On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 07:53:06AM -0700, David Bristel wrote:
The current `sub-release' (whatever) of Debian 2.1 is r3, right?
I was just wondering, as all references on the web site are to r2,
but I thought I received a message from the security team about
r3 last week somtime. Just
Guy Maor wrote:
What about just keeping the last 2.0.x and the last 2.2.x ?
I agree. One 2.0.x, one 2.2.x, eventually one 2.[34].x version.
This has been discussed before, people agreed that there's too much of
the kernel packages in there. You're the FTP admin, please act.
Brian Mays wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 12:04:53AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Yes you may :) GNU info has been set to read its files from that directory
since long time ago, IIRC before hamm.
No, it's not in policy yet.
Sorry, I meant to say yes you can. But it should become policy soon,
so that
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:46:41PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
So, what's the problem? We don't autodetect all of binary dependencies
either. Maintainers generally know what they need to build their
packages;
it should be trivial for them to list the dependencies explicitly!
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:38:11PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
no, but vi as been standard unix editor since times immemorial, and people
expect to find it on any unix system.
The boot disk is not a system at all - it is crippled in every way.
And we don't have a vi that would fit in 25KB.
--
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:31:15PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
remove this help stuff, and have just some sort of help binding that will
bring
it up. That would be nicer, and let more space for editign.
That's okay too, as long as it is clearly written (e.g. like in joe,
Ctrl-K H for help).
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 06:40:09PM +0300, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
Of course, these are all very nice ideas... but we currently don't
have any PLACE to put the list (where it'll get used by dpkg* tools),
whether it is manually or automatically generated!
IIRC Ben Collins had made a
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 07:42:35PM +0300, Amos Shapira wrote:
Not daring to upgrade my machines to glibc 2.1 yet for lack of
stability, I was hoping I'll be able to upgrade my package on
master.debian.org but now see that it is also based on glibc 2.0.
Is there any debian glibc 2.1 machine
On Mon, May 24, 1999 at 12:53:51PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
Can I upload packages with the /usr/info - /usr/share/info modification?
Yes you may :) GNU info has been set to read its files from that directory
since long time ago, IIRC before hamm.
Can I upload packages with the /usr/man -
On Mon, May 24, 1999 at 09:24:48PM -0400, James R. Van Zandt wrote:
Can I upload packages with the /usr/info - /usr/share/info modification?
Yes you may :) GNU info has been set to read its files from that directory
since long time ago, IIRC before hamm.
Okay, then I propose that we next
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 07:48:54AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
Can I upload packages with the /usr/info - /usr/share/info modification?
Yes you may :) GNU info has been set to read its files from that directory
since long time ago, IIRC before hamm.
Can I upload packages with the
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 10:10:56AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
it's more that
when you're in a hurry trying to fix some system that has gone down you
don't have time to mess around learning some stupid editor which doesn't
do any of the things you need it to do.
being restricted to a
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 03:07:19AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Some of these can be detected automatically (#5 could be discovered with a
grep on debian/rules, for example), but some can't.
So, what's the problem? We don't autodetect all of binary dependencies
either.
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:13:29AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
Well, what can the bootdisk makers say about that, but - who cares?!
I use joe all the time, but I do not complain that the boot disk
doesn't contain it, and that I am restricted to a primitive editor
and I have to think about
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:46:18AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
This, FYI, is why I sopped using joe. Not only is it buggy if used from a
buggy terminal emulator like windoze telnet, it had occasional bugs running
in an xterm (not screen display, but failure to reset the terminal properly
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:20:11PM +0200, Guenther Thomsen wrote:
you are also making the mistake of assuming that joe is in any way a
standard tool. it is not. the only two text editors which can lay claim
to being a standard part of any unix are ed and vi.
On a rescue disk you
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 02:57:26PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
ae barely even WORKS!
it's crap in every other mode, it's just crap! =
_PICO_ is a more functional editor than ae, at least it works.
toss ae, and get something that functions.
From what I've seen, ae functions perfectly. It
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:08:00AM +0100, Steve Haslam wrote:
gtk-doc is the upstream name, but a more distinct name may be
preferred to distinguish it from gtk+-docs, libgtk1.2-doc, gnome-docu,
gnome-dev-info... Perhaps gtk-doc-tools ? Maybe keep the source
called gtk-doc and call the binary
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:16:26AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
Joe might also be a good option because of its wordstar-esque keys.
I HATE wordstar key binds, so does everybody else.
~~
This part of the sentence is completely absurd.
--
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 11:23:54AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
joe is not discontinued upstream. Joe Allen just hasn't worked on it in
3+ years as he worked on other things. Recent posts from him on comp.editors
suggests that he is going to start working on joe again.
That's great news!
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:07:59PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
That's great news!
Eh, until I see a new version from JA I'm not holding my breath. :)
Of course... :(
It is THE worst editor to use when you have a terminal with any kind
of illness (and that is my most common situation, for
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:00:20AM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
JM libgtop0 should be removed from the archive; it is obselete and
JM replaced by libgtop1. gnome-utils 0.99.3-1 depends on it -- but
JM gnome-utils 0.99.3-1 is also obselete, but I cannot find a
JM replacement, even though I
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 07:41:20PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
I don't know which (pseudo-)package I should submit to, so I post it
to this list.
I e-mailed this to a couple of people but got no response.
I am no longer the maintainer of this package, but no-one has yet taken
it over. Should
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 12:35:27PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
twice a week to every developer.
It does? It sure didn't send that anything like that to me...
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 04:40:14PM -0500, Oleg Krivosheev wrote:
looking into GNOME i got some (maybe stupid) idea:
what about creating empty packages only to satisfy dependancies and
be able to install loosy related set of packages. Metapackage
seems to be the right name for such creature
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:36:41AM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
Remove as many dependencies on old libraries as possible, this
includes:
libjpegg6a, libncurses3.4, newt0.25, libpgsql, tk4.2, tcl7.6,
libwraster1, libpng0g
and various older gtk/gnome libraries.
Hi,
While I was packaging hwtools, I stumbled across a program to set up
QIC-02 cards, qic02conf. It is included in hwtools, but it doesn't
have much documentation. I've found the upstream source, it was on
Metalab (Sunsite), and thought that it would be nice if someone would
package the whole
On Sun, May 16, 1999 at 10:26:18AM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Boa is nice as well, but has too many open bugs, and the maintainer
never ever seems to respond.
Unfortunately, that would mean that boa is not maintained upstream,
because Jon Nelson is also the upstream maintainer :(
--
On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 01:07:26AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
Easy solution, buy one of those non-free Debian CDs, with the bits of non-free
they can shove on a CD on. Loads of vendors do them.
No, the non-freeness isn't the problem with this version. FTP admin
said that licence says that we
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 04:14:00PM -0700, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
a new version of jdk117 from blackdown (v3) has been released. apparently,
the problems with glibc2.1 have been resolved, though i haven't checked this
out myself.
is anybody working on packaging it? can i
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 09:07:14AM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
I think you should look in http://va.debian.org/~bfulgham/ and download
the version of mozilla that is (hopefully) still there. If it works, and
if more people agree with it, I'll put it in potato.
The only problem I had with
On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 05:29:28AM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
How is the other nicname chiark, elrangen, and giano named ?
Are they named after the name of the location ?
The machines had those names in their FQDNs, ftp.uni-erlangen.de,
chiark.greenend.ac.uk, giano.com.dist.unige.it.
--
On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 12:02:32PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Everything seems to build fine according to Tinderbox. Let's
try another build Josip and see how it works out. If we can't
get it to build cleanly, I will pull CVS over my phone line at
home and try building on my Potato
On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 12:23:14PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
What about non i386 builds ?
What about them? The upload will contain source, and you'll be perfectly
free to recompile it :)
Yes, ...
but mozilla is pretty big, 17MB i think, so the compile will use lots of disk
space
On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 01:35:19PM +0100, Vincent Murphy wrote:
It is already in Incoming.
It was rejected from it (see Incoming/REJECT), because of some
no-distribution clause in the licence.
ok. i'm just wondering how SuSE and anybody else who gives it out on CDs
gets away with
On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 12:26:09AM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
The machines had those names in their FQDNs, ftp.uni-erlangen.de,
chiark.greenend.ac.uk, giano.com.dist.unige.it.
uhm,,, the FQDN of the new upload-queue host is master.debian.or.jp,,,
Do you feel that debian-jp is
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 01:13:10PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
mozilla should work for potato
Maybe it will ;) We'll try.
If it doesn't, I guess the current mozilla should be removed? It's sort
of old now, and it doesn't work with glibc 2.1.
I was kidding - newer mozilla
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:12:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
mozilla should work for potato
Maybe it will ;) We'll try.
If it doesn't, I guess the current mozilla should be removed? It's sort
of old now, and it doesn't work with glibc 2.1.
I was kidding - newer
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:38:36PM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
How do I distinguish between stable and unstable in this scenario ?
How do I define that my package should go into:
- unstable
- non-US
- main
or
- unstable
- non-US
- non-free
There is something I have
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 08:09:01AM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
I hope that the site for dupload established
in Japan so that we can select the near site to upload our packages.
In current standard /etc/dupload.conf contains chiark (uk), master (us?),
erlangen (de), and giano (it). I hope
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 02:08:13PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
Who decides weather a non-US package goes in non-US/main, non-US/contrib or
non-US/non-free? Are there any guidelines available?
Yes, actually, the Debian Free Software Guidelines :)
Software that is threatened by US crypto
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 03:44:15PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
264c7c1726f8d333a7de8c356bd7a73e 619 non-us/net optional ssh_1.2.26-4.dsc
8346f02e1de9f0771a56612e044b2b91 46926 non-us/net optional
ssh_1.2.26-4.diff.gz
d24a8fe61a54ecace08cf6349bfd5e93 430966 non-us/net optional
Hi all,
Don't ask me what it does, I just know that mozilla code demands it :)
So I'll package it. Download location is ftp.mozilla.org, but I'll try
to find the origin. The licence is LGPL.
If someone could grab it from me (either now, or after I do the initial
packaging), I would REALLY
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 02:32:44PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Don't ask me what it does, I just know that mozilla code demands it :)
Hm. Apparently, this already exists as part of liborbit0, so I'll
probably try to use that one.
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 08:55:44PM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
mozilla should work for potato
Maybe it will ;) We'll try.
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 06:46:49PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
nonus.debian.org 23780 nonus.debian.org: libssl-dev is obsolete [220]
(Heiko Schlittermann [EMAIL PROTECTED])
...
Will non-us ever be fixed?
It is but I'm afraid the bugs have not been closed. Heiko seems really
Hi,
I saw the new alpha version, that has acceptable licence (GPL).
Although it's alpha, I'd like to see it packaged. If you aren't
interested, I'll do it.
For the -devel readers: section should be non-free, right?
Thanks.
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:05:01PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:02:13PM -0500, Shaleh wrote:
On 01-Feb-99 John Goerzen wrote:
Why should it be non-free if it's GPL?
the mp3 patent
Which nobody has guaranteed is valid or defensable in Germany, let alone
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:30:20PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:14:38PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
I don't see why we ought to let some lawyers trying to make a good bluff
scare us.
Fraunhofer institute holds the patent, we shouldn't take any chances
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:30:41PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote:
But that is not the reason why my first guess was non-free. It was
the fact that mpg123 is in non-free, and x11amp is (according to
the docs) based on it.
I already have it packaged. It uses plugins for the decoder so I
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 09:56:10PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Please do. Remember to read the Policy Manual, Developer's Reference
and Packaging manual first, if you haven't already. You can find them
at the Developer's Corner of the Debian website.
And the new maintainers' guide,
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:23:34PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
Quoting Juergen A. Erhard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I personally thing either the ftp hierarchy should go to /var/ftp, or
the www data should move to /home/www (the latter I'd prefer).
/home/(ftp|www) is just plain ugly. (It's a
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:49:43AM +, Russell Coker wrote:
...but I wouldn't do that *and* remove that .tgz completely, or
hhaving all the .debs converted to tbz2.
I agree, we're not ready for that yet. However we only need bzip2 in the
base if we have bzip2 compressed .deb packages in
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 01:22:56PM +, Russell Coker wrote:
Would it be possible to have files such as Contents*.gz also provided in bzip2
format to reduce download times when using slow links?
Good idea. And Packages files too.
But that would need implementation in dselect, and will only
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:28:04PM +, Russell Coker wrote:
Would it be possible to have files such as Contents*.gz also provided in
bzip2
format to reduce download times when using slow links?
Good idea. And Packages files too.
But that would need implementation in dselect, and
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 09:36:18PM -0500, James A. Treacy wrote:
Try again. The system installed version of the indexing program was being
used instead of my custom job. This has been fixed so it should work correctly
now.
Yes, gdb works now. I followed the murphy's law, and tried
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 12:58:23PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Server news this week:
* The [22]bug tracking system has a new easy way to get to a given
bug report. http://bugs.debian.org/foo will pull up the bug report
for package foo; http://bugs.debian.org/ will pull
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 11:40:01PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
One more feature (or a bugfix since it pointed to 404 before :) has
been added: you can call http://packages.debian.org/some_package and
it will redirect you to the search results on some_package. Jason
Gunthorpe enabled
601 - 658 of 658 matches
Mail list logo
