Havoc Pennington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
maybe a compromise would be to leave the packages in slink, make sure
the Description: field highlights their alpha status, and automatically
close all non-packaging bugs (and forward them upstream if
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gnus 25609 Gnus: prerm script failure make it impossible to
upgrade/pruge [64] (Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED])
We should not ship without although it's technically not essential.
We'd better find somebody to fix this bug. MAD,
Hi,
Michael == Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael I don't know. I thought: 1) Manoj took over the package with my
Michael blessings, and 2) he did so with the specific intention of fixing the
Michael bug.
And I did. I uploaded a package, and closed all bugs.
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Stephen Crowley wrote:
crowThat is ridiculous, there is no reason to remove gnome before the freeze,
if you
FWIW, one of the slashdot commenters on the slink-freeze, commends
slink for including gnome ( he did install the packages, too) .
John Lapeyre [EMAIL
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
meskesOn Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
meskes libmagick4-dev19332 libmagick:
ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb LI#67 [217] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K.
Ellis))
meskes
meskesI wish I would understand a message like
Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
I vote for leave them in. I feel much in favour of presenting
them to the world. Basically they work.
rantPlease remove gnome, esp. gnome-freecell and gnome-mahjong.
My productivity has severly dropped since I discovered them. They
are just too darned good and
Hi,
Brian == Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to release them as a part of a
stable distribution, as they really aren't. There aren't any
guarantees that the stuff that runs today is going to run tomorrow.
Brian I would agree with you. They should
On 16 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If we are going to staret removing packages because of the quality of
the software, wonderful. I move to remove all traces of the travesty
of editors, vi, from Debian, since obviously as editors they are less
than alpha quality software.
and we should
Hi,
Doesn't the version number convey the alpha nature to people?
Like, it isn't even version 1.0?
Anyway, seeing that it is the maintainer who is asking for the
removal, and the fact that I am not that much of a GNOME user (I fail
to see the point, so far), I withdraw my
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:02:41PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote:
That is ridiculous, there is no reason to remove gnome before the freeze, if
you
dont like it dont use it. There are several programs that wont run without it,
including GtkICQ which is about the only usuable icq replacement
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:46:58PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
While you're all on this thread, what about mozilla?
The current Debian package doesn't work with the current libc (#27181,
severity: grave).
I was going to ask Brian for an extension for mozilla as I won't make
00:00 Saturday
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 05:29:11PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Whether or not a program sucks or is alpha has never been a criteria for
inclusion or noninclusion in Debian, as far as I know. Debian evaluates
only the quality and policy conformance of the *package*, not the
*packaged
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 02:24:53PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
IMHO it is not appropriate to ship beta software under the guise of
release software. If it is really desirable to ship gnome, it sould
be categorized as ALPHA and installed only when a user explicitly
requests it.
I wonder what
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:46:58PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
While you're all on this thread, what about mozilla?
Please keep it in, too. This one's another major visibility package for free
software.
I was going to ask Brian for an extension for mozilla as I won't make
00:00 Saturday GMT,
Let's look a bit further at those bugreports..
balsa 27726 balsa cannot be run [0] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ole J.
Tetlie))
balsa 27894 balsa is linked against ancient version of gtk [0]
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ole J. Tetlie))
A new balsa has already been uploaded
thread...
==
It's alpha software, but it's free and doesn't break your system. Let's
ship it.
If we are going to remove all packages which are buggy, we have to
ship an empty CD ROM. Bug free software doesn't seem to exist per
definition
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
maybe a compromise would be to leave the packages in slink, make sure
the Description: field highlights their alpha status, and automatically
close all non-packaging bugs (and forward them upstream if it makes
sense to do so).
I hope this is what
Hi,
Wichert == Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gnus 25609 Gnus: prerm script failure make it
impossible to upgrade/pruge [64]
(Michael Alan Dorman
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Brian White wrote:
mount 27421 mount: fails to parse existing /etc/fstab [10]
(Vincent Renardias [EMAIL PROTECTED])
I've just fixed this in a non-maintainer upload with prior negotiation
with the official maintainer.
--
Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about it's
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51] (Wichert
Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and
found no explanation.
I think strace is too
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:52:33PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to take a look at bug #27395 because pcmcia-modules works for
me.
The report says not that they don't work, but that some things are not
so good. They seem to be valid concerns although I'm not sure they
are
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time.
What do you think we should do with the
On Thu 15 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51]
(Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and
What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0
release coming up in a few months that
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51]
(Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or
smb2www 27641 perl 5.005-02 breaks smb2www [0] (Craig Small
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
This one also refers to the version of perl which has been
removed. (It broke every module, so there are several such bug reports)
I knew about it, but not which bugs it affected. I'll
On Wednesday 14 October 1998, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Brian White
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following are packages I feel we can remove:
...
netatalk 25598 netalk: several problems (and the solution) [64]
(Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED])
As a new developer, I just want to
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:26:21PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
It was important because Raul Miller made it that. He needed strace to
debug a problem with one of his packages and found that bug. Since he
hasn't responded to my failure to reproduce the problem I was going to
downgrade the
Jim Pick wrote:
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time.
What do you
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51]
(Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and
found no explanation.
Darn. I downgraded that
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
Keep it in!
The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
things don't work. It sounds like
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:26:21PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'm still amazed by the development of strace.. basically it's a nightmare
to work on. Upstream version are _extremely_ rare and there are literaly
dozens of patches floating around, but nobody collects them. I think
Debian
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
vrwave23436 vrwave should maybe go in contrib? [124] (Javier
Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a [EMAIL PROTECTED])
xswallow 25932 Xswallow should be in contrib [55] (Javier
Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a [EMAIL
Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote:
This is my fault, I should have had more time to fix this (move it
into non-free) with a new upload, but I don't know how to do this? File a
bug against ftp.debian.org?
Just upload the package with section non-free/whatever, and it will be
taken care of.
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
libmagick4-dev19332 libmagick: ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb
LI#67 [217] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K. Ellis))
I wish I would understand a message like that. :-)
libpgjava 27753 libpgjava: depends on
Michael == Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White
Michael wrote:
Brian libmagick4-dev 19332 libmagick:
Brian ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb LI#67 [217]
Brian ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K. Ellis))
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:32:02AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
things don't work. It sounds like there
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:02:41PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:32:02AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
current packages in Slink are pretty
Ben Armstrong wrote:
The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0
release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wednesday 14 October 1998, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Brian White
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following are packages I feel we can remove:
...
netatalk 25598 netalk: several problems (and the solution) [64]
(Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Marc Singer wrote:
I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd
say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a
fine demonstration, but it doesn't add value to Debian until it can be
used either a) to hack against, or b) to provide a workable
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 12:18:21AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Marc Singer wrote:
I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd
say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a
fine demonstration, but it doesn't add value to Debian until it can be
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:24:23PM -0700, David Welton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 12:18:21AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Marc Singer wrote:
I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd
say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Marc Singer wrote:
I think that keeping it on the CD is spurious because the CD
represents what we know works. Packages that don't work can be
downloaded from the FTP servers by the people who want to fuss with
them. Gnome is high profile because it has fancy
David == David Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Well, what happens when lots of people try it, see that it
David is broken, and associate Gnome with being broken and
David unstable? That said, I don't think that will happen if it
David is loudly declared to be *ALPHA
Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time.
The following bugs are for packages I don't think we can ship 2.1 without:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Brian ada-rm 27918 ada-rm: This large package should be architecture:
Brian all [0] ()
This is fixed and the bug has been closed.
Sam
- --
Samuel Tardieu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset:
perl 27604 Perl @INC needs /usr/lib/perl5 [7] (Darren
Stalder [EMAIL PROTECTED])
perl 27738 perl: @INC does not contain /usr/lib/perl5 [0]
(Darren Stalder [EMAIL PROTECTED])
This doesn't affect the current perl version but the version to be
used in 2.2.
*-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin
and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton))
|
| Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking
| care of this one, too?
Already uploaded. Closing bugs
*-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin
and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton))
|
| Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking
| care of this one, too?
Yelp! This bug is now closed,
smb2www 27641 perl 5.005-02 breaks smb2www [0] (Craig Small
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
This one also refers to the version of perl which has been
removed. (It broke every module, so there are several such bug reports)
John Lapeyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tucson,AZ
Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
*-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin
and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton))
|
| Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking
| care of this one, too?
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Brian White wrote:
htdig 25412 htdig: htdig ignores config file stuff/absolute
pathnames compiled in [70] (Gergely Madarasz [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Fixed last week, remembered to close it today :)
--
Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
*-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
| *-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |
| | yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in
/bin and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton))
| |
| | Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore.
Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
| After the first crash it run but wasn't able to display the icons.
Hehe. I complained to the author about the same thing. He told me that
I was lucky because the current pixmaps were so ugly. Then I got
suspicious and did:
my_favourite_image_viewer
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following are packages I feel we can remove:
pcmcia-modules-2 27395 pcmcia-modules are totally broken out of the box
[11] (Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED])
pcmcia-source 26657 pcmcia-source: Needs this patch to work on 2.1.118+
kernels [32]
59 matches
Mail list logo
