quot;
Ok. If attracting ISV and IHV support to Debian isn't a worthwhile
goal in itself, how about helping ensure that Linux remains open and
free in the face of increased commercialization (this was, after all,
Debian's founding goal)? I've long argued that, as the Linux world
eam
sources too. So, increasing compatibility is mostly about using
the same versions of stuff, and making sure we have the glue
in place to deal with any differences in file system layout
and package namespace in the binary packages built from them.
I expect configuration issues to be more sig
edge cases, then by putting the necessary glue in
place to make sure whatever inertia or otherwise has propagated
the differences for so long doesn't remain an insurmountable obstacle.
And with enough mass, the edge cases become "stuff we agree on".
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-888
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 21:17 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 09, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let me first say unequivocally that the LCC is very interested in
> > getting Debian involved. The question has always been: How do we do
> > that?
it to the common binaries, I think we would get more
> mileage from it by supporting them as we do the LSB: with separate
> packages on top of the Debian base system.
That's certainly an option I've thought a lot about--the main
question is, is this good enough to get the ISV suppo
trongly invite everyone with an interest in this issue to subscribe
to the mailing list and participate.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in th
that's not quite fair; I have found it useful to
> bootstrap a porting effort using lsb-rpm. But for it to be a software
> operating environment and not just a software porting environment, it
> needs to have a non-trivial scope, which means an investment by both
> ISVs and
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
> > far, hasn't worked--while there are numerous LSB-certified distros,
&
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:07 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Can someone provide an example of where the name of a dynamic
> > library itself (i.e., the one in the file system, after the
> > package is unpacked) would chang
rce (e.g., White Box Linux) lose them.
But it won't be take it or leave it. If reproducing from
source and/or modifying the core packages is more important to
you than the certifications, you will be able to do that.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmur
be, by definition, as long as its core is different from the LCC core).
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was
va
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 14:33 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Why don't standard ABIs suffice?
Because the LSB bases its certification process on a standard ABI/API
specification alone, and this approach simply hasn't worked.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.prog
pation would 1. help make the LCC core, community,
and processes better and thus more likely to achieve the
desired result; and 2. help make the eventual differences between
the LCC core and the Debian core smaller, which at least eases
the compatibility problem even if it can't be
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 06:16 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Well, my first question is why, irrespective of how valuable the LSB
> > > itsel
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 23:22 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:34:17AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing
> > >
esult is that
consumers can now buy electrical equipment that work in more places.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was
m. We've heard
directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
binary core will be viable from their point of view. So,
as with all things in this business, there will be tradeoffs
involved--you'll be free to make changes, at the potential
loss of some, though not n
ependent, drop-in replacement wrt the rest of the packaging
> system, why *couldn't* we provide the LCC binaries in the same fashion as the
> current lsb package -- as a compatibility layer on top of the existing
> Debian system? This sidesteps the problem of losing certification over
&g
at I'm aware of it.
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
317-863-2590
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anything, the story would be "Ian Murdock is a dweeb".)
Second, I've been trying to start a private conversation about
this very issue since last November, and my attempts to do
so have largely been ignored. If taking the concern
public is the only way to get it addressed, then so b
html
P.S. - Don't tell me "build from source" is the answer--with a package
system as advanced as Debian's, this shouldn't be necessary. And,
as above, to most of the world, this is a non-started for many reasons.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
ht
On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hoary (like sarge) is built against 2.3.2.
>
> Breezy (like current sid) is built against 2.3.5.
Why?
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"A nerd is someone who uses a
> Which 'divergence' do you mean when you reference that -- X.Org/GNOME
> 2.10, or glibc?
glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
incompatibilities.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
> > ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
> > incompatib
, work with
Debian on putting together a plan for migrating to GCC 4 rather than
just plowing ahead on your own? Going it alone is sure to cause
compatibility problems that make the current ones pale by comparison.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"A nerd is someone who uses a telephone to talk to other people about
telephones." --Douglas Adams
; If you want binary
> compatibility, you need to build a system whose engineering outcome is
> binary compatibility
That's precisely what I'm proposing we should do here! There will never
be a better time.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock
tu should base on stable if and only if Debian can fix the
release management problems. If, 12 or 18 months from today, Debian
seems no closer to fixing these problems, Debian will deserve what
it gets, and I'll be Ubuntu's biggest chearleader.
In the meantime, let's give Debian a cha
et,
I'm in that business too.
> ... going it alone, like when Matthias Klose ran his plans for the gcc 4
> transition past the Debian release team before implementing it in Ubuntu,
> and is now proceeding to implement the same transition in Debian?
Mea culpa.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-
lp test it. Furthermore, for the most part, as has
already been pointed out, packages built against stable tend to
work on unstable just fine, particularly if there isn't a three
year gap between releases. The other situations are bugs. As the
comment that started this thread stated, package
Who is the maintainer of the bison package? I noticed that we still
include version 2.3. Version 2.4 was released a few months ago, and
does not have the same restrictions that previous versions had (i.e.,
the parsers generated by bison can now be used in non-free software).
Could we get this up
Did anyone volunteer to update ghostview and xxgdb before the release?
These are the last two packages that use the old "R6" naming scheme
for X11 packages. I'd like to update these packages before release.
If nobody wants to do this, I will, but I already have too much to do.
I'd appreciate it i
Several changes were made to the FTP archive this morning:
* The binary, ms-dos, and source directories have been moved into
a subdirectory called `debian-0.93'. This will make it easier to
support two versions of the distribution at the same time.
* All packages in the `system' section have bee
FYI, I'm planning on releasing new versions of the xbase and pppd
packages tomorrow.
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:27:57 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Can't we retire this thing ?
Yeah, but not _now_. After the release.
I'm not sure that any packages use it, but many packages source it.
In the next release of sysvinit, Bruce,
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 20:28 BST
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I was using dselect for the first time (for real), and it is very,
> very nice. However, while it was upgrading my bash.deb, it stopped to
> query about the confile '/etc/profile'. Fair enough, it was
> diff
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 16:29:57 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> * ncurses-runtime has been moved into `misc'.
It belongs in "base". "dpkg" depends on it.
I was under the impression that the terminfo files for the common
terminals (linux and v
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 16:47:52 -0700
From: Michael E. Deisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 28 Sep 95 17:13 EST, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * auto-pgp and pgp has been moved into `non-free' due to the fact
> that i
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 16:15:50 PDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Mitchell)
Would it make sense to further virtualize X11R5 and X11R6 and
provide a virtual X11 package for use as a dependency? If we
don't do this, what happens when X11R7 is released? Must all
X11R6-dependent pack
[ Only to debian-devel--this kind of outburst in public makes us look
very unprofessional. ]
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 20:41:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matthew Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All of the users out there retrieving the distribution that are getting
it via a tar file from my PERSON
I noticed this today, too, but I forgot about it until now.
Basically, after logging in and noticing "Permission denied", I did
a "cd /", and then a "cd", and everything appeared to work normally
after that.
It shouldn't be happening, of course, but this is how I got around it.
From: Helmut Geyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 08:24:49 +0100 (MET)
> Did anyone volunteer to update ghostview and xxgdb before the release?
> These are the last two packages that use the old "R6" naming scheme
> for X11 packages. I'd like to update these packages be
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 10:47:21 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We're aware of this one, and hopefully it will be repaired today. I
think we really only need to provide another flag to "halt" to keep
it from happening.
It's fixed, and I'm uploading a new rootdisk as I
There are new copies of the basedisks and rootdisk in
/debian/private/project/pre-release. Please try them.
If they appear to be stable, I'll probably move them into public view
sometime tomorrow. Also, the absolute deadline for inclusion in this
release will probably be sometime tomorrow, so pl
Now that there is a new version of bison, should I remove the
bison-parsers package?
Or does the older bison-parsers package work with the newer bison?
Has anyone gotten ppp 2.2 to work?
I finally got it to compile, after realizing that I had to install a
few replacement kernel headers. Why are these kernel headers not in
the standard distribution of the kernel?
After I got it to build and installed the new packages, PPP says:
Sorry - PPP d
Package: syslogd
Version: 1.2-11
klogd and syslogd are started too late in the boot process. The
result is that some daemons try to log information through syslogd,
but syslogd isn't listening yet. The problem is due to the fact
that the links in /etc/rc?.d are created by update-rc.d with the
de
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 08:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> After I got it to build and installed the new packages, PPP says:
>Sorry - PPP driver version 0.0.0 is out of date
> What is this? Does ppp 2.2 not work with linux 1.2.13?
By default
Package: adduser
Version: 1.94-1
Users added when using usergroups should have home directories with
mode 2775, and all skeletal files should be g+w. This is how it is
currently created:
$ ls -la /mnt/home/imurdock
total 4
drwxr-xr-x 2 imurdock imurdock 1024 Oct 3 23:14 .
drwxrwsr-x 3 r
Argh. I just noticed that I'm going to have to rebuild the kernel to
support ppp 2.2. Should I completely build another image package, or
should I just add the new ppp module to the ppp 2.2 package?
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 95 08:39 EST
From: Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Argh. I just noticed that I'm going to have to rebuild the kernel to
support ppp 2.2. Should I completely build another image package, or
should I just add the new ppp module to the ppp 2.2 package?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 21:14:31 -0400
From: Matthew Swift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The pppd executable needs to have the setuid bit set when it is
installed.
No, this was done intentionally. Making pppd setuid root is a huge
security hole.
The solution is to run pppd as root. There real
The watch package doesn't include a context diff. (I've deleted the
announcement, so I don't know who, offhand, is the maintainer.) Why?
(I'm leaving it in Incoming for the moment--the only packages that
don't need a context diff are packages written specifically by the
Project for inclusion in
A new rootdisk is now available at ftp.debian.org in
/debian/private/project/pre-release. This rootdisk changes "Normal
Mode" to "Novice Mode" and "Expert Mode" to "Custom Mode", and
it makes Custom Mode the default. Also, it supports the new kernel
installation scheme by prompting for insertion
I'd like for all members of the Project to agree on a common format.
Frankly, I don't like the one currently implemented in dchanges. I
assume there are a few people who agree with me, as not everyone is
using dchanges to write their announcements.
I'd like to be using a format that is *both* mac
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:10:22 -0600
From: Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: The watch package doesn't include a context diff. (I've deleted the
: announcement, so I don't know who, offhand, is the maintainer.) Why?
Because it's orig
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 95 16:59 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Martin Schulze writes ("sysklogd-1.2-13 released"):
> I'm just trying to upload this package. The changes are only minor
> ones. Here are the relevant ChangeLog entries
>
> ...
>* changed the name in
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 14:05 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> File permissions, link count, ownership an modification times on
> the maintainer's system are not of general interest, why include
> them in an announcement? The rest easily fits onto a single line
> and put
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'd intended to drop this topic, but I'll belabor one point here.
If package announcements are uploaded to debian.org for machine
parsing and debian-changes announcements are machine-generated from
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 02:44 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The new syslog package with the `k' in its name should be REMOVED
from the distribution and replaced with the old one with the `k'.
I said a while ago that it should not be moved into it, and now
that it has bee
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 22:09 EST
From: Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 02:44 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The new syslog package with the `k' in its name should be REMOVED
from the distribution and replaced with the
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 21:13:02 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can I work around the problem by simply renaming the package (to
remove the "k") and rebuilding it from source? I _think_ that's
all I need to do.
Yes, I think that would do it.
I just installed the base system from the new diskette set of
yesterday. I noticed that the audio devices files are still missing,
and that /usr/lib/zoneinfo is still mode 777. The former probably
isn't that important (though it would be a good idea to create them
by default, to avoid the inevita
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How about changing it so it looks like:
Files:
c2680f4e26f2fe948ff8693613fd2a53372254 e2-2.0.beta-2.deb
90f50714858ee192ca83ea3127072071 11297 e2-2.0.beta-2.diff.gz
fe1a89cb8f84671c0
;, "Version:", and
"Description:"). It should be formatted something like this:
emacs (19.29-3)
GNU Emacs is the extensible self-documenting text editor.
Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Oct 26 12:09:26 EST 1995
(I do agree that the date should be in RFC822 form
The 0.93R6 installation diskettes have been moved in
/debian/debian-0.93/disks.
Should I add anything (for example, about the mirror problems) to the
announcement? Here is what I have thus far. I want to send it in a
few hours, so please speak now or forever (or until the next release,
whichever comes first) hold your peace.
Debian GNU/Linux 0.93 Release 6 is now availa
Debian GNU/Linux 0.93 Release 6 is now available via anonymous FTP
from ftp.debian.org in the directory /debian. Release 6 is the first
official release of version 0.93, which has been under development
for over a year, and it is the first official release from the Debian
Project since January
I checked all the mirrors earlier this evening. I removed the ones
(at least for the moment) that are incomplete (i.e., not mirroring
all of the archive), incorrect, and outdated. You can find this in
/debian/README.mirrors.
Before you start displaying it from ftpd, I'll trim it down slightly.
A
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 20:45 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Since noone is maintaining these, and they *desperately* need
updating, I shall do it.
Who has the latest version and which format are they in ?
I started converting them to Texinfo some time ago, but I never had
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:21:48 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rather than re-arrange the current released system, let's put the
new organization in place for the "current" and "1.0" system, and
leave debian-0.93 where it is now so we don't mess up the mirrors
again
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 10:33 MET
From: "Bernd S. Brentrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>/usr/share is "certainly" a better place. The Bison parser
>skeletons are architechure-independent.
I apologize for bad wording (english isn't my native language),
what I meant to say is don't start c
Package: sysvinit
Version: 2.57b-1
Until all of the bugs related to /etc/init.d scripts calling
/etc/init.d/functions are fixed, /etc/init.d/functions shouldn't
do anything (i.e., it should be an empty script). This will end
the problem with the arguments getting changed.
In addition, /etc/init.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 01:04 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If this is true then we need to copy the whole of the binary area from
0.93 to 1.0, so that 1.0 instantly becomes the `bleeding-edge'
distribution.
Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 13:16 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
> If so, I'd agree that this is what we
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:14:27 -0600 (CST)
Some people have suggested that the stuff in /lib be moved to
/lib/a.out or similar. This shouldn't be necessary as the ELF
stuff that goes in here should coexist.
Ah, yes. Of course. libc.so.4 and
Should I physically copy everything from debian-0.93 to debian-1.0, or
should I use symbolic links when possible to save disk space? I know
it isn't a problem on ftp.debian.org, but it might create problems for
the mirrors.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 22:05 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: debian-1.0 "):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > it might create problems for the mirrors.
>
> I think that while it is in its current state, 1.0 should not be where
> mirrors will fi
From: Erick Branderhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 16:14:06 MET
The Packages file in /debian/private/project/debian-1.0/binary/ is
wrong. The recently added field filename: ... in this file is
containing wrong information on the location of the file. It says:
debian
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 12:05:12 -0800
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Let's put the ELF libraries in public view so that we can issue
packages that are only available in the ELF format.
What we need are new gcc and libc packages (and anything else) that
are ELF by default, rath
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:06:00 -0500
From: "brian (b.c.) white" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Packages-Master
I noticed that the "Packages-Master" file now has a "filename:" field.
I'm curious about what will happen when (if
Package: syslogd
Version: 1.2-15
--- Start of forwarded message ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 16:33:04 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: patch for Debian sysklogd package
diff -p -C 2 -r -d --horizon-lines=3 sysklogd-1.2/debian.README
sysk
Package: bash
Version: 1.14.4-2
A little complicated, perhaps, but he does have good suggestions.
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 16:42:03 +0100
From: Dominik Kubla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: /etc/profile on Debian Linux
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Package: xbase
Version: 3.1.2-4
--- Start of forwarded message ---
From: Erick Branderhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PATH in pre,post inst,rm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Murdock)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 12:30:59 MET
I suggested using PATH in post,pre rm,inst on the list a few da
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 13:34:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Matthew Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian M. Are you moving files into the tree? Are you also moving the
files from incoming.uk over into the tree as well?
Yes, of course.
BTW, I got copies of everything again this morning that I moved in
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 02:29:27 GMT
From: Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BTW, I like the way their manual is set up and on the web. And I
also like that it seems more geared to open contributions than the
Debian manual.
Hmm.. Well, I did release a draft of the manual in July
Package: sysvinit
Version: 2.57b-1
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 01:03:29 -0500
To: Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: a little bit of flamage about single user mode
From: Daniel Hagerty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I know I saw some mail a
I've moved the new ELF packages that David and Ray are working on to
/debian/private/project/elf. As soon as they give the word, I'll move
them into the distribution. For now, I urge everyone to upgrade their
copies of gcc, libc, etc., as we're going to start wanting to building
ELF packages fair
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:28:10 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: More info on packages
To: Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Ian.
I love being on the debian-announce-list. But I must admit, that
the packagedescriptions generally lack. I a
I looks like I need to do a little editing of the noverrides file,
too--I've given away several packages that haven't been updated (a
few of the base packages, for example). I also need to mark a few
bug reports "forwarded", now that we are capable of tracking that.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:17:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Matthew Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am getting 10 - 15 complaints a day about this debian-1.0 and how
it won't install all the way or that it isn't all ELF as advertised
previously. Well I know I bite my teeth and press delete on al
Hello,
I'm back. I've been out of commission for the last week or so with
bronchitis. (Unfortunately, I spent Thanksgiving day in bed as a
result. :/) I've neither read nor replied to any e-mail since last
Sunday, and I haven't done any Debian-related work in the past week,
either.
I've got a
Hello... again.
When I mailed debian-user last Monday about having not read mail for
over a week, I forgot that my wife and I had reserved a moving truck
for the next day. So, a few hours after I mailed debian-user, I had
to box my computer, and I didn't get a chance to reassemble it until
this m
-mail to Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> indicating your
: desire to maintain the package. Carbon-copy the message to Jim Robinson
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the maintainer of the list of maintainers.
AFAIK at least Jim Robinsons isn't involved in this anymore, so don'
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 23:03 PST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
Please do not start uploading to ftp.debian.org again until Ian
Murdock says it's OK. He's probably going to want to copy the
files over from ftp.pixar.com and so on before he's ready for
new up
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Austin Donnelly wrote:
> Could the emacs maintainer (Ian M) include this in the next emacs
> release, please ? (I think that version 19.30 is out).
Yes, I'll do that. I'll be getting to 19.30 this weekend.
> Alternatively, does Ian M want to give the emacs and emacs-el
> pa
Bruce: I'll call you in a few hours regarding the InfoMagic problem.
You're probably not awake yet, since it's only 9:30am here in the
midwest. I have to leave for a few hours, but I'll be back home at
2pm.
I'll start writing an announcement. We should try to send it as soon
as possible--tonigh
On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 6a. No unnecessary up/down-loading by maintainers.
>
> Is this such a big issue? With your overseas FTP problems you can judge
> that, but I'd feel more confident if the maintainer uploaded the entire
> package a
How about installing the kernel headers directly in /usr/include,
rather than linking them into /usr/src? I always assumed this was
standard kernel practice. Apparently, I was wrong. Are there any
opinions on the subject?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:11:43 -0
On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I think we should deprecate 1.0 and bump the version number to 1.1, so
> that authentic copies of the release are not confused with the one on
> the Infomagic CD.
This is a good idea.
Regarding the use of a code name for the release: Considering what's
On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Matthew Bailey wrote:
> Bill: I will fix the upload permission as soon as I talk to Ian M. he
> seems to be all but off the face of the earth.
I'm here--what do you need to talk to me about?
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
