Re: i386.changes vs source.changes

Russ Allbery (15/05/2009): > So, y'all realize that pdebuild --buildresult .. by default breaks the > *_source.changes file that it generates because it regenerates a > source package as part of the regular build, right? How are you > actually using that *_source.changes file? Always having pdeb

Re: Bug#532167: ITP: records -- Save and index notes in Emacs environment

Xavier MAILLARD (07/06/2009): > The package was already in Debian till 2006 then it got dropped (no > reason given). You could look at: http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/records.html Removed 1.4.9-4.1 from unstable → http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/records/news/20081204T190628Z.html # 507598 → ht

Re: What's wrong with meta-gnome2 ?

Aaron M. Ucko (21/06/2009): > [Copying the original poster because I'm not certain he's subscribed; > apologies for any resulting duplication.] [AFAICT, he is, since he replied in some threads previously. ;)] > I agree that this message is not as clear as it could be. In > practice, I believe th

Re: Lintian magic-arch-in-arch-list

Shaun Jackman (21/06/2009): > I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package > is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the > architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is > Architecture: amd64 i386 all > which lintan complains about: > E: eagle s

Re: dupload fatal error: Can't upload libgdcm-cil_2.0.10-5_amd64.deb

Mathieu Malaterre (22/06/2009): > Sorry this might be dumb, but I cannot get the *.commands to be signed > as expected: Use dcut. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Breaking programs because a not yet implemented solution exists in theory (Was: Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry)

Andreas Tille (31/01/2012): > This is definitely not "wishlist" - but I do not like to play > severity-changing pingpong. Please avoid “To: debian-devel@” when you disagree with maintainers on individual bugs; thanks already. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Versionned dependencies

Mike Hommey (02/02/2012): > As discussed on irc, if you instead do iceweasel-api-3.6, iceweasel-api-4.0, > etc. you end up having crazy dependencies like: > Depends: iceweasel-api-3.6 | iceweasel-api-4.0 | iceweasel-api-5.0 | > iceweasel-api-6.0 | ... | iceweasel-api-11.0 | iceape-api-2.1 | > icea

Re: PHP 5.4 transition in unstable

Ondřej Surý (05/02/2012): > http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/02/msg6.html Please don't top-post. Also, can you link to the reply of the release team? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Please test gzip -9n - related to dpkg with multiarch support

Neil Williams (07/02/2012): > I'd like to ask for some help with a bug which is tripping up my tests > with the multiarch-aware dpkg from experimental - #647522 - > non-deterministic behaviour of gzip -9n. For those not subscribed to that bug, how to reproduce[1] and possible fix[2] are available

Re: Please test gzip -9n - related to dpkg with multiarch support

(Dropping everyone but dd@.) Wouter Verhelst (08/02/2012): > As an additional benefit, this will also allow those among us (like me) > who hate having to use 'gunzip -c /usr/share/doc/foo/bar.pdf.gz > > /tmp/bar.pdf; xpdf /tmp/bar.pdf' in order to be able to read some > documentation, to just req

Re: MIA check for Robert Jordens and Mark A. Hershberger (anyone in contact with them?)

Vincent Bernat (09/02/2012): > I have done the latest uploads for php-mdb2 packages. I suppose you > want me to drop php-mdb2-driver-sqlite package? From #debian-release's backlog, it seems likely. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: How to tell users that ia32-libs will go away

Goswin von Brederlow (09/02/2012): > now that a multiarch dpkg has been uploaded to experimental it looks > like we can finaly get rid of ia32-libs* for wheezy. > > !!!HURAY!!! > > The problem now is the transition: 0) make sure all packages are multiarchified. To check that, I debcheckout'd i

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Kumar Appaiah (18/02/2012): > > This would: > > 1) allow to always identify person responsible for a particular upload; > > To be very pedantic, the signature on the last upload should reveal > this, right? Not if the team upload is prepared by someone who then gets sponsored by a DD (or a DM fr

Re: DDTSS broken (was: Description-less Packages indices)

Hi Martin and l10n/i18n teams! DISCLAIMER: I know nothing about l10n/i18n and the associated services (except for the bubulle-powered statistics auto-blogging one). Martin Eberhard Schauer (21/02/2012): > > As I can't magically fix all this by myself, I think that the only > > choice I hav

Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version

Uoti Urpala (26/02/2012): > Is there reason to believe this would be a particular problem with > systemd? Most of the controversy I've seen surrounding Poettering has > been due to people resisting the kind of change he has championed. I > don't remember seeing much about him being "difficult to w

Re: Enabling hardened build flags for Wheezy

Charles Plessy (07/03/2012): > But my main question is the following: > > In another bug, the problem is that CPPFLAGS is ignored in upstream's > makefile. I understand that the semantics of CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS are > not the same, but I also note that a large number of our upstreams are > not ma

Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version

Peter Samuelson (06/03/2012): > This "one particular example" is the same feature (cgroups) that > everyone keeps talking and talking about. Everyone keeps saying > "systemd uses Linuxisms like cgroups", but nobody mentions any others. > Is this the only major Linuxism in systemd, or is it just t

Re: Debian maintainers for Enlightenment?

Adding said list to Cc… Svante Signell (13/04/2012): > Are the Debian Maintainers for Enlightenment packages active? There has > not been any packaging updates since 2011-04-25 (almost a year) while > upstream has made several releases since then. > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/e/e17.html giv

Re: eglibc 2.14 for wheezy?

Svante Signell (14/04/2012): > As the title says, are there plans to use eglibc 2.14 for wheezy?? > It has been out for some time now. Again, ask the maintainers. Not dd@. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

Holger Levsen (02/05/2012): > *grin* > > btw, is the concept of numbers smaller than zero but not negative known/used > anywhere outside of debian/dpkg? Something like that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_zero Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#673071: ITP: vodstok -- Voluntary Distributed Storage Kit

Jonathan Wiltshire (16/05/2012): > Viral? I hope this is just a translation artefact; can you explain > exactly what you mean by it? Quite a shock for a project advertised as licensed under the BSD! (INSTALL.txt says GPLv2 though.) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

Daniel Leidert (18/05/2012): > Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) > exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea > to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might > happen only for a few packages. Most of them got remo

Bug#673505: general: xorg and xserver-xorg 7.6+13 always made X and gnome-shell dead

Xueqian (19/05/2012): > Package: general > Severity: important > > Recently, I have upgrade packages xorg, xserver-xorg, > xserver-xorg-input-all and x11-common from 7.6+12 to 7.6+13. See “Follow-up with more info” on: http://x.debian.net/howto/report-bugs.html Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc De

Re: 'php5-suhosin' is missing for wheezy

Alain SAURAT (19/05/2012): > This package is only avaible for squeeze and sid, is it normal ? Yes, see: http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/php-suhosin/news/20120320T163911Z.html > I have dist-upgrade my server from squeeze to wheezy and my php > won't run and send a lot of mail via cron to me. B

Re: zlib and biarch/triarch

Andrey Rahmatullin (22/05/2012): > > Seeing the trouble broonie has with zlib, why are those > > packages still built anyway? Can’t they please go away? > What are you talking about? Probably that: http://packages.qa.debian.org/z/zlib.html http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/z/zli

Re: zlib and biarch/triarch

Mark Brown (28/05/2012): > Ask the s390x folks, they asked for them. Though what on earth inspired > them to name the new architecture such that the old architecture name is > a substring of the new name is beyond me... As far as I can tell nobody > is really using the biarch packages on most ar

Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team

Jonas Smedegaard (31/05/2012): > I have heard before the argument of the sponsor having responsibility, > but in reality I have *never* heard of sponsors actually being held > responsible for anything but the concrete upload of a specific > packaging release. Suggested reading: http://bugs.debi

Bug#677425: ITP: xserver-xorg-video-modesetting -- X.Org X server -- Generic modesetting driver

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Cyril Brulebois * Package name: xserver-xorg-video-modesetting Version : 0.3.0 Upstream Author : Tungsten Graphics, Dave Airlie, Red Hat… * URL : http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-modesetting/ * License

Re: [RFC] Add upstream VCS info to control file

Thomas Goirand (14/06/2012): > 1/ […] 2/ […] > 3/ How to achieve it > |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > |To acheive this, we would need something like this: > > ||Vcs-Git-Debian-Branch-Name: debian/unstable > ||Vcs-Git: |git://anonscm.debian.org/openstack/nova.git > |||Vcs-Git-Upstream-Branch-Name: master > |V

Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#676686: libxslt1.1: libxslt1.1 binNMU broke multi-arch installability

Michael Gilbert (14/06/2012): > package (version) sid; urgency=low > > * Binary-only non-maintainer upload; no source changes. > > -- Debian Release Team Tue, 05 Jun > 2012 16:33:05 + > > or some other appropriate binnmu mailing address. This would also > mean rebuilding all of the ot

Re: Fwd: Processing of libavg_1.7.1-1_amd64.changes

Dmitrijs Ledkovs (14/06/2012): > I have uploaded libavg_1.7.1-1 into delayed/7 queue. After that it > will hit new, as it was previously removed. Why the seven days delay? It looks to me like you could/should skip that. (dcut has “reschedule” for that.) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: D

Re: CD sizes again (and BoF reminder!)

Ansgar Burchardt (07/07/2012): > Another question is if the release team would consider unblocking > updated packages (with just the switch to xz for binaries). I think > it would be nice to be able to get a useful desktop system using just > the first CD, but I'm not sure if they would make an e

Re: CD sizes again (and BoF reminder!)

Wouter Verhelst (08/07/2012): > On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 01:17:32AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > Even grub-legacy? > > Yes; d-i in expert mode still has the ability to explicitly choose for > grub legacy, if you really want to. It looks to me like a current debian-installer build installs grub

Re: Recommends for metapackages

Noel David Torres Taño (11/07/2012): > > Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential. > > Gnome view is the one irrelevant. This is Debian GNU/Linux, not Gnome > GNU/Linux. We need to care for our users (both proficient and novice [1]), > not for Gnome developers desires. A

Re: Package changelog should contain, well, a log of changes

Jonas Smedegaard (13/07/2012): > Please proofread your changelog before releasing a packaging, and make > sure all entries describe what was _changed_. ^ SNCR, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Using FreeDesktop MIME entries directly in mime-support (Re: Fixing the mime horror ini Debian).

Charles Plessy (16/07/2012): > If nobody else volunteers, I propose to start a maintenance group for > the mime-support package, that I would store in a Git repository on > Alioth's collab-maint group. I think that's a perfect use case for collab-maint. László, do you really need a dedicated gro

Re: Using FreeDesktop MIME entries directly in mime-support (Re: Fixing the mime horror ini Debian).

Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) (16/07/2012): > > I think that's a perfect use case for collab-maint. László, do you > > really need a dedicated group for that? > My intention was to limit people who can commit to mime-support. It > seems there are multiple viewpoints for example about > application/x-

Re: debian-cd BoF at DebConf

Hello, directing this mail to -dpkg@, which hopefully makes sense. Steve McIntyre (21/07/2012): > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:01:21PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > >Hi! > > > >On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 17:19:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> CD sizing problems > >> == > > > >> Ther

Re: Modified http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper to mention non-packagers (Re: [CTTE #614907] Resolution of node/nodejs conflict)

Ian Jackson (26/07/2012): > Uploaders needs to be abolished in favour of multiple > Maintainers. In wheezy perhaps ? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: emacs23 and/or emacs24 in Wheezy?

Svante Signell (25/07/2012): > Is emacs24 going to be the default package for Wheezy? No. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems

Guus Sliepen (24/06/2009): > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:17:14AM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote: > > > Is libposix complete enough to link against for real programs yet? If > > not, why should it be included at this time? > > I agree that if the only thing that works at this moment is the simplest >

Re: Switching the default /bin/sh to dash

Stefano Zacchiroli (25/06/2009): > Still, as a DD, I would like to explicitly switch to dash to help in > spotting possible problems. Can you please consider document how to > switch? I guess switching the symlink is enough, but an entry in > README.Debian saying explicitly so (and possibly docume

Re: Switching the default /bin/sh to dash

Lucas Nussbaum (25/06/2009): > On 25/06/09 at 10:32 +0200, Harald Braumann wrote: > > Checkbashisms is a lintian check, right? > > No, it's in devscripts. Yes, it is also a lintian check. Although not as complete, see lintian's check/scripts file. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digita

Re: [Debconf-discuss] using OpenPGP notations to indicate keysigning practices

Philipp Kern (26/06/2009): > On 2009-06-25, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > European ID cards are more like a passport, whereas a US ID is a > > driver license. (In addition to that national driver licenses of > > european countries are much less usefull for this purpose unless > > they are the new e

Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag

Frank Küster (26/06/2009): > In this case, I'd tend to say that there is actually a bug: Move the > documentation that explains why the behavior is intended to a more > prominent, visible place. OK, and once that done, what do you do when the bugs keep on being opened because people don't read th

Re: Why does mysql-server depend on exim?

mli...@stacktrace.us (26/06/2009): > While installing mysql-server I noticed the following dependencies: > > "bsd-mailx exim4 exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light" > > Although it's not that big of a deal, it does raise the question "Why > should a database server require a MTA?" -(cy...@ta

Re: ia32-libs depends on ia32-apt-get ?

Josselin Mouette (29/06/2009): > All existing frontends use the same dependency resolution engine, > except for aptitude. Installing a package with synaptic, apt-get, > adept or gnome-app-install should give the same result. cupt! cupt! cupt! Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital sign

Re: Bug#535501: ITP: roxterm -- A multi-tabbed GTK terminal emulator

Tony Houghton (02/07/2009): > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Tony Houghton > > > * Package name: roxterm > Version : 1.15.1 > Upstream Author : Tony Houghton > * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net/ > * License : GPL > Programming Lang: C >

Re: ia32-libs{-tools}, multiarch, squeeze

Philipp Kern (05/07/2009): > How could one help to get multiarch happen by the way? Or does it currently > depend on Guillem coding up the foundation in dpkg anyway? Maybe we could have a bug against general about multiarch support, blocked by bugs against each and every component that needs twe

Bug#536245: RFH: graphviz -- rich set of graph drawing tools

Package: wnpp Severity: normal Heya folks. I request assistance with maintaining the graphviz package. That might also move to an RFA later on. Given I'm slowly drifting to more porting, I'm currently lacking time to maintain graphviz properly. If you're interested, you may want to be aware of s

Re: Running a 32bits on debian amd64 system

Mathieu Malaterre (13/07/2009): > I'd suggest you reread it: > > http://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30192/21/debian-amd64-howto.html#id292437 Let's quote it further: | So, when will it be released? | The first planned official Debian release of 64bit userland for AMD64 will be Etch (Sarge

Re: Bug#536888: ITP: tlock -- Terminal locker

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ryan Kavanagh (14/07/2009): > This package will also provide the library packages librpass0 and > librpass0-dev, > with long description: > > Static library installed with tlock, it provides a function readpass() that > reads in a password string

Re: The wider implications of debhelper/dbus breakage

Steffen Moeller (17/07/2009): > Wouter's comment aside, checks at buildd level would be too late. Yes, sure. It'd rather be time for critical packages (say: dpkg-dev, debhelper, cdbs) to have proper non-regression testsuites. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#537492: menu: Binary without execution bits.

Hello -devel, I need a tiny wider audience for that one. Bill Allombert (18/07/2009): > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:35:57PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Package: menu > > Version: 2.1.41 > > Severity: grave > > Justification: Fucks up upgrades. > > >

Re: Bug#537492: menu: Binary without execution bits.

Sven Joachim (18/07/2009): > This looks strange, it seems that the test found update-menus > executable, but it no longer is. Namely, the shell has apparently > hashed it, since otherwise you would "update-menus: command not found" > instead of "permission denied". > > This may be because the dp

Re: Intend to create an -fPIC library package...

Raphael Hertzog (22/07/2009): > Yes. Check "man dpkg-gensymbols" and see how some nice tools > […propaganda…] FSVO “nice”. #536034. In case a maintainer of a shared lib never did this, I strongly advise playing around with a simple combo of diff, find, and nm, in order to have a look at what sym

Re: The wider implications of debhelper/dbus breakage

Raphael Hertzog (17/07/2009): > At least dpkg-dev has one and it's run at build-time. I thought the goal of dpkg-dev was to actually build other packages. I don't know how dpkg-dev developers see this, but maybe having a few packages rebuilt using the new dpkg-dev package would help spotting brea

Re: Intend to create an -fPIC library package...

Raphael Hertzog (23/07/2009): > > In case a maintainer of a shared lib never did this, I strongly > > advise playing around with a simple combo of diff, find, and nm, in > > order to have a look at what symbols are becoming between two > > releases. > > Why is that better than comparing both symb

Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash without dash essential

Goswin von Brederlow (24/07/2009): > Give me the freedom to choose. It looks like we just reached the “Linux is about choice” Goswin point. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: dash pulled on stable when APT::Default-Release is used

Vincent Danjean (29/07/2009): > kooot:/home/vdanjean# aptitude why dash > i linux-image-2.6.30-1-amd64 Depends initramfs-tools (>= 0.55) | yaird (>= > 0.0.13) | linux-initramfs-tool > p yaird Depends dash Got a winner here, I believe: | -(cy...@talisker pts/8)-(~) | $ rm

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

Michael Banck (29/07/2009): > At that time, either you have thrown away the debugging information > already (via dh_strip, e.g.), or not. > > This is all AIUI. There are some environment variables set by dpkg-buildpackage already, I guess debhelper stuff could be set accordingly. Meh. :) Mraw,

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

Manoj Srivastava (29/07/2009): > Coming up with a standard and policy after the fact, with 97% of > the archive not quite following policy would be a nightmare, no? 97% of the archive using yada? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Introduction to multiarch: What maintainers must do

Goswin von Brederlow (29/07/2009): > Thoughts from the maintainer? You may want to read #468209, which is kind of related. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Introduction to multiarch: What maintainers must do

Charles Plessy (30/07/2009): > I have three questions about Multi-arch: > > 1) […] > > 2) […] 3) Where is the third question? :) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: maybe ITP of lib DomainKeys

Russell Coker (30/07/2009): > http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/license/softwarelicense1-1.html > > I've packaged libdomainkeys for internal use and am considering adding a > package that depends on it to Debian/Unstable. Is the domainkeys license > suitable for inclusion in Debian? Hint, try

Re: Emacs 23.1 released

Adrian Perez (30/07/2009): > I'd like to see this in unstable ASAP. Get to work? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bits from the release team and request for discussion

(Torn between replying to -project for the former, -devel for the latter.) Luk Claes (30/07/2009): > Adam D. Barratt (adsb), Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) and Jurij > Smakov (jurij) joined us as release assistants. Let's welcome them in > our team. Welcome! > Architectures > = >

Re: How to check why a package is in contrib

Bastien ROUCARIES (30/07/2009): > I was trying to check why a package was in contrib (jabref), and I > could not find a means to do that automatically. > > Could we add an automatic mechanism based on package description, for > getting the reason, like for instance, why-contrib: reason > > It w

Re: waf into NEW, please test it with your packages

Ryan Niebur (30/07/2009): > would you mind providing a .deb of that so that I can test and update > my dh build system patch to use it? waf deb? Check first mail in the thread. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Installation of packages in home directories.

Charles Plessy (01/08/2009): > I would really love to have such a functionality in apt. reportbug cupt (Seems to be an interesting challenge. Not sure it's worth the pain though.) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

What to do with (packages like) Blender?

Hi folks. It's been a while and I'm now really wondering what to do with Blender. So that everyone can understand, I'm going to try and sum up what I'm facing. Please note it's not intended to be a rant, rather a summary of what I've to deal with. * Upstream doesn't really care about being distr

Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

(I hope a single reply will also address Paul's and Christian's questions.) Maximiliano Curia (02/08/2009): > Hola Cyril Brulebois! Hola! (KiBi or Cyril would be sufficient. ;)) > Given the points you listed before, its understandable if you prefer > to dedicate your time to

Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

o<, so people noticed this discussion and brought it up on #blendercoders, where I just had a tiny chat. It looks like they agreed that the ffmpeg situation is quite unfortunate (that's the most problematic external embedded library we both could think of), but there are some technical stuff that

Re: Please test eglibc 2.9-23+multiarch.2

Goswin von Brederlow (03/08/2009): > Does it break aptitude too? I think that people involved in serious things like multiarch and glibc might appreciate your staying quiet at some point given the quite huge mess you initially created. But maybe that's just me. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Descri

Re: CDBS + python + control with 2 .deb

sandro (05/08/2009): > What should I do to have 2 packages defined in control, one a python > package and one a documentation package and use cdbs? Try -ment...@. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Status of new source formats project

Michael Banck (05/08/2009): > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:15:22AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > And for the format of the patch, I do not know what to tell them > > apart that unified diff is the preferred format of some Debian > > developers, > > It's the preferred format for 99% of all Free

Re: Non-unified patches and dpkg source format ‘3.0 (quilt)’.

Charles Plessy (05/08/2009): > In my workplace's cafeteria, 99 % of the people eat curry rice with a > spoon, and 1 % with chopsticks. But this is causing no trouble, and > never the spoon users ask the chopsticks users to change their > instrument (and I can tell you that I do not leave a single

Re: piuparts-MBF: not using invoke-rc.d

Hi Holger. Holger Levsen (06/08/2009): > http://piuparts.debian.org/squeeze/processes_running_error.html and > http://piuparts.debian.org/squeeze/processes_running_error.html lists > those packages. Identical URLs? And for the sake of archiving for one, and for the sake of people not always on

Re: Non-unified patches and dpkg source format ‘3.0 (quilt)’.

Charles Plessy (06/08/2009): > So to summarise, you are suggesting me to write upstream that: > > 1) We want to review their patches, > 2) We can not do this with context diffs, > 3) We do want to actively reject non-unified diffs despite our tools work > well with them, Sure. > 4) The rea

Re: Non-unified patches and dpkg source format ‘3.0 (quilt)’.

Cyril Brulebois (06/08/2009): > But, since we tweak the headers, the check can get added before the > first dereferencement. Of course, there are the fuzzy stuff with patch, > but sounds less likely to happen. Heh, might have left that to the attentive reader, but let's fix the

Re: Non-unified patches and dpkg source format ‘3.0 (quilt)’.

Cyril Brulebois (06/08/2009): > Heh, might have left that to the attentive reader, but let's fix the > typo: s/before/after/. :) And given I wasn't even using the right option, I'm going to hide for a while, lalala. (Thanks pusling.) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#540332: ITP: at-spi2-core -- Assistive Technology Service Provider Interface (Core) - dbus

Ray Wang (07/08/2009): > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Ray Wang > > > * Package name: at-spi2-core > Version : 0.1.0 > Upstream Author : Mike Gorse > Mark Doffman > * URL : https://projects.codethink.co.uk/index.php/p/at-spi2 > * L

Re: What’ s the use for Standards-Version?

Russ Allbery (12/08/2009): > zcat /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz \ > | sed /`grep Standards-Version debian/control | awk '{ print $2 }'`/Q > > ? I just use zless on that file and stop reading when I get to the > current Standards-Version of the package, but t

Re: What’ s the use for Standards-Version?

Romain Beauxis (12/08/2009): > Is it foolish to propose this as a lintian check ? "Hey, standards version > is outdated, here are the changes that ought to be done" checks/standards-version.desc Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: What’ s the use for Standards-Version?

Romain Beauxis (13/08/2009): > Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:09:09, Cyril Brulebois a écrit : > > Romain Beauxis (12/08/2009): > > > Is it foolish to propose this as a lintian check ? "Hey, standards > > > version is outdated, here are the changes that ought to b

Re: boost 1.39 (was: Re: Return of unversioned boost -dev packages (boost-defaults))

mathieu.malate...@gmail.com (20/08/2009): > I am lost, why is the versionned boost1.39 back then ? How should > one write control file using let say: libboost-math-dev ? Should I > do libboost-math-dev | libboost-math1.39-dev ? The -defaults package provides versionless -dev packages who pull

Re: What criteria does ftpmaster use for the ‘copyright’ file of a package?

Torsten Werner (29/08/2009): > most is explained in > > and the 2 links within that message. If one is going to “mehhh this is not pointed by any documentation, that's just another dda@ post, please document it!¡!”, check devre

Re: library-related policy question

Nikita V. Youshchenko (06/09/2009): > Is libpkg-guide an official debian document these days? FSVO “official”: - http://packages.debian.org/sid/libpkg-guide - http://bugs.debian.org/libpkg-guide Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: The future of the boot system in Debian

Petter Reinholdtsen (07/09/2009): > I guess we were a bit unclear. The point is to use it for upgrades > (ie when it exist), while not installing /etc/inittab for new > installs, thus slowly getting rid of the file while ensuring the > switch do not affect upgrades negatively. :) I guess you mis

Re: debmirror - new features

Frans Pop (12/09/2009): > I wasn't planning to, partly because the new packaging requires > debhelper v7. Which is available on backports.org, too. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: The 'git' Debian package in squeeze

Gerrit Pape (17/09/2009): > I'm about to provide a new git binary package from the git-core (the > distributed revision control system) source, so that 'apt-get > install git' installs the git content tracker in squeeze. Nice. :) > For people upgrading from lenny with git (from gnuit) installed,

Re: renamings to remove extensions

John H. Robinson, IV (29/09/2009): > These are what are expected when you use qmail and daemontools the > DJB way. > > http://cr.yp.to/unix.html > > We solve the first one with /var/qmail/bin being a symlink to > /usr/sbin. We don't solve the latter one at all. > > Debian bug, or DJB bug? T

Re: Rebuilding all 100+ r-cran-* packages for R 2.10.0

Dirk Eddelbuettel (16/10/2009): > This means we "should" rebuild all packages or else they will upon > load trigger a nagging message 'package foo was built under R > version x.y.z and may not function properly' as well as possible > malfunctions of the help system. As we're only talking 100+ > p

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Joerg Jaspert (27/10/2009): > No. Not much helpful to reject buildd packages. Like the ones totally broken due to “toolchain” issues? The dbus/debhelper joke comes to mind: The sourceful upload was OK. Due to bad timing, the autobuilt packages were not. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: D

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Stephen Gran (28/10/2009): > What that has to do with lintian based auto-rejects, I'm not really > sure, but thanks. Files were installed in binary packages (built on autobuilders with the brand new toolchain packages) within unusual locations (resulting in quite broken packages), which lintian w

Re: kfreebsd problem

Francesco P. Lovergine (29/10/2009): > I noted that kfreebsd-* are missing python binding generation for > libkml. I already forced PYTHON choice at building time (which > worked on other archs) but in this case it does not help. Any hints? When it comes to missing .so, it might be outdated libt

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009): > This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed > after being checked individually, and was filed one by one, > manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive > numbers of false positives, and thus these are just bugs fi

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Cyril Brulebois (01/11/2009): > Then you probably should read Policy 7.1.1. Individual checks or > non-automation doesn't make it less massive. Make it DevRef (thanks, Kumar). Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

Gunnar Wolf (04/11/2009): > So, given the attention to this thread: Do you judge this as > policy-compliant? What makes me wonder a bit is what would happen in case several webservers were to implement this kind of behaviour. When installing several of them at the same time, the resulting content

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey (10/11/2009): > Let me suggest adding "(like Firefox/3.5)", but I'm not sure how the > crappy sites parsing the version number will deal with the closing > parenthesis. What about “foo/bar -- similar to baz/quux” to avoid parenthesing issues? Or “like” or “similar to” or “almost like”

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >