On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, the one thing that I think we need to clarify here is whether we
need to list the licenses for files that aren't source code for what goes
into the binary distribution, such as the build system. The files from
Autoconf and
Hey,
I would like to know if there is any package of debian 4.0 and Lustre.
This will be the ultimate.
Yes, we've created unofficial backport for etch. Use them on your own risk ;)
See [1] for details.
But I would strongly suggest you to update to lenny which is now the stable
debian
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
and it's front-ends, it seems
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, set...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer Debian 4.0 because I feel it is more stable than 5.0.
Please define more stable.
What are the problems which you have observed? Did you reported these problems?
Am I right?
Well, if we would *know* about this fact we probably would
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Hi,
Who cares that file foo.c is licensed under GPL and bar.c under BSD?
People that want to take the source and use it elsewhere. These people
are obviously looking at the sources, and don't really need
debian/copyright information.
Let's add that if
I am trying to get ridge on the problem with lvm2. Therefore I have to
get some old packages from snapshot.debian.net. Unfortunately it seems
to be broken for some time now.
While the syntax you use doesn't seem to work anymore and /archive appears
empty it seems you can still browse directly
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:37:48 +0100
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, the one thing that I think we need to clarify here is whether we
need to list the licenses for files that aren't source code for what goes
into the
Andreas Rottmann wrote:
As I discovered that libsoup SVN trunk has libproxy as an optional build
dependency, I stumbled upon this ITP, and found out that upstream has
been made aware of this issue:
http://code.google.com/p/libproxy/issues/detail?id=21
Based on that bug, I assume that a
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:18:07PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Uh, what are you saying here? That we should use * to prepend
items in itemized lists, so that it can be converted to HTML lists by
packages.debian.org et al.? If not, what else?
Yes.
More generally, I believe we can benefit
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:51:09 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote:
Only, in this case, we need it abstracted (which it already is), and
we need it to _remain_ abstracted.
Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
it will be either completely
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:18:41 +
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
There is nothing in debian/copyright to help with that decision (nor
should there be, before anyone suggests it, because that doesn't scale
either).
Actually, I'm reconsidering that a bit - separate copyright files
Jim wrote:
Grammostola Rosea,
I want also to direct your attention to the kernel, as it has the
possibility to be more supportive of those specific needs, by having
low latency and real-time extensions patched and enabled. The debian
folks (especially waldi aka Bastien Blank will say some or
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:43:48 -0700
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
I have been reading this discussion a bit and I've been wondering what
use-case you actually have for machine-readable debian/copyright files.
This is quite different than having the *license terms* recorded in a
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it unacceptable. If a package
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Grammostola Rosea
rosea.grammost...@gmail.com wrote:
Mmh this is interesting, cause there is an realtime kernel available in the
ubuntu hardy repo, but not in Debian yet. Would be nice if there was one
which users could install. But I'm not an rt-kernel expert
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Jim wrote:
Grammostola Rosea,
I want also to direct your attention to the kernel, as it has the
possibility to be more supportive of those specific needs, by having
low latency and real-time extensions patched and enabled. The debian
folks (especially waldi aka
Hello,
the dpkg team and the texinfo maintainer have laid out a plan to
get rid of dpkg /usr/sbin/install-info and start relying on
GNU's install-info when needed. This will involve some work to
transition properly. We have described our plan here:
Hi All,
I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on Alioth.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its review.
The conversion and all other steps are working, but there's room
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Do you really need real time kernel?
Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes,
real time is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel is
certainly very useful
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Do you really need real time kernel?
Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes,
real time is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel is
Hi guys,
I'm currently thinking about deduplication[1] on my Debian systems.
As you probably know, the whole thing about deduplication is that
replacing files with content with hardlink to other file(s) with the
exact same content is sometimes a good idea, at least to regain
(uselessly used) disk
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
it
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyright files.
That's not a win, AFAICT.
Don't use
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I do use a real-time kernel on a Debian based system for one of my
customers (but I have to recompile the kernel anyway because I do other
customizations) and I have good reasons to do so because I can't suffer
serial overrun and I must ensure
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:44:18PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
PROPOSAL START
===
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project, which have
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /usr for
example).
I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it break the
hardlink before replacing a
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /usr for
example).
I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it break the
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:09:25PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /usr for
example).
I
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
Is it really useful to have only a subset of packages using the
format? Isn't only going to be the small packages that have no
particular licence problems that would adopt it because it's almost
trivial to do so? Unless maintainers of complex packages
Jerome Warnier wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under /usr for
example).
I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks.
On 2009-03-24, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:09:25PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog
hert...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good idea, as
dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever
[Jerome Warnier]
I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it break the
hardlink before replacing a file or does it replace the file whatever
its real nature is?
You know, given the time it takes to type a 20-line email, including
finding the appropriate Wikipedia article to link
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Jerome Warnier]
I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it break the
hardlink before replacing a file or does it replace the file whatever
its real nature is?
You know, given the time it takes to type a 20-line email, including
finding the
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Jerome Warnier wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good
idea, as
dpkg is supposedly the only one to ever modify the files (under
/usr for
example).
I don't know
hiya,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:29:08PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
Alioth.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its review.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:29, Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote:
Hi All,
I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
Alioth.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its
In article 49c8dcdb.90...@beeznest.net you write:
Before the upgrade, the file is a hardlink (because I hardlinked it
manually), then it tries to upgrade the file/hardlink. Does it break
the hardlink* before upgrading the file or does it overwrite the
file/hardlink and all of its siblings?
*
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:34:09PM +0100, Jerome Warnier
jwarn...@beeznest.net wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Jerome Warnier wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages, though, deduplication might be a good
idea, as
dpkg
Steve McIntyre wrote:
In article 49c8dcdb.90...@beeznest.net you write:
Before the upgrade, the file is a hardlink (because I hardlinked it
manually), then it tries to upgrade the file/hardlink. Does it break
the hardlink* before upgrading the file or does it overwrite the
file/hardlink
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:40:05PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
Additionally, I'm looking for a post-commit hook that can send the
commit diff via email to a ml + tagpending the bugs in the diff. I'm
pretty sure someone out there has this script ready yet, so let's
share :)
i mentioned this on
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:34:09PM +0100, Jerome Warnier
jwarn...@beeznest.net wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Jerome Warnier wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jerome Warnier wrote:
For files from packages,
Jerome Warnier jwarn...@beeznest.net (Di 24 Mär 2009 14:58:35 CET):
The question here is: which one is the hardlink to the other? :-P
You can't distinguish hardlinks from each other - in the sense of
original and link...
They are just different directory entries referring to the same file
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 03:11:17PM +0100, Jerome Warnier
jwarn...@beeznest.net wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:34:09PM +0100, Jerome Warnier
jwarn...@beeznest.net wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Jerome Warnier wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tiago Bortoletto Vaz ti...@debian-ba.org
* Package name: tapiir
Version : 0.7.2
Upstream Author : Maarten de Boer mdeb...@iua.upf.es
* URL : http://www.iua.upf.es/~mdeboer/projects/tapiir/
* License : GPL
Programming
Am Dienstag, den 24.03.2009, 14:40 +0100 schrieb Sandro Tosi:
Additionally, I'm looking for a post-commit hook that can send the
commit diff via email to a ml + tagpending the bugs in the diff. I'm
pretty sure someone out there has this script ready yet, so let's
share :)
If you have your Git
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 15:30, Manuel Prinz man...@debian.org wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 24.03.2009, 14:40 +0100 schrieb Sandro Tosi:
Additionally, I'm looking for a post-commit hook that can send the
commit diff via email to a ml + tagpending the bugs in the diff. I'm
pretty sure someone out
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
Alioth.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its review.
The conversion and all other
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
Alioth.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd like to ask you for its review.
The
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
i have something based on an earlier hook by adeodato, which does
the former (commit msg+diff):
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/seanius/vcs-hooks/git-post-receive-diff.git
note that this is not post-commit but post-recieve (i.e. after a push to the
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:39:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Sadly it doesn't extract closes: from debian/changelog but only from the
commit notice (and in dpkg's case I tend to not mention debian
bugs in the commit log but only in debian/changelog).
yes, it was designed to work more in
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes:
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes:
I tried to put together a guide[1] to convert SVN repo to Git hosted on
Alioth.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#ConvertaSVNAliothrepositorytoGit
Since I'm not that expert in Git, I'd
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Do you really need real time kernel?
Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two
quotes,
real time is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any
Jerome Warnier wrote:
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Jerome Warnier]
I don't know however how dpkg treats hardlinks. Does it break the
hardlink before replacing a file or does it replace the file whatever
its real nature is?
You know, given the time it takes to type a 20-line
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
What I did manually was something like
find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort (or similar tools, make sure they're
sorted in a way as dpkg would
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:42:17PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
What I did manually was something like
find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
... now it is only the two of us which needs to stop talking and start
proposing patches as needed :-)
Before patches, I've created a page on Debian wiki to better articulate the
proposal:
http://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade
I'll update this
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
I'm curious as to why no one is looking at the index node numbers
themselves.
Because the second field of ls -l is hardlink count and is enough
alone to conclude:
7342643 -rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 101992 Apr 4 2008 ls
^
vs
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes:
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
What I did manually was something like
find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort (or similar tools, make sure
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello developers,
I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
most upstream source packages, why do we second-guess upstream
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:52:28AM -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort (or similar tools, make sure they're
sorted in a way as dpkg would sort the versions) | while read i; do
git-import-dsc $i
done
git-import-dscs (note the extra s on the end) does
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
most upstream source packages, why do
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
,
| 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
|notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
|documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
`
Do we
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@ubuntu.com writes:
And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg
is a symlink, so they have no copyright.
All such binaries have a hard dependency on a package that does include
copyright, but that's a good point. I don't know if legally
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:47:37AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this
Reinhard Tartler a écrit :
Not completely. If you have the tarballs of the released versions you
can import and merge them.
can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
We did that inside the OCaml team to migrate
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:32:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@ubuntu.com writes:
And even if it was, there are binary packages whose /usr/share/doc/$pkg
is a symlink, so they have no copyright.
All such binaries have a hard dependency on a package that does
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:19:36PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
But we do distribute binaries in the debs - and debian/copyright is
not only for the source but also ends up in the deb.
Actually, Policy does not make mandatory for the .deb file to contain
a copyright file at all:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary
will fix
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyright
Stéphane Glondu st...@glondu.net writes:
Reinhard Tartler a écrit :
Not completely. If you have the tarballs of the released versions you
can import and merge them.
can you point me to someone (or ideally to a script or detailed
explanation) that managed to do that in an automated way?
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
,
| 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
|notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
|documentation and/or other materials provided with
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:26:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
that had better be never. If the intent is for this to be broadly
adopted, the specification should be fixed as early as possible, and we
should not adopt
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
Nice sound bite. But a spec or a standard's big value comes if
it is fixed to be widely accepted, even if it means that some parts of
the standard are optional.
I hope that you will contribute your opinion when DEP 5 has a draft to
review.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary
will fix
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
So we already allow packages to reference other packages for license
informations.
With the important requirement that the referenced package that
contains the license information must also be installed on every
system where the
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not after
we got the
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Harald Braumann wrote:
Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
it will be either completely impossible, or it will take two or three
stable releases to do it). It was trouble enough to implement
invoke-rc.d.
Who would want to do that,
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
that had better be never.
Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
solicited (though it is currently inefficiently gathered and
processed, and that
Hello,
I want to by a slim laptop, but the last time that was buy a laptop was
a Toshiba Portege R100 and still I have not 3D support.
I don't want to make a wrong decision, so can you please recommend the
best slim laptop today supported fully support on linux?
Thank you very much in
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:40:02AM -0300, gusti wrote:
Hello,
I want to by a slim laptop, but the last time that was buy a laptop was
a Toshiba Portege R100 and still I have not 3D support.
I don't want to make a wrong decision, so can you please recommend the
best slim laptop today
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, gusti wrote:
Hello,
I want to by a slim laptop, but the last time that was buy a laptop was
a Toshiba Portege R100 and still I have not 3D support.
I don't want to make a wrong decision, so can you please recommend the
best slim laptop today supported fully support
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh
bureaucratic rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
that had better be never.
Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly
solicited (though it is currently
Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not
Dear all,
there has been a lot of talk about the machine-readable format. The wiki page
on which the proposal was started attracted almost 500 modifications, but for
this reason became progressively unreadable with time. We (Steve Langasek, Noah
Slater and I) are currently preparing a synthethic
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm curious... What do you think *is* the Debian way of doing things
like this ?
Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP was needless bureaucracy.
I'm hardly likely to argue with you about what constitutes the Debian way, but
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There are 215
packages waiting [1] about half of which have been there 3 or more
weeks.
Last time I asked [2], the result was a large thread discussing what
manual work is done in processing NEW. I suggest reading through that
thread
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
If the spec is being bruited under the understanding that
the flaws do not matter
Who's doing that? Of course the flaws matter.
So answering criticism of the current spec with well, it is
Sorry, you right.
Mauro Lizaur wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, gusti wrote:
Hello,
I want to by a slim laptop, but the last time that was buy a laptop was
a Toshiba Portege R100 and still I have not 3D support.
I don't want to make a wrong decision, so can you please recommend the
best
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon?
It was processed recently. One of the packages I uploaded to NEW just got
approved. It's not being processed horribly quickly, but it *is* being
processed.
In the case of a SONAME bump of an
Harald Braumann dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:57:45AM +0100]:
Only, in this case, we need it abstracted (which it already is), and
we need it to _remain_ abstracted.
Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
it will be either completely impossible, or it will
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:54:42AM -0500]:
Err, isn't munin a hugely complex beasty, that has to be
configured for the network, and usually lives on a signle machine and
polls others? and does alerting and graphing and is a pain to
configure? On the other hand,
Marco d'Itri dijo [Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:14:53PM +0100]:
trouble for embedded or limited ones. I don't do embedded personally so I
have no idea how udev fares there, but I can tell you that vservers and udev
don't go well together. Udev expects a real system where there's none and
then
I think 95% of the users of the linuxaudio.org community (LAU mailinglist)
uses a realtime kernel (CONFIG_HZ_1000 + Mingo patch (!?)). Discussion if
it is still needed bumps up there once in a while, for example:
http://linuxaudio.org/mailarchive/lau/2009/3/10/153190
But till now people
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:22:04 +1100 Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
...
Those who don't like the very *idea* of a machine-parseable format for
.debian/copyright apparently exist, but I don't understand their
position yet :-)
I'd be one of those.
Whenever you add new structural
Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100]:
This theory does not match the project history in any way.
vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient
level of support to be valid to be called for vote:
The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804
Stephen Gran dijo [Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:23PM +]:
Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
You're aware that you can
Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]:
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
to the point
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org writes:
And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this
thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_ a
ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might just be
recognized as an important viewpoint to
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
