Re: Accepted xrender 0.9.0-1 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Stone wrote: > Format: 1.7 > Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:09:41 +1000 > Source: xrender > Binary: libxrender1-dbg libxrender-dev libxrender1 > Architecture: source i386 > Version: 0.9.0-1 > Distribution: unstable > Urgency: low > Maintainer: Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Changed-By: Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Description: > libxrender-dev - X Rendering Extension client library (development files) > libxrender1 - X Rendering Extension client library > libxrender1-dbg - X Rendering Extension client library (unstripped) > Closes: 257187 280092 > Changes: > xrender (0.9.0-1) unstable; urgency=low > . >* New upstream version. >* Adopting package; set Maintainer to myself. >* Set includedir to be /usr/X11R6/include with autoconf, not by moving it > around, so the pkgconfig file and the libtool library no longer lie > (closes: #257187, #280092). >* Make libxrender-dev Depend (not B-D) on render-dev >= 0.9, for the new > protocol version. > Files: > df7bd9af7ff95cc752981b9d98c8372d 669 x11 optional xrender_0.9.0-1.dsc > 8aadb283d417e0f732678fe08469ce6e 309386 x11 optional > xrender_0.9.0.orig.tar.gz > 14dbb528a203c8b0d8917c15d47deeae 10792 x11 optional xrender_0.9.0-1.diff.gz > d26eb33f17033a3d3dacff0ddcbb1d81 26638 libs optional > libxrender1_0.9.0-1_i386.deb > bedab447958c90d12809b69e6094301e 335856 libdevel extra > libxrender1-dbg_0.9.0-1_i386.deb > 41ee1307c37bf2c0ec13163ca7b2997c 29860 libdevel optional > libxrender-dev_0.9.0-1_i386.deb > Hi everybody, For a long while I have been covering the position of Release Manager for the X Strike Force team, as many of you already know. It is a matter of facts that I did NOT resign from that position and that this is *yet another* attempt from Daniel Stone to hijack packages that are co-maintained within the XSF. This upload (together with render) has been violating (at least): 1) Release Managers request of not uploading new major upstream versions of any library. 2) All possible NMU rules. 3) Code of Conduct. but even if i can try to force myself to fly over these major mistakes you did (there are more. like a behaviour change in the library for example...) there is one on which i absolutely cannot close my eyes. You, Daniel, and I have been talking several times on IRC about your position within the XSF. At the end of all these talks, you agreed to stop messing up with the XSF. This is clearly not the case. I find myself in a position for which i cannot trust your words anymore, and I am seriously offended by your behaviour. Both as a person, since you had my full trust, and as part of the XSF, since i still lead this team. Before I will ask the relevant Debian authorities to take appropriate actions to safeguard the community from your destructive behaviour, I want you to explain to the community the rationale behind your hijack, going trough all the points I mentioned above. Regards, Fabio -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCgD/8hCzbekR3nhgRAiHfAKCiu7JXvTaXYBsrMynjWRyU4su9qQCgldtA U6nCSN0L6RhooEyGrkj0Ink= =ybhh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: adam@debian.org ?
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote: > anyone has information regards him ? As far as I know he is still alive. I saw him a few days ago in irc. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Orphaning 2 small packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, since in the last few months i was not able to give enough love to them i intend to orphan libapache-mod-auth-radius and libpam-radius-auth The reason why i am not going trough the normal procedure is because quite a lof of people are using them and i do not want them removed from the archive (even if i will have to spend a few nights on them before release) The packages are in a good shape and fairly easy to maintain but they require quite a lot of testing before each upload. Please contact me if you are interested and we will coordinate the handover. Thanks Fabio - -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/VvdIhCzbekR3nhgRAo/WAJ49r5sVPIkjGna73uh42WuagwCMRACeLTzN gX0/oQb33zGxWlv1oCSisrc= =q47g -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: binaries provided by multiple source packages
Ok i see that you got apache in the middle of a transition, that is why
your check still see apache-perl as a source.
a few months ago there were 3 apache flavours built from 3 different
sources. apache, apache-ssl and apache-perl. Since the apache source code
was present in all of them and they were often out of sync we (as apache
maintainer team) decided to merge the 3 sources in one (apache) and be
able to build the 3 flavours out of it. A special cases has been done for
libapache-mod-perl. mod_perl is a requirement to build apache-perl so we
decided to generate libapache-mod-perl together with apache{-ssl,-perl}
without bloating the archive with another source package.
The only reason you still find apache-perl as source in the archive is
because ftp-master scripts still have to remove it. Of course this is
valid for sid/sarge. woody can't be changed and it willl ship the 3
sources that you see in the pool.
I think this should clarify everything.
Fabio
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:38:12 +0200 (CEST)
> Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > The following is a list of packages whose names are inconsistent
> > > with accepted behaviour (plz correct me if im wrong)
> >
> > Sorry for my ignorance but which is the accepted behaviour? i couldn't
> > find anything in the policies and in devel-reference (just had a fast
> > look trough them)
>
> Section 3.1
> Every package must have a name that's unique within the Debian archive.
> The package name is included in the control field Package,
>
> It is open to interpretation a little bit i guess, but as i see it
>
> Every Package field in the Sources file must be unique to that file, and
> every Package field in the Packages file must be unique to that file.
>
> As it stands the apache-perl binary package (to pick on your case) could
> be generated from two different source packages, only one binary will
> ever be accepted as part of the binary release, if you try and insert a
> second one the old binary will be thrown out.
>
> Its hard for machines (autobuilders etc) to know which source the binary
> really should be generated from.
>
> Im not sure what should be done with regard to bootstapping apache.
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
--
Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
"We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues
http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: binaries provided by multiple source packages
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote: > The following is a list of packages whose names are inconsistent with > accepted behaviour (plz correct me if im wrong) Sorry for my ignorance but which is the accepted behaviour? i couldn't find anything in the policies and in devel-reference (just had a fast look trough them) > To my knowledge if a package is provided by multiple sources, then a > virtual package should be used. Why do i need a virtual package? and which one should be considering the apache-perl case? > apache-perl (apache, apache-perl) > libapache-mod-perl(apache, libapache-mod-perl) wearing my apache maintainer hat, apache-perl needs libapache-mod-perl to build and vice versa... shipping them togheter solves a lot of troubles.. Thanks Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: debconf 2005 in Vienna, Austria
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Jesus Climent wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:29:27AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > > > > > Some of us do not want/cannot go to linuxtag, but we could be in vienna > > > already friday evening or saturday morning. > > > > Please no. Do not schedule overlapping events. People interested in both > > than will be in troubles. > > I fail to see the problem. The first days were rather relaxed, on the "this is > not working, can anyone please do something? no? ok, i will do it..." kind of > way. > > Getting lost all together instead in small lots is baaad. > > I believe is was a better experience this way. severity wishlist :-) no i don't see it as a big problem but it would be nice to start together. If you force overlapping days than you force people to choose something when there is no reason to and noone can be in two places at the same time ;) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: debconf 2005 in Vienna, Austria
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Jesus Climent wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:22:57AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Quoting Karsten Merker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > Anyway, that could give the following schedule : > > > > Thursday-Sunday : LinuxTag at WhereverHeim, Germany > > Sunday evening : folks travel to Debcamp in Vienna, Austria > > Monday-Friday : Debcamp > > Saturday, Sunday : Debconf > > What about > debcamp : saturday -> thursday > debconf : friday -> sunday morning > ? > > Some of us do not want/cannot go to linuxtag, but we could be in vienna > already friday evening or saturday morning. Please no. Do not schedule overlapping events. People interested in both than will be in troubles. Thanks Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Why back-porting patches to stable instead of releasing a new package.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:57:54AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-bug-security > > > > in particular "5.8.5.3 Preparing packages to address security issues" > > It doesn't answare my question. I should explain my self in a different way. > > My point is: i understand what said in that paragraph, but what if new version > is a bugfix release that does not address only a secutiry issue? I'm not sure > that system administrators would like to have a buggy package on their hosts > with a security bug fixed, but with many other open nasty bugs. > > Why that package has nusty bugs? Of course because they where reported after > woody > release. Because you can never be sure that it will not change the package behaviour in all its small details and that will not introduce new bugs. (note that i kept the list short for the simple reason that there several different examples that can be done according to which package you are talking about) > Let me bring the specific case into the discussion. phpgroupware in woody is > a 0.9.14 > Release Candidate 3 (which was a feature-freeze release for testing): that > package got really a lot of bug fixed and there is now a 0.9.14.006 which is a > 0.9.14 in all aspects. 0.9.14.006 neither have new features nor different > behaviour: only bugs fixed. Probably in the specific case it can apply but this is not true for all packages. Policy/developer-references have to carry the most generic case as possible, as a best/current practise. > "5.5.1 Special case: uploads to the stable distribution" says: > > -- > Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following > happens: > > * a truly critical functionality problem > > * the package becomes uninstallable > > * a released architecture lacks the package > -- > > and > > -- > It is discouraged to change anything else in the package that isn't important, > because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on. > -- > > IMHO, these points should be relaxed while speaking about bugfix package > release. If you will relax these points you will loose the meaning of having stable/testing/unstable. Everyone will be encourged to upload to stable to fix even the most insignificant whishlist bug. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Why back-porting patches to stable instead of releasing a new package.
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-bug-security in particular "5.8.5.3 Preparing packages to address security issues" will answer your question Fabio On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 06:36:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > I've some questions for you, first. > > > Would you mind, please, to explain to me why back-porting a patch for a > > > buggy package in stable would be better than releasing a new package for > > > the > > > stable distribution? > > > > Do you mind taking this discussion to a public mailing list so that I don't > > have to explain over and over? > > The kind of patch we were talking about was for a security fix. I was asking > this question to Matt because the new package i'd like to release for stable > also fixes many other bugs. > > I'm sorry if some of you might think this question to be dumb or stupid, but > it's not obvious to me. > > Please, please, please: no reference/flame about releasing new stable > distribution more often. That would not be the point. > > ciao, > P.S.: Matt, if you felt this question to be common, it might be worthy to add > some/your explanations to the developers-reference too. > -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Mass bug filing: Build-Depends on libgdbmg1-dev and/or imlib-dev
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Daniel Schepler wrote: > For libgdbmg1-dev (excluding packages with Build-Depends on > "libgdbm-dev | libgdbmg1-dev"): apache-perl libapache-mod-perl We have this already done in our CVS. It should be uploaded in a relatively short time. Thanks Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Experimental: proftpd pre-1.2.9, for brave hearts
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > Hi guys > > this is to announce a preview (off sid) for current (cvs) > version of proftpd. Testing and comments are welcome. > An (incomplete) IPv6 patch is also available. > > http://people.debian.org/~frankie/debian/sid/experimental/proftpd/ > > The package will not be uploaded in sid, until a complete IPv6 patch will > be available or 1.2.9 will be released. Just to avoid some duplicate work I am already on the IPv6 pkg... Thanks frankie for pkgs and patch! Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages > which are libc5 related: > [SNIP] > > and others, partially. > > This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries, > Comments, ideas, complaints? I agree with this removal. I don't really see any reason to keep such old pieces of software anymore (specially when they don't work properly anymore or it looks like) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Second experimental version of APT with DDTP Support
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi Otavio, > > Hello Fabio, > > > just for pure curiosity, when do you expect to have the full system > > integrated within Debian? > > I think the code need some otimization and one missing feature to > fallback language codes. After this, in IMHO, the system is ready for > merge. > > Have you use this version for testing? To be hounest no i didn't test it since i personally don't like to use other language than english on my computers. I was only curious about the integration status since i like to see big projects merging happily together :-) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: new bug tags
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Guido Guenther wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 04:23:49PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > The BTS now has "lfs" (large file support) and "ipv6" tags. > > http://bugs.debian.org/tag:lfs and http://bugs.debian.org/tag:ipv6 will > > search for matching bugs. > Since we're using bug tags for such specific things now wouldn't it make > sense to add per architecture tags so one can search via > http://bugs.debian.org/tag:hppa > for hppa related issues (not that there are any of course!). It would > help porters to identify arch related issues much more easily. > Regards, > -- Guido > I second this idea. -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Second experimental version of APT with DDTP Support
Hi Otavio, On Sat, 31 May 2003, Otavio Salvador wrote: > The DDTP team and the Debian-BR project are proud to announce the > second public release of APT featuring support for translated package > descriptions. just for pure curiosity, when do you expect to have the full system integrated within Debian? Thanks Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Sun, 25 May 2003, Craig Small wrote: > Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IPv6 is an official subproject founded by Craig Small, even if we host > > experimental packages outside Debian for various reasons. > > I think that might be way, way too formal for what it is. I'm not too > fussed what it is called as it was setup pragmatically for a practical > purpose. Probably you are right that is way too formal. I just consider it as such due to the high response we got from the entire community. We are up to 50 pkgs in sid, 1.2GB of archive (including testing, woody and woody backports), mirrored by 15 different ISP's (most of them both ipv4 and ipv6). Several developers, official and unofficial, involved. More and more DD started including IPv6 patches, tested by us, directly in main. I considered these value as simptoms of acceptance from the community, but correct me if I am wrong. > The problem was with IPv6 was there was no coordination. Someone would > make a package or have a technique for IPv6 but noone else knew about it > so there was duplication and wastage. These are the same reasons that motivated me to start. The entire IPv6 community made a very good job and it was extremely responsive. As well as the entire infrastructure has been growing a lot in the last year (Also due to the increasing interest in IPv6 all over the world), more pkgs, more mirrors, the stat section was born, irc channel and so on... > That's how the IPv6 sub-project started. I'm pleased that despite my > lack of effort it has done very well. Actually just the fact that you kept the links updated on www.d.o was quite good, since that page is still the first reference that IPv6 newbie will hit. > I'm not going to buy into what they *should* be, but a least you know > how IPv6 started. :-) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Unofficial projects related with Debian.
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Gustavo Franco wrote: > Hi, > > [1] = "Mono for Debian", ipv6 (is it official or unofficial?), > "ddtp", ... IPv6 is an official subproject founded by Craig Small, even if we host experimental packages outside Debian for various reasons. Thanks Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: [RFC] Chapter for the debian reference about l10n
On Mon, 19 May 2003, Martin Quinson wrote: > Internationalizing, translating and being internationalized and translated [SNIP] I think that having atleast some references on how to handle translations will avoid other flamewars and misunderstandigs. But atleast the flamewar was not completly useless since it spotted a few things (policy or best practise) that are still floating in a "gray area" and need a better definition. Thanks for your work Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Tue, 20 May 2003, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > > We asked why the removal of the number «3» from the word «PHP3» caused > > the format of the whole description to the changed. We asked _why_, > > we did not say «do not do this». First, we wanted to know why. Then, > > we might want to ask it to be changed back. > > > > Somehow, this whole discussion has been blown completely out of > > propositions. > > I think this's been answered a lot of times, and Fabiano is not > really asking why, he's telling us 'do not do this'. *cough*Fabio*cough* ;) no. i did ask which is the procedure (that involves people to contact) in order to have information about a description and if there was a common way to have it changed back, I did not wrote explicity why because i expected a reason back from the translator/translation team, but tell me if I am wrong if i shouldn't expected so. This was my original question to grisu. Of course in my mail to him i explained which was the reason for me to ask, pointing to the french translation since it was the first one i noticed that had a different layout. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Tue, 20 May 2003, Denis Barbier wrote: > > i believe that it looks nicer keeping the layout coherent across > > translation. > > But you do not explain why! because it looks nicer and it is coherent with the original one. This was always what i told along the thread. I tought it was clear ;) > Translations are not displayed together with original text, so imposing > a similar layout (I keep this term for simplicity even if I find it > meaningless) does not make sense. it will still be coherent. Even if i don't know the other language and i see my description bumping from 10 lines to 100 i might suspect that something is wrong. (exagerated example of course that will ring a bell in my head). > > > > How do developers check how translations are rendered? > > > > sorry but i don't understand what you mean. > [...] > > I am wondering how you checked that the Japanese translation did fit > your aesthetic criterion. Of course it is not possible to know everything about everything but atleast one can try his/her best. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Sun, 18 May 2003, Denis Barbier wrote: > [All Cc's removed] > > On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 07:54:55AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > [...] > > I don't believe that there is not an estestic layout that can satisfy > > all the languages we have in Debian. > > What is the rationale for having a single layout for all languages? since we are talking about estetic, i believe that it looks nicer keeping the layout coherent across translation. > How do developers check how translations are rendered? sorry but i don't understand what you mean. > > Don't forget that most of the text we use in descriptions (or > > templates, or whatever) are based on technical language and terms, > > imho most of them farly new i would say and only recently adopted by > > common languages. > > Could you please be more explicit? I do not understand how this sentence > is related to the issue discussed here. I will make a couple of example so we can understand each other better but they are just examples that i don't mind to discuss, but out of the mailing list since it will become too much off-topic imho. When you translate old literature, for instance, it is extremely difficult since you have to stick to tons of rules (ancient and new ones) and probably you will have to use some obsolete terms in your language that correspond to the same one in the other. In a case like this you need to apply atleast 3 grammatic rule sets. the old one in the other language, the old one in your language and the new one in your langauge, and if you don't do that in a really pedantic way you will loose everything of the meaning of the original text. Now evaluate computer related terms. They are not older than 20 years, only some of them have been accepted in common languages (read dictionaries), and in most cases we inveted new terms that will probably never flow in laguages other than computer ones. Think to something like: "I've debianized X4.3! ;-)" (an exagerate example but just to get the idea) in italian i would translate in something like: "Ho debianizato X4.3! ;-)". The verb "to debianize" doesn't exist in any dictionary other than the "Debian one" but somehow we imported it and adapted to out language. Keeping the same meaning and a very close layout. Point is that this is a shorcut to a more long and possibly boring translation that will look like: "Io ho creato un pacchetto Debian che contiene i binari di X4.3" (exagerated a bit in the other way but still just to get the idea). Somehow the language evolves and since computer related language is farly new i don't see any problem in adapting it a bit for our targets. Of course you might argue that is not clean but afaik noone has ever really set rules for cases like this one. The point is that using a farly new language gives us a bit more freedom than using a normal language in a strict way. Can you see my point? Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Support RFC 3534 - The application/ogg Media Type
On Sat, 17 May 2003, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: > Recently the Ogg bitstream format (the container format employed for the > well-known Ogg Vorbis audio code) has been designated an official MIME type: > "application/ogg"; for details see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3534.txt . > [SNIP] > apache: mime.types needs updating. The mime.types that apache ships as example has been updated in our CVS, but the one that is used by default (/etc/myme.types) is out of our control, so apache will be compliant only after mime-support will be updated. Thanks for the information. Fabio
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Sat, 17 May 2003, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > Em Fri, 16 May 2003 06:55:04 +0200 (CEST), Fabio Massimo Di Nitto > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: > > > > Why do you bother with the layout of the translation? The translators are > > > the authorities when it comes to their languages. I think we should not > > > be put in a jail and be unable to decide how we think our users should > > > see the message. > > > > > > Let's make it clear: we translate stuff to make it more readable to > > > our fellow compatriots, making the translation look bad to our users > > > does not help achieving the goal. > > > > All this other stuff already found several answers in the thread. No need > > to reanswer them again and restart from scratch. > > You say that as if your answers were the Universal Truth. It is exactly the otherway around. The question you made have been discussed and evaluated by different people and found several answers from different point of views. How can this match with your statement? Mine was done simply to avoid to discuss again from 0 the same things we went trough in the thread. > I don't think anyone needs answers here, we need solution to a problem. Yes we agree 100% on this. > Our problem is: there's nothing wrong with the english description. > French people have different typographical rules, so the layout is not > approppriate for french. Actually, what they stated to be a "must" has become during the time a "preferred" way to write the same text. > Then you ask people to submit bugs to change the original description. Yes because if they believe that a better layout should be in place i don't see anything wrong in filing a wishlist bug. I would do the same if i feel that a description is not readable or can be improved. > We have to understand we cannot simply put everyone's culture in a > single template, because they actualy *are* different. I didn't ask anyone to change their culture (read as: changing senteces inside the translation or some words instead of others). > And that's good. Never doubt that. > So the french people ask you through a bug report to modify the original > description and you ask everybody to standardize, but (let's supose) the > new layout is really bad for the korean readers. Are you going to ask > them to file a new bug report asking to change the original description > so you can make a standard world? Before placing a new layout to satisfy a wishlist bug i would atleast spend a mail to see if translators can generally agree on that, specially after this flamewar. I don't believe that there is not an estestic layout that can satisfy all the languages we have in Debian. Don't forget that most of the text we use in descriptions (or templates, or whatever) are based on technical language and terms, imho most of them farly new i would say and only recently adopted by common languages. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Where are translated man pages packaged?
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Keegan Quinn wrote: > On Friday 16 May 2003 11:45 am, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > On Fri, 16 May 2003, Keegan Quinn wrote: > > > > more than once i had to install small dns servers on boxes with less > > > > than 100Mb flash and stuff like that... so basically also the minimal > > > > installation has to be tight.. then rm doc and man and after install > > > > the minimum sets of pkgs to provide the services. > > > > > > Please do not try to force this methodology upon the standard Debian base > > > system. Administrators of embedded systems have many tools to deal with > > > these problems already, that do not require ever unpacking the full base > > > onto the target. > > > > sorry but i can hardly read from the previous post that i am trying to > > force something to someone. I guess this is just a misunderstanding. > > Perhaps the word 'force' was a bit harsh, but it's essentially how it works > for an end-user. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the standard > installer should be optimized for embedded systems, which does not sound like > a very good idea. These systems have many specialized needs which cannot be > easily accounted for. No i was not suggesting either. I was just explaining why i would like to avoid to get a bigger base system and giving out one of the reason. it was an example, no more no less. anyway no big deal ;) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Where are translated man pages packaged?
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Keegan Quinn wrote: > > more than once i had to install small dns servers on boxes with less than > > 100Mb flash and stuff like that... so basically also the minimal > > installation has to be tight.. then rm doc and man and after install the > > minimum sets of pkgs to provide the services. > > Please do not try to force this methodology upon the standard Debian base > system. Administrators of embedded systems have many tools to deal with > these problems already, that do not require ever unpacking the full base onto > the target. sorry but i can hardly read from the previous post that i am trying to force something to someone. I guess this is just a misunderstanding. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Where are translated man pages packaged?
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Colin Watson wrote: > > I agree with Wouter. For me would be an issue having the base system > > bigger than it is now. Specially preparing very small "black box" where i > > need to save as much space as i can even during the installation phase. > > Can't you basically just 'rm -rf /usr/share/doc /usr/share/man' if > you're tight on space? Of course... but also during the installation? I don't mind at all cleaning up after... but during is a bit of a pain.. more than once i had to install small dns servers on boxes with less than 100Mb flash and stuff like that... so basically also the minimal installation has to be tight.. then rm doc and man and after install the minimum sets of pkgs to provide the services. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Where are translated man pages packaged?
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > When grabbing old mails, I found an answer from a developer who told me > > that his package is part of base and thus he wants to keep it small. > > Is this indeed an important issue? > > I'd say yes; but those packages will not usually be uninstalled, so I > see it as no problem to put manpages for packages in base in a > manpages-xx package. > > I agree with Wouter. For me would be an issue having the base system bigger than it is now. Specially preparing very small "black box" where i need to save as much space as i can even during the installation phase. Fabio (Denis this is nothing against translation.. just a matter of space ;)) -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > Em Tue, 13 May 2003 06:57:45 +0200 (CEST), Fabio Massimo Di Nitto > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: > > > > Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout > > > and we are bound to it. > > > > Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of > > a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same > > message above. > > This is the same as telling me I should translate 'yellow submarine' to > 'amarelo submarino', when the right thing in pt_BR is 'submarino amarelo'. Not at all. None of us did ask them to change sentences or words used for the translation. > Why do you bother with the layout of the translation? The translators are > the authorities when it comes to their languages. I think we should not > be put in a jail and be unable to decide how we think our users should > see the message. > > Let's make it clear: we translate stuff to make it more readable to > our fellow compatriots, making the translation look bad to our users > does not help achieving the goal. All this other stuff already found several answers in the thread. No need to reanswer them again and restart from scratch. Thanks Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: The Debian Mentors Project
Hi, On Tue, 13 May 2003, Christoph Haas wrote: > Hi, Fabio... > > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:16:38PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > Really nice job but the first side effect is already there: > > > > Package: icaclient > > Thanks for the hint. That was a test package I was uploading to stress > test the dupload process on the server. It wasn't really meant to stay > there. :) ehhe well i had no way to know :-) > > I think upload must be moderated somehow. > > Let's see. I hope that the users are not misusing our server to upload > pornography or warez. In fact we are checking the uploads in regular > intervals and will kick those users and their packages out. A completely > moderated dupload process will IMHO slow the whole process down. Then i think that the suggestion made in another post to somehow limit the download would be enough. In this way there will be noway to redistribute illegal stuff around and people will not be tempted to do so from the beginning. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: The Debian Mentors Project
Hi, On Tue, 13 May 2003, Emile van Bergen wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:16:38PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > > I think upload must be moderated somehow. Even the uploader himself claim > > that he is unsure about licence of the product. > > Well, if the packages can only be downloaded by registered DDs, then the > problem's solved I'd say? Yes probably it is. Leaving the upload free and let only DDs download is a solution. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: The Debian Mentors Project
Hi, On Tue, 13 May 2003, Rene Engelhard wrote: > And that looks like it is f*cked. Is this Depends: done manually? > I do not thing dpkg-shlibdeps did that. Where is libc6? Actually i was only worried about the licence because i know it can't be there. We use it at work :-) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: The Debian Mentors Project
Hi Daniel, On Mon, 12 May 2003, Daniel K. Gebhart wrote: > We are very proud to announce the opening of the mentors project. We > have been working very hard[1] on this project since beginning of 2003. > Now the time has come to test and use it! Really nice job but the first side effect is already there: Package: icaclient Version: 6.30-2 Priority: optional Section: net Maintainer: Christoph Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Depends: libxaw7 Architecture: i386 Filename: dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/icaclient/icaclient_6.30-2_i386.deb Size: 1452972 MD5sum: 11ddd288ac7fa0e1e52f4bc545988e1b Description: Citrix ICA client The Citrix ICA client is needed to connect to Citrix terminal servers (Microsoft Windows-based multi-user servers). Caution: This program has a restrictive copyright. Maybe even packaging these files or using the packaged installation is illeagl. installed-size: 3780 I think upload must be moderated somehow. Even the uploader himself claim that he is unsure about licence of the product. I did not went trough all the thread so i will keep my mouth shut before repeating the same stuff over and over :-) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Martin Quinson wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:42:16AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > > > If you really believe that the apache description should be improved than > > you file a bug against apache asking to changing layout, proposing the > > better one so that everyone can be alligned to it. > > If I understand well, you are bored because you think that the layout used > in french could be good in all languages, but the french translators sort of > kept it for themselves. No, I am not bored. People in some msgs wrote that the french layout is better. I am not against the fact that it can be better. Just use the right way so that everyone can benefit in a similar way. > > But we didn't do that because we don't think that the french typographical > rules should be used in all languages, as well as we think that the english > typographical rules do not apply in French. > > > > We are performing a lot of reviews to ensure that the quality of the > > > translation is good. 3 translators were agreed to use this translation. > > > > We did not, i will repeat this until the end of the world, discuss the > > quality of the contents. We are discussing the layout. > > No, not exactly. We are not discussing esthetical layout here. ok, my fault here that i was missing the "esthetical". > This layout in french is not only esthetical, it must be so because of > typographical rules[1]. That's why we didn't think that all languages must > follow the same rules. In written french, the typographical rules have > almost the same impact than gramatical ones. > > But feel free to adapt this new layout to the original text if you want > to. Only, don't try to prevent us to follow the rules in our language. I don't want to prevent you to use your language like i wouldn't like the otherw ay around. Is there any way to be closer to the original esthetical layout? feel free to submit a bug report to change it globally ;) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > I won't discuss that. It probably was not nice switching to other language > but Denis was, in my point of view, asking the rest of the team (which > might not be fluent in english) Let's stop any discussion that is not focused on the origianl question. > > When DDTP will be integrate 100% in the system who will receive bugs on > > descriptions? you or the dd? > > The translation team. Any other scheme is flawed and tends to problems > (people doing the same work will collide, it has happened in the past with > translations and will happen in the future if the maintainer, and not the > translation teams ,is still the one merging changes) The translation team will not get anything from BTS anyway... so i don't see how this can work. the DD will be always the interface in this case. user -> BTS -> DD -> translation team > > > First, thanks to Denis work, projects like DDTP are possible. Without his > > > po-debconf half of the DDTP would be unmanagable. Please take time to know > > > who you are you talking with. > > > > Still again I did so... but people were to busy taking up a flamewar... > > read my other posts please before saying so. > > I read the thread you pointed. I also read your answer (the "you are not > working on the DDP"). My thanks went to the entire DDTP community because i appreciate their work and i still do so. > > That's why i was asking information to grisu in the beginning for which is > > the proper procedure. Only a nice flamewar was born out of it. > > Grisu is _not_ the translation team coordinator for French. Denis is. > Grisu manages the DDTP but that does not mean he gets a decision on how a > translation should be made. I did ask for a procedure. not to solve the problem from us. There is a difference. > > And is this a reason to start a flamewar because i was asking information? > > You also help it becomse so, by being stubborn and not accepting Denis > point of view. I probably helped since asking something nicely didn't help much and ansering back in a more formal way either. > > > > Saying otherwise is like saying that I have to keep, in Spanish, the same > > > sentences as constructed in English when, frequently, a sentence in > > > Spanish > > > is longer than in English and I can group information in the translation. > > > > Changing words and senteces does not necessary means changing layout. > > Could you please leave the layout-thingy? If this was the only point in the entire discussion, sure i can leave it out and we can stop discussing here. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:57:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > (...) > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00121.html > > > > The first post to the mailing list is the result of the only mail in which > > i was asking Michael Bramer how to behave in the situation in which > > translators do not respect the layout of the original description. > > IMHO this should have been discussed in the debian-i18n first. That was not my decision, i was asking information and got an answer posted back to the l10n-french. > > Yes we are since in the first place we asked nicely to change the layout > > back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you > (..) > > Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are done > except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a translation team > works, but you do not understand the language, tough luck. Do you think it is nice to start a discussion in english and see it forked in another language? specially when a exchange of information could have solved the issue at a much earlier stage? > > > Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout > > > and we are bound to it. > > > > Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of > > a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same > > message above. > > The official maintainer is in _no_ way responsible for the _translated_ > description of a package. Please, let translation teams do their work > without interfeering. When DDTP will be integrate 100% in the system who will receive bugs on descriptions? you or the dd? > > > > File a wishlist bug as you were told already: > > > > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting > > DDTP is not handled by BTS bugs. Than please re-read my post. If believes that the french layout is better why not appling it to all the descriptions? > First, thanks to Denis work, projects like DDTP are possible. Without his > po-debconf half of the DDTP would be unmanagable. Please take time to know > who you are you talking with. Still again I did so... but people were to busy taking up a flamewar... read my other posts please before saying so. > Second, there are no policies for translations. DDTP translators have to > respect the views of their language translation team, not of the > maintainer. If you wish to change that view, join the translation team, do > not impose the changes "upstream" (from the developer side). If you do not > read the language or understand it then, at most, you can send a mail to > the Debian translation coordinator [1] That's why i was asking information to grisu in the beginning for which is the proper procedure. Only a nice flamewar was born out of it. > > Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with > > all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want > > to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its > > layout alligned with the others. > > > > They don't have to! Content and layout in a translation is part of what the > translator has to do. If there are typographical rules that make necessary > a layout change a translator has to apply them! And is this a reason to start a flamewar because i was asking information? > Saying otherwise is like saying that I have to keep, in Spanish, the same > sentences as constructed in English when, frequently, a sentence in Spanish > is longer than in English and I can group information in the translation. Changing words and senteces does not necessary means changing layout. > [1] There is really no such position in Debian for all languages, but you > can take the web translation list at > www.debian.org/devel/website/translation_coordinators > or try to find them in > www.debian.org/international thanks Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Pierre Machard wrote: > Hi; > > [I reply to this message, since I am the guy who translates the > Description] > > On tue 13 may 2003 at 06:57 +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > [...] > > > Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout > > > and we are bound to it. > > > > Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of > > a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same > > message above. > > Please try to consider that each language as its particularity. I do not understand why the previous translation was alligned to our layout and noone is still able to give me an answer about this. > > File a wishlist bug as you were told already: > > > > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting > > A whishlist bug against what ? Against the French Language because we > do use an itemized list where English uses a different layout ? If you really believe that the apache description should be improved than you file a bug against apache asking to changing layout, proposing the better one so that everyone can be alligned to it. > We are performing a lot of reviews to ensure that the quality of the > translation is good. 3 translators were agreed to use this translation. We did not, i will repeat this until the end of the world, discuss the quality of the contents. We are discussing the layout. Quoting myself from http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00123.html "Be carefull. We don't want to make a big deal out of it and neither we are telling the french translation team that is bad what they did. We appreciate seriously the effort that the ddtp team is doing. What we are saying is that if they prefer another format they can just contanct us. We are open to suggestions. We just didn't really like the way it was done and that the format is not coherent with the original one." > I do. Denis kindly answers to your message because he is _very_ relevant > with i18n and l10n. Until the last 2 messages I did not asked for name or pointed fingers against people directly and i kept the talk as much generic as possible because i don't care who does the job until it gets done correctly. > Try to understand what Denis means. The problem on that very problem is > that you would not admit that we are true (from the translator's point of > view). > from the translator point of view you should only translate. That's what i do when i submit italian translation. If have a concern about anything else i ask the maintainer. prove that I am wrong. > Generaly speeking, we (people aware of l10n and i18n) believe that the > maintainer's job is not to deal with these issues. Translators are > bored to fix maintainers mistakes. Moreover, I believe that a maintainer > should not loose his time on l10n. Yes we do. just an examoke: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-pkg-desc "The long description should consist of full and complete sentences." I miss to see how a list can fullfil this reference. > > Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with > > all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want > > to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its > > layout alligned with the others. > > The question is Why do you want to have its layout alligned with the > others ? I could simply ask you the question the other way around: why do you want to be different from all the others? but it's a chicken & egg stupid game. The reason is simple. The DD decide the layout and the descriptio and it is responsable for it again the community and the users, no matter in which language. All the others cope with our layout and i don't see any language barrier that does not permit you to do so. Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 13 May 2003, Denis Barbier wrote: > In this thread we were told to change the French translation because > Apache maintainers did not like its layout. I will come back to this > issue below, but here is a better example of the problem I want to > exhibit. Here is the references to the thread. If you like to bring up discussion in this way let people read everything and not only your summary that takes points from different messages in wrong order and does not give any idea on how the thread evolved during the time. http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00121.html The first post to the mailing list is the result of the only mail in which i was asking Michael Bramer how to behave in the situation in which translators do not respect the layout of the original description. > It is time to go back to the Apache description. Maintainers are > unhappy with the French translation provided by the DDTP. Yes we are since in the first place we asked nicely to change the layout back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you jumped in with some fancy reasons and even after 3/4 attempts to explain to you why the layout has to be changed back you were not able to understand them, as well you did not understand that there is a procedure for requesting such a change. (all this has been discussed in the thread and let's fly over the french part with some sarcastic "Anyone has some Valium"? in which we were removed from the To: and Cc:) > > > > ok, the ddtp db has this english/french apache description: > > | # Package(s): apache > > | # Package priority: task > > | # Package prioritize: 50 > > | Description: Versatile, high-performance HTTP server > > | The most popular server in the world, Apache features a modular > > | design and supports dynamic selection of extension modules at runtime. > > | Some of its strong points are its range of possible customization, > > | dynamic adjustment of the number of server processes, and a whole > > | range of available modules including many authentication mechanisms, > > | server-parsed HTML, server-side includes, access control, CERN httpd > > | metafiles emulation, proxy caching, etc. Apache also supports multiple > > | virtual homing. > > | . > > | Separate Debian packages are available for PHP, mod_perl, Java > > | Servlet support, Apache-SSL, and other common extensions. More > > | information is available at http://www.apache.org/. > > > > | Description-fr: Serveur HTTP polyvalent haute performance > > | Serveur le plus populaire du monde, Apache est caracterise par sa > > conception > > | modulaire et autorise la selection dynamique des modules d'extension > > lors de > > | l'execution. > > | Quelques-uns de ses points forts sont l'etendue des personnalisations > > | possibles, l'ajustement dynamique du nombre de processus du serveur, un > > | eventail complet de modules disponibles, incluant : > > |- plusieurs mecanismes d'authentification ; > > |- des analyseurs de serveurs de HTML ; > > |- des inclusions cote serveur ; > > |- un controle d'acces ; > > |- une emulation de metafichiers httpd CERN ; > > |- un cache proxy, etc. > > | Apache supporte aussi les sites internes virtuels multiples. > > | . > > | Des paquets Debian separes sont disponibles pour le PHP, mod_perl, le > > | support Servlet Java, Apache-SSL et d'autres extensions habituelles. Plus > > | d'informations sont disponibles sur http://www.apache.org/. > > There is a comma separated list of items in English, and an itemized > list in French. > The point is that from a typographical point of view (in French) the > preferred format for a long list of items is an itemized list; a comma > separated list is considered as bad looking, this is certainly why > the translator chose this format. I do not know English rules about > this issue, and thus cannot tell if original description is right > or not. you already received an answer to this here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00140.html > Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout > and we are bound to it. Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same message above. > This is stupid, our constraints are different, > so I do not see why we could not adopt another format if it is more > adequate for our own language. File a wishlist bug as you were told already: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting > Of course if there are good reasons > to promote a given layout, you can give them[1], but telling that > ``this is done that way in English so you must adopt this format > too'' is insane. You still were not able to explain us why the previous translation had the same layout than (still in the same message as befor
Re: Recently orphaned packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Bug#189952: O: device3dfx -- Device driver source for 3Dfx boards for 2.2+ > kernels I don't use it anymore but I still have a working 3Ffx. If anyone wants the package i can donate the card to the future maintainer. Fabio - -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+o5wDhCzbekR3nhgRAs1mAJsFpg3njFfMcINFqe+WYUOvR9bocQCfW86d QifbyrnSIzNonjLS/qE+AHM= =5Q2O -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#189689: ITP: libapache-mod-auth-radius -- Apache module for RADIUS authentication
Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-19 Severity: wishlist * Package name: libapache-mod-auth-radius Version : 1.5.7 Upstream Author : Alan DeKok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : ftp://ftp.freeradius.org/pub/radius/ * License : Apache Software License 1.1 Description : Apache module for RADIUS authentication An apache module for authenticating users against information stored in a RADIUS server Regards Fabio
Re: [desktop] Draft proposal for a new debian menu system
Ciao Enrico, On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Enrico Zini wrote: > The advantages would be to adhere to an existing, open standard (and > push it), to provide a better system (with multiple cathegories and menu > translations) and to better integrate with the desktop environments we > package. The latter is going to be very important in the future as > Linux spreads in the desktop world. As you might know Im not too much into technical details of the menu system but I have to fully agree with your idea. Keeping up with standards is good specially if they are spread over different distros. > please don't let this mail go unanswered like the one about user > analysis. Don't be disappointed by that. Sometimes there is no real need for an answer. When we announced the stats for IPv6 in Debian noone commented via email. Our biggest satisfaction was to see apache logs exploding within few minutes. Regards Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Re: private debian pools
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Joey Hess wrote: > Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > Why noone have ever packaged the actual debian set of scritps for > > handling archives instead? > > Probably because it's too complicated to be of use unless you're > managing something on the scale of the debian archive. It's much easier > to install mini-dinstall and make a directory for your repository than > it would be to install the real dinstall and set up all the database > stuff and other stuff it needs. Well it depends on the need. As I pointed out in another msg of this thread people should be able to choose the appropriate archive system according to the requirement of what they have to offer. > > > private repositories laying here and there (http://www.apt-get.org as > > mentioned in one of the last DWN), and i know for sure that Brian is not > > the only that will benefit from such scripts. I also had to write my own > > to handle my archive since i was not really satisfied with the others. > > Hmm, I wasn't exactly satisfied with mini-dinstall when I started to use > it, but it seemed like a much better trade-off to contribute feedback > and bug reports than dilute effort with yet another tool to do the same > thing. And now I *am* happy with it, except for a couple of bugs. You have a good point here. Now it is clear to everyone that many people have spent time writing their own scripts to handle pvt archive, meaning a lot of duplicate work. My suggestion would be to have some sort of 3 different archive handlers to satisfy users demand. Entry level - one release (sid/sarge/woody), one arch (probably a simple wrapper for dpkg-scanpackages and dpkg-scansource) Medium level - whatever between entry and insane (something like mini-dinstall) Insane level - full archive (dinstall) > Eh? Like everyone else on the internet, you have read access to > cvs.debian.org for dinstall's source. > doh! I always forget about cvs because Im not a real fan of it :-) Regards Fabio
Re: private debian pools
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 10:48 am, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > > I do not agree with you for different reasons. First of all noone > > forces > > people to add private archives to their sources.list. If users do that > > they should know that things can break more easily. Sometimes private > > archive are really usefull for pre-testing pkgs before they enter > > debian. > > And sometimes third-party archives are useful because a third party has > the resources and inclination to look after something we don't (yet). I agree. > > Are you seriously saying that you don't want this to be made more > reliable because "no-one forces people" to use such archives, and "they > should know that [if they use these archives] things can break more > easily"? What I understood from your message is that you would not like to see around too many private archive because of Debian providing a full system to build them, am I right or I misunderstood something? (because of possible breakage and so on..) The contents of private archive is often (if not always) marked as experimental/unofficial and yes I am serious when I say users should know what can happen adding private archives. Just look at www.apt-get.org and you will notice how many are marked unofficial/experimental.. I do not believe that users cannot read that. > > Exactly which bit of trying to make things work better do you think is > a bad idea? > >From your previous message: >I dread to think how many versions of things like >libgtksomeguicrapthatkeepsmakingabichanges >(all mutually conflicting, and all required by something you *really >need*) we'll end up with if people are easily able to maintain separate >repositories. This could be a problem that raise up only if the archive/pkg maintainer is not keeping track of what is going on around. /me points out how much duplicate work has been and how many redundant entries are mentioned on www.apt-get.org My point is that I would like to be able to maintain easily my archive. most of pvt archive provides just one arch and/or one/two releases. I maintain all 3 releases and for like 6 archs with autobuilders and so on and anyway people should be able to choose appropriate tools to handle their archive according to what they want to provide. As i see it now not having dinstall packaged is some sort of limitation to users (I do not exclude myself from the list) even if it is available via cvs (as pointed in another message of this thread). Cheers Fabio
Re: private debian pools
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Nick Phillips wrote: > > /me wonders whether some concept of namespaces in package names would > be useful before we make it too easy for world + dog to run large > repositories of .debs - Ximian was bad enough on its own, last I had to > recover a system from someone using it... I dread to think how many > versions of things like libgtksomeguicrapthatkeepsmakingabichanges > (all mutually conflicting, and all required by something you *really > need*) we'll end up with if people are easily able to maintain separate > repositories. I do not agree with you for different reasons. First of all noone forces people to add private archives to their sources.list. If users do that they should know that things can break more easily. Sometimes private archive are really usefull for pre-testing pkgs before they enter debian. Cheers Fabio
Re: private debian pools
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:38:26 +0100 (CET), Fabio Massimo Di Nitto > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Why noone have ever packaged the actual debian set of scritps for > >handling archives instead? > > Have you ever looked at katie, jenna and the other girls? They can do > magic, 99 % of which unneeded in the case of simple private archives. Not everyone run simple archive. Mine is quite complex and I have to do most of the work by hand to keep it going. > > Some time, I will publish my scripts. So here is another piece of duplicate work, isn't it? not to blame anyone of course but it just confirm what I wrote before. People would like to have a common and sane way of building private archive. Regards Fabio
Re: private debian pools
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Roland Mas wrote: > Brian May (2002-12-07 16:36:58 +1100) : > > > I have a set of scripts for creating private debian package pools, > > available at: > > Wonderful. We now have two tools providing almost the same > functionality, except only one does package pools (bin2) and only one > is mature (mini-dinstall, by Colin Walters). Could we possibly hope > for a merger of those two? I'd very much like to have a pool-aware > mini-dinstall... Why noone have ever packaged the actual debian set of scritps for handling archives instead? as you can see by yourself there are a lot of private repositories laying here and there (http://www.apt-get.org as mentioned in one of the last DWN), and i know for sure that Brian is not the only that will benefit from such scripts. I also had to write my own to handle my archive since i was not really satisfied with the others. To who should the request be addressed? ftp masters? I offer volunteer to pkg them in case, but since Im still not a d-d i can't access them frequently to follow their evolution in time. Fabio
Re: private debian pools
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Brian May wrote: > I have a set of scripts for creating private debian package pools, > available at: > > http://www.microcomaustralia.com.au/debian/bin2/>. > > These scripts will allow you to create and maintain a private archive > with multiple distributions, architectures, etc. No database is > required. See > > http://www.microcomaustralia.com.au/debian/> for a sample. It looks nice. I had to write some scripts to maintain my archive but I have been hitting several problems. I will give them a shot but I would like to have some more information on them. > > If somebody wants to help tidy up this code and package it for Debian, I > will be willing to maintain the Debian package for Debian. > > This probably will involve going through the README file and fixing the > things I have labeled "FIXME" (most of these should be simple to > fix, not sure about the bugs in rmfiles yet though). Do you have some documentation done somewhere? I wasn't able to find the README file. > > If you want to do any work on it, please let me know simply so I can > tell you if I have made any changes (as I do more testing if I find any > bugs I may simply fix them without warning). Well probably yes. I would love to read the doc (except the code itself) and testing it. > A name is required (bin2 doesn't suit IMHO!). d-arch-builder?? (debian-archive-builder) > dpkg-scanpackages and dpkg-scansources have been hacked to take a file > with a list of packages as a parameter. Did you add the fuctionality or just a simple hack? maybe handling it as an cmd line option (ex: --file-list ) will make life much easier and merge with the original one much faster without breaking the normal functionalities. Looking forward to try it. Fabio
Re: Archive link at the end of each post?
Carlos Laviola wrote: On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 08:34:31PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: I think the problem is that at the point the mailing list is forwarding the message it has no idea where it is going to be archived so it cannot add a reference. In my original idea there is no such problem, as you can notice the "To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]" changes according to each mailing list. The basis are already there. Yes Im perfectly aware of this, my idea was a small extension to your and as I wrote in the previous post I agree with you that adding some more info is more usefull. Regards Fabio
