URL for DEP 5 is being decided in the following discussion: http://bugs.debian.org/640737 If nothing changes it will be http://www

Re: Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2011-10-15, Josh Triplett wrote: > > MTAs would need to advance quite a bit to get anywhere near as usable as > > a MUA that speaks SMTP, not least of which in error reporting. (Most of > > the people I know who run local MTAs have had at least one "all my mail > > got st

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Josh Triplett writes: > As far as I know, Priority has the following non-cosmetic uses: [...] A couple more: One and only one conflicting alternative provider of a particular exclusive API or interface may have priority higher than extra according to Policy, so priority forces us to pick a "wi

Re: Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > If I want to send mail from my personal address I should send it > > through my own smarthost. If I want to send mail from my work > > address I *must* send it through the work smarthost (thanks to SPF). > > I could possibly confi

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 08:34:52PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > The main reasons to stop having an MTA in standard: > > > - Starting a daemon at boot time, which slows down booting. This led me > > to notice the problem in Debian Live: it took a non-trivial amount of >

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 14:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Josselin Mouette writes: > > > Let me ask the question otherwise: what kind of information do you think > > is important enough to show to all logged users immediately? > > If the system runs out of memory and starts up the OOM killer, it

Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

As has become custom, it's time for removal of another old automake version. This round it's automake 1.7's turn. Below is a list of packages that build depend on automake1.7. Please fix them by: 1. Not build depending on automake in the first place. It may be completely unnecessary, or you can

Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eric Dorland wrote: > As has become custom, it's time for removal of another old automake > version. This round it's automake 1.7's turn. Shouldn't automake1.4 be first in the queue? > Debian QA Group > apachetop Made a QA upload of this. > quiteinsanegimpp

Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

* Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > As has become custom, it's time for removal of another old automake > > version. This round it's automake 1.7's turn. > > Shouldn't automake1.4 be first in the queue? We could do automake1.4. I hes