Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Anthony Fok
* Package name: golang-github-montanaflynn-stats
Version : 0.2.0+git20170729.66.4a16327-1
Upstream Author : Montana Flynn
* URL : https://github.com/montanaflynn/stats
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Go
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Anthony Fok
* Package name: golang-gopkg-neurosnap-sentences.v1
Version : 1.0.6-1
Upstream Author : Eric Bower
* URL : http://gopkg.in/neurosnap/sentences.v1
https://github.com/neurosnap/sentences
* License
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Anthony Fok
* Package name: golang-github-jdkato-prose
Version : 0.0~git20170806.0.a678fc7-1
Upstream Author : Joseph Kato
* URL : https://github.com/jdkato/prose
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Go
Description
The https://release.debian.org/transitions/ lists in
"Ongoing transitions":
auto-golang-goleveldb (100%)
auto-libratbag (100%)
which are actually finished. And in "(almost) Finished transitions",
one can see:
auto-libevent (5%)
which has 3 packages in "good", 2 packages in "partial", and
On Mo, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:18:38 -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
Is there an actual need for the removal of TLS v1.{0,1}? Are either
considered broken or unsupported by upstream? If not, I'd be much more
That’s I like to know as well.
Doing a quick check on my appliances I could find the follow
Trying to guess what your actual question is...
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:05:03PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> The https://release.debian.org/transitions/ lists in
> "Ongoing transitions":
>
> which are actually finished. And in "(almost) Finished transitions",
> one can see:
> which has 3 pa
Hi,
On 2017-08-01 23:24:20 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> Therefore, I propose filing ITPs for packages "docbook5", "docbook5-xsl",
> and "docbook5-xml". The packages initially would be based on DocBook 5.1,
> unless DocBook 5.2 is finalized in the meantime.
FYI, docbook5-xml has existed for years,
Hi,
My concern is less about https (hello iloms), but other kind of protocols.
Ssl vpn, rdp servers, voip, etc. And embedded devices implements this
protocols.
On Aug 8, 2017 7:35 AM, "Stephan Seitz"
wrote:
> On Mo, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:18:38 -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
>
>> Is there an actua
Is there a good reason why Ubuntu font is not found in Debian repositories? Is
there a formal way to request that it be added to a repository?
http://font.ubuntu.com/
On 2017-08-08 14:13:31 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Trying to guess what your actual question is...
>
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:05:03PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > The https://release.debian.org/transitions/ lists in
> > "Ongoing transitions":
> >
> > which are actually finished. And i
On 2017-08-08 13:26:52 +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Mo, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:18:38 -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> > Is there an actual need for the removal of TLS v1.{0,1}? Are either
> > considered broken or unsupported by upstream? If not, I'd be much more
>
> That’s I like to know as well.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
> > Is there some tool that parses /proc/maps and the build-ids fields from
> > the apt repository to determine which dbgsym packages to install?
>
> Not AFAIK but I guess that Fedora probably has a s
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:40:27PM +, Garrett R. wrote:
> Is there a good reason why Ubuntu font is not found in Debian repositories?
> Is there a formal way to request that it be added to a repository?
There is a formal way, and it was already done:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.c
On 2017-08-08 15:53:34 +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Now, where to put it? Into devscripts? The disadvantage is that devscripts
> already pulls in quite a few other packages via recommends. But I don't
> have a better idea. Unless we want to include it in reportbug or something
> like that?
Th
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Garrett R. wrote:
> Is there a good reason why Ubuntu font is not found in Debian repositories?
Looks like it requires proprietary software to build the font from source:
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~sladen/ubuntu-font-family/midstream/view/head:/midstream/SOURCE
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: sambamba
Version : 0.6.6
Upstream Author : Artem Tarasov
* URL : https://github.com/lomereiter/sambamba
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: D
Description : tools for working with SAM/BA
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: jellyfish1
Version : 1.1.11
Upstream Author : Guillaume Marçais1, Carl Kingsford
* URL : http://www.cbcb.umd.edu/software/jellyfish/
* License : BSD-like
Programming Lang: C++
Description
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2017-08-08 15:53:34 +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > Now, where to put it? Into devscripts? The disadvantage is that devscripts
> > already pulls in quite a few other packages via recommends. But I don't
> > have a better idea. Unless we want to in
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:47:26AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:28:36PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > It's easy to quite reliably detect the presence of such instructions
> > (probably no one JITs such code). There's no real way to check if it's
> > executed unconditi
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:38:32AM -0400, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Garrett R. wrote:
> > Is there a good reason why Ubuntu font is not found in Debian repositories?
> Looks like it requires proprietary software to build the font from source:
> https://bazaar.launchpad.n
Would getting this project done help? (DSIG digitial signatures for Truetype
.TTF and Opentype .OTF fonts). It sounds like it would open the possibility for
allowing the signing block to be used with open tools.
https://github.com/sladen/fontsign
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Langa
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:28:36PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> It's easy to quite reliably detect the presence of such instructions
>> (probably no one JITs such code). There's no real way to check if it's
>> executed unconditionally, thou
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Garrett R. wrote:
> Ubuntu font ... requires proprietary software to build
> (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157).
> Can a change be made ... ?
debian-devel: "Can Ubuntu font be added to a Debian repository?"
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kunal Mehta
* Package name: uprightdiff
Version : 1.1.0
Upstream Author : Tim Starling
* URL : https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Uprightdiff
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C++
Description : examine differences be
Hi -devel,
It was just mentioned "en passant" in a conversation at DebConf that
bind9 is shipping a root hint file from 2003.
I had a quick glance at the bug list and saw it was a little larger
than I would have liked for what is clearly a critical piece and
infrastructure. :)
Lamont, can you co
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:02:59PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2017-08-08 15:53:34 +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > Now, where to put it? Into devscripts? The disadvantage is that devscripts
> > already pulls in quite a few other packages via recommends. But I don't
> > have a better idea.
Chris Lamb wrote:
> It was just mentioned "en passant" in a conversation at DebConf that
> bind9 is shipping a root hint file from 2003.
FWIW, the bug about this is #860794. I have just upgraded it to grave
since DNSSEC validation will stop working in October, and it has not
been fixed anywhere.
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:47:27PM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> It was just mentioned "en passant" in a conversation at DebConf that
> bind9 is shipping a root hint file from 2003.
The version of db.root in stretch is from Feb 17, 2016. I suspect that the
comment originates from the fact that I've
Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> Chris Lamb wrote:
>
>> It was just mentioned "en passant" in a conversation at DebConf that
>> bind9 is shipping a root hint file from 2003.
>
> FWIW, the bug about this is #860794. I have just upgraded it to grave
> since DNSSEC validation will stop working in October,
Chris Lamb wrote:
> It was just mentioned "en passant" in a conversation at DebConf that
> bind9 is shipping a root hint file from 2003.
No, this is just wrong. The hints file shipped in the bind9 package in
stretch is from 2016:
; This file holds the information on root name servers ne
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alexander Saprykin
* Package name: libplibsys0
Version : 0.0.3
Upstream Author : Alexander Saprykin
* URL : https://github.com/saprykin/plibsys
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : Highly portable C
Package: general
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
Running Debian Unstable, with Cinnamon Desktop Environment, default Display
Manager. Upgraded from Debian 9 Stable. Was okay. Updated last on 2017-08-07,
then shut down. Upon reboot 2017-08-08, background has reverted to the
softwaves-theme wall
**Program Super Gizi Qurban (SGQ)**
**Untuk anda yang kerepotan dalam menyiapkan hewan kurban secara langsung?**
Tenang kami memberikan solusi kemudahan bagi anda yang ingin menyalurkan kurban
anda melalui uang tunai.
Bahkan bisa transfer melalui rekening l
[not subscribed, please cc:]
Hi Robert, LaMont,
I'm familiar with the original conversation, so I had a look and found
that the server had been installed in 2003, and that /etc/bind/db.root
is a conffile, so perhaps there's historically a packaging problem where
it's not being updated automatical
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Anthony Fok
* Package name: golang-github-shogo82148-go-shuffle
Version : 0.0~git20170808.0.5982909-1
Upstream Author : Ichinose Shogo
* URL : https://github.com/shogo82148/go-shuffle
* License : Expat
Programming Lang:
35 matches
Mail list logo
