On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 05:20:01 +0100
lee wrote:
> apt-get build-dep dvbcut
> apt-get source dvbcut
> cd dvbcut
> debuild -us -uc
>
>
> ... fails with a number of errors:
I hastily went through all the post with this subject and didn't notice anyone
suggesting:
apt-get install checkinstall
apt-
--- On Sat, 11/3/12, lee wrote:
> From: lee
> Subject: Re: compiling a Debian package
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Saturday, November 3, 2012, 2:42 PM
> Go Linux
> writes:
>
> >> Just use either the drivers from their website or
> the Debian
&
Go Linux writes:
>> Just use either the drivers from their website or the Debian
>> version of
>> those. Won't that work?
>>
>>
>
> The Debian version of the driver wouldn't install. It advised me to
> use nouveau during the failed process. I had never used the sgfxi
> script before.
sgfxi s
--- On Fri, 11/2/12, lee wrote:
> From: lee
> Subject: Re: compiling a Debian package
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Friday, November 2, 2012, 6:11 PM
> Go Linux
> writes:
>
> > po'd. Thankfully, I did manage to get the driver
> for the old
Jochen Spieker writes:
> lee:
>> Darac Marjal writes:
>>
>>> Nothing (that I'm aware of) in Debian bans you from using non-free
>>> software. There is only the understanding that support for non-free
>>> software is the responsibility of that software's provider.
>>
>> You already can't use it
Go Linux writes:
> po'd. Thankfully, I did manage to get the driver for the old nvidia
> card installed with the sgfxi script but had to blacklist nouveau to
> get it to work.
Just use either the drivers from their website or the Debian version of
those. Won't that work?
--
Debian testing i
Kelly Clowers writes:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM, lee wrote:
>>
>>
>> Besides, I was told in an answer to a bug report that 32bit support will
>> not be available in the next release,
>
>
> Yeah, right. I'll believe that when I see a formal announcement of
> it on the front page of debian
Lisi Reisz writes:
> It is much the best solution to the problem you keep expounding.
It is not a solution at all.
> You clearly dislike Debian intensely, so it is daft to keep using it.
I don't dislike Debian, I only dislike that the developers broke it.
> Windows would give you everything y
--- On Thu, 11/1/12, lee wrote:
> From: lee
> Subject: Re: compiling a Debian package
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Thursday, November 1, 2012, 12:35 PM
>
> Don't worry, I like free software a lot. I don't like
> dead ends,
> though.
>
lee:
> Darac Marjal writes:
>
>> Nothing (that I'm aware of) in Debian bans you from using non-free
>> software. There is only the understanding that support for non-free
>> software is the responsibility of that software's provider.
>
> You already can't use it anymore when it's 32bit software.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM, lee wrote:
>
>
> Besides, I was told in an answer to a bug report that 32bit support will
> not be available in the next release,
Yeah, right. I'll believe that when I see a formal announcement of
it on the front page of debian.org and on debian-announce. I expec
On Thursday 01 November 2012 17:16:24 lee wrote:
> Lisi Reisz writes:
> > On Wednesday 31 October 2012 15:25:52 Darac Marjal wrote:
> >> Anyway, I feel like I'm feeding a troll here, so I'll just point you to
> >> Debian's Social Contract[4] which describes this better than I can
> >
> > He likes
Darac Marjal writes:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:39:04PM +0100, lee wrote:
> I'm not familiar with cinelerra but, according to the BTS([1] and [2]),
> there have been two^Wseveral attempts to package cinelerra that have
> fallen by the wayside. That latter bug seems to suggest that cinelerra
>
John Hasler writes:
> Lisi writes:
>> And it does rather sound as though he might be better off with
>> Windows. But at whom would he moan in that case?
>
> Microsoft, of course, with the advantage that there would be no danger
> that they would fix the problems that he moaned about.
Hilarious
Lisi Reisz writes:
> On Wednesday 31 October 2012 15:25:52 Darac Marjal wrote:
>> Anyway, I feel like I'm feeding a troll here, so I'll just point you to
>> Debian's Social Contract[4] which describes this better than I can
>
> He likes moaning. ;-) We are suggesting ways of solving his problem,
John Hasler writes:
> lee writes:
>> It is not illegal to use NVIDIA drivers, yet they are deprecated,
>> without alternative. It is probably not illegal to use firmware to
>> get hardware working that doesn't work without, yet firmware is
>> deprecated, without alternative.
>
>> The obsession w
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:04:49PM +0100, lee wrote:
> Yeah and that's why you are forced to turn your system into a mess with
> brokenarch and are supposed to try packages from unstable which create
> only more dependency problems and mess things up even further.
>
> Think it through and you'll s
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:04 AM, lee wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU writes:
>> On Mi, 31 oct 12, 04:13:59, lee wrote:
>>>
>>> Just try it and you'll see. Or you figure out how to do it and let me
>>> know. Like I said, it worked, then there was an update and it doesn't
>>> work anymore, probably beca
Lisi writes:
> And it does rather sound as though he might be better off with
> Windows. But at whom would he moan in that case?
Microsoft, of course, with the advantage that there would be no danger
that they would fix the problems that he moaned about.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
On Wednesday 31 October 2012 15:25:52 Darac Marjal wrote:
> Anyway, I feel like I'm feeding a troll here, so I'll just point you to
> Debian's Social Contract[4] which describes this better than I can
He likes moaning. ;-) We are suggesting ways of solving his problem, but it
is more fun to slag
lee writes:
> It is not illegal to use NVIDIA drivers, yet they are deprecated,
> without alternative. It is probably not illegal to use firmware to
> get hardware working that doesn't work without, yet firmware is
> deprecated, without alternative.
> The obsession with free software unfortunatel
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:39:04PM +0100, lee wrote:
> Darac Marjal writes:
>
> > libdvdcss2 brute forces the decryption on the disk and, so, might be
> > considered circumvention under the DMCA. This IS allowed in some cases
> > and in various other jurisdictions, but it's not really a sensible
On Wednesday 31 October 2012 14:22:31 lee wrote:
> Lisi Reisz writes:
> > You seem to be very unhappy with Debian. Why _are_ you still using
> > it?
>
> It's because I haven't found an alternative yet, and it's very time
> consuming to switch.
>
> > You could save your data and install something
Darac Marjal writes:
> libdvdcss2 brute forces the decryption on the disk and, so, might be
> considered circumvention under the DMCA. This IS allowed in some cases
> and in various other jurisdictions, but it's not really a sensible move
> for Debian to freely distribute such a package.
I'm awa
Lisi Reisz writes:
> You seem to be very unhappy with Debian. Why _are_ you still using
> it?
It's because I haven't found an alternative yet, and it's very time
consuming to switch.
> You could save your data and install something else.
Yes, but what?
> And granted that you would have to se
Jochen Spieker writes:
> lee:
>> Andrei POPESCU writes:
>>
>>> Firstly, you could have specified that instead of broad statements like
>>> "32 bit support has been removed from Debian". Debian is much more than
>>> the amd64 architecture.
>>
>> That is what 32bit support is about.
>
> No. Fi
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Mi, 31 oct 12, 04:13:59, lee wrote:
>>
>> Just try it and you'll see. Or you figure out how to do it and let me
>> know. Like I said, it worked, then there was an update and it doesn't
>> work anymore, probably because they modified the NVIDIA drivers, though
>> nob
Darac Marjal writes:
> libdvdcss2 brute forces the decryption on the disk and, so, might be
> considered circumvention under the DMCA. This IS allowed in some
> cases...
It is legal to use it to access a DVD you own in the USA as long as you
make no infringing copies. The problem is that the CCA
On Mi, 31 oct 12, 04:13:59, lee wrote:
>
> Just try it and you'll see. Or you figure out how to do it and let me
> know. Like I said, it worked, then there was an update and it doesn't
> work anymore, probably because they modified the NVIDIA drivers, though
> nobody knows. I've sent a bug repo
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:23:42AM +0100, lee wrote:
> Chris Bannister writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:06:37PM +0100, lee wrote:
> >> Tom H writes:
> >>
> >> > Andrei called d-m.o deprecated because, AFAIK, most of the packages in
> >> > d-m.o are now available in d.o.
> >>
> >> Cinel
lee:
> Andrei POPESCU writes:
>
>> Firstly, you could have specified that instead of broad statements like
>> "32 bit support has been removed from Debian". Debian is much more than
>> the amd64 architecture.
>
> That is what 32bit support is about.
No. First and foremost, 32 Bit support is a
On Wednesday 31 October 2012 03:23:42 lee wrote:
> Chris Bannister writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:06:37PM +0100, lee wrote:
> >> Tom H writes:
> >> > Andrei called d-m.o deprecated because, AFAIK, most of the packages in
> >> > d-m.o are now available in d.o.
> >>
> >> Cinelerra is not in
Chris Bannister writes:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:06:37PM +0100, lee wrote:
>> Tom H writes:
>>
>> > Andrei called d-m.o deprecated because, AFAIK, most of the packages in
>> > d-m.o are now available in d.o.
>>
>> Cinelerra is not in Debian, and I haven't been able to compile it, so
>> the
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Ma, 30 oct 12, 21:09:51, lee wrote:
>>
>> You're ignoring that you cannot run 32bit apps on amd64 anymore ---
>> support for that has been removed and they want to force users to switch
>> to brokenarch which doesn't work.
>
> Firstly, you could have specified that in
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Ma, 30 oct 12, 21:23:48, lee wrote:
>> Tom H writes:
>>
>> > Thanks. I'm not worried. I was just curious what Lee's misunderstanding
>> > was...
>>
>> It's not my misunderstanding. Since a while, 32bit support is gone with
>> no way to get it back, and if I didn't
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:06:37PM +0100, lee wrote:
> Tom H writes:
>
> > Andrei called d-m.o deprecated because, AFAIK, most of the packages in
> > d-m.o are now available in d.o.
>
> Cinelerra is not in Debian, and I haven't been able to compile it, so
> the only source for it is dmo. You ca
On Ma, 30 oct 12, 21:09:51, lee wrote:
>
> You're ignoring that you cannot run 32bit apps on amd64 anymore ---
> support for that has been removed and they want to force users to switch
> to brokenarch which doesn't work.
Firstly, you could have specified that instead of broad statements like
"3
On Ma, 30 oct 12, 21:23:48, lee wrote:
> Tom H writes:
>
> > Thanks. I'm not worried. I was just curious what Lee's misunderstanding
> > was...
>
> It's not my misunderstanding. Since a while, 32bit support is gone with
> no way to get it back, and if I didn't have a 64bit alternative that
> h
Tom H writes:
> Andrei called d-m.o deprecated because, AFAIK, most of the packages in
> d-m.o are now available in d.o.
Cinelerra is not in Debian, and I haven't been able to compile it, so
the only source for it is dmo. You can't even watch a DVD with what's
in Debian.
> (What do you mean by
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> Don't worry, it's just FUD. It's unlikely that i386 (as in the Debian
> architecture) will go away before the release of Jessie and even
> afterwards, it will probably stay around as a "partial architecture",
> which is a possibility introduced by multiarch.
>
> Suppor
Tom H writes:
> Thanks. I'm not worried. I was just curious what Lee's misunderstanding was...
It's not my misunderstanding. Since a while, 32bit support is gone with
no way to get it back, and if I didn't have a 64bit alternative that
half-way works, I wouldn't have Debian anymore.
--
Debia
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Andrei POPESCU
wrote:
> On Lu, 29 oct 12, 18:42:46, Tom H wrote:
>> Andrei called d-m.o deprecated because, AFAIK, most of the packages in
>> d-m.o are now available in d.o.
>
> I don't remember doing that...
I'm sorry. I could've sworn that I'd a post of yours
On Lu, 29 oct 12, 18:42:46, Tom H wrote:
>
> Andrei called d-m.o deprecated because, AFAIK, most of the packages in
> d-m.o are now available in d.o.
I don't remember doing that...
> (What do you mean by "remove 32bit support"?)
Don't worry, it's just FUD. It's unlikely that i386 (as in the De
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, lee wrote:
> John Hasler writes:
>> I wrote:
>> Andrei writes:
>>>
>>> "apt-get build-dep" should establish the required environment.
>>> Assuming a pure Debian environment. As it turns out the OP does have
>>> foreign libraries installed.
>>
>> I don't.
>
> Then
John Hasler writes:
> I wrote:
>> "apt-get build-dep" should establish the required environment.
>
> Andrei writes:
>> Assuming a pure Debian environment. As it turns out the OP does have
>> foreign libraries installed.
>
> I don't.
Then you would have to send the bug report: It was closed beca
I wrote:
> "apt-get build-dep" should establish the required environment.
Andrei writes:
> Assuming a pure Debian environment. As it turns out the OP does have
> foreign libraries installed.
I don't.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subj
On Du, 28 oct 12, 07:51:17, John Hasler wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU writes:
> > Yes, but only if you can prove it is not due to a problem in your
> > build environment. You could post console output here.
>
> "apt-get build-dep" should establish the required environment.
Assuming a pure Debian enviro
lee writes:
> Do you have packages from dmo installed?
No. I have no need for them. I just compiled dvbcut to check out the
bug. I've already deleted it.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm
John Hasler writes:
> lee writes:
>> is it a bug that should be reported when a source package doesn't
>> compile?
>
> Yes.
>
>> And how come that there is a binary package though it cannot be
>> compiled?
>
> It compiled on the developer's machine and on the buildds. Most likely
> one or more o
lee writes:
> is it a bug that should be reported when a source package doesn't
> compile?
Yes.
> And how come that there is a binary package though it cannot be
> compiled?
It compiled on the developer's machine and on the buildds. Most likely
one or more of the dependencies is not sufficientl
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> Yes, but only if you can prove it is not due to a problem in your
> build environment. You could post console output here.
"apt-get build-dep" should establish the required environment.
> Debian packages are built in controlled minimal environments that may
> be very diff
On Du, 28 oct 12, 11:44:57, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> Yes, but only if you can prove it is not due to a problem in your build
> environment. You could post console output here.
I meant "more". For example the output of the 'configure' step could be
useful.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic dis
On Du, 28 oct 12, 05:18:14, lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is it a bug that should be reported when a source package doesn't
> compile?
Yes, but only if you can prove it is not due to a problem in your build
environment. You could post console output here.
> And how come that there is a binary package th
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 05:18:14AM +0100, lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is it a bug that should be reported when a source package doesn't
> compile? And how come that there is a binary package though it cannot
> be compiled?
>
>
> apt-get build-dep dvbcut
> apt-get source dvbcut
> cd dvbcut
> debuild -u
54 matches
Mail list logo
