Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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, howe
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Debian policy says:
>
> | 8.2 Run-time support programs
> |
> | If your package has some run-time support programs which use the
> | shared library you must not put them in the shared library
> | package. If you do that then you won't be
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
> unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
> signing party recently. This was apparently to belabour the obvious
> point that large KSP's are events where it is
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What would you suggest instead?
>
> Stop signing keys for Debian developers, since purchased ID's
> are acceptable in this community? ;) At this point, I am not sure what
> my stance is going to be.
What do you think we get by having the s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the core issue here is if we deem presenting purchased
> identification at an event designed to extend the web of trust
> acceptable behaviour.
I don't think anyone has said that it's satisfactory.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What do you think we get by having the signed ID? What advantages
>> accrue to Debian by having this check that someone's real name is what
>> we think it is?
>
>> I think it's a good thing, I agree with our practice, but I'm not sure
>> what vast sec
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would be more inclined to do that to the people who signed his key
> based on the Transnational Republic ID.
So, who are those people? Is Manoj one of them?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
I have been maintaining the following gnome-1 support packages:
bonobo gal0.x gnome-libs gnome-print gtkhtml gwrapguile imlib
libcapplet libglade oaf
I have been doing so because gnucash (which I maintain) was the last
major gnome-1 package, and the gnome maintainers (quite reasonably)
did n
Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (The fact that most of the constitution is not applied to foreign
> national is more a shame than something to be proud of for USA-ians.)
But then, as it happens, it does apply to foreign nationals who are
under the jurisdiction of the United State
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 12:00:43PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> I have been maintaining the following gnome-1 support packages:
>
>> bonobo gal0.x gnome-libs gnome-print gtkhtml gwrapguile imlib
>> libca
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > (The fact that most of the constitution is not applied to foreign
>> > national is more a shame tha
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If only that were true. The Americans give me hell. Canada
> practically waves me through. Last time I drove back to Oregon, US
> customs decided that it was appropriate to violate the rights the US
> constitution claims I have by searching my vehicle
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 27 May 2006 15:52, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If only that were true. The Americans give me hell. Canada
>> > practically waves me through. Last time
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 27 May 2006 16:03, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:19:21PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On 27 May 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
>> >>> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 02:04:31PM -0500, M
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The vote at champoeg was when the Oregon Territory voted to become
> Canadian. We're on the south side of the border exclusively due to
> the threat of military force when the US couldn't handle the fact
> that we don't want them here the first time arou
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But then again people could lookup say mexican IDs and visas before
> going to a KSP in mexico so they have some clue what it should look
> like.
Actually, in the present case, I believe it turns out that Martin
Krafft's ID was exactly what it cl
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has opened a can of worms; because your transnational ID was as
> official as it could get. Most of us do not know what other countries
> consider to be official, and it's more of an intent and goodwill
> rather than scientific or legally binding o
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But the standards of "reasonable" are different for minors than for
>> adults. Right?
>
> Constitutional law doesn't differentiate.
Yes, it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>python-gnome has a build-dependency on libgtkhtml-dev which
>> should be trivially removable since none of its binary packages use it.
>
> python-gnome is also deprecated and should go away when po
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There
> is a certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
> delibrate forgeries.
Except that there was nothing forged about Martin's ID card, as it has
been report
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell verbalised:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There is a
>>> certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
>>> delibrate
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If people start bringing in forged documents, no amount of caution
>>> on part of laypeople like most software developers is proof against
>>> such deception. If such deception is accepted behaviour, we may as
>>> well throw out thetrust metric, an
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any act of deception, meant to exploit the weaknesses of the
> system rather than participating in a key signing in good faith is
> likely to have had this effect, yes.
That's true. What about Martin's actions, as they have been reported,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Once he has broken faith, nothing coming from that source can
> be accepted, since the source is now tainted. Any information flow
> with that origination is tainted, and since you offer the same
> statements, without any form of untaintin
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:57:43PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
>
>> The identification showed his real name and real likeness [0]. He did not
>> misrepresent any information in either obtaining the document or in
>> presenting it to those who re
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 03:40:59AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> > What problems with the information in the BTS are you talking about?
>
>> the usertags, which are wrongly set and removed.
>
>> please don't get me wrong; generally the btslink informa
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 08:57:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> > If I were to crack a key signing party, using Bubba's travel
>> > documents, I too would swear up and down the street that he in
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really think either you are deliberately being obtuse, or
> nothing I can say will get this through to you. I fail to see how
> one can assert that there was no forgery going on -- do you
> automatically assume that if a shiney laminated
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I claim to be president George Clooney, and show you a
> document that proves I am such, and I earnestly claim it was not
> forged, but Bubba looked at all kinds of documentation that says I am
> such a person, you would proclaim from th
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess You can't read. I have never stated that I know it is
> a forgery: I can't since I do not have that data. I have stated I
> have absolutely no trust path to the identity proclaimed, so I am
> going to treat it as though it were; s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is to forestall those of you who seem to be be arguing
> that the debconf6 KSP crack was a red team attack -- here is how that
> attack differed from a legitimate red team effort (I have been a
> member of red teams before, and have le
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Based on this thread, I would think that Stave Langasek was
> dead on: any transitive trust in Debian's keyring is
> non-existenet. So, using the signed key as a mesure of trust in the
> identity of a NM candidate by the DAMS is probably mi
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Claiming that what Martin did was good since he was showing
> something useful for our community is equivalent to saying it was a
> "red team attack". Nobody used that term explicitly probably because
> they are unfamiliar with it. I kno
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, if KSPs are not changed, then the Web of trust becomes
> effectively worthless. Manoj should be far more concerned about
> that, then about Martin's demonstration of this.
Personally, I'm especially worried about the developers who were taken
in by t
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I am actually quite ambivalent about whether I think what he did was
>> wrong; I think to determine that I would need to read carefully what
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The person who I thought was Marting has apparently revealed
> that the identity documents that were preseted to the key signing
> party participants were ones that did not come out of a trusted
> process. Typically, the identity papers ar
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
>> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
>> likely, then SPI could be liable.
>
> Oh, very good point. I ha
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in this regard
is faulty. Is it?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
>> of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
>>
>> I have recent
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nope. A corner-case bug in a compiler may break compilation of a single
> package. The build failure of this package is a serious bug for this
> package; it is not a serious bug for the compiler.
Well, except that it seems to me that any code generat
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You probably hit a soft spot there because suddenly the bug became RC
> and blocks the package from entering testing. The destinction between
> normal and important is purely visual while serious and above have
> real effects.
This may be true, b
Is there a GPL-compatible libcrypto replacement? The only libcrypto I
know of is the one bundled with openssl, which AFAICT is under the
same license as openssl itself, which is GPL-incompatible.
We have gnutls as a replacement for openssl itself, but what about
libcrypto?
(Indeed, some things
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be statically linked?
No. Take a look at the symbols in libcrypto, and notice that they are
not in any of those libraries.
It is the case that libssl requires libcrypto, and that
libgnutls-openssl does not need anything like that.
But libcrypt
James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It is true that gnutls uses libgcrypt, but libgcrypt doesn't provide
>> anything like the same symbols as libcrypto.
>
> What functionality are you after? libgcrypto provides most of the
> ciphers of libcrypto (the big players at least) as well as hash e
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most maintainers are much more cooperative when you tag the bug as
> +patch and say something like:
How do you think I should have applied this advice in the case of bug
#360851?
> As opposed to writing to demand that the maintainer spend their free
> ti
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Most maintainers are much more cooperative when you tag the bug as
>> > +patch and say somethin
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
> glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
> no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that
> I am very glad that I can avoid, thank
"LEE, Yui-wah (Clement)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is a clean way to introduce a delay between the
> scripts in /etc/init.d ?
Don't.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAIR, a package
> should not have to depend on python2.3 and python2.4; instead, applications
> that need a specific version of the interpreter should depend on it
> themselves.
I hope that it will be possible for such apps to do it without
specifying
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes ("Re: severities of blocking bugs"):
>> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > As opposed to writing to demand that the maintainer spend their free
>> > time to help you
Can someone take a look at #373797 and give advice?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I'm confused. In the netatalk README.Debian it says that the
> Debian project has decided that OpenSSL is GPL-incompatible and
> therefore he can't distribute the ssl-based portions of netatalk (like
> encrypted authentication with classic macs).
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Anyhow, the point is that certain GPLd programs have special
>> exceptions that allow them to be linked with openssl. However, note
>> that *all* the GPL'd code in
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you provide a pointer to the discussion? I am curious to read it,
> if possible. Of course, if it's just in one of your mbox's, don't worry
> about it.
Just in mbox.
>> The fact that this is transitive linking means that it is perfectly
>> legal t
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, I see the confusion (or maybe have some of my own). I am not talking
> about a GPL application that has been modified to use libssl. I am
> talking about a GPL application that uses a library, and that library
> could or could not link to libssl - t
Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:21:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> You cannot distribute GPL'd source which has been modified to link to
>> a GPL-incompatible library when the only way the source would be
>> useful
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, it still doesn't answer the question I asked about
> transitive linking, where there is no shared library dependency from the
> GPL application to a GPL incompatible library.
Yes, it does.
It is not allowed to ship a binary which includ
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: foo
> Depends libfoo, libc6
>
> Package: libfoo
> Depends: libbar | libbar-ssl, libc6
>
> Package: libbar
> Depends: libc6
>
> Package: libbar-ssl
> Depends: libc6, libssl
>
> (Assume that foo, libfoo and libbar are all licenced under the GPL,
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG
>
> | What matters is not what the Debian package dependencies look like,
> | but the shared library dependencies in the programs themselves.
>
> libfoo will obviously have a NEEDED which lists libbar (a
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really can't get this to be critical in any way; it does not make the
> entire system break (unless you count temporary loss of network access on a
> laptop critical),
Since, as the bug explains and the other comments in the log explain,
the
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.01.2110 +0200]:
>> Actually I agree that critical is too high, grave might be reasonable, as
>> it causes system downtime. (System downtime is something anybody running
>> servers would agree is a ve
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It occurs to me that people who want servers to have their network
> configurations automagically configured for them are just asking for
> trouble. If this was a problem with standard ifupdown for a server
> interface, I would agree with you. But autoc
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has been brought up. Basically I don't think people were
> opposed to it, but there was noone available to implement it.
There were people opposed to it, in fact.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, I'll be interested to hear a summary of their arguments, as
> Christian Perrier requested. I find it hard to imagine how properly
> configured greylisting should cause any problems.
It's a violation of the standard. It is especially problemat
"Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 05:02:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Another problem is with hosts that do not accept a message from an MTA
>> unless that MTA is willing to accept replies. This is a common spa
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can, for example, use dynamic IP supersets to do the greylisting
> "triplet" match. Now the problem is a matter of creating the supersets in a
> way to not break incoming email from outgoing-SMTP clusters.
Is there a way of doing this
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > You can, for example, use dynamic IP supersets to do the greylisting
>> > "tri
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another way to avoid problems with clusters is to assume certain common
> setup patterns for server farms, like a cheap netmask match. This does, in
> a way, "require you to know in advance the setup of remote networks", in the
> sense tha
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG becket.net> writes:
>> martin f krafft debian.org> writes:
> [...]
>> It assumes, for example, that the remote MTA will use the same IP
>> address each time it sends the message.
> [...]
&
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's better than not greylisting anyone. Nobody is trying to
> design the perfect spam filter. We just want to reduce spam on
> debian.org.
A perfect spam filter is one which catches all spam and bounces no
valid mail. Saying "we aren't trying to b
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Read below. When you do, please remember that many of us consider that a
> fully-open system which drowns us in SPAM is also broken, because you do
> lose information for failure of locating it among the noise.
You may lose that informati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I am concerned that you not use a spam-defeating technique which
>> blocks perfectly legitimate and standards-compliant email.
> Then why you are not loudl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I want you to be explicit and clear about which new rules you are
>> writing into the RFCs, so that people can conform to them. You are
>> making up new
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > That's better than not greylisting anyone. Nobody is trying to
>> > design the perfect
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The specific example used was some spam source sitting in the same /27
> netblock in a colo server room, and getting through the graylister because
> a proper MTA from the same /27 netblock had already been added to the
> "approve it, it do
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greylisting already exists. This would just make it _less_ of a problem.
>
> By greylisting from /27 netblocks, you wouldn't block any additional
> mail as opposed to greylisting in general; quite to the contrary.
Yes, I understand. What I'm saying i
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggest that when we find a domain that sends mail from 120 /27's
> (roughly a /20), we worry about it then.
An excellent strategy. Do you have some mechanism in place to detect
such a case when or if it happens?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, up to now, we've found Thomas Bushnell who seems really hardly
> voting against greylisting on Debian hosts, with arguments about it
> breaking established standards. I personnally find these arguments
> very nitpicking and mostly aimed at findin
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you have some mechanism in place to detect
>> such a case when or if it happens?
>
> Deal with it when people complain. Also, this kind of information can be
> shared so that not every mail admin has to find it out himself by users
> complaining
So presumably the python transition is now ready for changing the
version on python defaults, right? What remains to be done?
I would ask directly, but they have not yet responded to any question
I have asked.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have refused greylisting for a long time for that exact reason.
> However the setup Pierre Habouzit describes does not delay most of
> legitimate mail. Frankly, the remaining delays are sporadic and one can
> live with them.
What bothers me is that
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> And finally, if we don't care about standards conformance, I have said
>> that a good second-best is to document exactly what our requirements
>> are, rather than
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even worse, there's nothing preventing a site from saying it has a
> temporary local problem when it _does_. Thus, if your mail server
> can't handle retrying, it will drop mail every time something is not
> in perfect working order. And hardware or ne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Still, if you think it's just nitpicking, then why not ask the IETF to
>> amend the standard to clearly permit this practice?
> Because there is no reas
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the record (it was already said in the thread IIRC), the setup we
> are discussing is in production on alioth since sth like 4 or 5 monthes
> now (maybe a bit less) on my idea, and thanks to Raphael Hertzog for
> actually using his alioth admin
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> If the anti-spam advocates consistently said "our measures impose
>> such-and-such a cost, but we think it's worth it", I would be
>> delighted.
>
> the
I have been criticized for not uploading the new lilypond packages and
being quite a bit behind the public releases. Unfortunately, the
current lilypond requires python 2.4, and expects to call it as
"python", not just in the build process, but at run time.
I had been assuming that the python te
There is a grave bug (#378346) filed against gnucash on alpha which
seems to be quite arch specific. Mail to the debian-alpha team for
assistance has not been answered (though I have been told that the
team is very small). Is there someone with access to an alpha that
will look at this bug, and
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> well, there's curently only one person spreading lies and fud about
> python packaging, so please don't talk about "lies" as well. I'm still
> testing uprades and fixing upgrade issues. experimental has a
> python-defaults pointing to 2.4, so you can pr
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> So, let me make plain: I am entirely happy to accept a workaround
>> patch for lilypond's current upstream stable release that will make it
>> build and use python 2.4 ev
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> experimental has a python-defaults pointing to 2.4
When did this happen? Is there some reason you didn't reply to my
status-requests with this information? Why are you trying to keep
things secret from me?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would only fix problems in experimental, lilypond is currently not
> releasable, so imaginating that the Python switch would not happen, we
> would end up without lilypond.
In my opinion, the current lilypond in Debian is not suitable for
release,
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have you told the maintainers of alml and songwrite (reverse-depends of
> lilypond) about this? It wouldn't be fair to them to find out at the last
> minute before the etch release that their packages won't be releasable
> because lilypond wasn't ready
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That said, I would also like to see python-defaults upgraded to
> python2.4, and can't see a reason for much more delay.
Don't bother asking; they don't answer questions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
Aurélien GÉRÔME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is utterly unacceptable. What do you do of the
> reverse-dependencies? If you are not capable of dealing with a package
> that you are supposed to maintain, you should O: it or RFA: it, instead
> of cornering users. That is irresponsible as a Debi
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a
> s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond.
So, will the python change happen?
Maybe instead of beating me up for not knowing what is the best use of
my time, the python team could be encourag
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> your mails are a marvelous proof of bad faith. if you want to enforce
> your package to use python2.4 for some (apparently borken — but I
> didn't bothered to check) reason, you just need (either through
> debian/pyversions + pysupport or XS-Python-
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it has been said numerous time, that you just need to sed the shebang of
> those scripts, such modifications are often used in python packaging,
> and is easy to do.
Right, the question is whether this is a long-term change or a
short-term change?
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You're telling me that if I "use debian/pyversions" and the rest of
>> that, whatever it is, then lilypond scripts and user code which
>> depends on python 2.4 will automagically get it even though it uses #!
>> on ordinary "python"? This sound
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Running sed costs you lots of time? Come on. I can understand your
> irritation at the lack of information about how the python transition is
> going, but it really shouldn't take you any length of time at all to
> change things to reference 2.4 dir
701 - 800 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
