Arne Götje [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need some help with debconf, especially for the config and postinst
scripts.
I tried to craft my own ones for my font package and when I try to
install the package the postinst script exits with status 10. What does
this mean?
Further more, the dialog
hoi :)
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:45:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
And why it should be different if that firmware is distributed by the
manufacturer on a CD instead of a flash EPROM chip?
Because in that case the manufacturer is hurting the user by not
providing source, and we
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:34:40PM +0800, Arne Götje (?) wrote:
Further more, the dialog I have created in config gets never displayed
to the user... :(
I have attached the config, templates and postinst files.
You didn't attached your rules file and I suppose that there is a
What would you gain by having the firmware source.
Please don't tell me that you want to fix bugs there.
The firmware is part of the hardware and we don't ask the vendors to
give away their .vhdl files of the hardware. Both firmware and hardware
source are useless as they usually need
Börje Löf
AO-chef Markbyggarna
Serviceförv, Gävle kommun
Postadress: 801 84 Gävle
Besöksadress: Kanalvägen 6
Telefon: 026 - 17 84 10
Mobil:0704-140 110
Telefax: 026 - 17 84 00
E-post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ring
Packages: dpkg-cross
Version: 1.20.4 (CVS)
Severity: wishlist
Hi Nikita,
here is my proposal for dpkg-checkbuilddeps implementation.
Some words on the implementation. Package names are converted
depending on their Section they belongs to. Sections libs and
libsdevel are converted by default.
You forgot patch itself :)
Every time I say, do not forget to attach the file, the file
do not forget to do it but... }8|
--
Raphael Bossek
diff --exclude=CVS -Nru dpkg-cross.cvs/ChangeLog
dpkg-cross-1.20.4.checkbuilddeps.1/ChangeLog
--- dpkg-cross.cvs/ChangeLog2004-12-03 22:42:55.0
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 10:20:09AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
The other problem with aptitude is touted as a design feature: it
tends to be all-or-nothing. Either you use it always or you don't
(automatic removal thingie). This becomes a problem when multiple
persons use
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:16:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
That wasn't my question. My question was, why should any ISV care if
their product has been LSB-*certified*? ISVs can test against, and
advertise support for, whatever they want to without getting the LSB's
imprimatur. I cannot
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of
its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is that it
is not developed for itself but as a platform for the 10^4+ packages
and the 10+
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:22:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
I don't think Debian should try to adopt an extensive, externally
specified ABI. For a few core packges, this may make some sense, but
not for most libraries.
Lcc is also about those few core packages.
Instead, proprietary
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:44:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
In fact I'm using Debian exactly because it doesn't try to apeal ISVs,
IHVs, OEMs and other business-driven three-letter acronyms. As soon
as you ty to please them quality of implementation goes down.
Why?
It took me some
Op wo, 15-12-2004 te 05:57 -0600, schreef Marcelo E. Magallon:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 10:20:09AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
The other problem with aptitude is touted as a design feature: it
tends to be all-or-nothing. Either you use it always or you don't
(automatic removal
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
It would be nice if you included your name in your posts.
On 14 Dec 2004 09:03:20 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hardware design has very different and higher third-party costs than
software design, and
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:32:39 +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
It would be nice if you included your name in your posts.
Lordy. :-) It *is* in my posts.
See below here ...
--
WC -Sx- Jones
Hello.
Could someone take a look at htop transition?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=htop
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=htop
Both pages say that my package hasn't been built on m68k yet, but that's
not truth. It has been built on 30th of November:
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone take a look at htop transition?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=htop
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=htop
Both pages say that my package hasn't been built on m68k yet, but that's
not truth. It has
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:20:03PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Could someone take a look at htop transition?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=htop
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=htop
Both pages say that my package hasn't been built on m68k yet, but that's
Package: aptitude
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
[aptitude not properly handling packages installed by other tools]
ACK. I very much prefer the way debfoster handles this: if there are
new, unknown packages on the system, it will ask, rather than assume,
whether a package is wanted or not. And will only
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2004-12-15
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: smartpm
Version : 0.28
Upstream Author : Gustavo Niemeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://linux-br.conectiva.com.br/~niemeyer/smart/files/
* License : GPL
Description : A
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:53:54AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
What about the LCC's scope isn't clear?
Er, the fact that no actual scope has been stated? What does core mean?
What packages (libraries) are included in this core?
Core means implemention of LSB, and the packages/libraries
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of
its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is that it
is not developed for
Ian Murdock wrote:
Because the LSB bases its certification process on a standard ABI/API
specification alone, and this approach simply hasn't worked.
Surely you're simplifying here? (See LSB-Core 2.0.1, chapters 3, 4, 5.)
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
http://buildd.debian.org/
How accurate is the information on buildd? I wonder because I am
using more recent versions than a few of those reported (at least
those I checked - like gcc)
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=sparcpkg=gcc
???
--
WC -Sx- Jones
http://insecurity.org/
* Chasecreek Systemhouse [Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:55:53 -0500]:
http://buildd.debian.org/
How accurate is the information on buildd? I wonder because I am
using more recent versions than a few of those reported (at least
those I checked - like gcc)
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:00:02 +0100, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in buildd.d.o, you should specify a source package. try gcc-defaults,
and gcc-3.3. it seems that the 'gcc' source package existed for a very
short timeframe (?).
Yes, you are right. I forgot.
Or, better yet, an
On Monday 13 December 2004 21:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
What does that have to do with hardware, please?
I mean, it's a lovely statement and all, but it's wrong.
Right back at you.
Smarmy, but useless. Ok, I have figured out that you have nothing useful to
say. Thank you.
And from
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:27:45AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hamish said, Manufacturing an ASIC involves NRE...of hundreds of
thousands to millions per revision...
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You said, Manufacturing an operating system involves NRE
Installing a source tree? (But NOT a CVS tree.)
OK, this is probably somewhat retarded -- because I cannot figure it
out and it very likely is simple and I am missing something basic: I
would like to install a software package that requires the PostgresSQL
development and source code tree -- so
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:01:24PM -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
So, I humbly request suggestions or hints as to a direction I can
follow to be able to get the source cod and development tree (READ Not
CVS Tree) of say package PostgresSQL.
I have tried variations of -
apt-get
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:27:45AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hamish said, Manufacturing an ASIC involves NRE...of hundreds of
thousands to millions per revision...
Message-ID: [EMAIL
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:13:10 +, Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'postgresql-dev'.
What's the name of the software you're trying to build?
I'm creating/documenting a quick Debian_Hints file at:
http://insecurity.org/ll3i11_j0n35/Debian_Hints
Have you read many of the
Chasecreek Systemhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I have tried variations of -
apt-get install postgresql-source
as well as variations of -
apt-get build-dep [package]
apt-get source --compile [package]
What about apt-get source postgresql?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Ah, you misinterpreted my point in quite an impressive way. Valid
numbers or not, his statement was of the form Here is how we do it,
and our way is the only way in which it is possible to do it. And
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:35:40 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about apt-get source postgresql?
Yes I did, but that doesn't place/install it into the proper places --
what(where)ever they may be. I could have just as easily download the
source from postgressql website and
Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
Its a Accounting/Ledger system from http://www.sql-ledger.org/ --
apt-get install sql-ledger
* Michael Meskes:
Instead, proprietary software vendors should ship all libraries in the
versions they need, or link their software statically. I wouldn't
From a technical standpoint this may make sense, but not from the
commercial standpoint ISVs have to take. Building your own environment
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:55:53 +0100, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apt-get install sql-ledger
Um, that didn't work last night and I cannot find what command I used
when grep'ing history either ... Yep, thats my story.
OK, Im going back to my cave -- sorry for the noise.
(Thanks
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:24:15PM -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:13:10 +, Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'postgresql-dev'.
What's the name of the software you're trying to build?
I'm creating/documenting a quick Debian_Hints file at:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:59:05 +0100, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LCC could concentrate on providing such a distribution-independent
execution environment, and perform the necessary integration tests for
commercially relevant distributions.
Just an idea. I think this is far more
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:40:30PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Ah, you misinterpreted my point in quite an impressive way. Valid
numbers or not, his statement was of the form Here is how we do it,
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:51:21 +0100, Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the
quality of its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality
is that it is not
hi,
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-15 18:05]:
Could someone take a look at htop transition?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=htop
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=htop
Both pages say that my package hasn't been built on m68k yet, but that's
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am not sure I am convinced that the benefits are worth
outsourcing the core of our product -- and I think that most business
shall tell you that is a bad idea.
Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are attempting
to get to use Linux as the core of
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:40:29 -0500, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If you're having trouble picturing how Debian might engage the LCC,
here's my ideal scenario: the source packages at the core of Debian
are maintained in collaboration with the other LCC members, and the
resulting
I installed the mdadm package recently. version 1.3.0-2
I do not want the md devices to be started when I reboot the server. I
cannot find the config file which specifies this. The only way I was able
to stop this was to edit /etc/init.d/mdadm-raid.
I can't even find what process is calling
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 09:01 am, Simon Richter wrote:
aptitude could be taught to have auto-installed being Yes,No or
Unknown. Whenever a package that is in Unknown state could be removed
if it were only installed as a dependency, aptitude should list them in
the actions to be performed
David Dougall wrote:
I installed the mdadm package recently. version 1.3.0-2
I do not want the md devices to be started when I reboot the server. I
cannot find the config file which specifies this. The only way I was able
to stop this was to edit /etc/init.d/mdadm-raid.
I can't even find what
Bruce
Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are attempting
to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
core (software architecture) != core (customer value).
Also, please make sure to tell the upstream maintainers that we aren't
going to use their code any longer,
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:44:50 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am not sure I am convinced that the benefits are worth
outsourcing the core of our product -- and I think that most
business shall tell you that is a bad idea.
Well, please don't tell this
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. Does this not impede Debian in new directions we may like
to take the distribution, like, say, making Debian be Se-Linux
compatible, if we so choose?
I think it means that Debian gets to be leader regarding the things it
cares about. I doubt that the other
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:21:02 -0800, Michael K Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Bruce Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are
attempting to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
core (software architecture) != core (customer value).
Also, please make sure to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: shtoom
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.divmod.org/Home/Projects/Shtoom/
* License : LGPL
Description : Cross platform VoIP softphone in python
Shtoom is
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: styleclock
Version : 0.5.1
Upstream Author : Fred Schttgen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://fred.hexbox.de/styleclock/
* License : GPL
Description : KDE themable clock applet
Styleclock is a themeable
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libtom0
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://perso.club-internet.fr/dropfred/index_en.html
* License : GPL
Description : wraper library for using OpenGL from tcl
Tom is an
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:21:54 +0100, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
It's fine for software in main to be able to do stuff with non-free
data; that's not the issue. The question is whether there *exists*
any free data that it works with, and if not, whether that's a
problem.
I
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:00:44 +, Sam Morris wrote:
David Dougall wrote:
I installed the mdadm package recently. version 1.3.0-2
I do not want the md devices to be started when I reboot the server. I
cannot find the config file which specifies this. The only way I was able
to stop this
URL: http://www.ossp.org
Hi Dexter,
I saw that you also ITP a OSSP (www.ossp.org) project for Debian:
OSSP uuid. I intent to do the same for OSSP sa. I'm using the sa
library successful for a small application so my intention is
make it public for others who intent to do the same too.
I've done
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:29:47 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Nobody is saying that you can't override the external stuff when
necessary. Security would be a good reason to do so, if LCC is being
tardy compared to Debian.
Well, that does address my concern, thanks.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. I am not sure how to take this: either you are spoiling
for a fight, or you do not take your duties as a developer very
seriously.
I was taking the implications of your statements farther than you
intended, in order to get you to give them additional
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:53:20PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 09:01 am, Simon Richter wrote:
aptitude could be taught to have auto-installed being Yes,No or
Unknown. Whenever a package that is in Unknown state could be removed
if it were only installed as a
Hello,
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
My experience as a developer who's tried to write
an app to use the LSB (only the init script interface)
is that it's poorly enough specified and/or implemented
divergently within the spec to the point that I had to
test my implementation on every LSB distriution I
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 03:37 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It seems like Unknown would just be a synonym for No, right?
Uh, yes. I think.
You may want to explain that a bit more.
Well, from the bug report, it looks like the proposal is to maintain the
current behavior, but to set a
That file does not appear to exist.
I did find the links in /etc/rc0.d, rcS.d and rc6.d after the fact
Why is it starting the raids in runlevel 0 and 6 anyway? That seems a
little weird.
Also, I have AUTOSTART=false in /etc/mdadm/debian.conf. But, the
script jumps to the next else statement if
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:36:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:21:02 -0800, Michael K Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Bruce Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are
attempting to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
core
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:13:58 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. I am not sure how to take this: either you are spoiling for a
fight, or you do not take your duties as a developer very
seriously.
I was taking the
David Dougall wrote:
That file does not appear to exist.
I did find the links in /etc/rc0.d, rcS.d and rc6.d after the fact
Why is it starting the raids in runlevel 0 and 6 anyway? That seems a
little weird.
[...]
You seem to be using an old version of mdadm
The current mdadm in woody is 0.7.2-2,
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:29:47AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Would outsourcing the core packages to
third parties not make us less nimble (if I can use the word with a
straight face)?
Nobody is saying that you can't override the external stuff when
necessary. Security would be a good
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:05:53PM +0100, Raphael Bossek wrote:
OSSP work with you. The problem I see with OSSP are the too simple
names e.g. libsa or libuuid. The header files are also installed
by default in /usr/include. This will lead in problems for uuid
more then for sa because Debian
Bill Allombert wrote:
But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
unremedied security issue causes loss of certification. There's no
common sense in that.
Thanks
Bruce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So it was inflammatory, then. Comes under spoiling for a fight.
Only if you confuse Socrates and Sophism.
So, which version of flex you think you want to ship?
Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what
version of libc, etc., it'll make
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
unremedied security issue causes loss of certification. There's no
common
Bill Allombert wrote:
Then could you elaborate the scope of the certification ?
It's still a matter for negotiation. If the certification won't admit to
common-sense rules, it won't work for anyone - not just Debian.
Thanks
Bruce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Dec 15, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know of any other distribution that has taken the trouble to
write down as much policy as Debian has? It's not clear that the others
have anything to put against it.
Bug for bug compatibility required by their customer looks like a good
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if you need the non-free component to be on the file
system, why is this different from contrib? Why can't say of
everything in contrib that well, if the non-free jvm were to
magically appear on the file system this java code would
Whoops, I guess that's what I get for trying to be concise for once.
I'll try again.
Bruce Well, please don't tell this [i. e., outsourcing your core is
a bad idea]
Bruce to all of the people who we are attempting to get to use Linux
Bruce as the core of their products.
me core (software
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:33:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if you need the non-free component to be on the file
system, why is this different from contrib? Why can't say of
everything in contrib that well, if the non-free jvm were
Hi folks,
A package of mine installs an init script. But as the corresponding
programs plays with the motherboard's chipset configuration, it is quite
prone to break the system. So I chose not to install rc*.d symlinks by
default.
To make life easier for users, i explain in a README file how
Bruce Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what
Bruce version of libc, etc., it'll make more sense.
Flex isn't in the problem space if we're talking core ABIs. But it
certainly is if we're talking core implementations, as binutils and
modutils both depend on it. Or is
[ Rob Bradford, you're in CC: since I don't know if you read d-d and just
in case you miss this :-) ]
I've been reviewing for the Release Notes the packages in sid that are
provided for upgrade purposes only (since we did in the past for woody's
[1]). The goal is to provide a list in the
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:02:03PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 03:37 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
? It seems like Unknown would just be a synonym for No, right?
Uh, yes. I think.
You may want to explain that a bit more.
Well, from the bug report, it
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A package of mine installs an init script. But as the corresponding
programs plays with the motherboard's chipset configuration, it is quite
prone to break the system. So I chose not to install rc*.d symlinks by
default.
A technique that I've used in
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
binutils and modutils both depend on it.
On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
However, Debian seems to have addressed the issue by providing both
versions of flex. I don't see what would prevent us from going on with
that practice.
Or is the LCC proposing to
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 07:51 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
You may also want to set a flag on packages that are assumed to be
automatically installed, but of which you have no information.
aptitude never should assume that a package is automatically installed,
unless it performs the
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:33:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
A technique that I've used in packages with this issue is to install the
rc*.d symlinks by default, but also have the init script check a file in
/etc/default to see whether or not to actually start at boot. If you
install a
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
Because the former works after installing the deb without the user
ever doing anything about firmware. How do you even know there is
firmware? Maybe it is all hardcoded into the chip? Without taking the
hardware apart you can't know. Call me ignorant but what I
Nicolas writes:
I already thought about it, but I fnind it quite confusing when I cannot
run /etc/init.d/foobar by hand as soon as it is not enabled on startup.
Your script should check $PRERUNLEVEL. It will be N if you are booting.
--
John Hasler
I wrote:
Your script should check $PRERUNLEVEL. It will be N if you are booting.
That should be $PREVLEVEL.
--
John Hasler
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:11PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
binutils and modutils both depend on it.
On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
Yes, it does.
$ apt-cache showsrc binutils
Package: binutils
Binary: binutils-hppa64, binutils, binutils-doc, binutils-dev,
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 12:34:21AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
But a user felt concerned that, in the future, he may remove the package
and forget to delete the links. Then I thought I could remove the links
in postrm on purge, considering they are part of the package's
configuration
Steve Langasek wrote:
On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
Yes, it does.
Oh, you mean build-depends.
Not standardizing the toolchain used to build a set of standardized binaries
would seem to leave the LCC open to a repeat of the gcc-2.96 fiasco,
however...
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:50:44 +
Source: dnprogs
Binary: libdnet libdnet-dev dnet-common dnet-progs
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 2.28
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Patrick Caulfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:58:55 +0900
Source: cupsys
Binary: cupsys-bsd libcupsys2-dev libcupsys2 cupsys libcupsys2-gnutls10
libcupsimage2-dev libcupsimage2 cupsys-client
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.1.22-1
Distribution:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:13:56 -0600
Source: rmatrix
Binary: r-cran-matrix
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.8.19-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Douglas Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:45:53 +0100
Source: f-spot
Binary: f-spot
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.0.3-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ondřej Surý [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Ondřej Surý [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changes:
gcc-3.4 (3.4.3-5) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Updated to gcc-3.4 CVS 20041215.
Files:
f84d1c546b50d9224a84845bafdc216e 2830 devel optional gcc-3.4_3.4.3-5.dsc
ec8933c042de3d15dfe7248a9188f8de 4794673 devel optional gcc-3.4_3.4.3-5.diff.gz
701d3efd2969d2cd1884cdb5b4aad2eb 181572 doc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:07:34 -0600
Source: lme4
Binary: r-cran-lme4
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.6.10-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Douglas Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:41:37 -0800
Source: greylistd
Binary: greylistd
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.6.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Tor Slettnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Tor Slettnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:15:35 +0300
Source: drbd
Binary: drbd0.7-module-source drbd0.7-utils
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 0.7.7-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: David Krovich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Cyril
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:15:02 +0100
Source: ocaml-doc
Binary: ocaml-doc
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.08.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
