Re: GPL in wiki: [RFR] draft for "DebianWiki new license"
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 00:43 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:41:25AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> > On Tue,16.Jun.09, 08:43:34, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: >> > > >> > > BTW, I am not completely sure that one can write a document with some >> > > paragraphs under GPL and some other under CC-BY-SA, and have a license >> > > statement like "some parts on this documents are licensed under GPL and >> > > some parts are licensed under CC-BY-SA". >> > >> > I don't think this is possible. Maybe if the GPL parts can exist without >> > the CC-BY-SA parts, otherwise you have to distribute it all under the >> > GPL (which CC-BY-SA prevents). >> >> FYI: "Debian Reference" origin contents has been removed and it has been >> reintegrated to www.debian.org under DDP. >> >> Unless someone else had GPL pages, you may not need to worry about my >> old pages. > > I think we should not only be concerned about "known" GPL projects that > could be dual licensed (like DR, DebianEdu, NewInLenny). we should > consider the contents that could/should be merged various GPL > documentations. > > Still, you raise an important point. What about the same license as wikipedia? Wikipedia changes its license to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update CC-BY-SA 3.0 and what is left of gfdl "Specifically, the Wikimedia Foundation proposal is to amend site-wide licensing terms and terms of use for all projects as follows: 1. to make all content currently distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License (with “later version” clause) additionally available under CC-BY-SA 3.0, as explicitly allowed through the latest version of the GFDL; 2. to require continued dual-licensing of new community edits in this manner, but allow CC-BY-SA-only content from third parties (However, GFDL-only content from third parties is no longer allowed); 3. to inform re-users that content which includes imported CC-BY-SA-only information cannot be used under the GFDL. " Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: wiki manual on ldap integration -where to put it?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 16:21 -0500, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> Hello, >> I have a wiki style manual on debian integration with ldap services, >> >> 1. samba and ldap >> 2. debian users authentication with ldap >> 3. linux client setup to authenticate to ldap. >> ...etc >> >> Each section is its own wiki, and the final page has include for the >> subsequent pages. > > Either each page is short, and the pages could/should be merged in a > single page. Or the documentation is long, and it should be split'ed > among multiple pages. It is somewhat long,,,there is a "how to setup ldap as a central authentication server", "setup samba to use ldap", and setup a seperated debian client to use ldap central server, and "setup windows client to use ldap central server" All 3 categories need to be split otherwise if merged the confusion will make this howto unusable, and on the other hand separating each section into a link is not feasible because you are not able to see the big picture which required include(). (by picture I mean full menu) > > I remember that you were interested in generating PDF from the wiki > pages. Did you investigate in a script that would aggregate multiple > pages in a single PDF (which could be linked from those pages). > >> I wanted to put under >> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianBusinessServer/LDAPIntegration since its >> geared towards businesses, but I figured I ask first. > > "DebianBusinessServer" is a very generic name. Is it targeted at SOHO, > medium or large companies? > Also, have you considered using the "HowTo" namespace? like > HowTo/MediumBusinessServer/LdapAuth (I can't find a proper title... > smallBusniess, MediumBuisiness, SMB... none seems very explicit ;( ) Interesting idea.. As far as pdf, at this point I can generate pdf from a single page. So if use include on the main page, then I can generate pdf via: dblatex -T simple -o WikiSandBox.pdf WikiSandBox.xml where .xml file is a docbook generated from moinmoin. One liner that can generate a pdf with menu etc... I haven't done any other work on generating pdf, as this works and its extremely easy. Lucas > > My 2 cents, > > Franklin > > > BTW, Once you publish it, I think it would be a good idea to advertise > and request for review on the appropriate mailing list. > > -- How to create python package? http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/PythonPaste DataHub - create a package that gets, parses, loads, visualizes data http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/DataHub -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
wiki manual on ldap integration -where to put it?
Hello, I have a wiki style manual on debian integration with ldap services, 1. samba and ldap 2. debian users authentication with ldap 3. linux client setup to authenticate to ldap. ...etc Each section is its own wiki, and the final page has include for the subsequent pages. I wanted to put under https://wiki.debian.org/DebianBusinessServer/LDAPIntegration since its geared towards businesses, but I figured I ask first. Comments, Lucas -- How to create python package? http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/PythonPaste DataHub - create a package that gets, parses, loads, visualizes data http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/DataHub -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian Wiki: renaming pages
>> >> >> >> or take http://wiki.debian.org/fr/Manual-Howto where one transaltion >> >> is called "polski", pointing to a link "francais". >> > > >> You've deleted :,[:pl/Manual-Howto:Polski] and added >> [:Français/Manual-Howto:Polski]. >> >> I've reverted your change right now, so we are good on that page. > > Thank you. > (But actually, the page doesn't exists, so we should drop the link!) (page that you have deleted, FYI.) I'll move the "polish translation" of that page to debian wiki from http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/FrontPagePolish to http://wiki.debian.org/pl/Manual-Howto if that is the structure of translated pages you guys prefer. > >> > Linking among translated pages is really the smallest issue we have. >> > Some of our needs are: >> > 1. Migrate important (static) pages to the www.d.o, then translate them. >> > 2. Use an efficient tools that allow translators to track what was >> > changed and what translation needs to be updated (which page, which >> > paragraph => What was the previous text, whats the new text, what >> > was the old translation.. see poedit) >> > 3. Implement a mean to automatically disable a translation if it is >> > lagging too much. >> > 4. Proper (i.e automatic) content negotiation, so the best alternatives >> > is presented to the user. >> > (which would probably solve the linking issue) >> > >> > Since many (most?) pages are translated in very few languages, I would >> > rather maintain links manually, rather that having one more transition >> > to manage... while migrating to a new moin version (And trying to solve >> > the issue properly at the same time). >> > >> > Also, the [[Include()]] macros adds complexity to the wiki pages, which >> > makes it less accessible to contributors. >> >> I on the other hand believe that using include allows me to create a >> page that has more relevant content then providing links to 30 other >> pages. >> I could create a page for sys admins and include various pages and >> create one place to get all the information, just like Debian >> reference did. I could pull individual "ftp server", "ssh >> server"..etc.. Who ever would be looking for one big sys admin >> instructions could print this page. If you say that include should not >> be used then that person would have to print each section on its own. > > I don't say that [Include()] shouldn't ever used, (I actually pushed to > use it in xx/WiFi pages. We might use it in the FrontPageV3). > However, in this situation, let's wait for moinmoin 1.8 and FrontPageV3 > to know what we can do about translation. > > Lucasz, You mean that you want to aggregate multiple pages into a single > [PDF] PDF file for offline viewing/printing, ok. > It doesn't means that there needs to be a actual wiki page with that > content (exporting selected pages to docbook, then merge them) PDF is just an option. I wanted to create a wiki page that has as much content as possible. If somebody wants to generate a pdf they can use "export docbook" and then convert that to pdf (dblatex -T simple -o WikiSandBox.pdf WikiSandBox.xml ) Merging docbooks is not that easy. I wanted to create a Debian business server page that would includes all available information on setting up debian server in business environment. (samba ldap, sftp, ftp, ldap addressbook, faxserver, bacula backup, vmware, etc ) http://wiki.debian.org/DebianBusinessServer I think there is some content that is more presentable/useful as one combined page then 50 separate wiki link pages. I wanted to do that with "Debian server for business" but you keep reverting my include changes. I think the job you do with making sure all the content is in sync is great. I've seen all the deleted content you have deleted and I think on some pages it was needed. On the other hand whenever I want to update some page or work on a page by changing it slowly day by day, it seems you keep reverting my changes before I was able to finish and provide meaningful content. Not sure if this is a right thread for that, but where can I create a page that has as many include as I need, without it being reverted? Should I use: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianBusinessServer or should I move it to: http://wiki.debian.org/LukaszSzybalski/DebianBusinessServer I think it would be nice to have "maintainer: username" on a page that somebody wants to maintain, and let that user delete content as needed instead of reverting changes in a global manner. What do you guys think? I would like to maintain and add content to http://wiki.debian.org/DebianBusinessServer but I can't do that if randomly my additions get reverted. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianBusinessServer?action=info Thank you, Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian Wiki: renaming pages
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > [CC'ing debian-www, I hope you don't mind] > > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 18:56 +0100, rupert THURNER wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 23:41, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: >> > >> > Please don't use the "Include" feature for list of languages (like >> > EeePC/Langs). >> >> any special reason for this? it would be easy to have one-stop fixes >> for problems/missing translations. >> >> pls check out http://wiki.debian.org/DebianIntroduction and >> http://wiki.debian.org/de/DebianIntroduction. one has 11 translations, >> the other 8. it is completely inconsistent. >> >> or take http://wiki.debian.org/fr/Manual-Howto where one transaltion >> is called "polski", pointing to a link "francais". > I'm not sure how said the above, but records show that Frank Piat has changed the link to point to the wrong page. http://wiki.debian.org/fr/Manual-Howto?action=diff&rev2=18&rev1=17 You've deleted :,[:pl/Manual-Howto:Polski] and added [:Français/Manual-Howto:Polski]. I've reverted your change right now, so we are good on that page. > Linking among translated pages is really the smallest issue we have. > Some of our needs are: > 1. Migrate important (static) pages to the www.d.o, then translate them. > 2. Use an efficient tools that allow translators to track what was > changed and what translation needs to be updated (which page, which > paragraph => What was the previous text, whats the new text, what > was the old translation.. see poedit) > 3. Implement a mean to automatically disable a translation if it is > lagging too much. > 4. Proper (i.e automatic) content negotiation, so the best alternatives > is presented to the user. > (which would probably solve the linking issue) > > Since many (most?) pages are translated in very few languages, I would > rather maintain links manually, rather that having one more transition > to manage... while migrating to a new moin version (And trying to solve > the issue properly at the same time). > > Also, the [[Include()]] macros adds complexity to the wiki pages, which > makes it less accessible to contributors. I on the other hand believe that using include allows me to create a page that has more relevant content then providing links to 30 other pages. I could create a page for sys admins and include various pages and create one place to get all the information, just like Debian reference did. I could pull individual "ftp server", "ssh server"..etc.. Who ever would be looking for one big sys admin instructions could print this page. If you say that include should not be used then that person would have to print each section on its own. I think the include feature is great and allows one person to provide better documentation, while allows each piece to be maintained by someone else. Include show be allowed and recommended on some pages. Thanks, Lucas > It also means that each wiki > page have its @Page@/Langs mate, which we would have to maintain. > Finally, Those pages would clutter the search results and the wiki > namespace. > > I think that your effort to rename the *German*, *French*, *Italian*, > *Portuguese*, *Hebrew* pages to "xx/PageName" is much more important, > for instance. > Many wiki pages (and translations) also needs to be updated/tested for > lenny. > > I hope this gives you a better outlook of the i18n situation. > > Franklin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > > -- How to create python package? http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/PythonPaste Bazaar and Launchpad http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/Bazaar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/python-modules not responding
Hello, I'm trying to browse this resource and the page is not responding. http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/python-modules/packages/ Thanks, Lucas -- How to create python package? http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/PythonPaste Bazaar and Launchpad http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/Bazaar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Generating pdfs out of moinmoin/debian wiki
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Lukas, > > On Thursday 04 December 2008 01:04, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> And how is this one generated? What tool, how you get the images in? > > I answered that question a little way down: > >> > apt-get source debian-edu-doc for the source code, the wiki pages are at >> > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Documentation/Etch I checkout the src files,not necessarily a one liner...something similar to a debian reference source code. I was looking more for a one liner or few lines to get to that final pdf or even html. Thanks, Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Generating pdfs out of moinmoin/debian wiki
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 18:28, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> http://wiki.debian.org/MoinMoin/GeneratePdf >> I was surprised by the quality of that pdf. >> Here is a sample: > > here is another, with translated images even: :) > > http://maintainer.skolelinux.org/debian-edu-doc/de/release-manual.pdf > And how is this one generated? What tool, how you get the images in? Thanks, Lucas > see http://maintainer.skolelinux.org/debian-edu-doc/ for the available > translations :) > > apt-get source debian-edu-doc for the source code, the wiki pages are at > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Documentation/Etch > > > regards, >Holger > -- How to create python package? http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/PythonPaste Bazaar and Launchpad http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/Bazaar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Generating pdfs out of moinmoin/debian wiki
Well, The include is nice.!!! Check this out: http://lucasmanual.com/debian/AllInOne.pdf A pdf documentation for the Debian EDUin 5 seconds!!! Thanks, Lucas On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Lucasz > > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 11:28 -0600, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I noticed this page was created and I went head and tried it: >> >> http://wiki.debian.org/MoinMoin/GeneratePdf > > Sorry, I didn't point you to this page in reply to your previous email, > because I thought I already gave you this URL (Now I've checked my Sent > mailbox... and it appear I didn't sent you such mail). > > You might want to have a look at DR help: > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianReference > > >> Osamu, could you tell me if its possible to get your Debian reference >> as one docbook xml file, and how? > > Since it's xml, can can probably easily merge them with a xslt. > > Alternativelty, DebianEdu seems to use a different hack: > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Documentation/Etch/AllInOne?action=raw > > Hope this helps, > > Franklin > > > -- How to create python package? http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/PythonPaste Bazaar and Launchpad http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/Bazaar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Generating pdfs out of moinmoin/debian wiki
Hello, I noticed this page was created and I went head and tried it: http://wiki.debian.org/MoinMoin/GeneratePdf You use this command: dblatex -T simple -o WikiSandBox.pdf WikiSandBox.xml I was surprised by the quality of that pdf. Here is a sample: http://lucasmanual.com/pdf/FaxServer.pdf I'll be playing with some of the debian wiki pages soon. Osamu, could you tell me if its possible to get your Debian reference as one docbook xml file, and how? Thanks, Lucas -- How to create python package? http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/PythonPaste Bazaar and Launchpad http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/Bazaar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DebianWiki: Draft of a new frontpage [RFC]
Hello, In my opinion what Salokine Terata did with a front page and a page layout was great. Its precise, to the point, easy to navigate, and easy to translate. I don't see why we would want to change the front page? It looks really good to me! If somebody wants to add some work they should improve it a little, make it more synced with the actual debian installation or sync it more with current documentation. The only thing I would concentrate on is: 1. Add a wiki link to a main site menu under Documentation 2. Link to the static docs for debian from wiki. 3. Add screenshots of installation process for stable, testing, unstable 4. Link to a faq from the wiki 5. Link to a http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/installmanual from wiki under installation guide. 6. Document better how Osamu Aoki converts his wiki maintained "debian reference" to an html and try converting some of the outdated docs to a wiki and back. Thanks, Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki FlashPlayer page
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 11:33 -0600, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Franklin PIAT wrote: >> > Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Frank Lin PIAT >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:33 -0600, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> >>>> Did you verify before you deleted the section form manualhowto? >> >>>> The manual-howto had instruction on how to manually install flash >> >>>> player to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ vs the "flash=player page does >> >>>> not. >> >>> >> >>> As I mentioned in the changelog, I removed that section because it >> >>> duplicate the content of the page FlashPlayer. >> >>> I decided not to merge the content because explaining how to manually >> >>> install something is just the wrong way to do things: I defeats the >> >>> purpose of having a distribution. >> >>> People willing to install or compile stuffs manually should use LFS, >> >>> Gentoo, Windows or whatever. >> >> >> >> I agree that installing things manually is a pain but in this case it >> >> seems as one of the options. >> >> First flash player was in sarge, but didn't work, Then sarge fixed it >> >> year later >> >> Second etch came in with flash player, it worked then got removed >> > >> >> Third, backports repository is questionable... >> >> so the only way to me seems like a manual install is one of the options. >> > >> > Installing anything manually is a bad practice. >> > - One have to reinstall it again and again, especially when new security >> > updates are published. >> > - A vulnerable version could remain installed for a while. >> > - The file isn't managed by apt/dpkg (conflict and dependencies) >> > - Why do manually waht can be done automacically >> > - And many other reasons that don't comes to my mind... >> > >> >> Above point doesn't matter now. I've merged the changes to Flash-player >> >> page. >> > >> > Document this procedure on your own website if you want, but not on the >> > wiki, where we only list recommended practices. >> > >> > At the risk of getting you upset, I'll remove that again. >> >> How about just add the warning you just mentioned... >> " >> >Installing anything manually is a bad practice. >> > - One have to reinstall it again and again, especially when new security >> > updates are published. >> > - A vulnerable version could remain installed for a while. >> > - The file isn't managed by apt/dpkg (conflict and dependencies) >> > - Why do manually what can be done automatically >> " > >> Because If you don't want to use backports then that is your only option. > > Why wouldn't you install backports? > >> My opinion on the plugins is that they are exception to a lot of >> things. > > Why? > >> They are not stable and if you don't have most recent flash >> plugin then your website don't work, and if you website don't work >> then debian doesn't work. > > The maintainer is quite responsive (flash v10 have been in experimental > for a while). He might be responsive but the flash is not in stable. Backports is not an official debian repository so your way or my way fall in a category of "not official system overwrite". You need to make sure you know what you doing when using backports and you need to know what you doing when manually installing. You can pick one over another but until one of these becomes official debian repository I don't see how we can pick. Seems to me that we should let the user decide since its his system. Both of these are needed to have working flash so we can get all opinions for and against but the true of the fact is you need to do something outside of debian official distribution . The 2 packages that have manual install all over them (close but never the same problem as flashplayer) are vmware, nvidia. Its never easy with these nonfree packages is it... Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki FlashPlayer page
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Frank Lin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Lukasz, >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Frank Lin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> > On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 23:14 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Lukasz Szybalski schrieb: >>>> >> > It was there before. Was flashplugin-nonfree removed from debian >>>> repository? >>>> >> >>>> >> See http://www.debian.org/News/2008/20080217. It was removed with >>>> 4.0r3 >>>> >> because of missing security support. Updated packages are available >>>> via >>>> >> backports.org. >>>> > >>>> > Thank you. I've merged that information in the wiki page. >>>> > Also, I've removed duplicate content in Manual-Howto. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:33 -0600, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >>>> Did you verify before you deleted the section form manualhowto? >>>> The manual-howto had instruction on how to manually install flash >>>> player to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ vs the "flash=player page does >>>> not. >>> >>> As I mentioned in the changelog, I removed that section because it >>> duplicate the content of the page FlashPlayer. >>> I decided not to merge the content because explaining how to manually >>> install something is just the wrong way to do things: I defeats the >>> purpose of having a distribution. >>> People willing to install or compile stuffs manually should use LFS, >>> Gentoo, Windows or whatever. >> >> I agree that installing things manually is a pain but in this case it >> seems as one of the options. >> First flash player was in sarge, but didn't work, Then sarge fixed it >> year later >> Second etch came in with flash player, it worked then got removed > > The ftpmaster removal log states : >> [Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:46:05 +] [ftpmaster: Archive Administrator] >> Removed the following packages from stable: >> >> flashplugin-nonfree | 9.0.115.0.1~etch1 | source, i386 >> Closed bugs: 458550 >> >> --- Reason --- >> RoSRM; security nightmare > > You'll find the rationale fot it's removal in: > http://bugs.debian.org/458550 > > I don't understand why it was removed either, but anyway the > current recommended way to install Flashplugin is documented by the > maintainer in the page "FlashPlayer" > (basically: use backports.org) > >> Third, backports repository is questionable... >> so the only way to me seems like a manual install is one of the options. > > Installing anything manually is a bad practice. > - One have to reinstall it again and again, especially when new security > updates are published. > - A vulnerable version could remain installed for a while. > - The file isn't managed by apt/dpkg (conflict and dependencies) > - Why do manually waht can be done automacically > - And many other reasons that don't comes to my mind... > >> Above point doesn't matter now. I've merged the changes to Flash-player >> page. > > Document this procedure on your own website if you want, but not on the > wiki, where we only list recommended practices. > > At the risk of getting you upset, I'll remove that again. How about just add the warning you just mentioned... " >Installing anything manually is a bad practice. > - One have to reinstall it again and again, especially when new security > updates are published. > - A vulnerable version could remain installed for a while. > - The file isn't managed by apt/dpkg (conflict and dependencies) > - Why do manually what can be done automatically " Because If you don't want to use backports then that is your only option. My opinion on the plugins is that they are exception to a lot of things. They are not stable and if you don't have most recent flash plugin then your website don't work, and if you website don't work then debian doesn't work. So I think manual option instructions should be available. I'll add the warning you just mentioned. I know for sure there are places that have "not recommended practice" so I would put the warning on and let user decide instead of forcing users to use one way over another. If there was a security bug in a software and since its proprietary we really can't do patches to it, this means that this can happen again. If lenny was stable now and there was a security problem flashplayer would get removed again. I wonder if a better solution would be to create a package that gets the newest version from flashplayer website. Something similar to "djbdns" or broadcom firmware package. I'll post the question to the bug. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Images of installation process on wiki?
Hello, I was wondering if anybody has images of how to install Debian that we could add to a wiki? Something like this: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/features/reviews/linuxelectrons-peeks-debian-3-0r1 but maybe better quality (through vmware installation or some background desktop recording software? Thanks, Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki FlashPlayer page
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Frank Lin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lukasz, > >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Frank Lin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 23:14 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: >> >> >> >> Lukasz Szybalski schrieb: >> >> > It was there before. Was flashplugin-nonfree removed from debian >> >> > repository? >> >> >> >> See http://www.debian.org/News/2008/20080217. It was removed with 4.0r3 >> >> because of missing security support. Updated packages are available via >> >> backports.org. >> > >> > Thank you. I've merged that information in the wiki page. >> > Also, I've removed duplicate content in Manual-Howto. > > > On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:33 -0600, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> Did you verify before you deleted the section form manualhowto? >> The manual-howto had instruction on how to manually install flash >> player to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ vs the "flash=player page does >> not. > > As I mentioned in the changelog, I removed that section because it > duplicate the content of the page FlashPlayer. > I decided not to merge the content because explaining how to manually > install something is just the wrong way to do things: I defeats the > purpose of having a distribution. > People willing to install or compile stuffs manually should use LFS, > Gentoo, Windows or whatever. I agree that installing things manually is a pain but in this case it seems as one of the options. First flash player was in sarge, but didn't work, Then sarge fixed it year later Second etch came in with flash player, it worked then got removed Third, backports repository is questionable... so the only way to me seems like a manual install is one of the options. Above point doesn't matter now. I've merged the changes to Flash-player page. But I still don't know why flash player was removed...The news says (see below) but there is noting there. The only explanation (It was removed with 4.0r3 because of missing security support.) What does that mean? Thanks, Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki FlashPlayer page
Did you verify before you deleted the section form manualhowto? The manual-howto had instruction on how to manually install flash player to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ vs the "flash=player page does not. Why was it removed again? "Flashplugin-nonfree has been removed (see below), as this is closed source and we don't get security support for it. For security reasons, we recommend to immediately remove any version of flashplugin-nonfree and any remaining files of the Adobe Flash Player. Tested updates will be made available via backports.org." Lucas On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Frank Lin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 23:14 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Lukasz Szybalski schrieb: >> > It was there before. Was flashplugin-nonfree removed from debian >> > repository? >> >> See http://www.debian.org/News/2008/20080217. It was removed with 4.0r3 >> because of missing security support. Updated packages are available via >> backports.org. > > Thank you. I've merged that information in the wiki page. > Also, I've removed duplicate content in Manual-Howto. > > Franklin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Turbogears2 Manual http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/TurboGears2 Bazaar and Launchpad http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/bzr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki FlashPlayer page
hmmm It was there before. Was flashplugin-nonfree removed from debian repository? http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=flashplugin-nonfree while we find what has happen try using these instructions: http://wiki.debian.org/Manual-Howto#head-982d3caa6c2f1c99d768fe805ac7194f532899a7 Lucas On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Tim Legg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Regarding the page http://wiki.debian.org/FlashPlayer, > > In executing the step, > > # apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree > > I get an error, > > Package flashplugin-nonfree is not available, but is referred to by another > package. > This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or > is only available from another source > E: Package flashplugin-nonfree has no installation candidate > > Obviously there was an ommission of a step somewhere within the process or > that the document has become a bit obsolete. > > Thanks, > > Tim > > > > > A bit off-topic: For some reason, none of the methods I used in the past for > installing Flash Player for previous versions of Debian work in my freshly > installed 4.0r5. I usually download the tar.gz from adobe. Neither epihany > nor iceweasel seem to see the plugin, even though the plugin was copied > correctly to the mozilla plugins directory, so there seems to be a larger > problem at hand. I will figure it out when it becomes a priority and some > related posts start appearing on forums. It isn't urgent at all and I can > still boot my older 4.0r3 when I need flash or sound to work. > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Turbogears2 Manual http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/TurboGears2 Bazaar and Launchpad http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/bzr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vmware images of Debian on debian.org?
Hello, I was wondering if debian.org has vmware image of Debian stable,testing,unstable somewhere? If not should we have one available for download through .torrent file? I found one online on different site 395mb. http://www.visoracle.com/download/debian/a/40b3/ This would be great thing for anybody that wanted to start using debian right away, but didn't want to reinstall the whole os on their machine. Basically more users using Debian. Comments? I could create these images if somebody would host it and link the torrent files on debian.org Thanks, Lucas -- http://wiki.debian.org/VMware -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 15 years Debian?
Where could I find some statistics? Here is what I found for 2003: in 2003 : - 11 released architectures - aplpha, arm, hppa i386 ua64 m68k mips powerpc s390 sparc, ... - 1262 people - 8012 source packages - 13456 binary plackages What are the numbers for 2008? Lucas On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Lukasz Szybalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is this correct? > > Its been 15 years since first release of Debian? > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.development/msg/a32d4e2ef3bcdcc6 > > > Lucas > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2008/8/16 > Subject: 15 lat Debiana > To: Debian User PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Trudno w to uwierzyć, ale Debian kończy dzisiaj 15 lat! > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.development/msg/a32d4e2ef3bcdcc6 > > Pozostaje tylko życzyć conajmniej kolejnych piętnastu! ;) > > > Pozdrawiam > martinez > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > Where was my car manufactured? > http://cars.lucasmanual.com/vin > TurboGears Manual-Howto > http://lucasmanual.com/pdf/TurboGears-Manual-Howto.pdf > -- Where was my car manufactured? http://cars.lucasmanual.com/vin TurboGears Manual-Howto http://lucasmanual.com/pdf/TurboGears-Manual-Howto.pdf
15 years Debian?
Is this correct? Its been 15 years since first release of Debian? http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.development/msg/a32d4e2ef3bcdcc6 Lucas -- Forwarded message -- From: martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2008/8/16 Subject: 15 lat Debiana To: Debian User PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trudno w to uwierzyć, ale Debian kończy dzisiaj 15 lat! http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.development/msg/a32d4e2ef3bcdcc6 Pozostaje tylko życzyć conajmniej kolejnych piętnastu! ;) Pozdrawiam martinez -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Where was my car manufactured? http://cars.lucasmanual.com/vin TurboGears Manual-Howto http://lucasmanual.com/pdf/TurboGears-Manual-Howto.pdf
Re: wiki license (www license...)
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have read your blog about the wiki[1] with interest, and I have some > comments and questions. > > Joey Hess wrote: >> I doubt that trying to get the whole wiki licensed under a specific >> license is a good use of time. > > My intend is to have a default license, and to get it applied to > existing content that have unclear license. > BTW, I don't think we should have a single license for the wiki : some > specific pages, like DebianReferences, could have a specific license. > > Can you clarify "good use of time" ? > > >> Since the wiki is not a package that we ship, but is instead a ad-hoc >> collection of many documents, and many conversations, I also don't see >> the point of a single consistent license, or any reason to be bothered >> by content whose license is not specified. > > Actually, I have on my plan to create a debian package with a (partial) > copy of the wiki, so offline users can access read it on the CD. This could be done with a printing option and have the file as html http://wiki.debian.org/SystemPrinting?action=print Is there a specific section you would want to get off line? Filetype? > > Also, I consider that the content of most pages should be moved to > official documentations regularly (package documentation, README.Debian, > www.debian.org.etc...). How would this work? > > Finally I wish it were possible to share|fork|patch documentations, > including wiki pages, among distributions, with something like git+wml > (I'll post about this soon). > >> Be very wary of anything that makes contributing to the wiki require >> jumping through more legal hoops than it takes to contribute to >> lists.debian.org or bugs.debian.org. Chilling effects can work both >> ways. > > I don't understand the point here, the wiki already has a license[2] (or > it could be considered "public domain" due to the > missing /copyright.html). public domain is not a license in its own. It describes the situation of "federal employees only" . http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 But you could probobly assume that if somebody contributed on debian wiki they have contributed according to debian licensing requirements even do they were missing.You could post a little description saying to remove the content if it is otherwise. > > Also, If someone don't want to contribute some code or some > documentation because of the license, then fine he shouldn't ! (Yes, > Debian has high standards, that's why I chose it). > > If one wonders why I chose to add "www license" to the subject of this > mail, it's simply because the website has the same "problem". > > Franklin > > > [1] http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/All_Seated_on_the_Ground/ Maybe doing something like this? "I think wiki should have default license which gets applied if there isn't one specified. I also think contributor could apply a license if he wanted to if its in this list (gpl. bsd, abc,bcd...only )" > [2] http://web.archive.org/web/200504/wiki.debian.net/copyright.html He owns a server but the license to the content is anything you want? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wiki.debian.org/doc/packagename/readme.debian ?
> > > > I'm not sure what would need to happen process wise to enable > > > > Developers to use wiki page to collaborate their readme and > > > > readme.debian. > > > > > > Making DD's life easier would unsure quick adoption. May be : > > > - A set of scripts for the DD to retrieve and update the wiki page. > > > (that might later be included in debhelper) > > > > Making a download script wouldn't be hard. Upload on the other hand > > would have to somehow be automated triggered by some event. Update > > script needs access to the wiki files. aka needs to be run from the > > same server. How would I get access to wiki server if one wanted to > > implement this? > > Erm, the wiki is running on a restricted machine, only a few debian > developers have access there. And I wonder, why does it need access to > the wiki files? Directly overwriting is a very bad idea because it's > working around the version control used by the wiki. The script is a python script that imports moinmoin module. It reads the configuration just like a normal moinmoin would and updates the page just like a moinmoin would do. I am using append_text that moin has on their website. It needs to read the config file and import moinmoin therefore it needs to be run on the machine that has moinmoin files. > > > > How is the package released? If new package has a new release > > number/version number we could track the new package and know to > > upload the readme file. If I somehow would be able to tell there is a > > new version I can overwrite the wiki page. By overwriting content I meant not the moinmoin file. As far as uploading the readme file goes, how would I know there is a new unstable package release ? I can tell the script to download the new package and update wiki page, how do I know a new package version is available? Any ideas on how that could be scheduled? Assuming I would want it to run upon a new version. > > > > > Good point. In that case I would upload stable/testing with readonly > > access and ustable would be the one people could modify, allow > > somekind of suggestions. > > How would you put that into the general workflow of package > maintainers? I think the work flow would be: stable/testing readme available on readonly wiki page. unstable readme is available on wiki and can be edited by users. User will have to notify the maintainer that there is a new useful content on a wiki, or maintainer actually checks it. Upon each new release the content of the 'readme page' on wiki is updated with a new content from new version. They are already flooded with various different ressources > where they are expected to pull informations from, adding to that > doesn't make the system better but worse because people definitely will > start to care less. They don't have to care. It would only work if they care or if user modifies the wiki page and lets maintainer know about it. How about now? http://wiki.debian.org/pkg/README.DebianTemplate How does the @PACKAGE@ works? Lucas
Re: wiki.debian.org/doc/packagename/readme.debian ?
> > > > > However, if DD were interested in maintaining that file on the wiki > (which > > > is probably what you have in mind), I would find it very suitable. > > > Of course, only the packages actually updating the README from the wiki > > > should be published on the wiki. > > > > I'm not sure what would need to happen process wise to enable > > Developers to use wiki page to collaborate their readme and > > readme.debian. > > Making DD's life easier would unsure quick adoption. May be : > - A set of scripts for the DD to retrieve and update the wiki page. > (that might later be included in debhelper) Making a download script wouldn't be hard. Upload on the other hand would have to somehow be automated triggered by some event. Update script needs access to the wiki files. aka needs to be run from the same server. How would I get access to wiki server if one wanted to implement this? What could that event be? New version? > - A page with some guidelines for contributors. > - Provide a good template (actually, a wiki-page header, with link to > package page, ) Do you have a link of example wiki page header I could use? > - RFC and Announce it on debian-devel ml. > > > > We could definitely upload and download it. > I'm not sure what you mean... i guess "we"= "the DD" > > > My major concern is that such pages would have to be maintained : In two > years time, we would have a problem of knowing what to do with the > pages. > If the page have been modified (and we hope they would), what should we > do about it ? How could we know that the package have been updated by > the maintainer ? How is the package released? If new package has a new release number/version number we could track the new package and know to upload the readme file. If I somehow would be able to tell there is a new version I can overwrite the wiki page. > Should we update the wiki-page with the latest DD's README.Debian ? > > > > > What about URIs like this ? > > > http://wiki.debian.org/pkg/ant/README.Debian > > > > I'll modify the script to make it so. > > How things change from stable to testing?, maybe > > http://wiki.debian.org/etch/pkg/ant/README.Debian or > > http://wiki.debian.org/stable/pkg/ant/README.Debian ? > > The page should be for development (i.e "unstable") only since > DebianStable package is unlikely to be updated for a mere README update. Good point. In that case I would upload stable/testing with readonly access and ustable would be the one people could modify, allow somekind of suggestions. In that case: http://wiki.debian.org/sid/pkg/ant/README.Debian or http://wiki.debian.org/sid/ant/README.Debian As far as bugs that Kevin Mentioned. All of them talk either about readme, readme.debian or changelog,news, todo files. We could definitely include these files on a wiki, and link to them from packages.debina.org but take the readme to next level. What is the difference in structure in pool/main/c/coreutils/current/ vs stable,testing,unstable? Lucas
Re: wiki.debian.org/doc/packagename/readme.debian ?
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 05:24, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: > > I am working on a script that would create a website page like this: > > > > http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/doc/ant/README.Debian > > or > > http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/usr/share/doc/ant/README.Debian > > > > This is an actual README.Debian from stable 'ant' package. > > > > Would wiki.debian.org be interested in having such a thing? aka have > > all readme files available on a wiki? > > If the purpose is to publish the README.Debian online, I'm not sure it's > the most suitable place. I think a static page would be more suitable, > like : > http://sysinf0.klabs.be/usr/share/doc/ant/README.Debian?dist=etch Static pages could work if you only wanted to display them. > > However, if DD were interested in maintaining that file on the wiki (which > is probably what you have in mind), I would find it very suitable. > Of course, only the packages actually updating the README from the wiki > should be published on the wiki. I'm not sure what would need to happen process wise to enable Developers to use wiki page to collaborate their readme and readme.debian. We could definitely upload and download it. I think if DD decided to maintain the readme on wiki and somehow allow users to provide suggestions (additional useful info) then these readme files could become even more useful. Right now my main goal was to provide them online as sometimes the readme has some important information that google can't find (have readme online) and sometimes google has better instructions then readme.(allow for some colaboration) > > What about URIs like this ? > http://wiki.debian.org/pkg/ant/README.Debian I'll modify the script to make it so. How things change from stable to testing?, maybe http://wiki.debian.org/etch/pkg/ant/README.Debian or http://wiki.debian.org/stable/pkg/ant/README.Debian ? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wiki.debian.org/doc/packagename/readme.debian ?
Hello, I am working on a script that would create a website page like this: http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/doc/ant/README.Debian or http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/usr/share/doc/ant/README.Debian This is an actual README.Debian from stable 'ant' package. Would wiki.debian.org be interested in having such a thing? aka have all readme files available on a wiki? Lucas > -- hendrik > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Automotive Recall Database. Cars, Trucks, etc. http://www.lucasmanual.com/recall/ TurboGears Manual-Howto http://lucasmanual.com/pdf/TurboGears-Manual-Howto.pdf -- Automotive Recall Database. Cars, Trucks, etc. http://www.lucasmanual.com/recall/ TurboGears Manual-Howto http://lucasmanual.com/pdf/TurboGears-Manual-Howto.pdf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
required vs recommended -was Re: apt-get vs Aptitude
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: > > So my > > apt-get install python-epydoc -> 4mb > > aptitude install python-epydoc -> Need to get 340MB of archives. After > > unpacking 685MB will be used > > > > I don't think that is what I have intended here. So now I am not > > sure if I should suggest aptitude as it installs more then required. > > How are you guys deal with this issue? > > IIRC apt-get will install recommends by default from now on too, as > Recommends: should contain packages that all but unusual installations > should include. If you don't want recommends, use > --without-recommemends or set Aptitude::Recommends-Important > appropriately. > Just out of curiosity what are the reasons for such a move. If I understand this correctly required is all the software that needs to be on in order for it to run.(80% of the time this is what I need) recommended is the other 20% where there is a feature I would want to use.!??!! (I needed that only twice in 4 years) So I don't know about other but in majority cases I need only what is required. FYI: digikam triples the amount of software needed to run digikam and installs software like (kmail, kaddressbook, korganizer) which on gnome don't do me any good but are recomended if one chooses to use them. So if digikam is 3x the size, epydoc is gets 40x the size sounds like Debian will have a very heavy footprint when installing any program to satisfy 20% of the extra functionality. Could you guys point me to reasons why this switch has happen? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get vs Aptitude
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: > > The reason I'm asking this is because it seems to me as 'apt-cache > > policy ' belongs to apt-get group, and since we are recommending > > aptitude I thought there would be aptitude version of apt-cache > > policy. > > aptitude requires apt, so talking about apt-ceche policy when it's the > right tool is fine. > So I switched over to aptitude but now I notice that aptitude installs recommended packages as well. So my apt-get install python-epydoc -> 4mb aptitude install python-epydoc -> Need to get 340MB of archives. After unpacking 685MB will be used I don't think that is what I have intended here. So now I am not sure if I should suggest aptitude as it installs more then required. How are you guys deal with this issue? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Timeline of the Debian project
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Chris Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > (Please Cc me on replies - I am not subscribed to the list) > > I recently put together a partial timeline of the Debian project using the > SIMILE DHTML timeline component. I'm currently hosting the timeline on my > Alioth webspace[0]. > > This is definately work in progress, but it would be nice if it was > integrated with debian.org. > > Technology-wise, the timeline is entirely static content and requires a > tiny amount of pre-processing. Showstoppers might be its reliance on > Javascript and the size of the libraries. I'm certain that gettext could > be integrated, however. The full source can be found in Git[1], if you > want to run a local copy. > > Any thoughts/objections/ideas? > > > /Lamby > > [0] http://alioth.debian.org/~lamby-guest/debian-timeline/ > [1] http://git.chris-lamb.co.uk/?p=debian-timeline.git > Very nice!!! Good job. Gives a nice historical perspective on Debian and what has happen over time. It would be nice to have it on debian.org or http://debian.org/history or timeline or something like that. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get vs Aptitude
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: > > > What I ment here was that I can do > > 'apt-cache policy samba' > > but I can't do: > > 'aptitude policy samba' > > You can't go apt-get policy samba; either. There are some things for > which tools besides aptitude are the right thing to use, and showing > the policy is one of them. [I don't know if aptitude will ever add a > feature to show this itself, but it doesn't really need to.] > I use 'apt-cache policy samba' a lot since it will tell me which version I have and which version In testing or unstable is available (using pinging and preferences ) aptitude show samba doesn't show that. The reason I'm asking this is because it seems to me as 'apt-cache policy ' belongs to apt-get group, and since we are recommending aptitude I thought there would be aptitude version of apt-cache policy. I guess not. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get vs Aptitude
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: > > Is it safe to recommend using aptitude in online documentation? > > Yes, and it's what should be recommended generally. > > > > Is there a replacement for apt-cache policy samba in aptitude > > version? > > Just use apt-cache policy samba; aptitude obeys that just as much as > apt-get does. What I ment here was that I can do 'apt-cache policy samba' but I can't do: 'aptitude policy samba' there is 'aptitude show samba' but that has way more information? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apt-get vs Aptitude
Hello, There is a discussion on http://wiki.debian.org/SystemPrinting http://wiki.debian.org/SystemPrinting/Discussion that goes like this: Note that Aptitude is now the default package manager for Etch. Of course AptGet is not deprecated, just we recommand using Aptitude. Thanks for your contributions. Best regards. -- SalokineTerata 2008-03-08 21:32:16 Is there a replacement for statement like: apt-cache policy samba -- LukaszSzybalski 2008-03-17 20:15:45 I don't think we should recommend using aptitude : Under aptitude, package(s) can be under "installation pending" state (especially after apt* update)... When we instruct someone to install a package, we don't want the pending installation to occur at that time. -- FranklinPiat 2008-03-17 23:34:17 Is it safe to recommend using aptitude in online documentation? Is there a replacement for apt-cache policy samba in aptitude version? What about instalation pending state under aptitude ? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki - anti-spam question
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Lukasz Szybalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > Could somebody forward this email to wiki.debian.org maintainer. > > I would like to know what setting have he/she implemented to stop > spammers from creating fake pages and posting their links onto them. > anybody? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki - anti-spam question
Hello, Could somebody forward this email to wiki.debian.org maintainer. I would like to know what setting have he/she implemented to stop spammers from creating fake pages and posting their links onto them. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki related "discussion".
On Feb 6, 2008 1:50 PM, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lukasz Szybalski wrote: > > I think the discussion page is needed because there are people who > > don't belong to this list, they do not want to receive all emails from > > this list, but they are interested in a discussion about debian wiki > > or particular wiki page. > Note that this list is open for non-subscribers to post. > While I don't mind where people discuss particular wiki pages, I'm not sure > that > discussions about wiki.debian.org in general will reach the audience better > than > when conducted here. I totally agree on that one. > > > Example: > > http://moinmo.in/MoinMoinQuestions/Unsorted > > I found this question/discussion about wiki.debian.org, and I don't > > think this was ever discussed on a mailing list. > That page seems to illustrate why discussing on the mailing list would be more > effective, no? That particular conversation should have been posted here, but it got posted on moinmoin.in Maybe the person who started that conversation didn't know about this list or whatever the reason. I think my point is that we could take off old posts, keep the new once, inform people to send emails with questions comments to mailing list but in no way we should disable Discussion pages. Doing both, the discussion and mailing list would be optimal. ?? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Wiki related "discussion".
On Feb 5, 2008 2:20 PM, Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Currently, many discussions related to DebianWiki itself[1] (structure, > translation, conventions...) are happening in "Discussion" pages. I > find it inappropriate for multiple reasons: > - Wiki is most effective to collaboratively build (improve) a page, > it's not the best to actually discuss it. > - Wiki is not meant to preserve history. Keeping discussion/archives > pages causes false positive hits when people search in the wiki. > - Wiki is not meant to distribute updates (i.e sending email !) > I think the discussion page is needed because there are people who don't belong to this list, they do not want to receive all emails from this list, but they are interested in a discussion about debian wiki or particular wiki page. If anything, if the discussion is out dated (aka talks about changes that are already implemented) we should remove that part, but leave the parts that are fresh and need to be addresseded. Example: http://moinmo.in/MoinMoinQuestions/Unsorted I found this question/discussion about wiki.debian.org, and I don't think this was ever discussed on a mailing list. Lucas -- Vehicle Information Number. Check for Authentic VIN http://lucasmanual.com/vin TurboGears from start to finish: http://www.lucasmanual.com/mywiki/TurboGears -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wiki.debian.org and what anti-spam features are implemented?
Hello, I was wondering if a sys admin or a person responsible for wiki maintenance could elaborate on the anti-spam features that he/she implemented on debian wiki. 1. Is moinmoin anti-spam (bad content with sync from moinmoin main page) implemented? 2. Are we blocking any ip's? 3. What else is implemented to prevent spam? The reason I am asking is because debian wiki seems to have no spam at all, as one of the users of moinmoin I have encounter some spam on my wiki, and was just wondering what debian wiki is doing differently to stop the same spam. This would help me a lot and anybody who wants to use moinmoin on such a big size wiki. Thanks, Lucas -- Vehicle Information Number. Check for Authentic VIN http://lucasmanual.com/vin TurboGears from start to finish: http://www.lucasmanual.com/mywiki/TurboGears -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian Wiki] Update of "FrontPage" by SalokineTerata
Hello, Not sure if other people seem to be confused by this, but I was thinking of renaming the "Quick-start" section to "Debian". At first I though that quick-start section was for quick starting your installation of a program not debian. (thanks for correcting me) I think this would explain itself better: Debian: -Quick Introduction -Quick Install -Quick Package I didn't want to change it without asking first. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Voting for new FrontPage on wiki.debian.org
Hello, The look of the proposed front pages is very nice. I don't know if it has all the content of the current front page but it seems to have most of it. I guess It can be updated when it goes live. I would propose making it live January 1st 2008. What is the address to the voting part? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mentioning proposed-updates on the main website
On 10/23/07, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 08:13:19PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > As you may (or may not) know proposed-updates is used as a basis for the > > next point release. As such it would be good that people would use it > > more so we find most bugs *before* a point release. To make this happen > > I want to mention proposed-updates more visibly on the main website. > > Does anyone have good ideas how and where on the website I should > > mention proposed-updates (and oldstable-proposed-updates and maybe the > > process involved)? > > /releases/stable/errata actually includes some information about > that, but I'm not sure where else. Maybe we need a new page called > /releases/proposed-updates that explains the concept better, and > then link that one from other places? > from http://www.debian.org//misc/ to http://www.debian.org/devel/website/ and add a tab for proposed updates and process -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Broken link to ipw3945-modules-2.6.18-4-686
Hello, I was trying to download this packge from repository, but it was able to get it. I then checked the website to see if I can download .deb file from there but it seems as this package is not available. 404 error http://packages.debian.org/etch/ipw3945-modules-2.6.18-4-686/i386/download Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flashplayer9 Won't Work
On 10/2/07, Simon Paillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Miles > > debian-www is related to the Debian website itself. > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:15:59AM -0400, Miles Bradford wrote: > > in Iceweasel. > > > > It says it's loading -- and appears to, but -- Not! > > > > And it won't even recognize any firefox ./installer > > commands. > > > > Okay - even Microsoft is giving way to flashplayer -- > > if iceweasel won't work with the standard requirements > > -- what good is it? > > For issues specific to Debian/iceweasel, please refer to the > debian-user list, so that you can be helped to report a bug if it is > relevant. > > For issue specific to flash, please refer to Macromedia :-) > > Regards try this: http://lucasmanual.com/mywiki/#head-95ebe73e09bc83a7135140a987114ad49a7bad09 Flash player for Debian Linux Download flashplayer.tar.gz file from http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ Extract it. And move one of the files over to: cp /home/lucas/Desktop/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ cd /usr/lib/iceweasel/plugins/ ln -s /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so Restart Firefox/iceweasel -- -- Easy, Highly Configurable and Customizable Operating System for Business. http://www.lucasmanual.com TurboGears from start to finish: http://www.lucasmanual.com/mywiki/TurboGears -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM]Re: business contacts
On 9/28/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: > > I noticed a lot of spam going through? > > It's nothing compared to the amounts that we block, but we're always > working on getting better. > > > Does this list allow posting if not subscribed? > > Yes. Is it possible to make the list posting allowed only if subscribed? > > > Don Armstrong > [Your random listmaster] > -- > Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept. > -- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_] > > http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- -- Easy, Highly Configurable and Customizable Operating System for Business. http://www.lucasmanual.com TurboGears from start to finish: http://www.lucasmanual.com/mywiki/TurboGears -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SPAM]Re: business contacts
I noticed a lot of spam going through? Does this list allow posting if not subscribed? If not can we unsubscribe this spammer? On 9/28/07, mekus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
