financial consultant Service.

years and 12 months moratorium. If you have a viable project that needs funding or has anyone who might be interested, kindly revert with your business plan and executive summary for our review and possible funding. Sincerely Yours, George.

Re: apt-get should be able to install packages "directly"

On Friday 07 January 2005 00:54, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include > > * William Ballard [Thu, Jan 06 2005, 05:44:18PM]: > > > Like rm, dpkg is a tool for system administrators. It will not protect > > > you from potentially harmful actions because it assumes that you know > > > what you do. > > > >

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Saturday 26 November 2005 01:13, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:59:40PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Anthony Towns: > > > (I'm amazed the security "crisis" we're having is about deb sigs > > > *again*, when we're still relying on md5sum which has a public exploit > > > a

Re: apt PARALLELISM

On Tuesday 06 December 2005 13:09, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, 06 Dec 2005, Ivan Adams wrote: > > I have slow internet connection. BUT I have friends with the same > > connection in my local area network, who have apt-proxy. > > My goal is: When I need to install new system (Debian

Re: Packages up for adoption: gnokii, coldsync

ceed. > There's not much there, but the interesting ones are probably > gnokii I'll take this, use it a lot and am relatively OK with how upstream works > Please copy me on any replies, I'm not on the list. Done. George Wright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM

Re: intend-to-implement: script to obtain Debian Source

On Saturday 26 March 2005 00:49, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Hi, > > > > Optional source patching is non-standard in Debian, and > > > I would like a standard interface to interact with Debian > > > source. > > > > So would I. Which is why I filed #250202 I second suggestion given at #250202 and like

Re: intend-to-implement: script to obtain Debian Source

On Sunday 27 March 2005 11:25, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > su, 2005-03-27 kello 09:01 +0200, George Danchev kirjoitti: > > I second suggestion given at #250202 and like to see "unpacked" and > > "patched" targets to hit Policy 4.8. > > I hear that Adam Heath (

Re: intend-to-implement: script to obtain Debian Source

On Monday 28 March 2005 01:33, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Hi, Hello, > My plan is to have a source-repository of every single Debian package. > I consider it to be interesting in several ways including that of avoiding > symbol conflicts with shared library package, and finding out > what might be a

Re: Standard description file about maintainer groups

On Monday 28 March 2005 12:30, David Schmitt wrote: > On Monday 28 March 2005 00:04, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > I suggest debian/README.Debian.Maintainers as the filename. > > Hmm .. Following from README to README.Debian, wouldn't AUTHORS.Debian make > more sense? > > Also, often this list is already

Re: intend-to-implement: script to obtain Debian Source

On Thursday 31 March 2005 15:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Steve Kowalik > > | On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:54:01 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen uttered > | > | > TTBOMK, he hasn't discussed this with the dpkg maintainer, nor has he > | > made his code public. > | > | Er, Adam Heath has made plenty of uploads o

Re: way to tell when a package makes it to testing?

On Monday 09 May 2005 15:48, sean finney wrote: > hey all, hello, > (this is a general, non-release related question) > > i was talking with another member of my local LUG, and he asked > if there was a way to tell when a package was uploaded into the > testing distribution. currently, the packa

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 11:52, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Marc Haber wrote: > > A lot of Debian maintainers hang on to their packages like a hen over > > her eggs and do not want to give away any authority over their > > packages which they would to by accepting co-maintainers. >

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:24, Stephen Birch wrote: --cut-- > Okay ... I missed the development of arch. Boy ... its difficult to > keep up with everything going on. How did the arch project improve on > Subversion? SVN (like CVS) is a centralized SCM, while the Arch is a distributed one. You

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

On Thursday 02 June 2005 10:47, Matt Zimmerman wrote: --cut-- > We are doing what we can, with the resources available to us, to make our > work available to Debian, through the patch publishing mechanism, and > cooperation with Debian teams. If there is a different approach which > could be imple

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:25, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > > To begin with we can all go back and review: > > > > http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposals > > I reviewed it and it still all falls into two groups: > > - Hopele

Re: Why apt-get is not a proper software search engine (was Re: And now for something completely different... etch!)

On Tuesday 07 June 2005 23:44, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > Debtags might not cut it either, but might be an improvement over a free > keyword search which ends up turing the wron packages just because they > have the word used in the query. A good search function could: > > - use keywo

Re: TODO for etch ?

On Saturday 11 June 2005 00:56, Adam Majer wrote: > Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > >Since I can't find such a list, I'll try to write (a beginning of) one. > > > >- Complete transition to g++ 3.4/4.0 ABI > >- Resolve FDL issue > >- Get Xorg and KDE 3.4 into the archive. [as time passes, the version

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Friday 28 July 2006 19:37, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Neither Ubuntu nor Debian do anything special to get hardware support > > that is provided by the kernel proper and tools that neither group > > created. > > That's not actually true. I do a lot of

Re: package ownership in Debian (was: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?)

On Friday 28 July 2006 22:06, Katrina Jackson wrote: > Okay here is another honest question: Do you really honestly think not > having co-maintainers for base packages is ever a good idea? What if > someone is busy? You don't really feel safe noticing your base packages > aren't being co-main

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Saturday 29 July 2006 00:42, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jul 28, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "innovation" is the industy's current buzzword. Doing things well even > > if someone else had a similar idea before will outlive it. > > We used to take pride in inventing stuff like update-al

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Saturday 29 July 2006 11:17, Eduard Bloch wrote: --cut-- > > > The innovation in udev (with HAL, new kernel features and other stuff) > > > is allowing implementing new features which used to not be possible or > > > required very complex hacks. > > > There is a middle ground between useless and

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Saturday 29 July 2006 18:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote: -cut-- > It could go either way, of course, but I was referring to the > difference between due diligence of a group, as opposed to an > individual; potentially, a team is only as strong as the weakest > link. `weakest link' is no

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Saturday 29 July 2006 21:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:27:57 +0300, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Saturday 29 July 2006 18:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote: -cut-- > > > >> It could go either way, of course, but I was referring

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Sunday 30 July 2006 15:34, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:49:07AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 08:38:23AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > > > For one, Debian and Ubuntu aren't in compet

Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?

On Sunday 30 July 2006 16:21, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:34:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:49:07AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > > When Ubuntu leads to users having ideas l

Re: Debian should have a weekly debate

On Monday 31 July 2006 18:16, alfredo diega wrote: > I really believe Debian would benefit if they had a weekly debate. I > understand you debate on things you are voting on, but I think it could be > better if you debated on general concerns. I was reading the "Why Ubuntu > has > all the ideas

Re: package ownership in Debian

On Monday 31 July 2006 18:43, Hubert Chan wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:40:54 -0300, "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On 7/31/06, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:00:21 +, "Gustavo Franco" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >

Re: Centralized darcs

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 12:23, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:47 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't > > understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whatever thing -- why use a hack to > > manage your patches when you could us

Re: Centralized darcs

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 16:34, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:23:31AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:47 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > I do use darcs to track patches against upstream. I really don't > > > understand the whole cdbs/dpatch/whateve

Re: Centralized darcs

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 17:31, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:20:26PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > > Actually, I disagree with that. I always hate having to work with a > > > package that uses a patch management system, because then I have to &

Re: Centralized darcs

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 18:35, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > > > How is that not true if one knows a given patch system and does know > > > > about your VCS and needs to work on one of your pac

Re: Centralized darcs

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the > >>> > upstrem sourc

Re: Centralized darcs

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:01, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > > to learn how we deal with this all. Ok, third time. Please do not do that: To: George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Re: Centralized darcs

On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:45, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > George Danchev <[E

Re: Centralized darcs

On Thursday 03 August 2006 03:32, Matthew Palmer wrote: --cut-- > > > > This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'apt-get source' > > > > users, which are not supposed to be aware of your SCM, where your > > > > repo is, > > > > please, find 'SCM' in the above row, thanks. > > I did. Using

Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists

On Friday 04 August 2006 00:37, John Goerzen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:24:10PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > > You know, I use a mail program. Replying to people is in my fingers as > > > "hitting a button". A very specific button, especially for that > > > purpose. I expect my MUA to

Re: Centralized darcs

On Friday 04 August 2006 14:58, Ian Jackson wrote: > Matthew Palmer writes ("Re: Centralized darcs"): > > diff.gz archaeology should not be necessary. > > I think this is the root of the key difference between the `like patch > systems' people and the `hate patch systems' people. In my opinon th

Re: Centralized darcs

On Saturday 05 August 2006 18:52, Riku Voipio wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > In my opinon the root of the key differences is that with patch systems > > you can have it both ways: > > a) all chunks in one big diff > > b)

Re: MIME type of OCaml source files

On Thursday 10 August 2006 17:30, Loïc Minier wrote: > Hi, > > Inclusion of the OCaml syntax highlighting file in GtkTextView is > blocked until FreeDesktop includes the MIME type in its > shared-mime-info database, but I don't know the MIME type of OCaml > source files. > > Would some

Re: cdrtools alternatives

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 13:17, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Nathanael Nerode: > >> In reality, as "user A", I switched to using cdrdao for making serious > >> audio CDs and CD-RWs, and for burning disks from .iso files: this uses > >> Schilling's scsilib, but not the rest

Re: New desktop features provided by new version of update-notifier

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 15:43, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:46:49PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > > hmmm... I don't think a sane seasoned Solaris admin would evaluate a > > Unix-like operating system for server-class work by installing its > > 'Desktop' task, perhap

Re: Remove cdrtools

On Thursday 17 August 2006 19:02, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 16-Aug-06, 20:49 (CDT), Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As for useless autoconf tests - have you looked at how autoconf is > > used? You pick the tests you think you need. It's not like the system > > forces you to use a

Re: Remove cdrtools

On Friday 18 August 2006 06:56, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:48:24PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > So are some widespread programming languages. If you blindly follow bad > > examples and bad styles you can dynamite yourself happily without even > &g

Re: Bug#386060: ITP: c++-annotations -- The C++ Annotations tutorial by Frank B. Brokken

On Tuesday 05 September 2006 13:21, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:33:56AM +0200, Frank B. Brokken wrote: > > The C++ Annotations are a tutorial intended for knowledgeable users of C > > (or any other language using a C-like grammar, like Perl or Java) who > > would like to know

Why udev does not use update-rc.d in its postinst

Hello, There is a /etc/init.d/udev script provided by the udev package, but as it seems no entity cares to start it at boot time to populate the /dev directory. Are there any good reasons for udev not to call update-rc.d from its postinst to install the necessary symlinks in place ? Nex

Re: Why udev does not use update-rc.d in its postinst

to get it in again, unless there's a hard-to-see > >> subtle error. > > > > Like the update-rc.d bug discussed here in the last few days. > > Which wouldn't result in the udev binary package's postinst missing the > update-rc.d call, as George asserted.

Re: Why not only support Sid and Testing?

On Tuesday 12 September 2006 07:08, Joseph Smidt wrote: > I know I am in for an argument, but I think it is a good > question. I'm sure many of you have read Mark's blog: > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/56. It says 76% of Debian > users run unstable and probably a fair fraction o

Re: Why not only support Sid and Testing?

On Tuesday 12 September 2006 11:08, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:08:02 -0600, Joseph Smidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > I know I am in for an argument, but I think it is a good > >question. I'm sure many of you have read Mark's blog: > >http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archi

Re: udev upgrade lead to an unbootable debian unstable

On Tuesday 12 September 2006 17:43, Ruben wrote: > On 9/12/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 12, Ruben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm sorry if this is a somewhat inappropriate place to post this, but > > > > You should be more sorry about posting without reading the other

Re: Debian cares more about documents than people

On Friday 22 September 2006 00:42, alfredo diega wrote: > On 9/21/06, Thaddeus H. Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I ask you, is that > > fair? > > Well, I guess it isn't fair. Look, have any of you ever sent an email out > of > frustration, then wish you could take it back? I am sorry, I h

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

On Friday 22 September 2006 13:29, César Martínez Izquierdo wrote: > I could never see a whole film using Totem or VLC (from Debian). That is interesting assertion. I have very good experience with vlc here. Did you report your issue to the BTS ? > I do, with mplayer (from Marillat). In fact, I'

Re: More accurate package classification

On Thursday 02 November 2006 12:36, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote: > Hi all Hello, > Sometimes I spend hours just reading Debian's package repository, and > everytime I found interesting packages. The Debian is extremely large > and juicy, but in contrary, it is really difficult sometimes to ju

[RFC] new virtual package names for optical discs burning applications

Hello, With the advent of cdrskin [1] for writing CD-R/W in a cdrecord's command-line-compatible way and already having several dvd burner applications, I'd like to propose the addition of at least two more virtual package names to the `Authoritative list of virtual package names' [2] -

Re: [RFC] new virtual package names for optical discs burning applications

On Friday 17 November 2006 16:44, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2006, George Danchev wrote: > > Using alternatives mechanism -- currently I don't think that using > > alternatives mechanism would be a benefit as a whole, but I might be > > blind of course. &g

Re: [RFC] new virtual package names for optical discs burning applications

On Saturday 18 November 2006 11:33, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Friday 17 November 2006 15:22, George Danchev wrote: > > * `cd-burner' -- could be provided by wodim, cdrskin, (cdrdao ?) > > * `dvd-burner' -- could be provided by wodim, dvd+rw-tools and

Re: automatically install -dev packages

On Tuesday 21 March 2006 01:59, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 20-Mar-06, 14:37 (CST), David Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there a setting somewhere I can set to cause apt-get and aptitude to > > always install corresponding -dev packages? The default behavior of not > > installing them

Re: Debian From Scratch 0.99.0

On Thursday 20 April 2006 18:18, John Goerzen wrote: John, Thank you very much for the nice work you have done. I remember the earlier versions of dfsbuild with the clean and easy to follow ocaml code ! > Debian From Scratch (DFS) is a single, full rescue CD capable of > working with all major

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:35, Erast Benson wrote: > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > > > Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a "hybrid" will > > > not run any existing Solaris apps lik

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sunday 21 May 2006 17:34, Erast Benson wrote: --cut-- > > > But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these "things" are > > > existing applications which must run. The world is not 100% open > > > sourced yet and we are in it, we are part of it, therefore my ideal OS > > > need to be capab

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:06, Erast Benson wrote: -cut-- > Clean way would be to extend SUN C library with missing GLIBC > functionality. Btw, have you seen SUN C library code? Its done very > clean, very polished code base which runs at least on i386, amd64, sparc > and powerpc arches. Peace, but

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:44, Erast Benson wrote: --cut-- > So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library? > And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with > missing GLIBC functionality? I'm just trying to understand your point of > view.. Glibc i

Re: alternatives and priorities

On Sunday 21 May 2006 22:48, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: --cut-- > Heck, even the installation number have problems. Just check out > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=popularity-contest>, > showing that 99.72% of the machines reporting to popcon have popcon > installed. I believe that whe

Re: Who can make binding legal agreements

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote: > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> I think I lost a thread of the argument here. How does the acceptance > >> into non-free of a package by the ftp-masters commit SPI

Re: Who can make binding legal agreements

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:45, Russ Allbery wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> You believe that it's pretty clear that *SPI* is distributing the > >> software? Could you trace yo

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 05:11, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Anthony Towns [...] > > > > > And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they > > > like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license > > >

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Anthony Towns > > > > > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn > > > > all the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee > > > > liabl

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result > > > in only

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 18:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > > > If you a

Re: CDBS and dh_install

On Saturday 10 June 2006 01:10, Steve Langasek wrote: --cut-- > In contrast, almost all of cdbs is stashed away in /usr/share/cdbs/; almost > none of what it does is inspectible by looking at the debian/rules and > using those lines as hooks into the documentation. There is > /usr/share/doc/cdbs/c

Re: CDBS and dh_install

On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:57, Marc Dequènes wrote: --cut-- > Until this is solved, i'm still maintaining my original version, since > more people use it than the one in the package, but this is not an ideal > situation. Ok, time to ask a real question about cdbs ;-) I assume you are pretty much

Re: Cleaning /var/lib/dpkg/available

On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:34, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > Hi, > > I've been upgrading my machines since Woody to Sarge, then to Etch. Now, > my /var/lib/dpkg/available are huge (15MB), and it seems they never get > cleaned. > How am I supposed to clean them? Isn't there any automated tools in > Debi

Re: CDBS and dh_install

On Wednesday 14 June 2006 03:58, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On 13 Jun 2006, George Danchev said: > > On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:57, Marc Dequènes wrote: > > --cut-- > > > >> Until this is solved, i'm still maintaining my original version, > >> since mo

Re: *-doc package should not gzip PDF file

On Saturday 24 June 2006 14:35, Osamu Aoki wrote: --cut-- > For architecture: all *-doc packages, there is no technical and > practical reason to gzip *.pdf file. I agree. packages are gziped so > package size d nt change. We do it just because of policy and bcause > helper script is written suc

Re: *-doc package should not gzip PDF file

On Monday 26 June 2006 11:46, Preben Randhol wrote: > Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 26/06/2006 (05:08) : > > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 16:51 -0400, James R. Van Zandt wrote: > > > > I have no idea how debhelper works. Are there anybody out there > > > > that can help with getting it to stop

Re: Another weird tar issue (100 character filenames)

On Tuesday 27 June 2006 11:07, Roger Leigh wrote: --cut-- > > (along with several other files). These filenames are indeed exactly 100 > > characters long, as mentioned in the referenced bug. The bug, however, > > indicates that this may not have really been a bug in tar but rather was > > a bug

Re: Package Selection for Debian Live

On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:24, Andrew Vaughan wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:51:18PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote: > > > at the moment, we have two types of Live CD images: > > > > > > * the small one which contains only packages of standard priority, > > > * and three larger ones, each

Re: cdrtools

On Thursday 06 July 2006 13:00, Daniel Baumann wrote: > Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > are there any activities on that project? > > The licensing of cdrtools is/was under investigation of the Technical > Comitee, a final decision/action is not yet found/published so far. > > For the public part of

Re: cdrtools

On Thursday 06 July 2006 21:26, Erast Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:56 +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > > > Will the package be orphande next time? > > > > > > No, depending on the outcome of the licensing issues, either the > > > current maintainers still continue to maintain the pa

Re: These new diffs are great, but...

On Friday 07 July 2006 15:36, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Marc Haber: > >> The machine in Question is a P3 with 1200 MHz. What's making the > >> process slow is the turnaround time for the http requests, as observed > >> multiple times in this thre

Re: make -j in Debian packages

On Friday 07 July 2006 19:06, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 03:34:59PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Err, AIUI, ruby gems are a way to automatically install extras to a > > running ruby environment, much in the same way that the CPAN module is > > used for Perl. > > > > I fail

Re: cdrtools

On Friday 07 July 2006 18:09, Erast Benson wrote: --cut-- > > * dvdrtools, a fork of the last GPLed version, is in non-free > > dvdrtools - totally useless effort. Besides, its known to be buggy and Could you please report issues you face with dvdrtools to the BTS, so that can be resolved if foun

Re: cdrtools

On Saturday 08 July 2006 06:15, Don Armstrong wrote: > NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me. > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote: > > > > what? you think if

Re: Bug#377546: ITP: schedtools -- Queries/alters process's scheduling policy; supports the -ck kernel patch

On Monday 10 July 2006 16:54, Michal Čihař wrote: > Hi > > On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:35:33 +0200 > > Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Package name: schedtools > > Version : 1.2.6 > > Upstream Author : Freek > > * URL

Re: cdrtools

On Thursday 13 July 2006 18:54, Erast Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > >> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"): > > >> > Joerg clearly stands that: > > >

Re: svn package maintenance

On Sunday 23 July 2006 20:28, John Goerzen wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 01:42:26PM +0200, Marcus Better wrote: > > martin f krafft wrote: > > > Well, ideally the support tool should not impose on the structure > > > > Yes, svn-buildpackage is quite nice since it's easy to tell it about your > >

Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?

On Thursday 27 July 2006 14:26, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: > Hi Ludovic, > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:45:11PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > > I have requested an update to Packages-arch-specific for asis and other > > packages, so that the buildds would try to build these packages on newly > > suppo

Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?

On Thursday 27 July 2006 15:55, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:06:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > AFAICT Packages-arch-specific is a quinn-diff [1] conffile, so probably > > bugreports should be filed against that package, but I'm no

Re: Always run dpkg --dry-run -i before running dpkg -i!

On Monday 10 January 2005 22:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 15:12 -0500, schreef William Ballard: > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > dpkg -I on the resulting package and looking at the depends? > > > > But you don't expect to do that for ot

Re: removed start links are back after upgrade

On Thursday 13 January 2005 02:29, Will Lowe wrote: > > It does exactly as suggested above: > > * remove existing symlinks > > * add stop with priority 0 > > * remember original priorities when enabling them later on > > ... but is not scriptable. I'm thinking of environments like a large > number

Re: apt-get internals help

On Saturday 06 September 2003 07:34, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:07:03PM -0700, Matt Chorman wrote: > > I've taken a look at the files and I understand the source configuration > > process better. What I think this adds up to is, basically, is that my > > script is going to h

Re: apt-get internals help

On Saturday 06 September 2003 19:34, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:40:34AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > On Saturday 06 September 2003 07:34, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > You cannot hope to write a script smart enough to modify an arbitrary > > >

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Sunday 21 September 2003 14:41, Herbert Xu wrote: > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am the kernel-patch-2.4-grsecurity maintainer, and I have been > > flooded with grave and important bugs ever since kernel version > > 2.4.20, since grsecurity does not apply to these kernel vers

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Sunday 21 September 2003 16:04, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:44:03PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > > * The vanilla kernel source is readily available: > > > > I don't consider this readily available. It's faster to just > > download it from kernel.org. > > Frankly, I doubt

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Monday 22 September 2003 13:13, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030922 10:40]: > > Speaking as an user, it is perfectly okay and desirable to have a > > _default_ installation Debian kernel which is patched (security, ALSA, > > whatever). Those users who don't care

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Monday 22 September 2003 14:20, Matthew Garrett wrote: > martin f krafft wrote: > >also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [2003.09.21.1= > > > >614 +0200]: > >> Should we stop shipping security fixes backported from development > >> code? > > > >It always depends, doesn't it? We are

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Thursday 25 September 2003 01:44, Matthew Garrett wrote: > martin f krafft wrote: > >also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [2003.09.22.1= > > > >320 +0200]: > >> It would be inappropriate to do it within a stable release, sure, > >> but it is something that Debian do do in general.

Re: Kernel source 2.4.22 and ipvs problems

On Monday 06 October 2003 19:38, Bao C. Ha wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:12:03PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > Hi Herbet, > > If I want both the freeswan module capability and IPVS, how should > I proceed. You need kernel hacker skills to do that. Even if these patches both apply cleanly eac

get-orig-source target in debian/rules

Hello, I would like to ask if it is a good idea to have some code in cdbs implementing the get-orig-source target which could then be included in debian/rules. Rationale: * Since it is a common target I think it could be provided by cdbs or any similar package and should not b

Re: get-orig-source target in debian/rules

On Friday 26 August 2005 14:03, George Danchev wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to ask if it is a good idea to have some code in cdbs > implementing the get-orig-source target which could then be included in > debian/rules. Over ;-) Marc Haber was extremely fast pointi

Re: arch, svn, cvs

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 15:32, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Martin Langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.30.1404 +0200]: > > But I'm leaving the Arch (tla/baz/bzr) boat too - patch-oriented SCMs > > were fun, but very disappointing. There is a central design flaw in > > pure patch tracki

  1   2   3   4   5   >