On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 07:18:20PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> I just updated my "packagebrowser" to a completely rewritten version.
I finally got around to looking at this, and it is very cool! I have one
suggestion for the CGI, which is to add the ability to query for packages by
maintainer
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:30:54PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> 2) Do you forsee tags being maintained outside of the packages in the
> future? For developing the tag system this makes sense, but it seems to
> me that maintainers should have more direct control over this somehow.
I think that t
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:19:57AM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> - policy should require that tags are added
This is going to be problematic. I think it would be better to have an
override system where missing tags can be added by a central authority,
rather than trying to force all maintainers
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 07:55:42PM -0700, curt brune wrote:
> I just did "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" for SID and am getting
> all sorts of errors. I upgraded about a week ago with any problems.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libstdc%2B%2B5
--
- mdz
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:58:16AM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> Of course. they can be overriden the same way the section "gnome" was
> overridden for these packages. So no uploads would be required, but the
> packages can just be updated with their next uploads. Maybe some will stay
> in the ov
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:42:03PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > Luis Francisco Gonzalez
> > tcsh
> > tcsh-i18n
> > tcsh-kanji
>
> uuh, tcsh is an OpenOffice.org Build-Dependency
> I wouldn't take it because I don't use it, but we need it...
tcsh as a build-
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:51:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:41:49PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > reach any of the people listed in [1] and [2] below, please feel free
> > to contact them and get them to reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Is there a mnemonic for tha
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:26:42PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 04:59:25PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > tcsh as a build-dependency? Seems like a bug in openoffice. That
> > should be fixed regardless of whether we keep tcsh.
>
> ISTR that lots
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:40:01AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2003 06:59, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > tcsh as a build-dependency? Seems like a bug in openoffice. That
> > should be fixed regardless of whether we keep tcsh.
>
> Why is it a bug for the compil
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:05:38PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
> And please don't be offended by the .sig.
That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the contents
of many messages). Refer to RFC 1855 or a
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:48:45PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:05:38PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
> >
> > > And please don't be offended by the .sig.
> >
> > That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
&g
Please get this OFF of debian-private and onto -devel. Quote me
anywhere.
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:23:52AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
Security should be important in the testing distribution.
[etc. etc. etc.]
If you want to see security updates for 'testing', then start preparing
security up
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:07:16AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 05:20 PM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >If you want to see security updates for 'testing', then start preparing
> >security updates for 'testing'. It does not help
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 03:00:17PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> I'm honestly not sure how much involvement would be necessary, I
> guess unlike updates to stable there wouldn't be so many controls upon
> the testing archive, and uploads could be made directly without any
> real problem.
There
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 06:35:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yes, but this is not something that is clearly said. Many people run
> testing without even being aware that there may be security issues, or
> more precisely, that the security issues are orders of magnitude worse
> than even what is
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:43:10PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> I can't seem to find the package that xf86config belongs to, but the bug
> is as follows:
apt-get install reportbug
reportbug `which xf86config`
reportbug will allow you to look at existing bug reports (which you should)
before fil
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:08:34PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > IMHO, it is only particularly valuable for users to run testing when a
> > release is approaching (at which point security updates and removals
> > take place en masse).
>
> Wasn't testing supposed to be a perpetually mostly-re
(removing -private _again_)
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:14:53AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I'm sorry, I am on a public terminal, and can't quite remember where I
> read it - But testing should always be close to a releasable state.
The key word being "close" to releasable (or "almost" releasable
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Figuring that a security upload would be preferable, I approached the
> security team and offered to prepare an upload. I was effectively told
> that this isn't done, and because it isn't done, most testing users don't
> have secur
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:15:04PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This is documented prominently on the website. If people do not look
> > before they leap, there is little we can do.
>
> Sure we can. We can consider the lack of security updates
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:18:22PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that users would react rather negatively to having packages
> > (ones that they use) effectively disappear from their system, but the
> > o
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:53:31PM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> Then people can bitch and moan about package X not being available and
> can do something to fix it (eg. finally start doing security updates
> for testing). Or they can just put up with it. But either way, their
> box wont be
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:14:20PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there is
> > unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does the
> > work.
&g
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:10:18AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> So perhaps the replacement is a better way of doing it. Then the
> question is whether you replace it with a dummy empty one, or a
> essentially identical working one, except containing a very loud
> warning.
Replacement has it
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:20:08AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 12:42 AM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >The idea being discussed, as I understand it, is to have fewer security
> >vulnerabilities in 'testing'. The only sane way to acco
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So here's an alternative that would actually work:
>
> Take the harden package, or create something similar: a package that
> conflicts with all versions of packages with known security holes. Note
> that harden currently does not track
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:24:08AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> What about having a dummy package "testing-security", consisting of
> nothing but a huge list of versioned conflicts (and perhaps a few hints in
> /usr/share/doc/ about how to setup a mixed stable/testing or
> testing/unstable apt so
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:06:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:12:08AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > If it just comes down to applying patches, and doing the rebuilds then
> > > it seems to be the kind of job a small team cou
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:10:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This is an excellent point. Testing users do not expect updates from
> > securit.debian.org, so there is no reason that they need to be kept
>
On Thu, May 15, 2003, someone calling themselves "LapTop006" wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman arranged a set of
> bits into the following:
> > There are no mirrors of security.debian.org, and have not been for as long
> > as I have b
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:19:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Do you honestly think would be a good idea to use testing-security this way
> > on a continual basis?
>
> Yes, I do. I think we should relea
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:08:02PM -0400, Victor Torrico wrote:
> I compiled and ran the debian kernel-source-2.5.69 package. It boots OK,
> however, none of he modutil functions work. I keep getting the following
> error message: "QM_MODULES: Function not implemented" whenever I try things
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:40:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:06:47AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > There's that "we" again. Why not unstable, too?
>
> I'd have no problem with that.
You don't seem to have any problem s
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:59:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:28:48PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Outstanding DSA's are not the matter at hand;
>
> Sure they are: if you're complaining that the security team already has
> to
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:41:47PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:06:25PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The problem is finding competent volunteers to do the work.
>
> I must have missed that post to debian-devel-announce where the security
> guys call for respo
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 02:08:28AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > > Figuring that a security upload would be preferable, I approached
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 05:57:54PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> apache: mime.types needs updating.
On my system at least, /etc/apache/mime.types is a symlink to
/etc/mime.types.
--
- mdz
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 09:33:48AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Looking at woody in fact, it appears to only exceptions appear to be
> HPPA and IA64:
>
> kernel-source-2.2.22 - Linux kernel source for version 2.2.22
> kernel-source-2.4.10 - Linux kernel source for version 2.4.10
> kernel-source-2.4.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 12:06:21PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There is also a mechanism to order the order in which
> kernel-patches are applied -- so if, say, a m68k kernel image
> maintainer wanted to create a patch relative to the i386 patches,
> they could depend on that patch,
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 05:13:54AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Definately. This should be done if only to avoid multiple copies of a 27M
> bzip2 archive wasting everyone's disk space and network bandwidth.
>
> Also regarding the i386 arch, multiple patches would be good. Something
> in the i3
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:02:58AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I'll start here:
>
> Kernel package policy:
"kernel image" to avoid confusion between kernel source, kernel headers,
kernel modules, etc.
> --
>
> * It should only exist one kernel-source package.
> * Every mo
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 04:19:31PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> No, sorry - I'm afraid we'll first have to complete our search for the
> sheets of ".." before we can work on
> your request.
Do you realize that every time this is mentioned in the list archives, it
gets worse?
--
- mdz
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:45:21PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Is there any particular reason to have /lib/ld-linux.so.* exxecutable?
> If it is used only as a proper library, it need not be executable.
>
> The problem is that this breaks the "noexec" mount option. If /foo is
> mounted noexec, th
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I don't see any objection to symlinking if both packages are created of
> the same sourcepackage, the second one depends on =first-package-version
> and (naturally) have the same copyright.
It makes it impossible to extract the chan
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:04:05AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> To make it more interesting, Matt Zimmerman revealed[2] that merging all
> kernel source packages would save space of one CD from our archive and our
> CD images.
I was probably exaggerating slightly; I did not do the cal
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 09:02:17AM -0400, Timothy H. Keitt wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:32:45PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > (the only times i want to do that is when paranoia makes me start up a new
> > navigator binary
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:45:57PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The BTS got several of these...
FYI, I tried to contact him several times before NMUing commonc++, and got
neither bounce nor response. Other bug report logs against his packages
seem to indicate that he has been MIA for som
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:18:35AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > deborphan might be tweakable to do this. pkg-order could also be useful.
> > Apt 0.5 now has a python interface, and possibly a perl interface, so
> > that's probably usable too.
>
> Deborphan is nearly perfect
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:31:19PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It would be great to have an automated system where one could subscribe to
> bugs for a particular package without having all the hassles of filling a
> bug and waiting an answer. And having something automated would allow me
> to
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:40:56PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> I agree that a system like this would be nice, but until
> Matt> that day, you can subscribe to debian
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:55:22PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Christian Hammers wrote:
> > Would it be good to have a package task-debian that had dependencies to such
> > "meta" packages (including the latest version of apt,debconf and dpkg) to
> > ensure that users always get the latest Debian "
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:51:45PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:36:21AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > Unless, of course, you can do your filtering on the mail server, as I do.
>
> and how many isps allow this?
Some IMAP servers support
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:22:47AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:29:58PM -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
> > I suspect it's already been discussed before, so I'll ask instead of
> > flaming. (See! I can learn!)
>
> many times before.
>
> > Why does a server auto
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:03:49AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > ...what would people think of making a task-emacs and moving both tetex
> > and emacs out from standard?
>
> As an emacs user I think this is an excellent idea, but I worry that
> such stretching of the defin
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 08:50:06PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Is it possible to keep an eye upon package consistency on the
> hosts 'http.us.debian.org'?
>
> Each time I run 'apt-get update', some of the package lists on my
> machine seem to be outdated, even if the last update has been done
>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:16:16PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> [whose words are these? unattributed in your mail]
> > Sorry, but this is broken. This assumes that IFS is set to begin with
> > which may not be the case.
>
> I have consulted the Single Unix Standard and can find only dubious
> j
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:36:14PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman writes:
> > I think Emacs as a task makes good sense.
>
> I think getting it out of standard makes good sense, but I'm not convinced
> that it makes sense as a "task".
I think it ma
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:17:21AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> Unless, of course, you can do your filtering on the mail
> Matt> server, as I do.
>
> In my c
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:00:18PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> It seems like an easy way to prevent the following would be to update the
> Packages.gz file LAST, after syncing up the other files, IE:
>
> rsync --exclude "Packages*" debian/pool
> rsync --delete debian/pool (If old packages are e
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:31:48PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In many Linux distributions, Emacs is a high-level installation task, like
> > "Games" or "Mail". This makes sense to the average user, wh
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:10:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I think it makes as much sense as the existing task packages.
>
> Existing brokenness is no excuse for new brokenness though. I have gone
> into detail about how the current task system is
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 02:12:24PM -0400, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Is there a way to upgrade all currently installed packages which have
> had an urgency=high version uploaded to the archive since I last
> upgraded? (And any necessary dependencies, of course.) I'm thinking
> of this for the unst
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:57:57PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> And it doesn't matter for you either, because I reassigned the bug to
> perl-base. If you continue to argue and say that it is not a bug
> (somewhere; anywhere) that I can't upgrade from stable to unstable I
> will ignore your messages.
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:50:51PM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> Oh, I don't know if it's an ugly hack. Think about it, theres one program
> or system that handles conflicts and dependencies. Why not rely on it?
> Making multiple programs to do the same function (installing and removing
> pack
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 02:10:32PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 02:44:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > I had an idea (and a working script) to extract changelogs from source
> > packages and insert them into a SQL database. My orig
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:51:39AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins writes:
> > I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the bug
> > submitters will be less annoyed if the bug is closed after 30 days,
> > rather than immediately? Why would that be?
>
> Many bug submitt
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 04:15:58PM -0400, Jon Eisenstein wrote:
> I seem to be in a very troublesome spot... My dpkg segfaults in any needed
> situation:
>
> dpkg -i foo
> Segmentation fault
>
> Dselect: Update
> Okay
> Dselect: Select
> Segmentation fault
>
> dpkg --unpack fo
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:27:32PM -0400, Jon Eisenstein wrote:
> > Did you check whether the contents of /var/lib/dpkg are intact
> > (specifically, the status file and info/*.list)?
>
> The status file exists but is empty, and the info/*.list seem to be intact.
status should theoretically be r
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:30:23PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > A cleaner implementation would be to create a simple program or script that
> > would attempt to remove a given package and (recursively) all of its
> >
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 07:56:10PM -0700, Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [...]
> > I had an idea (and a working script) to extract changelogs from source
> > packages and insert them into a SQL database. My original intention was to
> >
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 08:28:09PM -0700, Francois Gouget wrote:
>I know about apt-listchanges but, AFAIU, it extracts the changelog from
>the .deb files. So you cannot get this changelog before downloading the
>.deb packages. It's when I'm still in dselect deciding which packages to
>
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:33:27PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Maybe its too difficult to provide consistent package files for the short
> window while the mirror updates are running. No cons.
>
> But is it possible to set some kind
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:01:44AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> I discussed the idea a bit with James Troup, and one of his
> Matt> concerns was that the database would be c
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:38:23PM -0400, Dan Christensen wrote:
> These ideas sound great to me. In case they don't get implemented, or until
> they do, would it be hard to cook up a script that does what I want, even if
> it involves downloading the packages to see the changelogs?
If you don't
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 09:54:17PM -0400, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you don't mind downloading the packages, you can just use
> > apt-listchanges. It will sort its output by urgency, and you can use that
> > i
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:27:56AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Instead could you skip step 1 and do it:
>
> 1. apt-get install foo
> 1.1 apt queries SQL server "SELECT * FROM packages WHERE package=foo,
> architecture=i386, operatingsystem=linux"
> 1.2 apt gets result, and installs package.
>
> Th
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:58:01PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> >
> > What about stable? Removing the stable Packages file during an update
> > would make it impossible to do a network install.
> >
> Not impossible. But the client would have to wait till the *.deb files have
> been mirrored co
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 02:49:47PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:52:46PM +, Will Lowe wrote:
> > > > > I think it's safe to assume that your system MUST have a working MTA
> > > > > of some sort (even if it's local-only, which is
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 10:00:14PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> maybe it is a stupid question, but can debian packages be installed in other
> places than / ?
>
> I know that when the package is compiled the Makefile has a $DESTDIR
> attribute, but is this preserved in the deb package?
>
>
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:33:45PM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> One could use fakeroot to create a sort of virtual machine, in which regular
> users can install packages as they please, but fakeroot doesn't support
> chroot (yet?), and I'm beginning to think a better solution would be an
> op
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 05:47:21PM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2001 19:01:03 -0400 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You should look into the S/390 port.
>
> The S/390 port is hardware specific. For obvious reasons (how many Debian
> machin
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 07:54:17AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Does anybody out there know what is the problem here? Maybe its
> the failure of Apache. What are your suggestions for running a
> cache for apt-get?
As far as I am aware, Apache's caching functionality is rather primitive. Try
Squ
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:15:58PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 10:00:14PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> workaround: just extract the data.tar.gz where you want it.
>
> dpkg-home () {
> [ "$1" ] || { echo "usage: $0 [dir_to_install]"
>
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 08:20:27PM -0400, Brandon L. Griffith wrote:
> * Jason Thomas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > take a look at apt-listchanges
>
> aha I knew it, yet another apt-* or dpkg-* utility I haven't heard of. I
> need to keep more up to date on these things, or these utilities need
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 02:43:36AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> [snip binary package dependencies]
>
> The number of the *binary* packages that Build-Depends on a package:
> ./analyse-sources.perl | sort -n -r
> 5208 libncurses-dev
> 5203 libgc5-dev
> 5203 doxygen
I suspect a bug here. I can onl
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 09:06:04AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> libc6-dev (Source: glibc) has Build-Depends: gcc-3.0-sparc64 [sparc] .
> gcc-3.0-sparc64 (Source: gcc-3.0) has Build-Depends-Indep: doxygen .
You are correct. I had overlooked Build-Depends-Indep in my manual scan.
--
- mdz
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:51:04PM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> Question regarding this new bug on procmail-lib that I adopted recently:
>
> [snip copy of my bug report]
>
> I would happily move it to /usr/share, however I am worried about users
> who are already using the current version. Use
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:53:26PM +0100, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I wonder whether anyone can point me at a likely cause for a slightly
> worrying list of messages I'm getting from dpkg-source when using
> dpkg-buildpackage to build a multi-binary package... during the build
> I get:
If you put th
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:12:35PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 12:53:49AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Would turning /usr/lib/procmail-lib into a symlink to the appropriate
> > > location be acceptable?
> >
> > This, in particula
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:50:42PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > ...and the new prerm remove it, and future versions of these scripts
> > until the end of ti^W^W^Wrelease after next...
>
> Actually, if you&#x
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 07:41:21AM +0200, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> On Saturday 15 September 2001 07:29, you wrote:
> > In my case it's esound-common, which in turn makes the entire gnome tree
> > not installable.
>
> Most of the esound packages have a 'esound-common (>= ${Source-Version})'
> depende
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 06:34:38PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > We can't really expect the admins to parse through hundreds of
> > changelogs; README.Debian would be a good place, though.
>
> OTOH, apt-listchanges displays the chan
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:18:39PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 07:46:52PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Currently, most users probably don't read README.Debian unless they have
> > a good reason, so while it's the correct place to put things l
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:44:23PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:30:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > It's not that hard to do this for a single package, but it is a completely
> > different matter to do it by hand for every newly-installed p
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:36:59PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> I just came across this, perhaps someone is interested in packaging it.
[...]
> THE OCELOT SQL DBMS, a standard-SQL Windows package, is now
There's little point in trying to package it until it's ported to Unix-land.
--
- mdz
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:52:37PM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> madison seems to be what the debian.org webpage sports as the package
> search over distributions. is it packaged? do you need someone to package
> it?
madison requires connectivity to a Debian database which is not publicly
acces
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 04:44:46PM +0200, Admar Schoonen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 05:15:31PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > madison requires connectivity to a Debian database which is not publicly
> > accessible, so it is only useful on a couple of internal Debian
>
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:14:29AM +0200, Admar Schoonen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 01:19:36PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > There's no need for a database unless you want to maintain multiple
> > distributions out of cross-sections of the pool, as Debian doe
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:13:26AM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> I got sick of how nasty IMP was getting and moved to squirrelmail
> recently. I dont think theres a package out there yet, nor do I know of a
> tool to move IMP database-driven address books to squirrelmail's format
> (yet).
http://bu
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:40:37PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:42:52 -0800,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What I really want to know, is what script is run on the official
> > mirrors that parses the pool directories and generates
> > the Packages and Release files all on
701 - 800 of 865 matches
Mail list logo
