Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But Bill Allombert has helpfully provided a hint about what will solve
>> the bug; if that works, I'll upload 2.6 now with the RC bugs fixed,
>> and 2.8 as soo
Christian Aichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a start, I've written a script that searches for unnecessary
> dependencies and reports them. Results are available here:
> http://rerun.lefant.net/checklib
> A "problem" means that the package has useless dependencies on
> library packages. Th
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Christian Aichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> A "problem" means that the package has useless dependencies on
>>> library packages. This c
The upload queue on ftp-master.debian.org seems to be stuck; anyone
know why?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aurélien GÉRÔME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As soon as I send a mail, the deamon restarts... Good news! ;)
Yep. Thanks magic elves!
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, given this poorly worded ballot, i suppose the vote will be void anyway,
> and i strongly call for everyone to vote further discussion over the other
> solutions.
If people do not READ THE RESOLUTION, then they get what they deserve.
--
To UNSUBSCR
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
>> [Charles Plessy]
>> > The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
>> > days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as
>> > the deadline for h
It seems that it is extremely unlikely that lilypond 2.8 will be in
etch. We are still waiting on guile-1.8; the first upload took about
three weeks to get through the NEW queue and was then bounced by
ftpmaster because it contained a license problem. It is now back in
the NEW queue, but it is n
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
>> [Charles Plessy]
>> > The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
>> > days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as
>> > the deadline for h
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, what does the Etch RC policy remove from the bugs.d.o description?
>
> 'is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a "must" or
> "required" directive), or'
Perhaps you should concentrate on the word "roughly" there. What
constitut
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 12:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Keeping such tests in package builds is fine, but they should either be
> disabled by default (enabled with an environment variable, say), or they
> should be informational only.
It seems to me that it should also be fine if the test runs
Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
have raised in the past.
A Posix shell is allowed to have a builtin for ANY command without
restriction, and as long as the builtin has the behavior specified by
Posix for that command, it is a "Posix compatible shell."
For exa
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
> > have raised in the past.
> It's still better than
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:04 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Architecture: !s390
>
> No, this syntax is not supported.
What is needed to finally support it? It's been wanted for years now
and is clearly better than not having it.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally sign
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 23:10 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It is my opinion that we would be better off dumping this
> whole shell specification thing in policy, standardizing on bash, and
> let it go.
I agree completely, for the reasons you indicate.
Thomas
signature.asc
Descript
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 17:58 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is basically why I think the best approach is to standardize on SUSv3
> plus test -a/-o (with a more complete specification) and local. Our
> experience with previous rounds of this discussion is that everyone seems
> to be able to agre
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 14:40 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:37:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > I'm a little confused. When I use "test -a", I'm not using a "bash
> > feature"; I'm using a *test* featur
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 02:20 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > and failed
> > miserably.
>
> And you belong to the group of people that caused it to fail...
I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and refused to
declare #!/bin/bash.
Here's why.
test -a is not a "bashism".
It's a
> Not in my experience, but I haven't tested for them in particular. On my
> system, I see one maintainer script using test -o, none using test -a, and
> none using test ().
>
> I currently see no need to require that test () be supported.
I do. Debian test is provided by the coreutils package
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:38 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > "Two different packages must not install programs with different
> > functionality but with the same filenames."
>
> > There does not seem to be any reason to exempt shell builtins from this
> > requirement.
>
> I think there are obvious
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:59 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think this would be a great deal of work for little useful benefit.
Why? Surely it would be useful to know what the differences are between
various shells. The statement "Posix-compatible" was apparently
intended by the authors of that p
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 22:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The problem sparking this thread and my initial work on a Policy patch is
> not a problem caused by shells with builtins; it is, in fact, not a
> technical problem at all in the sense that no user has had their system
> broken by the use of
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 18:13 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
This can't be right. For example, it obviously can't be a link
to /bin/csh.
So since it can be a symbolic link to *some* shells and not others,
telling maintainers "you know which ones w
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement...
>
> "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and refused to
> declare #!/bin/bash."
>
> ...and the fact that dash, bash, and test, all document their binary -a
> operator as
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 22:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would rather get away from this wording totally.
> ,
> | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
> | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n . Also,
> | they may use test -a/
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
>
> I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities
> than just /bin/bash.
So can we just decide what the po
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > > > 1. /bin/sh can b
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
>
> AFAICT, "/bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible shell"
> does not really convey what Debian wants, it would be better to state
> that, `only POSIX features should be used in Debian "sh" scripts',
> followed by a list of excep
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
> > actual list should be given? Saying "works on a Posix compatible shell"
> > restricts way too much (you can't use "debconf" then) unless we wink and
>
> Could you
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> In this case, your scripts are meant tot be runnable using a
> POSIX (+ a few features) compatible shell on a Debian system. It is
> understood that the shells in question do not have grave bugs.
I know what Posix.2 says,
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The issue, apparently, is that under policy, some shell can
> come up with all kinds of shadowing of things like debconf. I
> suggest that if brought before the TC, the TC shall decide that is a
> bug in the shell. Policy is
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Debian Technical policy is applicable to Debian systems. A
> POSIX shell, in this context, lives on a Debian OS. I the shell
> overrides debconf in an incompatible manner, that would break things,
> and would be a grave bu
> > I know what Posix.2 says, but it does not define the term "POSIX
> > compatible shell". Can you tell me what that means? I really am
> > genuinely stymied. I think some people have an incorrect
> > understanding of what POSIX actually says in this regard, but I'm
> > not sure.
>
>
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Your scripts shouuld really just use whatever POSIX mandates
> ls has. Just like it should use whatever POSIX mandates test has.
Ok, so this means something like the following would be good for policy:
"When POSIX specifies a c
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:23 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 00:48]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
> >
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:08 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > At that point, I suggested and still suggest that we change Policy to
> > restrict /bin/sh to a speci
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 02:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> As I said before, this is not an exercise in debating, or
> coming up with clever little corner cases where policy can be
> gleefully misinterpreted. If you really think that debian policy
> means that maintainer scripts ma
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:57 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that posh was
> > created for the purpose of providing a shell which supports a minimum
> > of functionality required by policy against which scripts could be
>
> Not exactly a minimu
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:15 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> A builtin ls might be a good idea for disaster recovery shells,
> though zsh-static does not have it. posh is not intended to be
> such a shell, nor to be particularly useful interactively.
> Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for an
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 11:30 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Well, the goal was (in part) to catch scripts which use non-Posix
> > features of echo and test; why are non-Posix features of ls not an
> > issue?
>
>
> Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for anyone to use
> ls in a shell scr
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:43 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 11:30 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > > Well, the goal was (in part) to catch scripts which use non-Posix
> > &g
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 14:53 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Sun November 19 2006 14:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:43 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > On
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 15:47 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > Posix puts grep, ls, kill, test, and echo all in *exactly the same
> > category*. So why does posh treat them so differently?
>
> In the case of ls, because the author "cannot think of a legitimate
> reason for anyone to use ls in a shell
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 01:15 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
> "make bash go away". I suggest removing th
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
> Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
> are written with only "sh" i
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
> Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others consider bash's memory
> consumption a problem when compared to o
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
> policy should take the shells as special case, because the
> sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are
> no viable alternative implementation of
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:07 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> > /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> > to wor
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> in their shell scripts...
Why? Who cares?
This is some huge amount of work for some very little benefit.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitall
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:56 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > > scripts.
> &g
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:54 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> >
> > Now the choice of 464kB or 4528kB on a desktop where you're actually
> > using the shell for interactive things is
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 21:08 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> You can use whatever bashisms you like when you're working
> interactively, that won't hinder dash from executing shells on boot and
> elsewhere. Using bashisms in scripts does however cause a problem.
I think it's time to realize that "
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 14:03 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Fri November 24 2006 13:15, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
> > instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
>
> because bash offers a larger superse
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
> > instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
>
> Because the correct is #!/bin/sh and not to be tied on particular shell.
I can't tell what you mean. There is nothing
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 00:02 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Try with PII/64M with
> X deskop with 20 sessions of bash open. And opening firefox and xchat.
What on earth is this nonsense about multiple invocations? Do you not
understand what shared text is?
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:57 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> And why do you think that? please take a look at the RES values.
I know you don't understand it, because you just appealed to the RSS
values.
If many processes are sharing text, they all get accounted with the size
of the resident text in the
> I'm not sure I follow. I' puzzled why you do not seem benefit in:
>
> - Making scripts sh-agnostict. That is making them portable
> - Supporting low end systems with minimal of effort
> - Improving the overall awaress of shells
I don't care about the "awareness" of shells, no.
If we can suppo
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 15:12 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> Sure, but since all "sh" scripts would be better off if they specified
> dash as their command interpreter... #!/bin/sh use would disappear.
So?
> > I don't think it's my job to start saying what *other* distributions,
> > which are not Debi
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > but it is Debian's job to be responsive to its users needs and
> > > Debian has made a choice to strive for susv3 compatibility
> >
> > I don't think you understand what "compatibility" means in this
> > context. It does not mean that you c
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 18:55 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > If we can support low end systems with *minimal* effort, fine, but you
> > are asking lots of *extra* effort.
>
> I think the two of you are spe
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 09:51 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
> > > >
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 11:31 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Thomas Bushnell]
> > I'm interested in why we should care at all. Perl is a far bigger space
> > hog than bash.
>
> Debian Edu had to switch /bin/sh from bash to dash to get shutdown to
> umount /usr/ when we use libnss-ldap (bug #1
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 21:33 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > As I said, it is perfectly possible for a maintainer to write a script
> > which works on any shell and allows the user to pick at installation
> > time (heck, or even per-user!) which shell to use.
>
> How cool that would be to be asked 10
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers depending on python for
> not following upstream python development.
Are you calling me lazy for not fixing a bug that you
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
> did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]). To reduce that
> count we do have to drop 2.3 (
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 02:22 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> > > all a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20 Mar 2006, Greg Conner told this:
>> So we got caught trying to br BYU students. You guys win that
>> battle.
>
> Interestingly enough:
>
> ,[ http://honorcode.byu.edu/Ecclesiastical_Endorsement.htm ]
> | Requirements
> |
> | Wh
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some few maintainers are obnoxious and anti-helpful. All of these
> have bugs which have had a patch attached to them for a long time
> without mantainer comment (not even 'no, this patch doesn't work
> because X'). However, not all such bugs reflec
Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes for sure, but useless zipped information is useless
> anyway.
And you know it's useless how?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eldon Koyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think BYU takes their honor code very seriously (with the
> exception of the football team). If you were to report such behavior to
> the proper person, there would likely be some disciplinary action taken
> to match the seriousness of the off
Eldon Koyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think BYU takes their honor code very seriously (with the
> exception of the football team). If you were to report such behavior to
> the proper person, there would likely be some disciplinary action taken
> to match the seriousness of the off
Eldon Koyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think BYU takes their honor code very seriously (with the
> exception of the football team).
What does such an exception mean? That the honor code isn't really
taken seriously?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Eldon Koyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 18 20:27-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> So, if a married same-sex couple were students at BYU, that would be
>> fine?
>
> BYU is a private, religious school. The church which runs it will never
> acknowledg
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is same-sex marriage legally recognized in Utah? If not, then
> there is only "hetero marriage". You can't discriminate against
> what doesn't exist.
To my knowledge, the courts of Utah have never said anything about
same-sex marriages entered into in
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Still, regardless of whether the state of Utah recognizes a marriage,
>> that is surely a different question from whether the marriage has, in
>> fact, occurred.
>
> Making that distinction is, IMO, cracking open a very large barrel
> of very nasty monkey
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this case, there have been deeply felt and vehement
> protests for Debian removing a critical subset of the software
> shipped with make/gnus, with people appealing to keep the code
> together with the docs even if it meant removing the
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. But there are user expectations, and when you talk about
> source package for Gnus, the assumption is that the orig,tar.gz comes
> from the FSF, and the debian changes are in the diff.gz. There are
> debian specific changes to Gnus, a
The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed. That's
a bug.
alsa-utils should depend on "python | python-minimal", or perhaps the
python packages should Provide python-minimal.
Does this seem right?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
>
>> As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed. That's
>> a bug.
&g
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> libxaw8 is abandoned upstream and there are no plans to fix it for the Xorg7
> transition. This is a >= serious bug for any package still build-depending
> on libxaw8-dev, as they FTBFS and this isn't going to be fixed on the xaw8
> side.
Or, a Debian
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> gnome-bin
> gnome-libs-data
> gnucash
> gnucash-common
> gtkhtml
> libgnome32
> libgnomesupport0
> libgnomeui32
>
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> Ok, the maintainer has not fixed the bugs, has not packaged the last
>> version of it in time, etc, but he has done a great job anyway, and I
>> still don't see the point of hijacking the
Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> hi,
>
>> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
>> whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
>
> what about the t
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 10:48]:
>> Le jeudi 11 mai 2006 à 10:09 +0200, Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
>> > what about the transition to python 2.4? is it going to start or etch
>> > is going to ship with 2.3?
>>
>> An upload of pytho
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 23:54]:
>> Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > what about the transition to python 2.4? is it going to start or etch
>> > is going to sh
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As it turns out, bug blockers currently don't display information
> about the package those bugs are in and what their status is (e.g. if
> there's a patch already).
But this could be added. It would be a nice feature to request.
(Hint hint)
--
T
I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6, the first beta release of the new
gnome 2 gnucash. Since this is now in beta, I judged it opportune to
upload it to unstable. The final 2.0 release is expected in a short
number of weeks. Many thanks to the fabulous upstream gnucash team!
Is there any partic
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:11:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6,
>
> And you should've used pbuilder to check if it is buildable.
Sorry, but I don't have the resources to use p
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6, the first beta release of the new
>> gnome 2 gnucash. Since this is now in beta, I judged it opportune to
>> upload it to un
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
I think so.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:08, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
>>
>> I think so.
> G
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:11:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6,
>
> And you should've used pbuilder to check if it is buildable.
So I would love to use pbuilder on my fancy fast com
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
Upstream reports that the SQL subsystem is known not to work. So that
means that until it gets to working, I certainly won't be building it
for Debian.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSC
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No solution to the bug, but an easy workaround: Create a sarge chroot
> tar.gz on your sarge machine, change pbuilderrc to point to sid (I have
> copies for each distribution), and then update the tar.gz to sid, like
> this:
>
> /usr/sbin/pbuilder update
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /usr/sbin/pbuilder update --override-config --configfile /etc/pbuilderrc.sid
Ok, this gets me a good sid chroot. But I can't build with it. When
I try to build, using, say, pbuilder build gnucash_1.9.6-3.dsc, I get
seemingly normal pbuilder output, lot
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Presumably the problem is that the packages cannot be authenticated.
>> Presumably that's because the key inside the chroot is the old 2005
>> one? How
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Presumably the problem is that the packages cannot be authenticated.
>> Presumably that's because the key inside the chroot is the old 2005
>> one? How
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doesn't work for me.
>
> # grep apt.config /etc/pbuilderrc
> APTCONFDIR="/etc/pbuilder/apt.config/"
> # cat /etc/pbuilder/apt.config/apt.conf.d/allow-unauthenticated
> APT::Get::AllowUnauthenticated 1;
>
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:24, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
>>
>> Upstream reports t
Take a look at http://bugs.debian.org/367800. I cloned the bug, but
neither of the clones seem to have appeared on the page for gnucash,
nor did the severity of the bug get increased. The title did get
changed, however.
Any ideas what's going on?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
601 - 700 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
