Re: wget for sarge update

On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:59:13PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote: > Hello, > > wget <= 1.9.1-4 (which is in sarge and frozen) had a security problem > (#261755) which is fixed in -6 and -7 (right now in incoming). -5 had > the first fixing patch but was not multibyte aware (#271931). > Jan Minar wrote

Bug#274806: problems with vegastrike in powerpc

Package: vegastrike-data Version: 0.4.1-2 Severity: serious On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 04:37:16PM +0200, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote: > I was trying to see why if we had more than 100 Megs free on our first > PowerPC DVD we had a third DVD with just 42 Megs, the answer is that > debian-cd tried to

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

Steve Langasek wrote: > Do the library packages not have dependencies on the data packages? In > general, it doesn't seem like people are going to select data packages > for installation by themselves anyway; which of course also means that > the impact of an incorrect relationship is also reduce

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 10:23:58AM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > FWIW, I agree with Adrian's interpretation [*]. "the packages in > > main" "must not require a package outside of main" for "execution" > > (... "Recommends"). While this sentence is fulfilled on i386

RE: Dropping 386 support

calling stuff i386 when it will not run natively on a 386 seems like asking for confustion to me why and when was this instruction emulation needed in the first place (that is why and when was the userland changed to need it) > -Original Message- > From: Adeodato Simó [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE

Re: Dropping 386 support

Steve Langasek wrote: > The d-i images really need to be built from kernel-image packages that > are in the archive at the time we ship. Optimizing for 486 isn't a very > good reason on its own to force another kernel build cycle. I had not even considered the impact of changing the optimisation,

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:19:16AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Joey Hess [Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:54:21 -0400]: > > Andres Salomon wrote: > > > Given d-i's memory requirements, and the fact that you'd be hard-pressed > > > to find a (desktop) 386 system with more than 16 megs of memory, I don't > >

Re: RC policy - editorial clarifications?

Hi Andreas, > + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be > a closure, and broken recommends break that; although I tend to > sarge-ignore if there is no other clean solution, as all-packages > don't support something like foo[i386] in their recommends line); Wh

Re: Dropping 386 support

* Joey Hess [Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:54:21 -0400]: > Andres Salomon wrote: > > Given d-i's memory requirements, and the fact that you'd be hard-pressed > > to find a (desktop) 386 system with more than 16 megs of memory, I don't > > consider debian 3.1 to be a viable candidate for installing onto a 386

Re: RC policy - editorial clarifications?

* Matthias Klose [Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:35:52 +0200]: > Andreas Barth writes: > > + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be > > a closure, and broken recommends break that; although I tend to > > sarge-ignore if there is no other clean solution, as all-packages > >

Re: RC policy - editorial clarifications?

Andreas Barth writes: > + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be > a closure, and broken recommends break that; although I tend to > sarge-ignore if there is no other clean solution, as all-packages > don't support something like foo[i386] in their recommends l

RC policy - editorial clarifications?

Hi, there are AFAICS three topics where there was/is some discussion whether they are really RC or not, and where IMHO an editorial clarification would be good (in whichever direction the clarification is). + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be a closure, and

debian-edu depends on volatile internet site to build (Was: Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386)

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 03:00:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > This package does require access to a debian mirror to build, which > could potentially be a problem on some autobuilders. Eh? I tried building this package, and I notice it FTBFS without internet connection, and would FTBFS if non-us.d.

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > 2) How should it be resolved? >- Personal favourite, make this package arch:any, and have per architecture >the needed boot loader for that architecture. I don't see any problem with making the debian-edu package arch any, although I've not tried to build

How bad is a wrong recommends? (was: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386)

* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041003 17:10]: > On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > You certainly have a good point here. I'm not suggesting to remove > > Recommends; I think the concept of Recommends is good. However, there > > is also a difference between

Re: Dropping 386 support

Andres Salomon wrote: > Given d-i's memory requirements, and the fact that you'd be hard-pressed > to find a (desktop) 386 system with more than 16 megs of memory, I don't > consider debian 3.1 to be a viable candidate for installing onto a 386. > Also, note that if we do drop 386 support, I will r

problems with vegastrike in powerpc

Hi! I was trying to see why if we had more than 100 Megs free on our first PowerPC DVD we had a third DVD with just 42 Megs, the answer is that debian-cd tried to put vegastrike-data at the end if the first dvd and it didn't fit there, so it stopped trying to fill DVD 1. This is an issue with debi

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-03 03:22]: > > If you change policy to make Recommends similar to Suggests, you > > might even remove Recommends from policy since there will no longer > > be a real difference between Rec

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

Martin Michlmayr wrote: > FWIW, I agree with Adrian's interpretation [*]. "the packages in > main" "must not require a package outside of main" for "execution" > (... "Recommends"). While this sentence is fulfilled on i386, it is > violated on !i386 which imho is a Policy violation. What would

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-03 03:22]: > If you change policy to make Recommends similar to Suggests, you > might even remove Recommends from policy since there will no longer > be a real difference between Recommends and Suggests. You certainly have a good point here. I'm not sugg

Re: Dropping 386 support

Andres Salomon wrote: > Hi, > > The kernel team is considering dropping 386 support (the 80386 > processor, not the i386 arch) from Debian. Currently, in order to > support 386, we include a 486 emulation patch (the patch can be viewed > from here: >

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 08:55:24AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Reasons for dropping 386 support are as follows: > > * d-i currently requires at least 20 megs of ram to install. My 386 > > had 4 megs of ram, which required using lowmem w/ potato's installer. I > > don't see standard d-i as

Re: Dropping 386 support

Andres Salomon wrote: > Hi, > > The kernel team is considering dropping 386 support (the 80386 > processor, not the i386 arch) from Debian. Currently, in order to > support 386, we include a 486 emulation patch (the patch can be viewed > from here: >