On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
IMHO, leaving out 2.4 is a bad idea. there were problems with 2.0 - 2.2.
there was an incompatible build of lsof, as well as some networking
problems. i feel the same way about xf86
Put it in! Leave it out! Put it in! Leave it out! All right
already! Good gods people, get lives---or at least go code or something.
The fact of the matter is that there is never going to be a right time
to release. There's always one more very important feature new software
will add.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] SCOTT FENTON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reccomend
that, even if it's not the default, we include a 2.4 /binary/ in potato.
What about an update later?
I upgraded to potato (not in one step) because I needed some special
packages and did not want to compile them. But my
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Alexander N. Benner wrote:
Hi
I just updated my potato system, so except of 9 Packages who got updated in
the last 3 hours :-} I should have a system as it is represented by
ftp.de.debian.org.
I still have 4 unmet dependencies:
python-base (interpret) depends on
Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
to create guidelines to what we consider a free documentation, as in free
speech.. =)
Trouble ahead?
Please run apt-get install apt before doing the dist-upgrade. Old apt
don't manage well the perl transition. This will be documented in the
Release Notes.
Why don't we make the new perls conflict the old apt?
At the place where I work they still have a number of machines running
an ancient Linux distribution called FT with the 1.2.13 kernel. The
machines work perfectly. In fact, they work a lot better than the Red
Hat 6.0 machines in some respects: there are a number of things (xfs,
lpr with Netware
And/or make the new Perl pre-depend on the new apt, so the apt update
will happen before anything else?
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
Trouble ahead?
Please run apt-get install apt before doing the dist-upgrade. Old apt
don't manage well the perl transition. This will be
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:32:07PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier was heard to say:
Trouble ahead?
Please run apt-get install apt before doing the dist-upgrade. Old apt
don't manage well the perl transition. This will be documented in the
Release Notes.
Why don't we make the new perls
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:21:14AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
The behaviour of the user space nfs server has changed in a potentially
nasty way and there's no documentation about it in the package or
better yet at installation time.
This is a bug introduced last year. I have a fixed
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, [iso-8859-1] Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
Trouble ahead?
Please run apt-get install apt before doing the dist-upgrade. Old apt
don't manage well the perl transition. This will be documented in the
Release Notes.
Why don't we make the new perls conflict the old apt?
Trouble ahead?
Please run apt-get install apt before doing the dist-upgrade. Old apt
don't manage well the perl transition. This will be documented in the
Release Notes.
Why don't we make the new perls conflict the old apt?
Augh, no don't do that!
Upgrading APT will have
Alright, here's the warning so I don't see to be 'boasting' or
something similar: I work for TurboLinux as the lead distribution
engineer. Before most of debian-devel's technical skills, I am but a
neophyte. However, I would like to offer my point of view as
someone working in the industry.
Philippe Troin wrote:
The first time I tried to run apt (on a NFS archive), the package
scanning done by debconf failed because base-perl was missing getopt.
Yes, this should be fixed in the 2.2.8 floppies.
- Every package using debconf asked the questions before install,
and in the
I uploaded ircII-4.4M to incoming on master for frozen and unstable. This
should fix the mentioned bug, also I cant find a note about it in the
upstreams changelog file.
Greetings
Bernd
- Forwarded message from bladi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
libglide2-v3 (libs) depends on device3dfx-module
device3dfx-module does not appear to be available
That's Bug #57702, but it's not release critical, although it makes the
package uninstallable!
And is someone upgrading it's
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone else. being
a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind in an industry
Have you listened to yourself? Depends on what your aims are; if you want
to be
Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anybody know what happened to netcomics? I'd been assuming it
was pulled from potato but left in woody, but I just looked and that
doesn't seem to be the case. The only normal or archived bug on it
doesn't say anything about pulling the
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 22:32:34 +0100, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Josip On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz
Josip wrote:
behind in an industry that moves as fast as open source
software, is idiocy.
Josip Why do we have to be a part of an industry?
Josip == Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josip Why do we have to be a part of an industry? Debian would be
Josip commercial if we truely cared about the industry...
It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
outmoded, we can't honestly say we are trying to be
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Making last minute changes and rushing in x.0 versions of
Marcus critical software is just Plain Wrong. Especially the Linux
Marcus kernels are often very unstable 'til x.12 or 14.
Why is it bad having a stable kernel
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben What problems have we have with slink not being 2.2? I don't see
Ben any. In fact, I protest profusely, since 2.4 will require a
Ben great deal of work to work out the pcmcia kinks. There is
Ben nothing wrong with 2.2. What I want is
Ben
Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone else. being
a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind in an industry
Have you listened to yourself?
Josip Rodin writes:
What happens to vm then? I depends on emacs19 (and not emacs20) ...
Obviously, the same, otherwise it would have a broken dependency.
vm
Do all of these have replacements that work with other emacsen?
No, that's the problem. vm works just with emacs19 or within
On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
several people. Though it may not work as a default ekrnel,
But can we integrate the necessary new changes to properly support 2.4?
devfsd, the new firewall code, new PCMCIA, etc?
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 12:07:11PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote:
Package: nfs-kernel-server (debian/main)
Maintainer: Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
59641 nfs-kernel-server: conflicts with Standard package nfs-server
Package: nfs-server
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 06:38:53PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
The info's from CVS are better IMHO (then again, I'm biased, I helped write
it :), they contain a tutorial about setting up grub. I wonder if the
How can I get it without setting up CVS?
package from `unstable' has them... maybe
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:14:56PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The simple fact you are missing is that Debian is not an industry.
Which doesn't mean that all arguments are not valid. As Manoj pointed out,
being outdated is not making us reach our technical goals.
Don't make the same
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 02:31:56PM -0800, Erik wrote:
I think this should go in, but should have extensive testing first, in a short
time if possible.
Yes, I think so, too. I just install lilo 21.3 here (that's the version
number) and it works fine.
Roland
--
Roland Bauerschmidt --
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:41:10PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Josip Why do we have to be a part of an industry? Debian would be
Josip commercial if we truely cared about the industry...
It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
outmoded, we can't honestly say
Previously Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
Somone's obviously been doing to much C lately...
More like almost no perl. I think the dpkg scripts are the only perl
I touch these days..
Unfortunately, dselect itself also seems broken---when I select the
'U'pdate menu item, dselect exits with the
The solution to this is that we ignore woody for the moment, and begin an all
out effort to get the 2.4 kernel, XF4.0, and Apache 2.0 into Debian as STABLE.
The work for these things can also incorporate the work needed to re-add the
packages that were removed because of bugs. I know people LOVE
I agree, we shouldn't care about keeping up with the other dists when
stability may suffer because of it. At the same time, as you have noticed,
there are a number of commercial packages out there that may require the newer
kernel versions, or apps. We do NOT want people to choose Redhat over
i still don't see why compiling a kernel on your own is a problem. i
have never used a precompiled kernel, and i never had problems.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:02:40AM -0800, David Bristel wrote:
I agree, we shouldn't care about keeping up with the other dists when
stability may suffer because
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Dave said:
The solution to this is that we ignore woody for the moment, and begin an all
out effort to get the 2.4 kernel, XF4.0, and Apache 2.0 into Debian as STABLE.
The work for these things can also incorporate the work needed to re-add the
packages that were removed
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Stefan said:
i still don't see why compiling a kernel on your own is a problem. i
have never used a precompiled kernel, and i never had problems.
Same here. IMHO, kernel-image packages are nice, but AFAIK, most users benifit
from recompiling the kernel at some point
Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Slink is called `stable' for a reason. It's not obsolete for people who
just want a stable distribution.
Of course, it is obsolete for people who want a nice GNOME (or especially
KDE) environment, or those who own Athlons or other hardware the kernel
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:44:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Making last minute changes and rushing in x.0 versions of
Marcus critical software is just Plain Wrong. Especially the Linux
Marcus kernels are often very
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:37:01PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:14:56PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The simple fact you are missing is that Debian is not an industry.
Which doesn't mean that all arguments are not valid. As Manoj pointed out,
being outdated is
I intend to package EPM, the Easy Software Products Package Manager.
(Actually, I've already packaged it, so this is more an intent to
upload to woody.)
License: GPL.
Package: epm
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: devel
Installed-Size: 110
Maintainer: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL
I have been getting a fair amount of mail about this so I thought I would
mail two of the most widely-read lists Debian has. Hopefully folks will
agree with me that XFree86 4.0 support has ramifications for both users and
developers. I don't subscribe to -user, so I will not see replies posted
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 05:20:21PM +0100, Stefan Ott wrote:
i still don't see why compiling a kernel on your own is a problem. i
have never used a precompiled kernel, and i never had problems.
Install floppy kernel has to be able to work with your system. Beyond
that, yeah build your own.
--
Today's news flash: omitted words can really change the meaning of a sentence.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:16:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
They're not available yet, so I am sending this message to apprise Debian
users my fellow developers of the situation.
...users AND my fellow
I have. In fact at one point I toyed with putting in a 2.3 kernel in.
But I'm thinking of the people who don't want to compile a new kernel
and listen to marketdroids for facts (eg. Debian is so out of date, it
still has a 2.0 kernel).
Jim Lynch wrote:
If debian puts a 2.4 in, they will have
According to Christian Hammers:
According to the automated report:
Package: nfs-kernel-server (debian/main)
Maintainer: Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
59641 nfs-kernel-server: conflicts with Standard package nfs-server
Package: nfs-server (debian/main)
Maintainer: Herbert Xu
According to Josip Rodin:
They can't both be standard if they conflict with each other, see Policy.
Well, then, don't remove one, just change its priority!
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:18:35PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
They can't both be standard if they conflict with each other, see Policy.
Well, then, don't remove one, just change its priority!
Who said I want to remove one? :)
--
enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
I'm using leafnode 1.6.2-3 in slink 2.1r5.
It segfaults in many unpredictable cases.
An example:
storing [EMAIL PROTECTED]: alt.folklore.computers
..as article 483 in alt.folklore.computers
alt.folklore.computers: receiving article 132929 (108 more up in the air)
unable to store article
Stefan Ott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
i still don't see why compiling a kernel on your own is a problem. i
have never used a precompiled kernel, and i never had problems.
well, if you want to stay on the topic of which kernel to include, there's
something you must understand. there are
On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who were
turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I personally
got around this by running potato (unstable then), but most people don't
WANT to run
On 12-Mar-00, 06:37 (CST), Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:14:56PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The simple fact you are missing is that Debian is not an industry.
Which doesn't mean that all arguments are not valid. As Manoj pointed out,
being outdated
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 06:27:41PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Nothing wrong about that, if we don't go a long way to make additional
changes in the various admin packages (isdn, pcmcia comes to mind).
I was always a supporter of the latest and greatest kernel as a binary
package in
Jason == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
several people. Though it may not work as a default ekrnel,
Jason But can we integrate the necessary new changes to properly
Jason
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jason == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
several people. Though it may not work as a default ekrnel,
Hi *,
I just wanted to report the current status of the Ghostscript 6.0
package. I made a first version without all the patches applied to
the elder releases (I wanted to have something working first).
I will now continue to reapply the patches to the new Ghostscript.
As soon as I have a
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jason == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
several people. Though it may not work as a default ekrnel,
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Probably not. But That's why no one is talking about making
2.4 the default kernel. We package it up, we put i warnings, and we
let it out for those of us who can really use it.
Those can really use it are those who
57 matches
Mail list logo
