bplay: help needed!

[Carlos Laviola]

Hello,

bplay seems to be in a bad shape. It has numerous bug reports about
endianness/byteswapping problems, which I can't verify, since I only
own x86 hardware.

So I'd like to ask some kind person to take a look at it, try to run
it on your architecture and verify if the bugs are still valid,
possibly even look at the code, but don't send me patches yet; just
hint me on what might be wrong, if you can, so I can fix it myself and
learn a bit more. I've applied other peoples's patches to bplay in the
past and it's probably gotten to a very bad point right now.

I've looked at #267122 and it seems like semaphores are being freed,
but since I have no time or source material to record from using brec,
I can't test it myself. The code seems to do the right thing, though.

(also, when you download bplay's source code, ignore the latest
changelog entry.)

Thanks in advance, people!

Sincerely,
Carlos.

-- 
Carlos Laviola
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: User alternatives [Was: Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed]

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On Thursday 03 February 2005 16:34, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 03 February 2005 14:59, Simon Richter wrote:
> >> IMO, the choice of the session manager should be made by the user that
> >> logs in, not by the admin. One less question for the admin, one extra
> >> point for the powerusers who know what they are doing.
>
> I tried patching alternatives to use ~/.alternatives if existing once
> but the solution I came up with would only work for binaries.
>
> I'm still intrested in achieving this so user can set their
> x-session-manager, their x-window-manager, their sensible-editor, ...

sounds usefull

> > the sysadmin only sets up the systemwide default, the user can always
> > override this
>
> Only if the admin allows for this. :) [does not disable the feature]

naturally :-)
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
  
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)


pgpGnU6M5v3or.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thursday 03 February 2005 13.54, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Having to tweak the alternative manually to something non executable but
>> existing requires insight knowledege into the alternatives system and
>> xfree86-common that a normal user wouldn't have.
>
> Wanting to disable the session manager is something that only a poweruser 
> would do - and so I assume learning about update-alternatives or using 
> x-session-manager in $HOME/.Xsession is something within easy reach of 
> these powerusers.

Why? Whats so uncommon with a user (or admin) that wan't neither the
bloaded Gnome Desktop nor the bloated KDE Desktop?

Remember that installing e.g. galeon will force the gnome desktop as
default. A lot of people might want galeon without a gnome desktop
esspecialy on slower systems.

Having no x-session-manager doesn't mean you start with a bare X. The
normal scripts that start x-window-manager and such still all apply.

>> > I can't see the advantage of having one update-alternatives commandline
>> > packaged. (We might as well start to package things like 'prefer kdm
>> > over gdm' or 'run ls in the users' home directory at package
>> > installation' ;-)
>
>> Think about it. With the same argument you could say
>> update-alternatives shouldn't exist, it is just a config. Users could
>> set the link themself altogether.
>
> I don't buy this argument - the alternatives is a framework, and with slave 
> files etc., just setting the links manually is not sensible.  Besides, 
> update-alternatives is not packaged in a tiny package on its own...

With the "on its own" you have a point. Its horrible to have such a
tiny package. But I did asked Brandon to include this feature in X,
where it belongs imho, and he didn't want it. So this is the only
other option I see.

> greetings
> -- vbi

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

User alternatives [Was: Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed]

[Goswin von Brederlow]

"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thursday 03 February 2005 14:59, Simon Richter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> >>'update-alternatives --config x-session-manager'
>> >
>> > This could be a wishlist bug for X.
>>
>> IMO, the choice of the session manager should be made by the user that
>> logs in, not by the admin. One less question for the admin, one extra
>> point for the powerusers who know what they are doing.

I tried patching alternatives to use ~/.alternatives if existing once
but the solution I came up with would only work for binaries.

I'm still intrested in achieving this so user can set their
x-session-manager, their x-window-manager, their sensible-editor, ...

> the sysadmin only sets up the systemwide default, the user can always 
> override this

Only if the admin allows for this. :) [does not disable the feature]

MfG
Goswin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: apt-get et lancement automatique du script

[Florian Ernst]

Hello!

[ Please use english language when writing to this list. ]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:34:54PM +0100, Jay Ar wrote:
> ce que je voudrais, c'est que apt-get lance lui même
> ce script (ma-commande) automatiquement, a la fin de
> "apt-get install
> mon-paquet", sans que je n'aie à taper "ma-commande"
> ensuite.
> 
> comment je dois m'y prendre?

You'll need appropriate maintainer scripts (-> postinst), see

for details.

Cheers,
Flo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get et lancement automatique du script

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:34:54PM +0100, Jay Ar wrote:
> P.S:je ne suis pas dans cette liste, donc merci de
> m'inclure dans vos r?ponses.

S.v.p., dans cette liste on parle Anglais, pas de Francais.

--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

apt-get et lancement automatique du script

[Jay Ar]

Bonjour,

j'ai construit un paquet, et tout va bien, je peux
l'installer avec apt-get et tout. après installation,
je peux donc lancer sur la machine la commande
ma-commande, qui est en fait un script dans mon
paquet.

ce que je voudrais, c'est que apt-get lance lui même
ce script (ma-commande) automatiquement, a la fin de
"apt-get install
mon-paquet", sans que je n'aie à taper "ma-commande"
ensuite.

comment je dois m'y prendre?

Merci!

P.S:je ne suis pas dans cette liste, donc merci de
m'inclure dans vos réponses.



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Thursday 03 February 2005 13.54, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> Having to tweak the alternative manually to something non executable but
> existing requires insight knowledege into the alternatives system and
> xfree86-common that a normal user wouldn't have.

Wanting to disable the session manager is something that only a poweruser 
would do - and so I assume learning about update-alternatives or using 
x-session-manager in $HOME/.Xsession is something within easy reach of 
these powerusers.

> > I can't see the advantage of having one update-alternatives commandline
> > packaged. (We might as well start to package things like 'prefer kdm
> > over gdm' or 'run ls in the users' home directory at package
> > installation' ;-)

> Think about it. With the same argument you could say
> update-alternatives shouldn't exist, it is just a config. Users could
> set the link themself altogether.

I don't buy this argument - the alternatives is a framework, and with slave 
files etc., just setting the links manually is not sensible.  Besides, 
update-alternatives is not packaged in a tiny package on its own...

greetings
-- vbi

-- 
Beware of the FUD - know your enemies. This week
* The Alexis de Toqueville Institue *
http://fortytwo.ch/opinion/adti


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On Thursday 03 February 2005 14:59, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >>'update-alternatives --config x-session-manager'
> >
> > This could be a wishlist bug for X.
>
> IMO, the choice of the session manager should be made by the user that
> logs in, not by the admin. One less question for the admin, one extra
> point for the powerusers who know what they are doing.

the sysadmin only sets up the systemwide default, the user can always 
override this
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
  
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)


pgpFXfnTP5mge.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed

[Simon Richter]

Hi,
'update-alternatives --config x-session-manager'

This could be a wishlist bug for X.
IMO, the choice of the session manager should be made by the user that 
logs in, not by the admin. One less question for the admin, one extra 
point for the powerusers who know what they are doing.

   Simon (who is very happy that the number of xclocks being started for
  him is constant)


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed

[Bruno Barrera C.]

On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 11:32 -0200, Leo "Costela" Antunes wrote:
> 
> This could be a wishlist bug for X.
> 

Goswin wrote:

"PS: I talked to Branden Robinson about this a long time ago and he
wasn't intrested in providing this in Xfree86 directly."

IMHO, this should be discussed again with the X Strike Force since I
really don't think that users must install this package to change this
feature.

Regards,
-- 
Bruno Barrera C.
Debian Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: maserver: Dynamic libraries inside a program package

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:09:26PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>
>> If I can not put that .so inside the package, the other solution
>> might be getting 3 packages from maserver: libmaserver,
>> libmaserver-dev and maserver itself. libmaserver would have the
>> shared library and libmaserver-dev the header files to make new
>> plugins.  Would that be better?

We just had the same discussion on #debian-devel yesterday about
cinepaint (libcinepaint0, libcinepaint-dev).

At the end we came up with the following questions that you have to
ask yourself:

Will there be software that needs libmaserver but not maserver? If so
then you need to keep the lib in a seperate deb. (assuming no for
plugins)

Will there be software outside maserver that needs the header files?
If so then you need to have the header files. (assuming yes)

Will there be users that use maserver without (lib)maserver-dev? If so
then keep that seperate. This also makes lintian happy about shlibs
info being in a -dev package. (assuming yes)



Going by my assumptions you should have two packages only: maserver
and maserver-dev.

Whether you then put libmaserver into /usr/lib/maserver/ or link it
static is another question but doesn't realy matter. If the upstream
source builds a lib I would keep it a lib. Converting it is probably
not so trivial.

Just my 2c.
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed

[Leo \"Costela\" Antunes]

Hi

On Qui, 2005-02-03 at 13:54 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> The advantage of having this as package is that
> 
> 'update-alternatives --config x-session-manager'
> 
> will show you 3 options now: gnome, kde and none. Having to tweak the
> alternative manually to something non executable but existing requires
> insight knowledege into the alternatives system and xfree86-common
> that a normal user wouldn't have. Installing the package is simple,
> effective and can be done in automatic installations, e.g. via FAI.

I see your point and I agree, but I don't think this should be put in a
separate package. Sounds very kludgy.
The "none" option could be included with X itself, this way you'd be
able to use the alternatives system without the need for a hack and the
setting would persist.

This could be a wishlist bug for X.

Cheers

-- 

 Leo Costela
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 "you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!"


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thursday 03 February 2005 01.54, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> As you can see the package is tiny. All it does is provide a dummy
>> alternative for x-session-manager that is _not_executable_ so the
>
> I think this should not be a package at all - it is really just a 
> configuration, as it's really trivial to configure the alternatives system 
> so that x-session-manager is a dangling symlink or something other that 
> won't run (set it to /tmp/no-session-manager)

You can't have it dangling because then it will be reinstated when you
update kde or gnome, tried that.

> I can't see the advantage of having one update-alternatives commandline 
> packaged. (We might as well start to package things like 'prefer kdm over 
> gdm' or 'run ls in the users' home directory at package installation' ;-)

The advantage of having this as package is that

'update-alternatives --config x-session-manager'

will show you 3 options now: gnome, kde and none. Having to tweak the
alternative manually to something non executable but existing requires
insight knowledege into the alternatives system and xfree86-common
that a normal user wouldn't have. Installing the package is simple,
effective and can be done in automatic installations, e.g. via FAI.

Think about it. With the same argument you could say
update-alternatives shouldn't exist, it is just a config. Users could
set the link themself altogether.

> cheers
> -- vbi

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: x-no-session-manager - restore default X behavior with gnome/kde installed

[Justin Pryzby]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 08:53:06AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 03 February 2005 01.54, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> 
> > As you can see the package is tiny. All it does is provide a dummy
> > alternative for x-session-manager that is _not_executable_ so the
> 
> I think this should not be a package at all - it is really just a 
> configuration, as it's really trivial to configure the alternatives system 
> so that x-session-manager is a dangling symlink or something other that 
> won't run (set it to /tmp/no-session-manager)

But something other than /tmp/, such that users can't control it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]