Re: [debian-lan-devel] Debian-LAN: installing a complete network environment
Hi Nico, I am not sure if I do not get your message right, or if you did not have a look at Debian-LAN and the links I provided at all. ;-) On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:28:22PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Wait, I know? L:et's have it do dynamic DNS, host authentication, and LDAP based account management, too! Indeed it does. And in addition PXE installation, ICINGA and Munin system monitoring of all machines, disk quota, a web proxy (Squid), a package proxy (apt-cacher-ng), a local APT repository, etckeeper, a firewall (shorewall), system backup, firewall (shorewall), customized package selection, diskless workstations, roaming workstation (off-line use possible), internal email, ... All this is to my knowledge not part of Samba. And in 20 years, maybe it'll have 1/1000th the number of users that the Samba suite has right now, for all of that, especially including robust and tested Kerberos management with already tested tools! Sorry to rain on the parade, but Samba's been pretty good at this since Samba was invented in the early 1990's, and it's pretty stable. It also plays nicely with other well known network clients and protocols, such as Windows based and Mac based clients, so there's really no need to re-invent that wheel specifically in Debian. The Debian ports of Samba re up to date and quite stable. Debian-LAN does not try to re-invent the wheel. It provides a system by taking available 'wheels', gluing them together with the necessary configurations to make the building blocks work together nicely. In fact, one of the goals of Debian-LAN is to keep all modifications to a standard Debian system as little as possible. In an ideal world, the installation of a set of (preseeded) Debian packages would be sufficient. Samba might be one of the components of the Debian-LAN system, taking care about some of the services needed. It is currently not used, but if it turns out that it improves and/or simplifies the setup, nothing can and should stop us from using it. What do you think about the freeIPA project URL:http://www.freeipa.org? I guess we should move further discussions to the Debian-LAN mailing list to not spam all the other lists by cross-postings. Best regards, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131005094218.GA4179@flashgordon
Re: Autobuild on a specific buildd machine ?
Thanks a lot to all of you who answered my email. It seems I am not the only who faced this issue. The best way to work this out seems to contact the buildd admins. Best regards C. On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Julien Cristau julien.cris...@logilab.frwrote: On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 20:39:11 +0200, Christophe Prud'homme wrote: is that possible to specify a buildd machine for an architecture when uploading a package ? No, it's not. You can however talk to the buildd admins ($arch@buildd.d.o) about blacklisting a package on some buildds. Cheers, Julien -- Julien Cristau julien.cris...@logilab.fr Logilab http://www.logilab.fr/ Informatique scientifique gestion de connaissances
Re: libompl
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 02:41:41PM +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: Hi, after some work I have finished (in some state usable) the package ompl. You could see here the work done: ssh://alioth-git/git/debian-science/packages/ompl.git This is not a valid URL. please, some of you could look on it and blame me about my work? Not sure if this is useful, but someone has made a package for ubuntu https://launchpad.net/~robotics/+archive/ppa/+build/3995892 Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131005195914.ga17...@master.debian.org
Re: Fwd: RFS: mpfrc++/0~20130902-1 [ITP #723839]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, thanks for the review. On 05/10/13 21:15, Bill Allombert wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package mpfrc++ * Package name: mpfrc++ Version : 0~20130902-1 Upstream Author : Pavel Holoborodko pa...@holoborodko.com * URL : http://www.holoborodko.com/pavel/mpfr * License : GPL2+ or BSD-3-clause Are you sure this is the right license ? License are not my cup of tea. The website says: MPFR C++ is free for usage in free projects. If you intend to use it in commercial application please contact author for permission. To be frank, I also noticed the issue, so I asked to the upstream maintainer to clarify the license of his software library. He answered that he will but as he seemed overwhelmed I step forward. After my deposit, he confirmed his wish and will to revisit his policy and the packaging, but first he has to deal with a project dead line. The file mpreal.h says: This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. ... Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. So I would says LGPL 2.1+ AND BSD-3-clause (and maybe non-commercial). Ok, I will forward your remarks to the upstream maintainer. Other than that, I wonder at the benefit of packaging a single header file as a Debian package. Let say that his software holds in a long C++ header: from a C++ point of view it makes sense, I guess. Also, everytime you update it, you will need to rebuild the packages that Build-Depends on it to keep them up-to-date. I am aware: I also asked to the upstream maintainer to provide a source tarball compatible with Debian watch. We are working on it: some appropriate tweaks at bitbucket.org, where is maintained its mercurial repository, may bring appropriate material. As soon as both the License issues are fixed by the upstream maintainer and an appropriate source tarball is provided, I will revisit accordingly the Debian package. Thanks. Best wishes, Jerome Cheers, Bill. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSUHB0AAoJEIC/w4IMSybjDLkH/RVsPNadlIC2ZlatLDMMKnGT 71o8UTifAB2cC6eX8rX8YKU5jEr2cxyWn6+JneORa5xFvDrAdOykv3uAnKAmzMxl P1duLCidkiOtHzb/M5uYcLMYaVF+Hr2295s3yJz+M+WSv1VCfROC2QKA+xdJBt9Q Og91r6h3cg6+BzJGveWS7AfWOBJI8u7KzjRlUGfA9o1E7VCiDSk8bN6ut7Kfv7os Hjf+xN7k+C1VmQ7hxjI/qlZT3Os+4tI+RK1Eqt9Tg5KUu6A7lfSXY59bnOeZ4ncv Xth6lJIle4jeBIERTc4fiNI25BioOQoxEV7eY3IL1HPPDjXdqHGq9TpheZxuAdU= =WeM9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52507083.4080...@rezozer.net
Re: libompl
El Dissabte, 5 d'octubre de 2013, a les 19:59:14, Bill Allombert va escriure: On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 02:41:41PM +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: Hi, after some work I have finished (in some state usable) the package ompl. You could see here the work done: ssh://alioth-git/git/debian-science/packages/ompl.git This is not a valid URL. Sorry, I put my alioth alias: git clone ssh://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/ompl.git please, some of you could look on it and blame me about my work? Not sure if this is useful, but someone has made a package for ubuntu https://launchpad.net/~robotics/+archive/ppa/+build/3995892 AFAIK from upstream the deb package is generated by cpack. I didn't know this version of libompl. I will check it. Thanks, Leopold -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 0xF944807E Catalonia - A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
