Re: lilypond and python

Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - From http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00684.html: > > > But I don't alas, have the time to spend on a workaround patch myself, > > which will (supposedly) become obselete very quickly. > > The sad conclusion that, with this

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Some have suggested patching lilypond to call python2.4, depending on >> python2.4, and not bothering with python-central and pyversions and >> such. > > No, this is sti

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote: >> You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a >> s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond. > > For which I've sent a patch already. I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstr

Re: lilypond and python

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oh, come on. > > sed -i -e '1s/python[0-9\.]*/python2.4/' $(find . -name '*.py') > > Don't tell me it takes you more than half a minute to come up with > something like that. And don't tell me you can write a mail such as the > one I'm replying to in l

Re: lilypond and python

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is this, solution number 4 for Mr. BSG's complaints? I am almost > beginning to believe that he is more interested in complaining than just > fixing the problem. Solution? How about this, if I apply that recipe and try to compile, you pay me $100

Re: lilypond and python

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is this, solution number 4 for Mr. BSG's complaints? I am almost > beginning to believe that he is more interested in complaining than just > fixing the problem. And the gratuitous rudeness is apalling. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: lilypond and python

Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > it seems that guile 1.6.8 is buggy. people reported to have build > lilypond with guile 1.6.7 and/or guile-1.8 correctly. And I suppose > *HERE* is the real problem, which you failed to spot, because you > didn't even TRIED to. I had that problem

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstream >> release, unless you are referring to something different. > > I am not the lilypond maintainer, I don&#x

Re: LCC and blobs

Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Imagine me having an USB device. The driver opens a network > connection to firmware.example.com, sends the device identification > string and gets another string. This one is sent to the USB device > which then does what it's supposed to do. This i

ok, i screwed up

So I uploaded a new version of libofx. The problem is that the new version bumped the soname, and I forgot to change the binary package name to suit. Then after I received a bug report alerting me to the error, I fixed the package itself to have a correct package name. The corrected package is

Re: ok, i screwed up

Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would reupload the old library ASAP using a version number higher > than the current version in unstable, but in Section: oldlibs and > without the -dev package. > > Then packages needing the new -dev package should definitely have to > wait for the n

Re: LCC and blobs

Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | This is a canonical example of a network-downloader package. > > No, they download something and unpacks it on a file system. They > don't feed the data they download into some device. So you think the key difference is whether the data downloaded

Re: LCC and blobs

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: > > > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > | This is a canonical example of a network-downloader package. > > > > > > No, they download something an

Re: ok, i screwed up

Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMHO, calling libofx0 the old library again is the wrong thing to do. > The reason is explained in the changelog entry for libofx_0.6.2-6. > A package compiled with the old (pre g++ 3.2) libofx0 library will > not work with the "new" libofx0. Yes; I did

Re: ok, i screwed up

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How is this possible? By my count, this leaves us with one package using > each API. Wouldn't it be easier to port one of these packages to the new > API, instead of bloating oldlibs for such a niche library? How different of > an API are we talking

Re: ok, i screwed up

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How is this possible? By my count, this leaves us with one package using > each API. Wouldn't it be easier to port one of these packages to the new > API, instead of bloating oldlibs for such a niche library? How different of > an API are we talking

Re: ok, i screwed up

Anthony Towns writes: > PLEASE DON'T INTRODUCE NEW PACKAGE NAMES GRATUITOUSLY. So it seemed to me that because of my previous mistake it wasn't gratuitous. Regardless, I'm happy to do whatever you think best, provided it solves the problem. I certainly do agree that it is a thing to be avoided

Re: ok, i screwed up

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Anyway, Thomas, I've rejected your pending uploads, please start > > again. > > Alas, I can't, because the mistaken upload of 0.7.0 under the name of > libofx still happened, and is still in the archiv

Re: ok, i screwed up

- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:28:16 -0800 Source: libofx Binary: libofx1 libofx-dev Architecture: source powerpc Version: 1:0.7.0-6 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMA

Re: soname number in name of dev-package?

Anthony Towns writes: > If you come at it from the view of "what'll involve the least > complexity for users, me, and other developers", keeping the same > package name is usually the right answer. > > Bumping the version in the -dev isn't a real problem, but bumping > random other package names

Re: copyright vs. license

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them. Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year every time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned (without removing the old years, since the new publication i

Re: soname number in name of dev-package?

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is anybody advocating that we should try to "support unsupported > versions of libraries"? I'm certainly not. Sure! That's what libc5 is. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM

Re: soname number in name of dev-package?

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Is anybody advocating that we should try to "support unsupported > > > versions of libraries"? I'm certainl

Re: soname number in name of dev-package?

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm lost now. As far as I can see, previously you were telling me that > I was wrong for wanting to "support unsupported versions of libraries". > Now you're saying that I'm wrong for claiming that nobody cares about > "supporting unsupported versions

Re: copyright vs. license

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them. > > > > Yes,

Re: copyright vs. license

Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [updating copyright years] > > I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically > > for you if you like. > > I would like this. ;; When we save

Re: copyright vs. license

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Like I care about that stuff. All I could ever want from copyright on > a GPLed work is an injunction to stop violating it. Actually, you can even fail to get that in practice. Really, just put the date; it's not too much trouble. -- To UNSUBSCRIB

Re: copyright vs. license

Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Shouldn't you include a year? > > > > > > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them. > > > > The year should be included. Here is a reference: > > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html > > If only one year is listed in a source fil

Re: copyright vs. license

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas writes: > > It should be every year that the work was published. (If you publish in > > year N, then modify and publish the new thing in year M, you should list > > both years.) > > > There is no harm in listing extra years. > > There could be if

Re: Reboot in postinst

Diogo Kollross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is there a problem in using something like > > shutdown -r now > > inside a postinst script of a package? Yes. Debian packages are supposed to be able to be installed and start working without requiring any reboots. We've made this work pretty we

Re: ITP: mpg123-el

Nils Jeppe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Andrew D Lenharth wrote: > > > > I'm in the midst of doing this myself. There are even two impeding > > > pieces of consumer electronics about to hit the market which will play > > > an ISO-9660 CDROM with mp3's on it. > > > > I did t

Re: interacting with the press

Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just read this article[1] in the SMH. I think there are a few points that > you should keep when talking to the press in future: > > - don't "slag" them off / don't complain aobut the press > > - Just talk about Debian, unless explicitly a

Re: unreproducable bugs

Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, to rely on 1300 developers to all think of your cunning method of > solving a problem clearly makes sense. After all, to *write down* a > technique that solves the problem, and make it available to all of them > would stilt their creativity, hinder th

Re: unreproducable bugs

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 20050716T195244-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> That's a far cry different from someone wanting to enforce a >> requirement. > > Who, in this thread, is this hypothetical someone? Right. Manoj asked:

aspell upgrade woes

So aspell changed the library name to libaspell15c2, which breaks all the existing packages that use libaspell. Was this really an ABI change in libaspell? If not, there was no reason to make the change as I understand it. Were high-severity bugs filed on all the packages that depend on the l

Re: aspell upgrade woes

Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So aspell changed the library name to libaspell15c2, which breaks all >> the existing packages that use libaspell. >> >> Was this really an ABI change in lib

Re: aspell upgrade woes

Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [helpful stuff] Thanks, I understand now. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Public service announcement about Policy 10.4

"Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a public service announcement about Debian Policy section 10.4, > which states in part: > > The standard shell interpreter `/bin/sh' can be a symbolic link to any > POSIX compatible shell, if `echo -n' does not generate a newline.[1] >

Re: Bruce Perens hosts party at OSCON Wednesday night

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Y'know, it's fine if you think that Bruce's mail was inappropriate for the > list, and there's nothing wrong with saying so; but claiming that a message > that isn't selling anything is UCE, and attempting to enforce against a > member of the community

Re: Bruce Perens hosts party at OSCON Wednesday night

"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 8/2/05, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unsolicited Commercial Email. Please pay the standard $2000 fee for >> advertisments on Debian mailing lists. > > Adam, I'm kind of curious what you mean by that. What, if any, actual > or prop

Re: Bruce Perens hosts party at OSCON Wednesday night

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Miles Bader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050804 13:54]: >> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Which is wholy irrelevant, because Debian's mailing list policy >> >> prohibits UBE, not UCE. See: > >> > In that case, the description needs to be fixed

Re: Bruce Perens hosts party at OSCON Wednesday night

Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And to boot, an e-mail calling for curriculae for a recruiting party > is on-topic to a DEVELOPERS list, and not Unsolicited by those of us > (like myself) that could use a new, better, job and for those of us > that could use ANY job at all.

Re: Bruce Perens hosts party at OSCON Wednesday night

Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Thomas Bushnell: > >> You are confusing "unwelcome" with "unsolicited." It's not solicited. > > Few messages which begin new threads on Debian mailing lists are > solicited. That's right. Few are commercial either, though Bruce's certainly was th

Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)

Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > that's all I was saying! Don't break it intentionally and say "it's > only unstable, deal with it". There are perfectly legitimate reasons to deliberately break unstable. For example, I might choose to upgrade a new version of a shared library, knowin

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: >> > > most popular open source revision control software. >> > >> > And among the most horrible ones. >> > >> Agreed. Why anyone would bother to reimplement an alrea

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Luciano Bello wrote: >> I really think that OpenCVS must be part of Debian. > > Agreed. However, if it has interoperability problems (and they more or less promise it will), then it must have a different command-line name. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, e

Re: arch, svn, cvs

Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's completely unfounded bullshit. Do you have a specific complaint? Or is every single sentence in that post "unfounded bullshit"? > Whether you prefer a pyramid or lots of commiters style organization > is pretty much a personal or rather com

Re: arch, svn, cvs

Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Christoph Hellwig: >> >> >> Greg Hudson contributes an interesting viewpoint: >> >> >> >> >> > >> > It's completely unfoun

Re: arch, svn, cvs

Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Pretty much every sentence. I didn't want to go through because it's > rather offtopic here, but as you're requesting it: So you disagree with his arguments. That does not warrant your abusive language, or your incorrect claim that his arguments a

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement >> it? > > Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought a

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: >> On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> > How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement >> > it? &g

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation withspecial emphasis in security

Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 02:20:45PM -0700]: >> > For several reasons, one being that the BSD folks use CVS extensively, it's >> > part of how the ports system (and upgrades) work. >> >>

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andreas Jochens in particular did a lot of hard work in fixing most of > the GCC 4.0 failures and regressions over the last year while porting > for amd64. The fact that many maintainers have not yet applied, or at > least carefully reviewed and applied a

Re: Team have veto rights, because they can just refuse the work anyway?

Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The constitution also states that no developer can work actively against > the implementation of such a decision made by the project[0]. Not doing > the work and not letting anyone else do it would constitute 'working > actively againt'. Quite t

Re: Team have veto rights, because they can just refuse the work anyway?

Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [Thomas Bushnell] >> Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively* >> against something. > > Not doing the work is working passively against it, while prohibiting > others from doing the work is working actively against it. I

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 8/23/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Andreas Jochens in particular did a lot of hard work in fixing most of >> > the GCC 4.

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Some people are not comfortable with having that kind of information > easily available on the Internet. The default must be opt-in, or not > at all. I understand why it must be optional, but I'm unclear why that means that the default must be opt-in.

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I understand why it must be optional, but I'm unclear why that means >> that the default must be opt-in. Can you explain? > >> We are talking about Debia

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Robert Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > db.debian.org contains (optional) fields for the location of each > developer, an information which currently is only used to generate > edwards's fancy maps. there are other potential uses for this, like > making it possible to find fellow debian devel

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> Why not simply hide it behind the password screen? > > the developer databasequery interface and details is hidden behind a > password, already? Right, so whatever new thing he wants, if that's what he want

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:18:52PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> We are talking about Debian Developers, who are supposed to read their >> email. We can easily give people fair warning, and then make the &g

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Generally speaking, you can't turn something that everybody thought > it was private into a public thingy without asking them to confirm > that they don't mind it. And, no, not every DD will read this thread > so a field in the database

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:40:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> >> I suppose this is what I mean by "we are talking about Debian >> Developers". We're not keeping personal information on customers, o

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Robert Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > because it's not only targeted at debian developers, but also at new > maintainers, contributors who are not even in the nm queue (there are > many of them), and even interested users or people who want to become > more involved Anyway, the way is the s

Re: making developer location from ldap public?

Robert Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:42:12PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> I don't understand why making it possible to find fellow Debian >> Developers this way should in effect make the information public. >> >

Re: better init.d/* : who carres ?

David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And while dash is also optional, all *correctly* written /bin/sh > scripts should work with dash too. That's incorrect. A correctly written /bin/sh script is allowed to use Debian programs (including, say, test) and expect to get the Debian versions.

Re: Version tracking in the BTS

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.29.2028 +0200]: >> Which tags are used for classification? sarge et al.? Would it make >> sense to tag a bug "sarge" if it is reported against the version in >> sarge (even though this is technic

Re: Version tracking in the BTS

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > also sprach Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.30.0729 +0200]: >> How about adding documentation to the bugs.debian.org webpage? > > How about a patch? Writing the documentation yourself has the added > ben

FTPmasters (again)

So the FTP masters always get fought with these long flame wars (you all know the ones I need). Sadly, threads with titles about the FTP masters are usually obnoxious flames. Well, they worked hard to get sarge out, cleared up a big backlog, and did all kinds of other wonderful stuff. I recentl

Re: KDE non-installable sarge/stable powerpc

Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Sven Luther [Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:02:12 +0200]: > >> This is another instance of the braindead single desktop task and KDE >> breaking >> the install. KDE packager should all die :) > > Watch your typos. Yes, it should be "packagers". :) ::duck::

Re: KDE non-installable sarge/stable powerpc

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway, any idea of when this will be fixed, and if it takes long, maybe we > should inform our users about it. This affects all sarge installs, or only > powerpc and some other minority arches ? FWIW, it's also blocking work on #325421, which affects mo

Re: REMOVE ME FROM C4LL W4VE

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes: > Should I send you a photocopy of the original cdroms that I used to > install on my system? Actually, that can be useful, if only to verify just what version was installed :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubsc

Re: a desperate request for licence metadata

Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, you do need a license to the content of your books. Only thing is, > when you buy a book you are buying the right to read it. NOT the right > to copy it. NOT the right to modify it. NOT the right to redistribute > (modified or not) copies

Re: Public service announcement about Policy 10.4

Ondrej Medek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Building scripts should also conform to posh or specify /bin/bash. Some time > ago I've rebuild one package (gaim-extendedprefs or gaim-encryption, I don't > remember) and it failed because my /bin/sh is a link to dash. Incorrect. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, e

Re: a desperate request for licence metadata

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell writes: >> Not quite correct. You are buing not just the right to read it; you are >> also buying the physical copy, and you may do with it what you want: loan >> it, rent it... > > In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of th

Re: a desperate request for licence metadata

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wrote: >> In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright >> owner. > > Thomas Bushnell writes: >> Can you be specific with references please? > > Well, one more anti-fr

Re: a desperate request for licence metadata

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > I wrote: >> >> In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyrig

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in > | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer > | software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such > | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Se

curl situation is intolerable

reopen 318590 severity 318590 serious thanks So my package, libofx, builds a binary that wants to use curl. My package is GPL'd. Getting a libssl exemption is not the right thing, nor should it be necessary. I would like to build the package against libcurl3-gnutls-dev which will be just fine.

Re: curl 7.14.0-5: OpenSSL vs GnuTLS is still a problem

Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A GPL package (which only depends on libcurl3-gnutls) is installed: > libcurl3-gnutls gets pulled in > > A package that can't work with gnuTLS version of libcurl (and > therefore libcurl3-gnutls conflicts with it) is installed: > libcurl

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared >> libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO LIBRARIES THAT >> HAVE DIFFERENT NA

Re: curl 7.14.0-5: OpenSSL vs GnuTLS is still a problem

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> It could certainly be resolved: different libraries should install >> different files. > > You also need different SYMBOLS. Which requires symbol versioning, and that > the symbols provided bu curl+gnutls be differently versioned than the

Re: curl 7.14.0-5: OpenSSL vs GnuTLS is still a problem

Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9/12/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> It could certainly be resolved: different libraries should install &

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mind you, the license/OpenSSLCallback conflict neccessarily > segregates the packages into two camps, those which are GPL, and > those which need the callback only supplied by the OpenSSL-linked > libcurl. You misunderstand my complaint. I do not

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job >> of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI or not. >> DE

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real > solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so > "front-end", without installation conflicts, modular and compatible with > all licenses. See the second hal

Re: wnpp situation

David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Talking with adn on IRC, I've decided to launch an script that will > close every opened ITP and RFP bug on the BTS with a lifetime greater > than 600 days by tonight (or if anything goes wrong -I have an exam > tomorrow noon-, by tomorrow night).

Re: wnpp situation

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>There is no good reason to close old RFPs unless the upstream source >>has diseappeared. > > The spectacular amount of clutter they provide -- rendering the wnpp bug list > unreadable unless you ignore them all -- combined

Re: last change to save (adopt) some packages

Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have more than a few packages that I've been looking to get rid of for > some time. No one's taken them, so I'm going to request the ftp masters > drop some of them if no one takes them within the few weeks. This is not the correct way to orphan a

Re: last change to save (adopt) some packages

"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell wrote: >>This is not the correct way to orphan a package. > > True. However, it is entirely legitimate for a maintainer to decide that a > package is worthless and withdraw it, which is what Andres Salomon is > planning to do. In

jack still broken

Jack has been broken for three months now. The problem is that the libraries libjack0.80.0-0 and libjack0.100.0-0 declare exact version requirements against jackd: both of them conflict with all but one version of jackd. If they really are proper library packages, then they shouldn't conflict wi

Re: jack still broken

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How else do you handle the case of a library which implements a line > protocol (presumably Unix sockets, in this case), and that protocol has > changed incompatibly? You implement the new protocol on a new port, so that both the old and new jackd can

Re: jack still broken

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > How else do you handle the case of a library which implements a line >> > protocol (presumably Un

Re: jack still broken

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:38:24PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > How else do you hand

lyx

lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy for such packages? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: lyx

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't >> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy >> for such pac

Re: lyx

Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:19:08AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't >> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy >> for such

ghostscript failing (alas, still)

Please see bug #321435. This bug is now blocking ifhp; see http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=ifhp&ver=3.5.20-4&arch=s390&stamp=1127382950&file=log&as=raw. The ifhp upload isn't *that* important; this upload is just me adopting the package (which had been maintained by Jens Schmalzing). But

Re: lyx

Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And it's now been accepted by katie, thanks to Joshua Kwan. Many thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mass bug filing on packages that are blocking use of cdebconf

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is your third and final reminder. I count 542 packages remaining, > down only 9 from last month. I assume most of the people below do not > read debian-devel, so I've taken the librerty of BCCing you all. :-P Of course I read debian-devel. But I fix b

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >