Re: How are things going?

2006-09-28 Thread Guillem Jover
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:51:33 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:59:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Since "Breaks field" here means "doesn't complain about the Breaks field", > > > rather than "honors the Breaks field", these changes look ok. Ar

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

2006-09-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:35:11AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > Have I overlooked any other outstanding issues in these bugs, or missed > > important details about any of the files? > Not in the bugs, but since this all got very confusing, I stopped > forwarding to the bug all problems I found.

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

2006-09-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:49:14PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Don, 28 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > > A statement that "the work must be DFSG-compliant to be accepted" is not the > > same thing as saying "this tarball is distributed under license ". > > It's the latter that introduce

Re: How are things going?

2006-09-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:59:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Since "Breaks field" here means "doesn't complain about the Breaks field", > > rather than "honors the Breaks field", these changes look ok. > > As far as *implementing* Breaks, I don't think a new feature of th

Re: release update: release notes, base freeze

2006-09-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:17:16PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > | Now it's time for the next stage of the freeze. As of today, base packages > | are frozen, along with the following "non-essential" toolchain packages: > | * debhelper > | * cdbs > | * bison > | * python and python2.4 > | * gcj

Re: How are things going?

2006-09-28 Thread Joey Hess
Steve Langasek wrote: > Since "Breaks field" here means "doesn't complain about the Breaks field", > rather than "honors the Breaks field", these changes look ok. > > As far as *implementing* Breaks, I don't think a new feature of that level > should be introduced during a freeze. Couldn't it be

kernel-related release notes for etch

2006-09-28 Thread dann frazier
I was looking to submit some individual bugs to update the kernel release notes for etch, but I think enough has changed that we should rewrite this section from scratch. I've started a draft in kernel svn in people/dannf/etch-release-notes - if the kernel team is cool with working together on thi

Re: Would an ABI change of apt for DDTP support still be accepted?

2006-09-28 Thread Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey! :-) On 09/28/2006 04:13 AM, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Otavio Salvador ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060928 08:47]: > >>I would like to ask you to review again your position. This code is >>around since 3 years ago and in use on Ubuntu too. Are too few >>

Re: Would an ABI change of apt for DDTP support still be accepted?

2006-09-28 Thread Otavio Salvador
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > * Otavio Salvador ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060928 08:47]: >> I would like to ask you to review again your position. This code is >> around since 3 years ago and in use on Ubuntu too. Are too few >> packages that will need recompile. > > How does it c

Re: please build the mew-beta package for mips and m68k

2006-09-28 Thread Stephen R Marenka
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:00:20PM +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote: > seems that the dependency for emacs21 is blocker. However > mew-beta 5.1.50's doesn't require emacs21 at build time. (Though old > version mew-beta 5.0.53+5.1rc1-1 bulid-depends `emacs21 | emacsen'.) > > Could anyone remove the

please build the mew-beta package for mips and m68k

2006-09-28 Thread Tatsuya Kinoshita
Hi, release team, (Cc: buildd admins for mips and m68k) I want to update the mew-beta package for testing, but buildd for mips and m68k don't build the mew-beta package. The buildd status: http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?packages=mew-beta | m68k | | mail/mew-beta_5.1.50-1: Dep-Wait b

debugging output in apt-get update

2006-09-28 Thread Jonas Meurer
hello, apt-get update is still very verbose about the pdiff updates: [about 300 lines with "Get: ..."] Get:334 2006-09-26-1322.12.pdiff [10.7kB] Get:335 2006-09-26-1322.12.pdiff [10.7kB] Get:336 2006-09-27-1319.38.pdiff [4821B] Get:337 2006-09-26-1322.12.pdiff [10.7kB] Get:338 2006-09-27-1319.38.

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

2006-09-28 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi Steve! On Don, 28 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > A statement that "the work must be DFSG-compliant to be accepted" is not the > same thing as saying "this tarball is distributed under license ". > It's the latter that introduces ambiguity. To cite from TeX live's "COPYING CONDITIONS": ---

Re: ICU transition

2006-09-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 01:24:14PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > I have uploaded ICU 3.6 to sid today and have had the libicu36-dev > package Provide libicu34-dev as previously discussed. Please schedule > binary NMUs for the packages that build depend upon libicu34-dev once > libicu36-dev appea

Re: release update: release notes, base freeze

2006-09-28 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Andreas Barth | Now it's time for the next stage of the freeze. As of today, base packages | are frozen, along with the following "non-essential" toolchain packages: | * debhelper | * cdbs | * bison | * python and python2.4 | * gcj | * autoconf* && automake* Not that I'm planning on changing

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

2006-09-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:05:01AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > > - If a component of a package lists a non-free license, but is distributed > > as part of a larger work that includes a blanket license statement, > > resulting in ambiguity about

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

2006-09-28 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi Frank, hi all! On Don, 28 Sep 2006, Frank Küster wrote: > , > | euler: LPPL according changelog, but no indication in file. euler v4 fixed this with a manifest afair. > | citesort.sty: no license statement This is Donald Arsenau. It was removed on CTAN and TeX live and I asked him to rei

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

2006-09-28 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi all! On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > - If a component of a package lists a non-free license, but is distributed > as part of a larger work that includes a blanket license statement, > resulting in ambiguity about which license the component is distributed > under, the bug is

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

2006-09-28 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi all! On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Frank Küster wrote: > and do not allow texlive as an alternative. Among the packages any > texlive package conflicts with, there might be some more. Some other > conflicts just indicate that the package is not up-to-date, and texlive > installs the newer version cont

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

2006-09-28 Thread Frank Küster
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The guidelines I believe we should be using when deciding such a bug is RC > as follows: Thank you for your answer. > Have I overlooked any other outstanding issues in these bugs, or missed > important details about any of the files? Not in the bugs,

Re: Would an ABI change of apt for DDTP support still be accepted?

2006-09-28 Thread Andreas Barth
Hi, * Otavio Salvador ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060928 08:47]: > I would like to ask you to review again your position. This code is > around since 3 years ago and in use on Ubuntu too. Are too few > packages that will need recompile. How does it come that the code isn't promoted at the beginning of a