On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Russell Coker wrote:
> Description: RFC 2217 compliant Telnet serial port redirector
> Sredird is a serial port redirector that is compliant with the RFC 2217
> "Telnet Com Port Control Option" protocol. This protocol lets you share a
> serial port through the network.
>
> C
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Anand Kumria wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [ forward as required ]
>
> I'm planning on doing some 10th birthday gear. I'm intending to get some
> t-shirts made up but if people would like something else instead/as well
> then let me know. Naturally you'll probably find it simpler to get
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > One nice thing about using standard changelog format is that if someone
> > wants to they could add another format, specialised for news
> > information, and another parser in /usr/lib/dpkg/parsechangelog/. Of
> > course apt-listchanges does its own pa
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:11:46PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > I filed a wishlist bug about this quite a long time ago (#95579), but
> > > got no response.
> >
>
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
> As I read the original bug report and apply my own spin onto it I see
> the original poster was concerned that a user invoking /usr/bin/editor
> is probably not wanting either of the traditional vi or emacs editors.
> They are probably a user that wants a s
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: libi18n-java
> Version : 0.1
> Upstream Author : Jean-Hugues de Raigniac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL or Web page : http://jhraigniac.freesurf.fr/i18n-lib/
> * License : ACME
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Hugo van der Merwe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Seems db.debian.org is still offline. Is there any way I can change my
> mail forwarding without it? It forwards to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> currently bach is broken, so bounces are going all over the place
> (mailing list subscriptions). I n
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions of gcc
> (e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in later version
> (e.g. gcc 3.3).
>
> Is that really correct?
> gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still c
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Matthias Klose wrote:
> well, you can still get the version, when the bug was closed from the
> changelog. If we do not close the bug, nobody will get a note that the
> bug has been fixed (in the new default version). Bugs reported for 3.2
> have been closed when 3.3 became th
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > it would be trivial to add lintian/linda warnings for this,
> >
> > There's already a warning for set[ug]id in Lintia
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, [iso-8859-2] Micha³Politowski wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:19:10 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> [...]
> > From my investigations, I thought that the intended use of dpkg-statoverride
> > was by the local administrator, modifying the default suid/sgid and
> > ownership of the
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It is? OK, I am telling you /usr/bin/bar program in package
> foo really needs to be sgid. I'll document it in bar.6. Is this the
> end of discussion? Or are we going to really need to look at the code
> to see if the setgidness can be worked
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why do we need policy to tell us to do what you suggest are
> good, common sense things?
Oh come on. You honestly think there is common sense in this project? Not
everyone is as smart, brilliant, and perfect as you.
If there was common sense
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Policy can make it so that packages are not accepted into
> Debian unless you hop through certain hoops. Like making sure the
> upload has a signature. Or that it has an entry in the override
> file. I can easily code an entry for katie and fr
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * LapTop006 [Sun, Aug 03 2003, 03:13:57PM]:
>
> > > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> > > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> > > it.
> > How about old libraries can n
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Seriously, if we want to ever release sarge we are going to need to stop
> making libraries disappear, every time we rebuild something it takes
> another 10 days for it to migrate into testing and everything that
> depends on it is also pushed back another
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> > have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> &g
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:06:26 -0400
> "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Did you check your compile logs to see if it actually compiled with
> > gcc-2.95 or with just gcc (==3.3) ? It happened to me several times that
> > when building 2.4.21, it woul
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Adam, where does it say anywhere in my sig or headers that I want a CC? I
> read the list just fine, you can reply to the list and only the list just
> fine. I don't appreciate replying to what I think is a private message only
> to see a copy of it in
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> (IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.)
Don't you know your O doesn't matter, only Steve's?
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected
> within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in,
> rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the
> developer's part.
So, some
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears
> broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any
> conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years. That
> has nothing to do with just or u
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
Not to toot my own horn, but I was accepted in under one week. I took 2 weeks
to read up on everything, then after I sent in my app, less than a week later
I was accepted.
The shortness can probably be attributed to me actually doing work. This was
during
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:41:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> >
> > Not to toot my own horn, but I was accepted in under one week. I took 2
> > weeks
> > to read up on everyt
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does
> nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on
> gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person
> could apt-get install g
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You haven't listened.
> You've not said anything worth listening to.
I'v got popcorn. Who's got the beer?
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> Please, as a courtesy, when you reassign a bug report to another
> package, cc it to the package maintainer, and put enough information in
> so they can know why their package is at fault. Also check the severity
> to make sure it makes sense for the new pack
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Regarding a future Date: field for each package in Packages files,
> * Should the field be called Date: or Time:?
> * Should it be like "Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:09:30 GMT" or "1061315862"?
> * Should it refer to the time the developer finished wrapping the
>
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Brian May wrote:
> Effectively Jaldhar just needs to merge the source packages together,
> and keep the binary packages split.
>
> However, Jaldhar continues to respond with "we need the binary packages
> split.".
/me mutters chewbacca under his breath.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If by "dpkg 2.0" you mean "rewritten dpkg and dpkg-dev", it doesn't. There
> is no chance that a package management system that hasn't seen the light
> of day, let alone reached beta test, will be ready for release in four
> months, let alone one.
Just
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Why not? Just block binary uploads completely, and let everything get
> built by the buildds. I certainly plan to do that with my own uploads.
> (I've already set up my own buildds).
>
> I'd go one step farther and schedule a low-priority rebuild of e
On 21 Aug 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Doogie already said he wants to implement a smart comparator for deb
> in dpkg 2.0 which would then be used to compare that different builds
> of the binary-all even give the same result.
This means you give the 2 debs(which probably only differ by d
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:52:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > AFAIK, the unresolved difficult bugs are: (1) hppa build (2) dpkg
> > (setjmp/longjmp) on sparc (3) NIS (will be fixed?) (4) misterious
> > apache on ia64 bug.
>
> Is there a bug# for (2
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> > However, the package may create empty directories below `/usr/local'
> > so that the system administrator knows where to place site-specific
> > files. These directories should be removed on package removal if they
> > are empty.
>
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 10:25:28AM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> > > I've upgraded to this version and it has required me to press y to replace
> > > modified conffiles in /etc/snort/rules/ about two dozen times, while I'm
> > > pretty sure I never touched
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Christian Perrier wrote:
> And, as Steve pointed out, translation stuff is minimalistically
> invasive so this does not require an enormous amount of attention
> after the NMU.
Yes, but there are new libraries that get linked to, new compilers, etc.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> It was reported by joshk on IRC, but I'm not still clear where this
> problem come from. Example:
>
> ultra30:~> dpkg -s libc6 | grep Version
> Version: 2.3.2-3
> ultra30:~> dpkg -s dpkg | grep Version
> Version: 1.10.10
>
Package: apt-listbugs
Severity: critical
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Adam Heath wrote:
> I was noticing increased load on master. While trying to track that down, I
> noticed a large percentage of requests(48k of 116k) from something called
> apt-listbugs.
>
> It appears the maintain
I was looking at the various stats programs(http://master/mrtg/), and noticed
that for the last week, master's incoming bw, outgoing bw, and load, have been
unusually high.
After some digging, I found 2 main causes.
1: The apt-listbugs author has seemed it nescessary to export all debbugs
data
On 27 Aug 2003, Masato Taruishi wrote:
> On IRC, I was suggested that apt-listbugs should use index.db. I had to
> use debbugs .status file too because index.db doesn't have subject.
>
> apt-listbugs fetches just few static files from web server, two index
> files and .status files of actual criti
reopen 51230
reopen 61264
reopen 75800
reopen 77869
reopen 116802
reopen 141597
reopen 158743
reopen 170021
reopen 170059
reopen 193263
reopen 196254
reopen 197617
reopen 202779
reopen 81389
reopen 200434
reopen 196867
thanks
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Ean R. Schuessler wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED M
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Ryan Underwood wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a package that Replaces: another package. The former package
> stored files in a particular directory (/usr/lib/foo); when the package
> is removed, it leaves that directory behind, empty. The new package has
> a symlink at that lo
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> If I report "segmentation fault in ls", I--as a user of ls, not a
> developer--couldn't care less about why it was segfaulting or how the
> bug was fixed; I only care that it's been fixed. If a developer wants
> to spend their limited time researching h
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Hello,
>
> How would this do as a mass RFP :)
>
> http://sal.kachinatech.com/
>
> SAL (Scientific Applications on Linux) is a collection of information
> and links to software that will be of interest to scientists and
> engineers. The broad coverage of
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Ava Driscoll wrote:
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: False Representation at Google.com
> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:20:27 -0700
> From: Ava Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> I
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Guido Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 10:23:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > if [ -n "$var" ]; then
> > fi
> Just of out curiosity, is this in any way different from the shorter:
> if [ "$var" ]; then
> fi
var="-f"
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> It's interesting to examine what information about maintainers' build
> environments slips into binary packages, and consider the possible
> consequences and what, if anything, we can do about it.
>
> Here's an annotated and edited version of the output of t
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > It's interesting to examine what information about maintainers' build
> > environments slips into binary packages, and consider the possible
> > consequences and wha
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Adam Heath wrote:
> Ok. I have it fixed.
>
> bash-2.05b$ strings build/src/lib/tests/hashtable-test |grep hashtable-test.c
> ../../../src/lib/tests/hashtable-test.c
>
> I might be able to fix it even better, by overriding __FILE__ myself(with -D)
> on th
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-21 14:44]:
> > What you distribute as 2.4.22 is not 2.4.22.
>
> So what? Most packages in Debian devate from upstream in one way or
> another. That's the added value we provide. I'm happy that Herbert
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> They are - look at the last part of the kernel-image-KVERS image. And if
> you meant the kernel-source package, then please think twice before you
> request a such thing. Your "idea" would require dozens of versions of
> kernel-source-NUMBER-foo every tim
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Martin Pitt wrote:
> When Debian claims to ship kernels with security patches, then another
> Debian package should not silently remove them; that would be very
> dangerous (and IMHO silly). I could live with this solution if such an
> unpatch is verbosely announced to the use
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've got a problem and like to have some lights to correct it...
>
> 1° I did replace the orig.tar.gz of libdtdparser-java to remove the
>generated doc and the generated jar file because I don't need them,
>it's rebuilt from source
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, wrote:
> 5) Why does lully (or any of buildd boxen) run 2.2? (as it apparently does)
> Seeing that sarge is hopefully going to be 2.4-based...
I will coordinate with debian-admin, for getting lully upgraded, if they want
to do so.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Filippo Basso wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm now playing with deb files, and had a nice day making my first
> deb, and my local repository...
> Just a problem: if I update the deb (correct the problem, dch -i, and
> again dpkg-buildpackage), simple apt-get update doesn't work, I n
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
> (Are you a girl maybe?)
What does that have to do with anything? Stop being male-chauvanistic.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Bruce Perens wrote:
> For those of you who are at OSCON, Wednesday night I'm hosting a
> recruiting party for Sourcelabs. If you bring your resume I'll buy you
> drinks and some food.
>
> Date: Wednesday, August 3
> Time: 8:30-10:30pm
> Place: Kells Irish Restaurant & Pub, Ulst
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Oh my goodness, Adam. If I wanted to advertise, I'd ask the DPL for some
> freebies. I must merit them by now.
If you had just said that you were hosting a dinner, that'd be one thing. But
you solicted resumes. That's what pushed it into UCE land.
--
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 06:32:44PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> > > For those of you who are at OSCON, Wednesday night I'm hosting a
> > > recruiting party for Sourcelabs. If
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unsolicited Commercial Email. Please pay the standard $2000 fee for
> > advertisments on Debian mailing lists.
>
> Adam, I'm kind of curious what you mean by
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, John Hasler wrote:
> Michael writes:
> > Adam, I'm kind of curious what you mean by that
>
> I took it for a joke.
So you take all spam for a joke?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
> [snip]
>
> IX. As alioth becomes even more important to Debian, we will
> have to strengthen (HA-ing) this resource.
>
> X. Teams shall meet online or in sauna. They are allowed to do
>DDR or ballroom dancing.
>
> [Dogme05 is, of course, a pun on D
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Regardless of whether or not I agreed with the changes, there is a real
> problem in the sense that my package under revision control is no longer
> in sync with whatever is in the archive. I know that NMUs also pose the
> same problem, but one of
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 12:16:24AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > When a new source gets uploaded, it replaces the previous. If several NMUs
> > occur, each one replaces the former. So, when the real maintainer(s) wake
> >
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.2140 +0200]:
> > The Berkeley DB storage backend was an enormously stupid thing, but
> > that's been fixed (phew). My main gripe with Subversion now is that
> > if I'm not mistaken (which I coul
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:33:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
> > > Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> > > arch sucks badly. I tend to agree wi
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
> In practice it is acceptable for the sponsor to recompute the .diff.gz
> and .dsc using dpkg-buildpackage (which in any case ought to produce
> identical files). But I think the sponsoree should provide a .dsc
> nevertheless, if only to document the ch
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Hi Joey,
>
> Your response was very much what I needed to hear. I'll have to retract
> most of my worries.
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:20:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > - A personal interest shared by me, tbm, and taggart is to get Debian
> >work
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Xavier Roche wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> If a source package "foo", which produces a binary package (say, "bar"),
> also produces an additional "baz" package in an updated version, how this
> should be handled ? Any specific things to do, apart from appending the
> debian/control f
First, I don't know where I should file this bug. Looking for suggestions on
the list.
Second, any ideas on how to fix this problem?
So, I have a system that was created(by debootstrap) between Feb 14 and May
10(dates taken from the libc6 changelog, based on the version installed).
However, I c
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Trygve[UTF-8] Laugstøl wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: "Trygve Laugstøl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: libjetty4-lib
libjetty4-java is the proper name.
> Version : x.y.z
Er, fill out a version.
> Upstream Author : Greg Wilki
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, AdeodatoSimó wrote:
> shlibs:Depends=libasound2 (>> 1.0.9), libc6 (>= 2.3.5-1), libfreetype6
> (>= 2.1.5-1), libglu1-xorg | libglu1, libmodplug0c2 (>= 1:0.7-4.1), libogg0
> (>= 1.1.2), libpng12-0 (>= 1.2.8rel), libspeex1, libtheora0, libvorbis0a (>=
> 1.1.0), libxext6 |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > How else do you handle the case of a library which implements a line
> > protocol (presumably Unix sockets, in this case), and that protocol has
> > changed incompatibly?
>
> You implement the new pr
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > No, you design the protocol from the beginning to have the first token be a
> > protocol version, followed by a magic number(which could be different per
> > version).
>
> Presumably it's too late for that. :)
Stupid programmers.
--
To UNSUBS
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> > - send mail to the bug with a full diff *before* uploading your package to
> > incoming; two minutes before, two hours before, two days before, it
> > doesn't matter
>
> And make sure that the mail has actually left your system... (real life
> exper
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, D. Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> As per the recommendation below, I'm forwarding this.
>
> - Forwarded message from Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:23:08 +0100
> From: Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Michael Vogt:
>
> > When fully supported by the archive, the diff support will be
> > completely transparent, no changes on your side necessary.
The index support is broken for file urls. It works the first time(ie,
removing all the files in /var/li
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, João Silva wrote:
> Anyone knows what package brings the todos command?
> I had this error in a debian-cd try:
> tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found
File a bug on that package for not using a depends.
Also, this is a -user question, not a -devel question.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
> strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
> software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> community to release dpkg under LGPL licens
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> > > capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >
> > As for relicensing it, fuck off. I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment
> > for
> > the Sodomotron 2000.
> >
>
> ...which could certainly have been written:
>
>
> As one of the dpkg authors, I do not intent to relicence it.
>
>
> I actual
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> The way I read it was that "the authors may pick any license, so long as it's
> DFSG-free". Do you see how it could be read that way?
You sound just like Henry Ford.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
> everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
> modifications for every package we are using.
>
> We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night until we
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> > The source and binaries *must* match, period. You can't have tarballs
> > being
> > constantly upgraded, and the binaries not, or vice versa. The
> > source+binary
> > must be done as a whole unit.
> >
> > Also, with this email, I am making a formal re
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 02:16:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > And while dash is also optional, all *correctly* written /bin/sh
> > > scripts should work with dash too.
> >
> > That's inco
On 4 Nov 2003, Greg Stark wrote:
> So all it would take to make the tools handle this would be to somehow make
> apt aware of more revisions of packages. They're all in the pool after all.
> Short of making some king of humongous mega-Packages file with every revision
> of every package -- which a
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Peter Busser wrote:
> And after all, if exec-shield is being included in the Debian default kernel
> source, then you are talking about the pride of a 1000 developers that are at
> stake here. That is not something you should take lightly if you ask me. :-)
You mean the single
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Otto Wyss [Sun, Nov 02 2003, 10:21:14AM]:
> > Since when does the package libc6-dev depend on linux-kernel-headers? Is
> > this dependes really necessary?
>
>
>
> What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> This wi
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> And then, which package does provide /usr/src/linux directory?
none should.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> A program that is CPU-bound *and* can be encoded more efficiently will
> benefit from compiler optimizations. Some CPU bound things just aren't
> going to be helped much by vectorization, instruction reordering, etc. I
> mean, integer multiply is integer
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
> If Robert is such an incompetent developer as some people say and the
> package does not build on the 11 different architectures, then the
> package will not propagate to testing and the world will be safe from
> the disaster.
You misunderstand how test
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
> You are right. I missed that little detail. But anyway you can submit
> a serious FTBFS bug if that happens to be the case. Do the testing scripts
> ignore serious bugs?
A FTBFS bug is only supposed to be considered serious if the package
previously bui
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> and dpkg doesn't support
> installing source packages, so tracking this source has to be done by
> hand.
There is apt-src, however.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being
>a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling
>out of this mailing-list, I do not give a toss about it and I think
>that noone else does.
A liar? You hav
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version
> has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package.
Patented software isn't really non-free. Search the list archives.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Just thought I should give you a better reply.
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:24:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > >There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels.
> >
> > Robert, your (frankl
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Russell Coker wrote:
> Below are the errors I am getting from apt-get on some machines running recent
> unstable. Is this a known bug or have I screwed up something?
>
> I've tried downgrading libc6 and a few other things but to no avail.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get upda
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> >
> >> 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being
> >>a liar, this is a very bad attitude.
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:59:22PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > No way, man. We simply have to have people repeat the same fodder on
> > debian-devel over and over again. The three hundred odd mails per day
> > from the new fodder just
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Except for the fact that no tool supports Enhances... (or has that
> changed?)
Well, if we follow Manoj's advice, humans are tools, and they understand
enhances, which means policy is allowed to talk about it.
If you don't agree with that, talk about i
201 - 300 of 460 matches
Mail list logo
