Package: wnpp
Owner: Free Ekanayaka
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: python-pyramid-tm
Version : 0.4
Upstream Author : Rocky Burt, Chris McDonough
* URL or Web page : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyramid_tm
* License : BSD-derived (http://www.repoze.org/LICENSE.txt)
Des
On Sun, 20 May 2012 06:11:16 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Then in wheezy+1:
>> 3. amd64 kernel flavour for i386 dropped.
>Why can't we use the multiarch package in wheezy?
Because changes of this magnitude less than a month before the first
target
Ben Hutchings writes:
> Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
>
> For some time we have also provided the amd64 kernel for i386, identical
> in all but the package metadata. This has not always been perfectly
> compa
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: libjs-slidy
Version : 0~20120214
Upstream Author : Dave Raggett
* URL : http://www.w3.org/Talks/Tools/Slidy2
* License : W3C-Software-20021231
Programming Lang: JavaScript
Description
On 05/20/2012 10:16 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Does anyone see a problem with the above, in particular points 1 and 2?
>
I agree with all you said (you know better than I), but what
I would really love to see would be the installer warning
people when they try to install the i386 version on a 64
On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
>
> One thing that should be tested and then documented prominently as yay
> or nay in the wheezy upgrade notes is wether one can cross-grade from
> i386 to amd64 using multiarch. We
On 05/20/2012 01:29 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Hi...
>
>
> On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 15:10 +0200, Alain SAURAT wrote:
>
>> This package is only avaible for squeeze and sid, is it normal ?
>>
> In addition to what Cyril already mentioned, see also
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> = Flat Repository Format =
>
> A flat repository does not use the {{{dists}}} hierarchy of directories,
> and instead places meta index and indices directly into the archive root
> (or some part below it) In sources.list syntax, a flat
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
>>
>> One thing that should be tested and then documented prominently as yay
>> or nay in the wheezy upgrade notes is wether
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> > popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
> >
> > For some time we have also provided the amd64 kernel for i386, identical
> >
On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
Don't you believe in x32?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 16:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> Don't you believe in x
On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> > Don't you believe in x32?
> What do you mean, 'believe'? I'm aware it ma
* Marco d'Itri (m...@linux.it) [120520 17:31]:
> On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > > > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > > > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > > > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> > > Don't you beli
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings writes:
> >
> > > Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> > > popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
> > >
> > >
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 06:24:23PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
> > > > i386.
> > >
> > > As in drop the i386 arch?
> >
> > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > that to a 'partial archi
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 18:24 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Ben Hutchings writes:
> > >
> > > > Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> > > > popco
Hi,
A couple of weeks ago was the first anniversary of orphaning Qt3 in Debian
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/05/msg00236.html
The orphaning bug is #625502
In this year, Qt3 has got a few QA uploads with the most relevant change
being support to multiarch. And, more importantly, nobod
Ben Hutchings writes:
> If by 'plain x86' you mean PCs with 32-bit processors, we would no
> longer support them - *eventually*.
Excactly like how we no longer support pure i386 systems (as opposed to
i486 or later). And with the same sort of criteria, I suspect. Note that
Ben is talking about
Marco wrote:
>On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
>> that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
>> ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
>Don't you believe in x32?
Puke. Please, no. If it had happened back w
Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings writes:
>>> Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package
>>> for i386.
>>
>> As in drop the i386 arch?
>
> No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing e
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Ben Hutchings writes:
> >>> Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package
> >>> for i386.
> >>
> >> As in drop the i386 arch?
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > > > > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > > > > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> > > > Don't you believe in x32?
>
+++ Ben Hutchings [2012-05-21 00:30 +0100]:
>
> (Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
Yes please. This would really help arm people too. We currently have
to guess how many people we are cutting off when minimum support is
moved forward.
Wookey
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Le Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to see that happen someday, but at the moment, new x86 systems
> > still get sold that don't support 64-bit. Notably, many low-power Atom
> > processors sti
On May 18, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I do this work in cases where keeping the patches separate is useful for
> some reason, but mostly it's not.
Some of my packages have 30-60 patches ("mature" software...), and
merging them would make them impossibile to understand.
Is there a VCS workflow which w
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 19:26 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> And in addition to that, the Suhosin patch and module are available
> for php 5.4 since only few days/weeks, so it's not surprising that
> it's not in testing.
The earlier we see them in Debian the better, even if the current
suhosin versio
On 16 May 2012 19:45, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> You could use gitpkg with a quilt export hook. i use it regularly with
> imagemagick and it work perfectly (it is gitpkg over git over svn).
Out of curiosity, how do you use that and not have it include changes
to debian/* ? That appeared to me my
On Sun, 20 May 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
> > If by 'plain x86' you mean PCs with 32-bit processors, we would no
> > longer support them - *eventually*.
>
> Excactly like how we no longer support pure i386 systems (as opposed to
> i486 or later). And with the same sort of
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> In the last days, I have taken a look into how much needed to be done to
> remove Qt3 and there were slightly more than 50 packages depending directly
> or indirectly from Qt3. A removal from Wheezy seemed doable
> given that removing package
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Ben Hutchings [2012-05-21 00:30 +0100]:
>>
>> (Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
>
> Yes please. This would really help arm people too. We currently have
> to guess how many people we are cutting off when minimum su
Paul Wise writes:
> There is smolt for that, but folks haven't packaged it for Debian yet:
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/
> http://bugs.debian.org/435058
Hmm... from "http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html":
The statistics script is no longer running and creating new
data. We're in
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>> There is smolt for that, but folks haven't packaged it for Debian yet:
>>
>> https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/
>> http://bugs.debian.org/435058
>
> Hmm... from "http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html":
>
> The statistics
With the final steps of the release of Wheezy approaching, I will, from
now on, move the focus of my l10n attention to packages that are blocking
some of the localization goals.
One of them is 100% completeness for debconf translations in wheezy
for seven languages: Czech, Swedish, Spanish, Portug
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 01:11:21PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Wookey wrote:
>>On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>
>>>(Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
>>
>>Yes please. This would really help arm people too
On 21/05/2012 08:45, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
>> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd love to see that happen someday, but at the moment, new x86 systems
>>> still get sold that don't support 64-bit. No
On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:03:04 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Ana Guerrero wrote:
>
> > In the last days, I have taken a look into how much needed to be done to
> > remove Qt3 and there were slightly more than 50 packages depending directly
> > or indirectly from Qt3. A
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On May 18, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I do this work in cases where keeping the patches separate is useful for
>> some reason, but mostly it's not.
> Some of my packages have 30-60 patches ("mature" software...), and
> merging them would make them impossibile
38 matches
Mail list logo
