On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 05:58:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> libbeid2
> libbeidlibopensc2
That was fixed by an upload last night. It should no longer be a
problem now.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:47:13AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:47:49AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > * Exim sender/callout fails with a fatal error.
>
> "Fatal" means not temporary?
Yes. It means exim did this to one of the MX hosts listed for the
doma
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:56:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Two things:
>
> - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and
> unpack every source package to get that file.
Exactly.
> - control files can be auto generated during build (e.g. glibc) and
> might no
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:39:18PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Changing keyword on all subscriptions
> -
>
> The control bot has been expanded to support new commands to add/remove
> keyword on all subscriptions. People who are subscribed to packages with
>
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> "Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >There is no such general solution. See
> ><http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us>
>
> That says:
> >
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:42:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:14:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > For starters, we'd need a *lot* of hardware to be able to do all these
> > builds. Many of them will fail, because there *will* be people who
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:53:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three
> knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it
> to the affected/responsible person.
Who would you suggest would do that? I know it's
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 04:47:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NoMoreSourcePackages is a description of
> the new world order for Ubuntu packages -- which will simplify making
> changes to Ubuntu packages to a matter of simply committing the change
> to the
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> >> Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor
> >> www.debian.or
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor
> www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be
> reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a "buildd@" list.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I just committed
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:01:09AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The specific example used was some spam source sitting in the same /27
> > netblock in a colo server room, and getting through the graylister because
> > a proper MT
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:06:19AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > > Joerg clearly stands that:
> > >
> > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> > > be called "scri
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
> (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
That would seem to be an accurate description of some certain author of
some certain rather popular CD-writing to
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 07:23:54PM +0300, Török Edvin wrote:
> Btw, what is the appropriate severity level for a package that doesn't
> work on a certain architecture at all? Is it release critical?
If the architecture is a release candidate, yes.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "As
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 01:02:44AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not trying to start a flame war but can somebody give a convincing
> explanation as to why don't we have a standard BTS ?
Because most "standard" BTSes suck?
> If I need to subscribe to a bug I can't use the web interfa
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 11:58:28PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:23:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 03:04:14PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:57:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> &
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 09:45:16PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Another aspect is maintenance cost. Auto* tools and docbook toolchain,
> and tex toolchain may break, which means packages no longer
> build. This, I believe, shouldn't really be considered a reason not to
> build-depend; because it
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 09:18:20PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> tony mancill wrote:
> >
> > It seems like it would be quite taxing on the autobuilders to have to pull
> > something like docbook (and its chain of dependencies) into a pbuilder just
> > to recompile a manpage that doesn't chang
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 04:45:21PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 07:25:16PM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> 1) compile docs pre-build-time; or
> >> 2) compile docs in build-time
> >
>
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 03:04:14PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:57:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Additionally, it puzzles me how you think a maintainer will be able to
> > accurately predict how much RAM a certain build is going to use. There
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 12:12:10PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 03:26:15AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Still, the buildd admin has no way to estimate how much a sub-process
> > > of a package is going to use, the ma
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:01:31PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > This has the disadvantage of not automatically using -j for every
> > package and requiring maintainer buy in to see results... but
> > presumably those packages where
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:17:27AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > If package maintainer wants to build it faster on their own machine, I
> > would imagine that checking for an environment variable (DEB_MAKE_OPTS
> > or something, perhaps?) and usi
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:08:57PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:35:19 +0200
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No. There is snd-pcm-oss.ko, which provides working OSS sound, even if
> > you don't use aoss. Just make sure to l
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 09:20:34PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
> With the 2.6 kernel programs using OSS for sound are not working
> anymore. Sound that is. One *may* use aoss, but then the user needs to
> open a terminal and write:
>
> aoss program-name
>
> because launching from the menu it won
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 06:11:24PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> su, 2006-06-25 kello 16:36 +0200, Wouter Verhelst kirjoitti:
> > It has come to my attention that the gem package is currently built
> > using 'make -j 4', to have four compiler processes running at the sam
Hi,
It has come to my attention that the gem package is currently built
using 'make -j 4', to have four compiler processes running at the same
time. This is a bit troublesome for the poor m68k buildd, which is now
suffering under High Load And Constant Swapping (HLACS).
I was going to file a flam
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 01:21:17AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 00:56 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> > Is this allowed? If not, why not? Would it be allowed if the package
> > stanza for libfoo read:
> >
> > Package: libfoo
> > Depends: libbar-ssl | libbar, libc6
>
> Is
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:24:35PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> (amd64 is only faster in 64-bit mode because of all the poorly
> designed x86 32-bit instruction set.)
"x86 32-bit instruction set" and "designed" in one sentence? Hah.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes",
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that
> > there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which
> > is used b
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > > seen repeated claims t
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:45:27AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > What I can
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in
> > only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
> > suggested by the Developer's Reference.
>
> Please don't confuse things by introducing
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:45:28AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> This argument is valid only for configuration. There are more
> reasons to have files which are not displayed unless you ask for
> them. For example:
> * .svn
> Storing this metadata somewhere else would mean you have to
> expli
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns
> > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all
> > > the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee liable
> > > for the effects of everything in our operating system?
> >
> > If y
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
> > They do not need to.
>
> No, there's no absolute *need* to do that,
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:33:46AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
> >> to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
> >
> > Non
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:02:59PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Please RTFM [1], Blackdown has been distributing java packages for Debian
> through their own APT repositories and mirror network for quite some time.
> For example check this:
>
> # Blackdown Java
> deb ftp://ftp.gw
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 04:28:18PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> All good points. However, I think that much of the "popular" press (in
> the sense of popular geek press) is not making the distinction between
> Debian proper and Debian non-free. Some have, but others have not.
> Headlines li
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:45:11AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Christian Perrier wrote:
> > And isn't another "small cabal" of freeness junkies, who cannot accept
> > that it is actually possible to work with commercial vendors to assist
> > them in their way to free software, doing exactly
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 02:27:07AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, the stats have continued dropping since then, now down by about 1.5%
> in less than a week.
And up again, by about .5%, today.
> The last such dip on the graph seems to have taken about a month to
> recover from,
20 days, ac
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:48:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, KSP's in Debian are essentially dead, as far as I am
> concerned, since the community has not come to an agreement that
> bringing Bubba's passports is an unacceptable action.
Well, for my part, it's actually sligh
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 12:41:52AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:48:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Then there's the issue of tracing who did an actual upload into the real
> > world. A name on a GPG key is not, by any means,
[You had removed m68k-build from the Cc list. Was that on purpose?]
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> heading in the wrong direction again
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:50:41AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst stated:
[...]
> > However, "trusted processes" do not lie with people who are trying
> > to convince you of their identity. If you trust anyone to tell the
> > truth
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst spake thusly:
>
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
> >>> Perhaps my just-posted mes
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Timeline
>
>
> Now, let's please take a more detailed look at the time line:
>
>
> Thu 15 Jun 06:
>
> last chance to switch to gcc 4.1, python 2.4
> review architectures one more time
> last
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:57:04AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Whether doing it this way is a good idea, though, I don't know. Buildd
> > surely wasn't designed for this.
>
> It is much simpler than to s
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:04:29AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Benjamin Seidenberg]
> > FYI:
> > 12:33 < Ganneff> and for all those impatient waiting for NEW: i will
> > clear that in my jetlag time, in those nights i
> > cant sleep (ie 1st -> 2nd june,
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
> > Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my point.
> >
> > In the paragraph above, marked >>>, which was written by you, you
> > speak of deception and forgery. Nothing i
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 09:47:53PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Or just dump all packages into the buildds queue file (as
That would be ~buildd/build/REDO
> package_version, one per line) and start it.
That would be
package_version distribution
instead, as in
nbd_1:2.8.4-2 unstable
W
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 10:37:39PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 27 May 2006, martin f. krafft spake thusly:
> > From within the project, what matters is that everything you do
> > within the project can be attributed to one and the same person: the
> > same person that went through our NM pr
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 03:49:28PM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 06:40:28PM -0500, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> >On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 04:54 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 04:47:20PM -0500, martin f krafft wrote:
> >>
> >>>I imagine an improve
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:12:16PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, once someone acts in bad faith, I can't trust anything
> else they say: How do I know it is not a hoax within a hoax to see
> how gullible people are, to accept that the papers presented were not
> faked, or outright
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:57:09AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:30:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On 25 May 2006, Andreas Tille spake thusly:
> > > Is there any reason to revoke my signature I have put on
> > > Martin's key after he showed me his passport?
> >
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:20:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 24 mai 2006 à 16:01 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > Thanks for all replies.
>
> In a private email you sent me, you said you were going to stop posting
> on Debian mailing lists. This was just another lie.
Hmm, Debi
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:23:49PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I just found that my package, libetpan, was not updated for m68k.
> [1] states that it is out of date on m68k.
> But [2] states that latest version was successfully built on m68k long ago
> - on Apr17.
>
> What's
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:55:52PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you have a look at the order of the by_vote numbers for editors,
> > you'll see that vim, not nvi or nano, is at the top.
>
> A list like this only see
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:42:26PM -0300, Maximiliano Curia wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 16:31, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > You would end up with nvi or nano as editors, since they are installed by
> > > default. Probably more as viewer and so on.
>
> > Which is
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:47:52AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 06:56, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > > On Monday 22 May 2006 13:35, you wrote:
> > > > Try as I might, and consider
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 04:48:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Remember that for non-free, we provide no guarantee except for the
> > notice that we're allowed to distribute. We don't even guarantee that
> > so
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 13:35, you wrote:
> > They won't sue us for distributing Java. If they do, all we have to do
> > is point the Judge to the press coverage of this change of license, and
> > to the fact that Debian was mentioned
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings
> > and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenario in which
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:03:25PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> > And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I
> > as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even
> > if I ask, but i
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their
> software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his
> statement is legally not binding and the license says you are not
> allowed to offer it. Then yo
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:50:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by removing
> > java!
>
> Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez on
>
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:25:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you*
> > say. The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do
> > in
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > [...] They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random
> > opinions on this decision *don't* matter.
>
> Wow, thanks for telling us. I thought
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:23:09PM -0300, Maximiliano Curia wrote:
> On Friday 19 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > So, instead of using static feature lists to define an application's
> > priority with which it would be configured in the alternatives system,
> &g
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:51:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Gregor Herrmann]
> > If you look at by_vote [0] the situation is different:
> > http://popcon.debian.org/main/editors/by_vote
> >
> > [0] which seems more relevant to me:
> > # is the number of people who installed this package
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 04:49:49PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 05:45:46AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> >> Well, most of those scripts can be fixed quite easily, some require
> &g
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:44:14PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Honestly, though, I'm much more concerned about maintainability than
> > speed of the build.
>
> It's not especially problematic to maintain as it is now, and I ask you
> to recogniz
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:28:30PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> At 1148052328 past the epoch, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Using popcon would ensure that the applications which most people
> > prefer would be the default; this is a fair and objective criterion.
> >
> >
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:44:45AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > During some tests I've performed, I've found that making the init
> > scripts run with dash as default shell instead of bash makes the boot
> > time a 10% faster (6 seconds in a 60 se
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:05:12AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 19, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Since bash does enable some features that are not specified in
> > POSIX, even when called as /bin/sh, I don't see what the problem
>
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 05:45:46AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> Well, most of those scripts can be fixed quite easily, some require
> a bit more work. I hereby promise to help fixing them to the extent
> of my capability.
Let's see. The nbd-client and nbd-server initscripts use bash arrays. Do
Hi,
Today, after upgrading my system, suddenly mcedit became the default
editor, rather than vim as I expected it. Investigating showed that some
funny guy decided that mcedit could use a priority of 100, whereas vim
had fallen back to 60 since the latest upgrade.
Fixing this wasn't very hard, bu
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:29:47PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:27:23PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > This option also might imply some extra bugs, but it's believed that
> > not so many, since there are already quite a number of people with
> > /bin/sh -
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:27:23PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Also, I've heard other options being posed, such as writing all init
> scripts (including /etc/init.d/rc) in python. But I do want to
> concentrate on what's possible to do for etch or etch+1.
If you're going to use a real scr
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:05:35PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:16:00PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > That is because udev is slower so the window of the race condition
> > gets increased many many times. Without udev you don't have to wait
> > for the mknod c
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:16:00PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:16:33PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:24:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >&g
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:52:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:08:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > H
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:16:33PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:24:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Just like the kernel always did prior to udev.
>
> You're missing a very important thing. This is _NOT_ a "udev vs.
> pre-udev" question. This is a "new kernel
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:08:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Have you considered employing the alternatives system (or something
> > similar)? What I'm suggesting is that you'd basically get a /bin64 a
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:20:17AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Hi. I'm just a lowly user with a bandwidth problem.
> Certainly was a shock to get back from town to find the documentation
> gone from the debs I brought back.
> However, I am to make one last trip to town so it's my one shot chance
>
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:01:08AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Olaf van der Spek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why do you think there's no compatible solution?
>
> Because basicaly all sources assume binaries go to /bin. You
> want to break that. Also a lot of scripts expect binaries
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:16:32AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> verbose and chatty about seemingly normal occasions. In general, I've only
> seen problems with it; even sendmail seems easier to get to work. With
> hand-written config file. Written in ed.
With or without the Sendmail bible?
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 10:00:25AM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 14:54 -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > Is there a way to tell deborphan to follow the build-dependencies
> > of a set of source packages? I know about deborphan's keep file,
> > but that's too tedious to keep up-to-d
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:35:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seconds, since when do we consider the GPL to be viral?
>
> Don't know about you, but the FSF does - it has created the LGPL because
> of this.
Actually, they don't. They consider the GPL
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:00:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 08:59]:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> > >
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
> freeze etch rather soon and also the RC bug count doesn't look too good,
> an
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:08:57PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:12:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > I have not withdrawn my intent to take over Bacula. I am volunteering
> > > to do some pretty significant work on it, and have already
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:26:33AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:10:52PM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> > I couldn't be happier if that happened. We have a bit less than 3 months
> > (until Etch freezes) to get all of this in shape. Any other volunteers?
>
> I have not
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 09:44:13PM +0200, Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I will be in Helsinki from 8/5 till 14/5.
>
> If someone wants to meet for a drink or some keysigning drop me an email.
You're almost a year late ;-)
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", s
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:26:21PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Wouter asked:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 09:22:45PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > This library isn't truly abandoned by upstream, but essentially it's not
> > > getting any new development. Cairo is considered the way forward and
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 09:22:45PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> This library isn't truly abandoned by upstream, but essentially it's not
> getting any new development. Cairo is considered the way forward and xprint
> is widely (though not universally) considered a broken implementation.
Just out
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:56:06AM -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:43:47AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > That's because sometimes it takes that long to find out whether the
> > failure is really the maintainer's problem rather than the bu
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 08:08:50PM -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:28:09AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > That's why we have FTBFS bugs.
>
> The efficiency of that is far lower. FTBFS bugs are manually submitted,
> more then once I exp
901 - 1000 of 1682 matches
Mail list logo
