Hi,
today I have been lingering in the realms of /etc examining the files
breaking the tradition
of using small letters in filenames (ConsoleKit, GeoIP.conf.default,
NetworkManager, etc.).
This advertisement is contained in the GeoIP.conf.default file
(package libgeoip1):
# If you purchase
]] Matthew Johnson
| We would need a licence which allowed it to be redistributed by Debian
| and used by all of our users. The reference for this is Debian Policy
| 2.2.3 and 2.3:
We need the redistribution bit, I don't think we need it to be allowed
to be used by all users. Non-commercial is
Frank Bauer frank.c.ba...@gmail.com writes:
This advertisement is contained in the GeoIP.conf.default file
(package libgeoip1):
# If you purchase a subscription to the GeoIP database,
# then you will obtain a license key which you can
# use to automatically obtain updates.
Hi all,
I'm packaging yubikey-personalization, a tool used to set the crypto
keys for Yubikeys, which are OTP hardware tokens. The tool is useless
without a token, so I'm wondering if I should put a reference into the
description for where people can read more about the tokens and possibly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frank Bauer schrieb:
Hi,
today I have been lingering in the realms of /etc examining the files
breaking the tradition
of using small letters in filenames (ConsoleKit, GeoIP.conf.default,
NetworkManager, etc.).
This advertisement is contained
Hi,
On Samstag, 8. August 2009, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Does people think that would be too much? I'm divided on the issue --
on one hand, I don't want Debian to end up plastered with ads, on the
other hand, the tool is not useful without a token, so pointing people
to where they can get one
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
I'm packaging yubikey-personalization, a tool used to set the crypto
keys for Yubikeys, which are OTP hardware tokens. The tool is useless
without a token, so I'm wondering if I should put a reference into the
description for where people can read more
]] Ben Finney
| I think that's a job, not for the Debian package information, but for
| the project's home page. The package description should give enough
| information for the reader to understand whether they want the package
| on their system.
Noted. (As I'm divided on whether to add the
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 03:03:40AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Rein Tendonsie tendon...@tendonsie.be writes:
Beste,
Momenteel heb ik een dedicated server genomen ergens en men
zegt er dat ze geen Debian willen instaleren omdat deze niet zou werken
omwillen van de
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Matthew Johnson
| We would need a licence which allowed it to be redistributed by Debian
| and used by all of our users. The reference for this is Debian Policy
| 2.2.3 and 2.3:
We need the redistribution bit, I don't think we need it to be
Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:55:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:38:56 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
How does Ubuntu want to do a proper (commercial) support for their packages
if
they don't even have the time/manpower to take care of their
Sandro Tosi wrote:
what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in
a sense hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have
no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have
another 1000 things to do. I'm not sure it will happen, but I fear it
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Sandro Tosi wrote:
what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in
a sense hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have
no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have
another 1000 things to do. I'm not sure it
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:07, Patrick Schoenfeldschoenf...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
THEY STEAL our packages
Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything
Luk Claes wrote:
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Sandro Tosi wrote:
what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in
a sense hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have
no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have
another 1000 things to do.
To come back to Debian
Luk Claes wrote:
Hmm, AFAICT python2.6 did not really happen in Debian yet because
Mathias is trying to not continue with the existing hacks that have
major issues when upgrading and wants to have a clean solution.
The only hack is the broken piece of python-central
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
To come back to Debian
Luk Claes wrote:
Hmm, AFAICT python2.6 did not really happen in Debian yet because
Mathias is trying to not continue with the existing hacks that have
major issues when upgrading and wants to have a clean solution.
The only hack is the
Le samedi 08 août 2009 à 16:14 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit :
AFAICT, the real problem is that after unpack many python modules do not
work as they use symlink hackery in the postinst.
This hasn’t been an issue in real-world cases for quite some time
(python-support 0.8, and an even older version
On 2009-08-08, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
Wrong. Several people tried to contact Matthias on various ways and never got
a
reply. He also completely failed to communicate with those people who maintain
most Python related packages on Debian, except during Debconf. This is *NOT*
the
Luk Claes wrote:
AFAIK python-central does have the necessary tools to clean up.
As soon as you use the 'nomove' option it fails to do so properly. Unfortunately
a lot of packages were introduced with this option.
AFAICS
that was already communicated in February [0] and was only really
On 2009-08-08, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
AFAICT, the real problem is that after unpack many python modules do not
work as they use symlink hackery in the postinst.
What do you mean exactly? Could you point me to an example?
The only problem I see is that it starts to become
Frank Bauer dijo [Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 07:49:14AM +0200]:
Hi,
today I have been lingering in the realms of /etc examining the files
breaking the tradition
of using small letters in filenames (ConsoleKit, GeoIP.conf.default,
NetworkManager, etc.).
This advertisement is contained in the
Tollef Fog Heen dijo [Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 08:37:38AM +0200]:
I'm packaging yubikey-personalization, a tool used to set the crypto
keys for Yubikeys, which are OTP hardware tokens. The tool is useless
without a token, so I'm wondering if I should put a reference into the
description for where
Mark Shuttleworth dijo [Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:37:04AM +0100]:
(...)
It would be substantially easier to collaborate on RC (and non-RC) bug
fixes where the base versions of major components were the same.
Umm... Real, hard RC bugs will be present on more than one release of
the same upstream
Philipp Kern wrote:
I think there were at least two things (I think not check them, but from
memory
what Matthias told me):
* python-support breaks upstream assumptions about relative imports.
* python-support does not always have stable symlink handling, i.e. they
should maybe be
Le samedi 08 août 2009 à 15:45 +, Philipp Kern a écrit :
And no, it's not the missing byte-compilation that triggers the failure but
the
missing symlink farm that's usually processed by a trigger at the end of the
installation run.
The symlink farm is created in the postinst of each
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes:
As long as it is (partly?) based on the fact that bugs will be fixed by
Debian for free so Ubuntu can just reuse the bugfixes and get the money
for them, I think it should be discussed.
People keep saying things like this, but no one I know who's running
27 matches
Mail list logo
