Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
Hi,
this is not particulary about unrar or Goswin...
On Samstag, 19. März 2011, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
No, I truely mean that unrar-free is practically useless. The stoneage
rar formats it suports have not been in general use for many years.
Hi,
this is not particulary about unrar or Goswin...
On Samstag, 19. März 2011, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
No, I truely mean that unrar-free is practically useless. The stoneage
rar formats it suports have not been in general use for many years.
http://bugs.debian.org/src:unrar shows me two
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [110318 14:38]:
And as long as it works I see no reason why a maintainer should not be
allowed to put the non-free dep first in alternatives if there is a good
reason.
Debian makes some promises to users.
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [110317 22:10]:
My metric here is clearly the functionality for the user.
Being able to modify it or get help with the package (which needs
people being able and willing to look at the source and fix problems)
is a very important part of functionality of
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [110317 22:10]: My metric here is
clearly the functionality for the user. Being able to modify it or get help
with the package (which needs people being able and willing to look at the
source and fix problems)
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [110317 22:10]:
My metric here is clearly the functionality for the user.
Being able to modify it or get help with the package (which needs
people being able and willing to look at the source and fix
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [110318 14:38]:
And as long as it works I see no reason why a maintainer should not be
allowed to put the non-free dep first in alternatives if there is a good
reason.
Debian makes some promises to users. Suprisingly getting non-free
software installed
On Friday, March 18, 2011 10:10:49 am Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [110318 14:38]:
And as long as it works I see no reason why a maintainer should not be
allowed to put the non-free dep first in alternatives if there is a good
reason.
Debian makes some
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
Like say: In 10+ years I have never ever seen a single rar file
unrar-free could unpack but thousands that needed unrar/rar.
If that was true then unrar-free should be dropped and everything
depending on it be removed,
Le vendredi 18 mars 2011 à 15:35 +0100, Olaf van der Spek a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
Like say: In 10+ years I have never ever seen a single rar file
unrar-free could unpack but thousands that needed unrar/rar.
If that was true
* Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com [110318 15:30]:
Since they would have had to enable non-free, suprise would not be an
appropriate reaction.
Again, just because they had to enable non-free does not mean it should
change the semantics of anything else. Non-free is not there for some
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [110316 01:24]:
I disagree. If non-free has a superior implementation of a package and
the user has non-free configured then it should prefer the non-free
package.
Superiority is always a question of what
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [110316 01:24]:
I disagree. If non-free has a superior implementation of a package and
the user has non-free configured then it should prefer the non-free
package.
Superiority is always a question of what metrics you start with.
Not being able to fix
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org writes:
On 02/03/11 04:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It seems to me not worth a mass bug filing. This doesn't seem like
something
that would affect user's systems. Is there a rationale for imposing this
ordering other than puiparts can't deal with
Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:41:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 04:53:46 am Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
If you have non-free enabled and install a package from main, it should
install the dependencies
Hi,
Carsten, thanks for the pointer to check-mir. I've briefly looked at the code
and it seems it can be very easily converted to support Debian main too.
On Freitag, 4. März 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
Debian Policy section 2.2.1 already covers this:
...the package must not declare a Depends,
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
So does that mean a depends on apache | apache2 is forbidden, as apache is
not in main?
I guess so, unless apache2 provides apache.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
* Paul Wise [2011-03-04 12:54 +0800]:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org wrote:
But, anyway, I believe that the first depends of an alternate depends
relation
should be available in main and propose to file bugs about this.
Do you agree this warrants a
* Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org [110304 06:17]:
* Paul Wise [2011-03-04 12:54 +0800]:
Debian Policy section 2.2.1 already covers this:
...the package must not declare a Depends, Recommends, or
Build-Depends relationship on a non-main package.
Marvin Renich m...@renich.org wrote:
* Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org [110304 06:17]: * Paul Wise [2011-03-04
12:54 +0800]: Debian Policy section 2.2.1 already covers this:
...the package must not declare a Depends, Recommends, or
Build-Depends relationship on a non-main package.
* Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com [110304 10:01]:
Seems reasonable to me.
Bug filed: #616462
...Marvin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
* Holger Levsen [2011-02-28 16:05 +0100]:
piuparts in master-slave mode currently cannot test packages which first
alternate depends is not available in main, ie the secvpn package depends
on adduser, bc, ssh, ppp, timeout | coreutils (= 7.5-1), sudo and timeout
is only available in lenny and
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org wrote:
But, anyway, I believe that the first depends of an alternate depends
relation
should be available in main and propose to file bugs about this.
Do you agree this warrants a mass bug filing? I couldn't find this written
On 02/03/11 04:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It seems to me not worth a mass bug filing. This doesn't seem like something
that would affect user's systems. Is there a rationale for imposing this
ordering other than puiparts can't deal with it?
If you have non-free enabled and install a
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org wrote:
If you have non-free enabled and install a package from main, it should
install
the dependencies from main. So you should have e.g. rar | rar-nonfree
instead
of the other way round.
non-free stuff shouldn't be
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 2. März 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
non-free stuff shouldn't be in main depends at all IMO, even as an
alternative.
I (somewhat) agree.
And I think non-existing stuff is worse than non-free...
But, I can see how it can be useful (users, derivatives), thus I think it just
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:51:01AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 2. März 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
non-free stuff shouldn't be in main depends at all IMO, even as an
alternative.
I (somewhat) agree.
And I think non-existing stuff is worse than non-free...
But, I can
On 02/03/11 12:45, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfortpo...@debian.org wrote:
If you have non-free enabled and install a package from main, it should install
the dependencies from main. So you should have e.g. rar | rar-nonfree instead
of the other way
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 04:53:46 am Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 02/03/11 04:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It seems to me not worth a mass bug filing. This doesn't seem like
something that would affect user's systems. Is there a rationale for
imposing this ordering other than
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 09:41:00AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Why? If the user has made the choice to use non-free and the maintainer
concludes that's a more technically capable solution for users that choose to
use it, why should the project raise barriers to that choice?
Because
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:41:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 04:53:46 am Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
If you have non-free enabled and install a package from main, it should
install the dependencies from main. So you should have e.g. rar |
On 02/03/11 14:41, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 04:53:46 am Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 02/03/11 04:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It seems to me not worth a mass bug filing. This doesn't seem like
something that would affect user's systems. Is there a rationale for
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 09:58:02AM -0500, Mike O'Connor wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:41:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 04:53:46 am Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
If you have non-free enabled and install a package from main, it should
On 02/03/2011 16:13, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
If the user has rar-nonfree installed, that would be fine, as the dependency
would be satisfied. If he doesn't have it, then installing a package from main
shouldn't install packages outside main, so we should prefer packages in main
over
Holger Levsen writes (potential MBF: first alternate depends not available in
main):
piuparts in master-slave mode currently cannot test packages which first
alternate depends is not available in main, ie the secvpn package depends
on adduser, bc, ssh, ppp, timeout | coreutils (= 7.5-1
Hi Ian,
On Dienstag, 1. März 2011, Ian Jackson wrote:
Would it be possible to make piuparts cope by ignoring dependencies
which are not available in the target suite ?
sure - patches welcome ;-)
But... that's not as easy as one would wish. Look
at /piupartslib/dependencyparser.py and at the
On Monday, February 28, 2011 10:05:22 am Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
piuparts in master-slave mode currently cannot test packages which first
alternate depends is not available in main, ie the secvpn package depends
on adduser, bc, ssh, ppp, timeout | coreutils (= 7.5-1), sudo and
timeout is
Hi,
piuparts in master-slave mode currently cannot test packages which first
alternate depends is not available in main, ie the secvpn package depends
on adduser, bc, ssh, ppp, timeout | coreutils (= 7.5-1), sudo and timeout
is only available in lenny and etch, thus piuparts cannot test secvpn
On 28/02/11 15:05, Holger Levsen wrote:
So I think it's also a bug in those packages, of which there are more then
100
but less than 200
A dd-list would be nice.
Thanks,
Emilio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
39 matches
Mail list logo
