Processed: Re: Bug#170472: info: top Info pages of different packages wildly differ

2002-11-23 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 170472 general Bug#170472: info: top Info pages of different packages wildly differ Bug reassigned from package `info' to `general'. > -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administ

NM application

2002-11-23 Thread Geoff O'Callaghan
G'day, Sorry to raise this at the moment as i'm sure everyone is busy recovering from recent events and even though this is probably not the appropriate forum all my other efforts have fallen on deaf emails. Anyway, I'm trying to find out why my NM application ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is taking so

Re: Another mass bug filing: get rid of xlib6g*

2002-11-23 Thread Jaldhar H. Vyas
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Stephen Zander wrote: > > "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Branden> /me wanders off, laughing maniacally and regressing to > Branden> childhood Saturday nights watching PBS... > > Did you call your dog K-9 and and build a phone booth out

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal

2002-11-23 Thread Clint Adams
> How did this "killing" happen? Certainly not by denying them space on > Debian's servers. In fact, Mozilla "killed" Netscape because Netscape, Poor "John Galt" is fooled by "Branden" into "thinking" that Netscape is "dead".

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal

2002-11-23 Thread John Galt
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: >On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:36:52PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: >> Because, at the time that "we" wrote it, non-free (in particular: >> PGP, ssh, Netscape, IIRC) was a much more important part of Debian than >> it is now. Those three sets of packages wen

Bug#170484: ITP: chaksem -- a LaTeX class for presentations

2002-11-23 Thread Jamie Wilkinson
Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2002-11-24 Severity: wishlist * Package name: chaksem Version : 1.6a Upstream Author : Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/presentation/presentation.html * License :

Re: Bug#170472: info: top Info pages of different packages wildly differ

2002-11-23 Thread Peter De Wachter
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 06:18:15AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > Gentlemen, the top Info pages of different packages wildly differ: > e.g. > $ info m4 > has a nice header "GNU m4" > but > $ info gawk > has a lower level header 'General introduction', while > $ info yorick > has a menu without a head

Re: libpng problems still?

2002-11-23 Thread Junichi Uekawa
At Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:07:11 +1100, Nick wrote: > Sorry to trouble people, but I can't seem to work out why the libpng-dev > package for debian testing is uninstallable for me. when I go `apt-get > install libpng-dev` I get > > Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: > libpn

Bug#170472: info: top Info pages of different packages wildly differ

2002-11-23 Thread Dan Jacobson
Package: info Version: 4.1-2 Severity: normal Gentlemen, the top Info pages of different packages wildly differ: e.g. $ info m4 has a nice header "GNU m4" but $ info gawk has a lower level header 'General introduction', while $ info yorick has a menu without a header, while $ info emacs says "the

Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?

2002-11-23 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 04:32:22PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > Why not build against testing by default, and have something auto-build > against unstable and report to the maintainers of the package that won't > build and the libary it won't build against whenever there is an error? Many problems,

Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?

2002-11-23 Thread Mike Fedyk
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:25:28PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:13:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >I'm not saying this is the only way that can happen; VNC could just > >have been built first and never rebuilt against the new libc6. That > >happens a lot. But t

Norton AntiVirus detected a virus in a message you sent. The inf ected attachment was deleted.

2002-11-23 Thread NAV for Microsoft Exchange-TB_EXCH1
Recipient of the infected attachment: info\Inbox Subject of the message: Meeting notice One or more attachments were deleted Attachment All.exe was Deleted for the following reasons: Virus [EMAIL PROTECTED] was found. <>

Re: Bug#170069: ITP: grunt -- Secure remote execution via UUCP or e-mail using GPG

2002-11-23 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:31:46AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > You need to keep track (at both ends of the link) of the last > sequence number sent. can we perhaps set up a mailinglist or discuss this on the mailinglist of grunt, it realy gets offtopic. Greetings Bernd

Re: Bug#170069: ITP: grunt -- Secure remote execution via UUCP or e-mail using GPG

2002-11-23 Thread Brian May
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 06:22:53PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > In case it hasn't been mentioned, one could use sequence numbers, ala tcp. You need to keep track (at both ends of the link) of the last sequence number sent. Or, if you allow emails to be sent from multiple hosts, you need to keep tra

Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?

2002-11-23 Thread Michael Stone
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:03:40AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Roberto Suarez Soto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I may be wrong, but I assume you're talking IDE here. And, IMHO, IDE disks are not the best thing for a medium/high traffic server. A 120 GB ATA-100 IBM disk costs $162 at g

Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?

2002-11-23 Thread Michael Stone
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:13:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: I'm not saying this is the only way that can happen; VNC could just have been built first and never rebuilt against the new libc6. That happens a lot. But this way you can upload packages which are already unbuildable. That's bad,

Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?

2002-11-23 Thread Herbert Xu
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not saying this is the only way that can happen; VNC could just > have been built first and never rebuilt against the new libc6. That > happens a lot. But this way you can upload packages which are already > unbuildable. > > That's bad, mmkay

Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?

2002-11-23 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:14:23AM -0800, Thomas Zimmerman wrote: > > Yes, this is the sort of anecdotal 'evidence' that is of no use > > whatsoever. Most of the time it turns out to be a matter of local > > system configuration. IDE DMA is one of the bigger culprits here. > > Is it really? I twee

Re: Bug#170069: ITP: grunt -- Secure remote execution via UUCP or e-mail using GPG

2002-11-23 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
> 1. notice that oops, the cd burning script will do something evil if >passed a certian type of iso. > 2. send in a fixed script > 3. run it Have you considered adding sequencing to the protocol? That is, if each of those mails above had a sequence number in them, the receiver would not execu

Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning

2002-11-23 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 10:01, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > This has nothing to do with boot-floppies. It is apt-setup, which is > run from base-config. Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't sure if all that was still there with the new debian installer. signature.asc Description: This is a digi

Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?

2002-11-23 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Steve Greenland said: > >On 20-Nov-02, 17:43 (CST), Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:34:20PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > >> > > >> > And then when libc6 2.3.x dropped into testing, and bro

Re: GNOME not starting

2002-11-23 Thread Craig Dickson
Thomas Hood wrote: > Arthur de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (I had to downgrade from 2.1.0-1 to 1.0.3-2.2) > > > > If you don't have them anymore, you can get them from: > > ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/b/bonobo-activation/ > > Unfortunately, version 1.0.3-2.2 is disappearing from

Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning

2002-11-23 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Anthony Towns | On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | > * Anthony Towns | > | On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:54:29AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: | > | > Because I'd like to Debian be installable with much fewer questions, | > | Do you realise what that means? It

Re: debian-installer status 2002-11-22

2002-11-23 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Samuli Suonpaa | Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > EVMS support has been added.. I played with it a little, but it was | > broken because it was compiled with readline support, while no | > readline libraries were in the archive. I've just played around with | > it a bit more, an

DIPLOMADO GRATUITO PARA USTED

2002-11-23 Thread Dir.Academica
UNIVERSIDAD EN LINEA - ASESORES VIRTUALES DIRECCIÓN GENERAL - BOLETIN UNIVERSITARIO Estimado usuario internet, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, tengo el agrado de invitarle a usted y todas las personas que estime, para nuestro único evento anual de capacitación gratuita, ofrecido con el fi

Re: GNOME not starting

2002-11-23 Thread Jochen Voss
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 04:27:47PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > Unfortunately, version 1.0.3-2.2 is disappearing from mirrors, > leaving only 2.1.0-1 and 0.9.6-1. I was lucky to be able to > get version 1.0.3-2.2 from a slow-to-update mirror. You can always retrive old files from http://snapshot.de

Re: GNOME not starting

2002-11-23 Thread Bruno Diniz de Paula
Hi Thomas, you could also have refered to snapshot.debian.org and looked for a snapshot prior to 11/14. It works perfectly... Bruno. On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 10:27, Thomas Hood wrote: > Arthur de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (I had to downgrade from 2.1.0-1 to 1.0.3-2.2) > > > > If you don't

Bug#170400: ITP: tsclient -- Terminal Server Client - GNOME 2 rdesktop frontend

2002-11-23 Thread Andrew Lau
Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2002-11-24 Severity: wishlist * Package name: tsclient Version : 0.56 Upstream Author : Erick Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kyle Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.gnomepro.com/tsclient/ * License

Re: Ye Olde optimization/mirror disk space debate

2002-11-23 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) | 36GB disks? Why buy 36GB disks when you can buy big ones? See, the | problem here is that things are in such frequent motion, that what | seemed like a big disk once is now small. 36GB is a tiny disk. When you are running an ftp server or similar, seek time is more

Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?

2002-11-23 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 08:36:43AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Clearly we need to test the libc6 in unstable to see if it breaks forward > > compatibility. Building packages in unstable against the "old" libc6 > > (while > >

Re: GNOME not starting

2002-11-23 Thread Thomas Hood
Arthur de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (I had to downgrade from 2.1.0-1 to 1.0.3-2.2) > > If you don't have them anymore, you can get them from: > ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/b/bonobo-activation/ Unfortunately, version 1.0.3-2.2 is disappearing from mirrors, leaving only 2.1.0-1 and

Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?

2002-11-23 Thread John Goerzen
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Clearly we need to test the libc6 in unstable to see if it breaks forward > compatibility. Building packages in unstable against the "old" libc6 (while > running them aganist the new one!) does just that. If we build everything

Re: Throwing out random thoughts about the whole non-free imbraglio

2002-11-23 Thread John Goerzen
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > * Abandon non-free entirely, but have SPI sponsor a apt-gettable server > (third-party.debian.org) for third-party developers to put .deb packages on. I'd already raised this possibility before (moving non-free out of Debian bu

Re: Bug#170069: ITP: grunt -- Secure remote execution via UUCP or e-mail using GPG

2002-11-23 Thread Shadur t'Kharn
In other news for Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 11:18:22AM +1100, Brian May has been seen typing: > The could remarkably slow the process down for slow batched based > E-Mail systems. > (it would appear to be a tradeoff of functionality/efficiency vs > security). Isn't that a fairly accurate summary of

Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?

2002-11-23 Thread Michael Stone
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:14:23AM -0800, Thomas Zimmerman wrote: On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:33:29 + Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, this is the sort of anecdotal 'evidence' that is of no use whatsoever. Most of the time it turns out to be a matter of local [snip] Is it really? I tw

Re: Status of the NM proces after the fire?

2002-11-23 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-21 11:02]: > Is there any backup? How is it going to be now? I am almost finishing > the NM process and I would like to know the status of the infrastructure > for continuing. Please see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2002/debian-devel-an

Re: New maintainer process

2002-11-23 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-22 23:54]: > My status seems to be reset :-(. I had passed all checks, and was > approved by my AM. The status information should be correct now. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?

2002-11-23 Thread Thomas Zimmerman
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:33:29 + Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me just say as a desktop user of Gentoo. I can use gentoo's X server > > and the opensouce nv driver here with kde and have a usable desktop. I > > couldn't in debian, it was just too slow. Yes, it's anticdotal.

Re: Throwing out random thoughts about the whole non-free imbraglio

2002-11-23 Thread sean finney
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > There's a real complaint: confused users and developers think that 'non-free' > is part of the Debian distribution. How to solve this without slaying > non-free? Here are some ideas, in increasing degree of drasticness. > > *

Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?

2002-11-23 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Steve Greenland said: >On 20-Nov-02, 17:43 (CST), Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:34:20PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: >> > >> > And then when libc6 2.3.x dropped into testing, and broke xvncviewer, it >> > would be broken in testing as well as unstable. Yes,

Throwing out random thoughts about the whole non-free imbraglio

2002-11-23 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Branden said: >There's always[1] going to be some new non-free thing for which there >isn't yet a free replacement. xpdf-japanese et al. didn't exist in 1997 So you admit that the original motivation for non-free is *still valid*! >when we adopted the Social Contract, as far as I know. So I don

Re: debian-installer status 2002-11-22

2002-11-23 Thread Erik Andersen
On Fri Nov 22, 2002 at 04:07:01PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > and PowerPC. Bdale started on ia64 last night. I've played around > with getting it up and running on BSD, but no luck so far, busybox > seems to be fairly Linux-centric. It is not a high priority, but if > somebody picks it up, i