Re: d-i has 99% support for filesystem labels

On Monday 14 March 2005 19:55, Eric Lavarde wrote: > It took me quite a while to figure out the problem, so here is the > message: labels do only properly work at install time, if no other > system is using them as well. > (and, no, I didn't think about posting a bug, but I can do. Against > which

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Thursday 24 November 2005 22:54, Thomas Weber wrote: > > Second, I'm a member of the debian-installer team. I never say > > uploads with such entries. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2005/11/msg01337.html Wrong example. The changelog for that version is: base-installer (1.37)

Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

On Monday 28 November 2005 19:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > If you know you are intersted in "foo", then it is easy anyway > (apt-cache pkgnames instead of search for the purpose of this > discussion): > > apt-cache pkgnames | grep '^foo.*-doc$' > > If the idea is to remove some documentation from a s

Re: sparc64 system?

On Wednesday 30 November 2005 14:49, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > I need a sparc64 test system to debug a bus error (#340384). > Cananybody tell me where I get an account, or do the debug symbols > compile and backtrace for me? And also update the availability > information of vore in the db. I can g

Re: Automatic closing of bugs

On Thursday 01 December 2005 23:45, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > Is there a way to not allow changelog entries to automatically close > bugs assigned to other packages? This sounds like a usefull restriction. I've seen enough cases where the wrong bug was closed to see the benefit of this. If the

Re: Debian and the desktop

On Monday 12 December 2005 21:25, Joey Hess wrote: > It's possible that this statement is false, and that some change might > have been made in this area under less than clear circumstances as a > kind of experiment just to see how long it takes for someone to notice > and what traspires if they do

Re: Debian Installer team monthly meeting minutes (20051214 meeting)

On Sunday 18 December 2005 15:34, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > I hope this will be solved soon! > > use nameif. This has been suggested before but AIUI nameif has problems/limitations renaming eth0. The correct solution seems to be to use udev rewriting

Re: Please test new sysvinit, sysv-rc, initscripts

On Tuesday 20 December 2005 00:29, Gabor Gombas wrote: > fsck logs are OK, /var/log/dmesg.0 is root:root instead of root:adm. > bottlogd is still broken. Did you move bootlogd init script before udev? That should at least get you a log and allow you to check the rest. pgp8wK5rjLGkN.pgp Descript

Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?

On Tuesday 20 December 2005 22:22, Glenn Maynard wrote: > For me, it's a clear win: at least I can edit files. I'm > probably a fairly typical vim user. I have to agree with that. I have used the standard vi for quite some time but always got into problems by pressing cursor keys which resulted

Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi? -> which editor should be standard?

On Saturday 24 December 2005 14:15, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Sarge installer installs nano and nvi. I thought it was sort of > overlooked bug of installer. nano and nvi are in /usr/bin. s/installer/debootstrap/ And debootstrap just installs the base system based on package characteristics (mainly p

Re: Your Confirmation Required

On Tuesday 27 December 2005 22:50, Steve Langasek wrote: > hadn't thought of initially; so yeah, it'd be good to either have abuse > headers to track, or (probably easier) just blacklist the domain... I forwarded one of the messages to listmaster yesterday and they should be filtered now. pgpyB

Re: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

hardware), but rather people who spend time on hunting down and fixing (kernel) bugs and working on architecture specific packages like silo. Thanks again for your kind offer though. Cheers, Frans Pop P.S. I myself was "donated" a Sparc Ultra10 in this fashion and that system has since se

Re: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

On Wednesday 28 December 2005 23:21, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > The issue threatening the Debian Sparc port is not so much lack of > > hardware (and certainly not older hardware), but rather people who > > spend time on hunting down and fixing (kernel) bu

Re: stable aliases for CD drives

On Thursday 29 December 2005 01:00, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static > aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d-i. Is this document still usable for writing udev rules? http://www.reactivated.net/writing_udev_rules.htm

Re: How to Increase Contributions from Volunteers

On Monday 02 January 2006 15:42, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > so should we try to compile such a list and advertise it better, > perhaps from the startpage on www.debian.org? http://www.debian.org/devel/join/ seems more suited for that. That whole page could maybe be organized a bit better by separa

Re: No 2.6 kernels for 586 in Sarge and up

On Monday 02 January 2006 16:40, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > I wonder why there is no 2.6 kernel package for 586 in Sarge while > there is for 2.4? > I can find 386-486-686 and k7, but no 586. Try linux-{source,image,headers}. pgpWpHgVmaU8B.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: bits from the release team

On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote: > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time > with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2 > month. 2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing (i.e. SATA just starting to g

Re: bits from the release team

On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote: > Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal > of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an > implementation which convinces them :) Bullshit. We (d-i team, mainly Joey) gave very good reasons why

Re: bits from the release team

On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:52, Sven Luther wrote: > The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation > and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something > that works out just fine for ubuntu even, but which the current > linux-2.6 common package infrastruc

Re: bits from the release team

On Wednesday 04 January 2006 00:17, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Given that backports.org seems to successfully track kernels on sid > already (as per Steinar's comment), and given that I've heard Frans > Pop mention the possibility of a sarge d-i update using 2.6.12, Hmm.

Re: outdated links on http://www.us.debian.org/doc/

(Moving this thread to d-www where this is more on-topic.) On Wednesday 04 January 2006 20:58, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > I was reading http://www.us.debian.org/doc/ and found a link to > "Installation guide for Debian 2.2" (at the end of the page). I am > thinking with sarge release this is som

Re: Canonical's business model

On Monday 09 January 2006 10:02, Josselin Mouette wrote: > This is fair. After all, that's what Free software is about. But I know > for sure that "contributing back to Debian" stuff is 100% talk and 0% > reality. There is at least one area where there is a substantial contribution from people wo

Re: APT public key updates?

On Saturday 20 February 2010 09:15, Joey Hess wrote: > Nonzero exit; odd, it doesn't seem to notice that the key is expired at > all. But apt won't use gpgv like that, I suppose, but instead like > this: Note though that other packages, like debmirror, do: my $GPG="gpg --no-tty -q"; [...] if (!-f

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

On Thursday 12 January 2006 00:09, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so > much. What pisses me off is ppl keeping this thread alive without adding new arguments with as their main goal to widen the gap that is definitely there, but is al

Re: For those who care about lesbians

On Sunday 15 January 2006 00:47, Adam Heath wrote: > In fact, both of the last 2 emails to d-d-a go against the AUP. > Procedures should be started to punish the offenders. They are of a completely different order. One is an error of judgement and "merely" off-topic, the other is intentionally o

Re: how to link 2 bug reports ?

On Sunday 29 January 2006 14:38, Marc Chantreux wrote: > i've done the bug report #350119 last week (providing a patch) and just > seen that this patch fixes #342008. Is it a way to 'link' them in the > BTS? (as i'm not a DD) http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control See "merge" command and read

Re: limitations of reportbug and BTS

On Wednesday 15 February 2006 20:56, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Feb 15, kamaraju kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This kind of thing is not possible currently. Do you think it is a > > good implement such a feature? Currently bugs.kde.org allows this > > (searching for strings in the bug rep

Re: limitations of reportbug and BTS

On Wednesday 15 February 2006 21:28, Frans Pop wrote: > + href="http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=""+group%3Alinux.debian.bugs.dist";> Hmm. Quotes within quotes probably won't work, so this is better: http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=

Re: Avoiding installation trouble (suggested fix)

On Monday 06 March 2006 10:43, Daniel Haude wrote: > In the end I found out what was wrong: I had used an old install CD > back from sarge==testing days. My /etc/apt/sources list therefore > pointed at "testing" resources which, without a proper "dist-upgrade" > (which at no point I had wanted beca

Re: freetype pre-release packages: testing needed

On Tuesday 07 March 2006 00:25, Steve Langasek wrote: > Packages for freetype 2.2rc4 can be found at > . Please test them and let > me know what breaks! I have tested the udeb from that location with the graphical version of Debian Installer and seen n

Re: removal of svenl from the project

Dear Sven, So, where do I stand in this expulsion thingy? So far I've resisted mailing on this thread. My general feelings were very well worded by Adeodato Simó. However, my name being brought up in your reply to Joey kind of forces me. I don't actually think that expulsion is the correct acti

Re: HOWTO Help (was: Debian DPL Debate Comments)

On Tuesday 22 March 2005 22:08, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > < cc-ing to -doc, since most part of the mail is more relevant there > > > Hi! > > * Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050318 18:59]: > > [...] > > > > > I've been thinking of contributing to Debian for a long time since > > > I started using

[Release Notes] Use Woody's or Sarge's aptitude for upgrades?

tate upgrading the kernel first. Comments very, very welcome. Cheers, Frans Pop [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/11/msg00105.html pgpF555xdnwJg.pgp Description: PGP signature

Sarge Release Notes - Architecture specific news?

If there is any architecture specific news that you'd like to have included in the Release Notes (like new subarchs supported or dropped), please send a proposed text to the d-doc mailing list (CC the list for the architecture) before the end of this week. Cheers, Frans Pop pgpJSfW0bTfF

Re: [Release Notes] Use Woody's or Sarge's aptitude for upgrades?

On Monday 16 May 2005 17:58, Frans Pop wrote: > Should users first upgrade dpkg and aptitude before upgrading the rest > of the system or can the upgrade safely be done using Woody's version > of the package tools? From the reactions to this thread and a thread on #309340 [1],

Re: [Release Notes] Use Woody's or Sarge's aptitude for upgrades?

On Wednesday 18 May 2005 02:47, Steve Langasek wrote: > Is there a difference in packages removed if you run "aptitude install > aptitude" instead of "aptitude install aptitude dpkg"? I don't see any > reason why dpkg needs to be upgraded first, unlike aptitude. No, makes no real difference. I st

Re: Bug#310887: Sarge doesn't mount scsi harddisks on boot

reassign 310887 debian-installer severity 310887 important retitle 310887 Does not mount non-root partitions before fs check if other drivers required thanks On Thursday 26 May 2005 21:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Package: general > Version: Sarge Please use a proper package when filing bugs!

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 07:53, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > I don't have any hard statistics, but here are some random examples of > patches whose development was sponsored by Canonical, were tested and > proven in Ubuntu, were proactively submitted to Debian by an Ubuntu > developer, and remain in de

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 19:25, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > You mean http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/ongoing-merge/ which has > > been there for at least half a year? > > Or rather http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ which even provides > separated patches. What seems to be missing is somethin

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tuesday 07 June 2005 03:21, Joey Hess wrote: > Planned, and ground already laid in tasksel (and indeed, it does do it > for some easy things like language tasks). One thing I really want to > see happen is a laptop task. The big missing peice is some simple > program tasksel can call out to, lik

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tuesday 07 June 2005 01:03, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > Feel free to add some new items or add (hopefully new) information to > the ones I list below: > -- [ Overall improvements ] - Implement some package reorga

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tuesday 07 June 2005 22:10, Roger Leigh wrote: > - When UTF-8 is the default locale, it shouldn't need a .UTF-8 > suffix, e.g. en_GB will be UTF-8, and en_GB.ISO-8859-1 will be Latin-1 > (the opposite way round to the current situation which creates > en_GB.UTF-8 and en_GB [Latin-1]). > > [...]

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tuesday 07 June 2005 23:02, Roger Leigh wrote: > Existing installs are already configured with debconf. Their > /etc/locale.gen will not be touched. > > If you do dpkg-reconfigure locales, then users could have the locale > switch to UTF-8 if they so choose. AFAIK locales are automatically reg

Re: Planet Debian and Akregator

On Thursday 09 June 2005 09:59, Isaac Clerencia wrote: > I've read about this before, but I read Debian Panet with akregator > without any problem. ?? I use akregator too (1.0 beta 10) and every once in a while you get an icon indicating a feed cannot be read. Most of the time this will be fixed

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Thursday 09 June 2005 18:45, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jun 09, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dropping 2.4 can easily be done on relatively short notice prior to > > etch release, so no need to worry about now. > > It would be too late, because at that time we would have wasted

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Sunday 12 June 2005 00:24, Russell Coker wrote: > New laptops tend to ship without floppy drives and desktop machines > will surely follow soon. Plans for future hardware support should not > involve floppy disks. Please, we do not only support new hardware. I have a very nice Pentium I (my in

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Sunday 12 June 2005 00:51, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jun 12, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a very nice Pentium I (my internet gateway) that has a broken > > CD-drive and no USB (and certainly wouldn't boot from USB even if it > > had) bu

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Sunday 19 June 2005 00:18, Marco d'Itri wrote: > If your ISP is a good ISP, this will be advertised (by way of DNS, > whois records or private communications). > If it is less than good then I will take an educated guess. HTH. My experience is that ISP's are probably not very good: I have a sta

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Sunday 19 June 2005 17:48, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > Frans Pop wrote: > > I think blocking mails based on an address being dynamic/static > > sucks. > > Indeed, but the only systems that send out email from dynamic IP > addresses are spam zombies (90%[1]) an

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Sunday 19 June 2005 18:39, Simon Richter wrote: > Hrm, that would indeed be a reason to accept mail from some IPs inside > such "dynamic" blocks. Your IP does not seem to be listed as being > dynamic, though. :-) Try mine: 195.240.184.66 And yes, it is static and not "dynamic but unlikely to ch

Re: raidtools2 -> mdadm change: woes and problems

On Wednesday 22 June 2005 11:16, Brian May wrote: > http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.e >n.html#s-mdadm > The documentation said that there was no need for a config file, and I > never used a 2.2 kernel, so the paragraphs starting with "If your RAID > array was

Re: Debian Installer etch beta 3 released

On Monday 14 August 2006 14:43, Steve McIntyre wrote: > The DVD torrents are already produced, just not linked from the page > at http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/. Check out I've committed a change to the d-i page that adds all missing links (there were a few others that were omitted

Re: Status of inetd for etch

On Thursday 17 August 2006 19:21, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Am Donnerstag 10 August 2006 23:56 schrieb Roger Leigh: > > The inetd daemon installed by default: > > etch: openbsd-inetd | netkit-inetd > > Note: etch beta 3 show me a dpkg status of "ic" for netkit-inetd after > a fresh installat

Re: Extended partition creation policy ?

Hello David, On Thursday 07 September 2006 14:14, David Balazic wrote: > I noticed, that when the debian installer is instructed to create > two partitions, whose joint size is less than the size of the disk, > then it creates one primary partition and one logical partition inside > an extended pa

Re: First call for votes for the assets handling constitutional amendment GR

On Sunday 10 September 2006 01:46, Debian-project Secretary wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- b7af2494-93e2-490e-9312-85647b0928b3 [ 1 ] Choice 1: Amend the constitution [needs 3:1] [ ] Choice 2: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anyt

Re: First call for votes for the assets handling constitutional amendment GR

On Tuesday 12 September 2006 02:07, Frans Pop wrote: > On Sunday 10 September 2006 01:46, Debian-project Secretary wrote: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Oops. Sorry. pgpogZFg9RR6Q.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Request to mailing list Pkg-qof-maintainers rejected

On Tuesday 12 September 2006 02:11, Charles Plessy wrote: > It is really unfortunate that the regulation of moderation is hidden > under a "privacy" menu in Mailman. Maybe the most straightforward mean > to slove this in the future would be to make the new lists unmoderated > by default? Or ask th

Re: Bug#387286: Acknowledgement (postrm_hook is not run)

reassign 387286 grub severity 387286 grave retitle 387286 grub path transition is breaking kernel removals thanks On Wednesday 13 September 2006 16:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The grub maintainer has not thought through all use cases, > including yours -- changing /etc/kernel-img.conf t

Re: [Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?

On Saturday 16 September 2006 23:07, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > I agree that this need to be documented. We work on some notes for > the sysvinit package, and will include it there. Sounds to me like this belongs in policy. pgpTZyxVfGvin.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?

On Sunday 17 September 2006 11:23, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:10:33AM +0200, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: > > Relying on 2.6-only features for this is IMHO a no-go. 2.2 as well as > > 2.4 are maintained kernel-trees and just because the kernel-team > > seems to like to liv

Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

On Monday 18 September 2006 16:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Frankly, the kernel's "You NEED to restart your computer SOON" message > is a good example, if it's telling the truth. But that cheats by not > using debconf. Oh yes it does! When have you last done a kernel upgrade in testing/unstable?

Re: Compatibility between Debian amd64 and other distributions

On Monday 25 September 2006 09:39, Andreas Jochens wrote: > The proposed glibc patch will break the installer. The installer does > not have the symlink from /usr/lib64 to /usr/lib. (This is not by > accident. It has been decided following some discussion.) The symlink currently is there actually:

Re: Compatibility between Debian amd64 and other distributions

On Tuesday 26 September 2006 08:11, Andreas Jochens wrote: > rootskel only creates the symlink from /lib64 to /lib which is required > to run dynamically linked binaries. It does _not_ create the symlink > from /usr/lib64 to /usr/lib. Sorry, my mistake. Missed the /usr/ bit :-( pgpZmrpeO4K3F.pgp

Re: Accepted kde-icons-crystalclear 0.0.20050623.dfsg.1-1 (source all)

o man procmailrc(5), under MISCELLANEOUS. Cheers, Frans Pop Debian List master On Friday 29 September 2006 00:03, you wrote: > Format: 1.7 > Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:41:59 +0200 > Source: kde-icons-crystalclear > Binary: kde-icons-crystalclear > Architecture: source all > Version

Re: Simpleminded members better than abusive members

On Monday 02 October 2006 17:15, Dan Jacobson wrote: > You might want to have related workshops at the next Debian > conference or seminars. The leadership team should get involved. Try filing better bug reports instead. I don't see _any_ rationale in #390564 why the maintainer should add the Sug

[Debian Installer] General release plan for RC1

=== D-I STRING FREEZE: Thu 12 Okt, 00:00 UTC - Sun 22 Okt, 00:00 UTC === Hi folks, This mail really should have gone out at least two and probably three weeks earlier. Blame goes to the discussions on d-{private,vote,wherever} which resulted in a serious drop in my motivation in recent weeks an

Re: debian-policy: New virtual package: cron-daemon

On Sunday 08 October 2006 21:05, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > I propose re-adding 'cron-daemon' with the following requirements (that > will need to be written down similarly to the 11.6. section "Mail > transport, delivery and user agents"): Maybe add: - should be able to work nicely w

Re: how to tell people to dpkg-reconfigure exim4-_CONFIG_?

On Sunday 08 October 2006 22:26, Marc Haber wrote: > I'd now like a low priority debconf note in exim4, exim4-base and the > daemon packages which is only shown if the package is to be > _re_configured, and tells people to dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config. A _low_ priority note probably makes no sens

Re: Bug#392017: apt.conf contains Acquire::HTTP::Proxy "false", does apt-listbugs need to support it?

On Tuesday 10 October 2006 15:34, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Today, I've received at least two reports about people who have set > Acquire::HTTP::Proxy "false" > > From reading apt.conf manpage, the correct configuration is "DIRECT". > > Why are people setting this value "false", and do I need to supp

Re: Lack of a GR proposal explicitly condemning dunc-tank

On Thursday 12 October 2006 12:34, Ian Jackson wrote: > Matthew Wilcox writes ("Re: Lack of a GR proposal explicitly condemning dunc-tank"): > > I'm so thoroughly disgusted by you and the actions of people like you > > that I've stopped working on Debian. nice job, wanker. > > That is the sole co

Re: Lack of a GR proposal explicitly condemning dunc-tank

On Thursday 12 October 2006 18:50, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Normally I wouldn't publish private email but I think in this case > > the abusive nature warrants it. > > Two wrongs didn't really make a right here, IMO, and I'm not talking > about publication of

Re: delay of the full etch freeze

On Thursday 12 October 2006 22:22, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > So I would recommend against moving the freeze deadline to allow > packages in NEW to enter. I would guess for the most part package is NEW are not totally new packages, but rather packages with a new upstream release that causes (

Debian Installer - Call for testing *this week*

than English, consider installing in that language; note that one last round of translation updates is still planned, but reports of issues are still appreciated TIA, Frans Pop [1]http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch06s03.html#di-partition [2]http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual

Re: Bug mass filling

On Thursday 19 October 2006 18:45, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > If no problem is caused by it, I believe 'normal' or even 'wishlist' > severity is the proper severity to use. s/wishlist/minor/ It _is_ a bug after all. pgp8CuxfBlHbn.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: openssh packages with updated selinux patch

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 07:19, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > No, it is not. The configure patch: > > ensures that LIBSELINUX expands to -lselinux only on machines where > it is available, not otherwise. > > Unless you are saying that the configure.ac patch is broken, > in which ca

Re: openssh packages with updated selinux patch

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 23:18, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Either of these would be fine (though looking at the size of > libselinux1, I wonder if there are any numbers behind the burden > theory?), but that would be a more intrusive change for openssh than > I am willing to make as a

Re: Is something wrong to XGL, Compiz, Cgwd be packaged?

On Saturday 28 October 2006 23:11, Gustavo Franco wrote: > If there will be no regressions, please add the composite bit in the > xorg.conf by default. Is that really a good idea for something that is so young and untested, so shortly before the release? Is it wanted for all architectures, for al

Re: Is something wrong to XGL, Compiz, Cgwd be packaged?

On Saturday 28 October 2006 23:56, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > Is that really a good idea for something that is so young and > > untested, so shortly before the release? > > Is it wanted for all architectures, for all systems, irrespective of > > their speed? > > Calm down Frans, what about aiglx the

Re: Is something wrong to XGL, Compiz, Cgwd be packaged?

On Sunday 29 October 2006 14:14, David Nusinow wrote: > [0] I'd love some feedback from KDE people on this. I'll sit down and > poke around the kwin code a bit to see how it works if I have the time. In that case wouldn't a mail to debian-kde with some information and instructions be the best way

Re: ca-certificates symlinks out of /etc

On Tuesday 31 October 2006 21:03, Stephen Frost wrote: > If they expire then they should be updated by the package. One does > not generally modify issued certificates. If the package isn't > handling certificate expiration then the point of having them packaged > at all pretty much goes away. I

Re: Lots of (easily recognisible) spam sent to the BTS today

On Thursday 02 November 2006 02:56, Blars Blarson wrote: > Rather than that, I would like to see non-versioned close messages > depriciated, other than ones that are explicitly so. No change would > be needed for the majority of cases, only the rare "not a bug" close > message would need to be dif

Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils

On Thursday 09 November 2006 15:57, Michael Banck wrote: > I believe this (= standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX > system) should be shoved into a task or even CDD. Or we could just not > install those if people select "Desktop" during the install (the latter > might be the case a

Re: default ext3 options (was: Re: Debian Installer etch RC1 released)

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 09:44, Bastian Venthur wrote: > And where can I get the full list of ext3-options which are enabled now > by default? Enabled by default when creating a new file system: $ less /etc/mke2fs.conf Cheers, FJP pgphSiVM6R856.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: default ext3 options

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 13:35, Sam Morris wrote: > filesystem. However, to get the benefit of the indexing for > already-created directories, e2fsck -D should be run after dir_index > has been added; therefore it's probably best to just document the > procedure in the release notes. If you'd r

Re: Debian Installer etch RC1 released

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 14:58, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > I understand that the line must be drawn somewhere. However, I am > concerned about Etch shipping with a 2.6.17 kernel because of Xen. > AIUI, Xen has issues with 2.6.17 kernels (at least those available from > backports). I run some

Re: Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (4.0/etch)?

On Wednesday 22 November 2006 07:22, Andreas Tille wrote: > But Hendrik Sattler is perfectly right and this knowledge has to be > stored at prominant places like: > > a) installation manual > b) apt-key.8 > c) perhaps somewhere else > > Could maintainers of a) and b) (and perhaps c) ;-)

Re: KDE and Gnome panel applets showing percentage of broken packages

On Tuesday 05 December 2006 22:25, Berke Durak wrote: > I will just say that in my opinion, a repository such as stable, > testing or unstable should be self-contained. For stable and testing that is true. However, sid is broken by design as it will always receive new versions of packages first a

Re: KDE and Gnome panel applets showing percentage of broken packages

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 03:18, Anthony Towns wrote: > That's true to a point -- but the weather analogy could still work, > in that the "rainy" areas shouldn't move around the archive, not get > stuck anywhere. It'd probably be interesting to get a general idea of > any spots that have a clim

Re: debian-private and Gmail

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 03:32, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > I saw that it's possible to redirect my @debian.org email to an > address and also redirect debian-private to another email. @debian.org > is set to @gmail.com. Good. But what do I do with debian-private? > Is it possible to redire

Re: debian-private and Gmail

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 08:08, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > What I am wanting is to redirect all my @debian.org emails to my Gmail > account (the field "email forwarded to") and to read debian-private > emails on a Debian machine. > > Is it easy to do this (using procmail maybe)? Yes, you

Re: python 2.3

On Friday 29 December 2006 03:10, Steve Langasek wrote: > It was? I don't remember this... I certainly wanted to make sure etch > didn't release with ancient, lingering versions of python like 2.1 and > 2.2, but from a release POV I never had strong feelings about getting > rid of python 2.3, whi

Re: dicussion about patches ... ignoring patches make motivation to provide them fall

On Monday 20 March 2006 16:04, Thomas Hood wrote: > It might not be so simple. Suppose I have taken it upon myself to push > change Foo through Debian. The Foo project requires cooperation from > several DDs and at the beginning I can't tell whether I will get that > cooperation from all of them.

Re: Linux kernel upgrade & udev

On Wednesday 22 March 2006 23:55, Jose Luis Rey wrote: > I just did a kernel upgrade from 2.6.8 to 2.6.15, but I do have my > root partition on a RAID 1 config, and the initramfs stops with a > message about /dev/md0 not existing. > > There is a problem of timing, udev waits too much to create the

Re: We want to honestly apoligize to the whole Debian Community

On Thursday 23 March 2006 00:02, Gregg Coner wrote: > And plus, to the average user, the most up to date gnome is most > important. Haven't you heard? The average Gnome user is switching away from Gnome to other alternatives. Myself, I'm a KDE user currently, so why do I not propose to sync Deb

Re: Emphasize teams, not packages

On Wednesday 29 March 2006 11:11, Thomas Hood wrote: > Obviously you can't, currently. This is not true. The NM team and the DAMs have a certain amount of freedom to tailor the NM process to individual applicants. The "Tasks and skills" part of [1] currently explicitly lists "either documentati

Re: Emphasize teams, not packages

On Wednesday 29 March 2006 12:08, Frans Pop wrote: > The "Tasks and skills" part of [1] currently explicitly lists "either > documentation and internationalisation or package maintenance" as tasks > for which an applicant can be tested, so not only package maintenanc

Re: glibc_2.3.6-6_i386.changes REJECTED

On Tuesday 11 April 2006 15:08, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > When doing a full upgrade (stable->unstable) could it happen that apt > breaks the libc6<->libc-bin depends cycle and put them into seperate > dpkg calls? I don't remember how smart/stupid libapt was there. It > might be best to add "apt

Re: Lintian package-has-a-duplicate-relation

On Sunday 16 April 2006 22:13, Steve Langasek wrote: > Now, the clean solution for those cases when there's a compelling > reason to implement this bad idea: see what dpkg-shlibdeps(1) has to > say about shlibs.local. One minor gripe about dpkg-shlibdeps(1)... If I look at that page, I get redire

Re: Installation is FANTASTIC!!!

On Saturday 22 April 2006 01:27, Henning Makholm wrote: > I don't care much for mouse clicks, but "80x25 characters and a 8-bit > font" is a very low common denominator for the amount of text one can > show on the screen when selecting packages or answering complex > debconf questions. The 8-bit-ne

Re: utnubu-desktop for the masses

On Sunday 23 April 2006 23:14, Luk Claes wrote: > Note that the KDE meta packages are only really taken care of near a > release because of the transitioning problems... If the meta packages > get to testing earlier it's very probable they will not be installable > for a long time... IMO that is n

  1   2   3   4   5   >