On 26 Dec 2001, Ganesan R wrote:
> 1. The source tarball is still called sed (the latest version is
>sed-3.52.tar.gz). What are my options of dealing with this other than
>asking upstream to change the source tarball?
You can rename the source tarball when uploading to debian. No problem
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Brian Wolfe wrote:
> > Where upstream is inactive or unresponsive things are a little
> > different, of course.
>
> Yup, this is the situation that I was attempting to describe, when
> upstream seems to be ignoring the package, debian can then take on some of the
> small
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Brian Wolfe wrote:
> It's a normal bug at the minimal. I couldn't get CDRToaster to even do
> a simple burn of a single directory! So I think the bug description would be
> more like "CDRToaster has failed to follow the evolution of mkisofs's command
> line parameters. A
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:36:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to
> > > do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being ignored (and,
> >
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
Because that's a cosmetic issue. There are more important things to work on,
like fixing bugs, and implementing features that we will need down the road.
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Um, if it doesn't work for the version of mkisofs in woody, then it is
> a critical bug as far as woody is concerned.
That may be true. But someone who has potato installed, and does a partial
upgrade, might not have the new version of mkisofs.
Seri
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Of course, there are hints that there is another segfault bug out there,
> > with
> > the latest version in woody. It's not repeatable, however. Also, on this
> >
On 27 Dec 2001, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Adam Heath
>
> | dbs(doogie build system, debian build system)
> |
> | See autofs, apache, x(contains a pre-alpha version of dbs).
> |
> | Do NOT see glibc, gcc. Those use dpatch, which was around before dbs. Dbs
> | has a l
On 26 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Maybe we need a way to make being on the QA team a sexy job, just like
> maintaining glibc or the kernel or X is.
What about dpkg or apt?
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> What do you think of the perl build system? It has the maintainer run
> the patch and unpatch targets manually as necessary. Providing the
> maintainer's happy with this extra step, the only obvious disadvantage
> is that the diff almost doubles in size.
On 29 Dec 2001, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> > I don't find it at all complex.
>
> Of course not, you came up with it :-)
>
> My point is, a normal user will not have read a description of how
> this works. He will find a .$file and have no idea why and how.
> Making the filename more self-docum
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> Thanks for your quick answer. I'm currently connected to rameau and
> try to build crafty for potato (it could be run on sid later on, I guess),
> but package build-depends on bzip2 which isn't
> installed. Building bzip2 in $HOME worked fine but
On 29 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > But I suspect that eight people is nowhere near enough people. Maybe
> > > I could join...
> >
> > Please do! Adrian Bunk posted a proposal a month or so ago for QA
> > organization in the future, conta
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Jonathan Hseu wrote:
> Last I asked on #debian-devel, source-only uploads aren't allowed (as in, you
> can't just upload the orig.tar and the diff. With auto-builders in place, is
> there any reason why?
They are allowed. See pine.
> There are reasons why source-only uploa
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Hereward Cooper wrote:
> I'm in a strange situation, something (the last program I installed was fligh
> gear) caused my /var/lib/dpkg/status file to be deleted. Meaning
> apt/dpkg/dselect is unable to determin what packages are installed. I managed
> to
> manually write in t
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Kevin Corry wrote:
> What if we used libevms.so.x as the soname, and libevms-x.y.z.so as the
> filename for the library (where x is the version major number, y is minor,
> and z is patchlevel)? This seems to be common on many of the libraries on my
> system.
>
> Basically, we d
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One important thing are more frequent releases. We don't have to release
> as often as other distributions but IMHO it's needed to have a new stable
> release at about once a year. Currently the software in our stable release
> is two years old and
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:41:59PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:07:57PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > I use debain. As a debian user I am quite distressed at how this
> > > bug is being treated. I have watched the bug
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> your right..but we are not talking about that. We are talking about a
> bug report filed against a meta package where the user wanted me to submit
> bugs for each of the 40+ packages he listed.
Anthony Towns was working on a clone command last weeken
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:09:31PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> >
> > > your right..but we are not talking about that. We are talking about a
> > > bug report filed agai
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Lex Spoon wrote:
> [snip timeframe on deb creation]
After doing it for years, it can become very much quicker.
With properly designed upstream source(nice build system, configurable
installation, DESTDIR support), making a deb can be done in a few hours.
Lately, I have even b
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And of course a little consistency and uniformity is too much to ask for
> > in the unix world until it's mandadted by some dead-tree standard for which
> > you have to pay a few hundred bucks.
>
> You can now get P
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Since it was trying to tar up 'icu' (which is a symlink) for whatever
> reason, it may be that dpkg-source tried to create a tarfile containing only
> that. dpkg-source just does a "tar cf -", so symlinks would not be
> followed. I could see how that m
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > So this is where I get lost: how can you package as non-native *while
> > including a complete debian/ subdir in the upstream version*?
>
> There is no problem with this. The Tool looks o
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > > > How do you plan to prevent programs that link with libqt2 to also link
> > > > with libpng3 ? Manual check ?
> > >
> > > Another possiblility is the following (only the new dependencies are
> > > listed):
>
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Pete Ryland wrote:
I solve the small space problem in /tmp this way.
/tmp is a real directory, and exists on the root filesystem. This allows boot
programs to create temp files.
Upon bootup, I bind mount /tmp to some other place, that has lots of place.
This allows larger pr
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Malcolm Parsons wrote:
> python modules should be supplied as source, and byte compiled in the
> postinst.
No, they should be byte compiled during package creation.
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Malcolm Parsons wrote:
> There is no point byte compiling during package creation, as every time
> the python2.{1,2} packages are upgraded, every .py file is byte
> compiled again anyway:
>
> python2.2.postinst:
> for i in $DIRLIST ; do
> /usr/bin/python2.2
Brainfood is scheduling downtime for murphy.debian.org(which is also
lists.debian.org, and runs all the mailing lists), to do a disk upgrade. This
is just the addition of a new drive, with no copying of the existing data. We
expect downtime to be minimal.
The time for this maintenance is schedul
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> Brainfood is scheduling downtime for murphy.debian.org(which is also
> lists.debian.org, and runs all the mailing lists), to do a disk upgrade. This
> is just the addition of a new drive, with no copying of the existing data. We
> expect do
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> Well, it's that time. I'm leaving to go to the colo where murphy is located.
> I'll be shutting it down from there. This is the warning about it's
> shutdown.
It's been back up for 30m now.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> Of course, maybe the BTS and/or bug reporting tools are at fault here
> for not supporting attachments?
I need to finish full mime suppoort for the bts. I have the frontend
modified, but haven't yet rolled it out. The backend modifications have been
start
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 11:01:35AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > I just upgraded my unstable system today. In the process, my /usr/doc
> > > -> /usr/share/doc symlink disappeared. I didn't notice till
> > > afterwards, but I
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> Isn't it about time for another BSP? It's been a month; I see quite a
> lot of RC bugs in the bts with patches.
Is this a poor attempt at an April Fool's joke?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> (picked up from http://www.debianplanet.org/article.php?sid=633)
>
> The scalability problems of the Packages file is a recognised problem that
> has been discused many times on this list, i think the following idea
> could go a long way to solving it.
>
On 7 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> > So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> > and therefore it can't be a big problem.
>
> He
On 7 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> > So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> > and therefore it can't be a big problem.
Btw,
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> > This problem is very common for non-free software.
>
> ... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding
> good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a problem
> for start-stop-daemon in dpkg, see #141500, and a minor
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> ...to bring in other fixes that aren't so easy to seperate from smaller
> ones.
>
> Lose the tone, it wont get you what you want. Nice is being fixed. I've
> said this in several of the bug reports. This whole thread just needs to
> die.
You haven't said i
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Gerhard Muntingh wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:36:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > On Apr 07, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
> >
> > Why would debconf have to depend on python? You stick the module in
> > and on
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Emacs doesn't do runtime byte compilation. Debian emacs add on
> modules to install time bye compilation, which is not run time. Any
> reason you think byte compilation ought not to happen on
> installation? (slowing down the install is one
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The byte compilation should be done when the package is built, not
> > at runtime, not at install time.
>
> So you're saying that the maintainer should need to either create
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Mark Brown wrote:
> Not to mention requiring huge amounts of disk space for Emacs packages
> even though the maintainer is likely to use only one.
Is debian for maintainers or users?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Martin Pool wrote:
> There seems to be a thread about rsync and Debian packages every
> couple of months. I've written up a document which tries to cover all
> of the questions and debates. It's pretty informal, but hopefully
> will be useful.
>
> http://rsync.samba.org/rs
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Brian May wrote:
> I think some more details is required regarding rproxy.
>
> Why is nobody actively developing it?
>
> AFAIK, it solves all the problems regarding server load discussed in
> rsync, doesn't it???
No. I tested it out, and it still hits the server hard.
--
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> According to the bug tracking system, he still is the maintainer.
> /usr/doc/xinetd/changelog.Debian.gz says that xinetd was moved to non-free
> at version 2.2.1-3. This was done on "Sat, 14 Mar 1998 03:31:50 -0500". I
> think it is a bad thing that t
d turns out not to be the best, then
we will come up with the best way to change to a new
method, without losing any system integrity. Because
all developers agree to follow the Debian Policy
Guidelines, we can offer a quality, competent
operating system to the computing community.
Ad
As some of you might know, I have been working on full debs of netscape
4.05. I have everything almost perfect, except for the reporting clause.
I will be moving my focus to version 4.5, which is scheduled to be
released tomorrow(Wednesday).
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > As some of you might know, I have been working on full debs of netscape
> > 4.05. I have everything almost perfect, except for the reporting clause.
> > I will be moving my focus
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:02:07PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >
> > As some of you might know, I have been working on full debs of netscape
> > 4.05. I have everything almost perfect, except for the reporting clause.
> >
On 17 Jun 1998, Gregory S. Stark wrote:
>
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As some of you might know, I have been working on full debs of netscape
> > 4.05. I have everything almost perfect, except for the reporting clause.
>
> Is there any po
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Tom Lees wrote:
> Adam, how far have you got? Maybe we should collaborate on this.
> I believe its probably not much effort to port to libapt - the main
> problem is the "dependency screen" bit.
Well, I removed the dpkg.a file, and started rem'ing out code. Got that to
compi
I see a problem with all this talk about pseudo packages for upgrades from
hamm.
These 'pkgs' will have to remain in the system forever. If someone skips
slink, and goes to potato when that is released, the same problem will occur.
If we ever fix dpkg/dselect/apt to handle a pkg rename, and we c
faure and albert(the 2 alphas hosted at novare for debian) are being taken
down for a physical move. I estimate that they will be back up in 30 minutes.
Sorry for the inconveniance.
Sorry for the late follow up, but faure and albert are back up, and have been
for several hours. There were no problems.
Adam
These two alpha machines, hosted at novare, will disappear from the net for
about 15-20 minutes at or around 6pm local time(master and novare have the
same local time). This will not affect master and murphy.
Adam
Novare is switching to a new isp and new colocation facility. The time has
come to move master and murphy to the new site. In about 20 minutes, mark and
I will be taking the machines down, then transporting them to the new
facility. We expect them to be down for 40 minutes, so in an hour, we hop
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Oleg Krivosheev wrote:
>
> Hi, all
>
> looking into GNOME i got some (maybe stupid) idea:
>
> what about creating empty packages only to satisfy dependancies and
> be able to install loosy related set of packages. Metapackage
> seems to be the right name for such creature ;
On 21 May 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> This is an *emergency* editor we're talking about here, not something
> you'll end up using day after day. It really doesn't need to be
> perfect, just good enough. Let's not loose sight of the goal here.
/me hides :)
As I have stated several times on ir
On 08/10/2016 05:18 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
I think a fixed URL for downloading images of major versions would in
fact be good. But you still need to verify the integrity of that image,
for the internet is dark, and full of terrors.
Verification of the existing images has to happen regardless;
401 - 460 of 460 matches
Mail list logo
