On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 19:23, Jonathan Oxer wrote:
> * Package name: gtkscintilla2
> Description : Gtk-2 wrappers for the Scintilla source editing components
GTK+ is spelled with all CAPS and a "+" at the end. Also, I think you
can omit the "-2" - it is implied in the dependencies. (Also,
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003, John Belmonte wrote:
> However in your package, assuming it is compiling GPL'd modules and
> including them in the library, is producing an object file governed by
> the terms of the GPL. Therefore your license field should read only "GPL".
Last time I checked we didn't ha
braze polyploidy accordions anabaptist testamentary tenebrous brains achiever mayst midweek booky televisions midget crabs talk blurted angora exacter meanest bookings messiahs polygonal mattress augustus illnesses icon say merciless talus medics $RANDO
MIZE miasma thanking pornographic taxicabs m
reopen 217265
thanks
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:18, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>* New upstream release (CVS snapshot)
> - Now uses STABLE branch - closes: #217265
No, please, use only *released* versions. I have been hurt many times by
AbiWord being broken because of something whic
I'm trying to figure out the reason why orbit2 is blocked from testing,
see
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=orbit2
I understand the problem in principle: there is/are some package/s that
needs the older version of orbit2, and the other "uninstallable"
packages depend on these. Ide
severity 217265 wishlist
thanks
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:18, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> >* New upstream release (CVS snapshot)
> > - Now uses STABLE branch - closes: #217265
> No, please, use only *rele
Scripsit Yven Johannes Leist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, I for one would love to see a security announcement one day, which
> contains something like:
>
> "All users running the standard Debian kernel are not affected, since the
> special security features the Debian kernel contains prevent th
#include
* GOTO Masanori [Fri, Nov 07 2003, 01:43:15PM]:
> > Sorry, users will still ask. They always ask. Users still think that
> > updating /usr/include/linux to point to /usr/src/linux/include/linux is the
> > right thing to do.
>
> And then, which package does provide /usr/src/linux direc
Joe Buck wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00376.html:
The GPL requires that anyone who receives the work also either receives
the source for the work (the preferred form for making changes), or...
Not quite; it requires that anyone *given* the work is als
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Coin,
Gnusound is using OSS only.
Yet, afaik there's no plan to add Alsa/Esd/Arts/... support.
The included TODO file reads that the upstream author is likely to fix
many technical and cosmetic bug before adding big features.
Duck
-BEGIN PGP S
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:24:05PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out the reason why orbit2 is blocked from testing,
> see
>
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=orbit2
>
> I understand the problem in principle: there is/are some package/s that
> needs the older version
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description users)
> from asking this again and again.
system-headers-linux is a bit vague and without kn
Jonathan Oxer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 10:50, Martin Pitt wrote:
>
> > But isn't rsync supposed to do this? I don't know exactly how
> > efficiently it detects and compresses binary differences, but it
> > definitely does it and not too bad. With rsync, you get both the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Coin,
You'r right, "Powerful" is not adequate, i just took author's descriptionw
without taking care of it.
I asked the author if it was possible to use it without gnome support and he
said it was not, so i suggest this :
s/Powerful /gnome /
Propo
> "The test incorrectly assumes that thread stacks are executable" is not
> equivalent to "thread stacks are non-executable". And there's no conflict
> in what i say above.
ok, i was quoting too much and you interpreted the wrong part. the bit
i was referring to is this:
> I suspect we both agree
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:15:06PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > I suspect we both agree that it's desirable to have thread stacks
| > non-executable as well.
|
| on one hand you acknowledge that it's better to have non-exec thread
| stacks but on the other hand you argued that
|
| > it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This ITP was badly written as it was my first attempt, sorry.
Here is a better one with an improved Description :
* Package name: ircd-ptlink
Version : 2.23.6
Upstream Author : PTlink Coders team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL or Web page
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Coin,
This ITP was badly written as it was my first attempt, sorry.
Here is a better one with an improved Description :
* Package name: ircd-ptlink
Version : 6.16.1
Upstream Author : PTlink Coders team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL or We
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: sound-icons
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Brailcom, o.p.s. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.freebsoft.org/pub/projects/sound-icons/
* License : GPL
Description : Sounds to be used for event signaliza
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 20:04:54 +1100
> Source: vile
> Binary: xvile vile-filters vile vile-common
> Architecture: all i386 powerpc source sparc
> Version: 9.4-c1
> Distribution: unstable
>
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:13:46 -0200
Michelle Ribeiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Em Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:42:03 +0100
> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Hmm, yes. Anyone speak Portuguese? :-)
>
>
> We are talking in english in the list. Fell free to join us.
Hi
Me to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: linux
Version : 2.4.22
Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/CREDITS
* URL : http://www.kernel.org/
* License : GPL
Desc
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> > This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description users)
> > fro
Peter Palfrader wrote:
Last time I checked we didn't have License fields, so this discussion is
pointless.
Indeed, I was imagining some other world. In any case, I'd assume that
the license field of the ITP is going to reflect the contents of the
package copyright file.
--
http:// if ile.o g/
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:37:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> * Package name: linux
> Version : 2.4.22
> Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see:
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/CREDITS
> * URL : http://w
One of my packages just failed to build on m68k with the message:
E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure -a' to correct
the problem.
I noticed that a couple of other packages on this arch have also just
failed to build with the same message. Does the buildd require
Hi!
I think you haven't read my previous mail:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00204.html
Please have a look at it, my response below assumes you did.
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:56:38AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>
> As an academic exercise this is f
Op vr 07-11-2003, om 17:21 schreef Paul Telford:
> One of my packages just failed to build on m68k with the message:
>
> E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure -a' to
> correct the problem.
That's kullervo.
> I noticed that a couple of other packages on this arch have
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:56:38AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>>
>> As an academic exercise this is fine and dandy, but having two
>> competing packagings of the same _basic_ component can't do us any
>> good.
>
> This isn't a "competing" pack
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:22:08PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
[another version of the linux-kernel in tha archive]
> I think you haven't read my previous mail:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00204.html
>
> Please have a look at it, my response below assume
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:14:31PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 05-Nov-03, 19:14 (CST), Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm in two minds whether or not to ask this, but I've been wondering
> > about the naming scheme for linux packages - kernel-*. Why not
> > linux-kernel-* o
Hello,
is there any reason why packages, which are already accepted and now are
in incoming.d.o are not moving to the archives?
for example http://incoming.debian.org/wget_1.9-1_m68k.deb is there
since 2003-11-04.
Other packages like xmule or webmin are having the same "problem".
Whats the probl
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there any reason why packages, which are already accepted and now are
> in incoming.d.o are not moving to the archives?
>
> for example http://incoming.debian.org/wget_1.9-1_m68k.deb is there
> since 2003-11-04.
> Other packages like xmule or w
Noèl Köthe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> is there any reason why packages, which are already accepted and now are
> in incoming.d.o are not moving to the archives?
>
> for example http://incoming.debian.org/wget_1.9-1_m68k.deb is there
> since 2003-11-04.
> Other packages like xmule or webmin are
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> is there any reason why packages, which are already accepted and now are
> in incoming.d.o are not moving to the archives?
>
> for example http://incoming.debian.org/wget_1.9-1_m68k.deb is there
> since 2003-11-04.
That's because wget starts with "w".
> Ot
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-11-07
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: multi-aterm
Version : 0.0.5
Upstream Author : Alexis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.materm.tuxfamily.org/materm.html
* License : GPL
Description : X termina
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Michael Poole wrote:
> As a user, I have never been confused by Debian's "normal" Linux
> kernel packages. What specific benefits would your proposed package
> offer?
At least, the ability to do
apt-get source linux
as it should always have been.
I think it's time we put
[ Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 11:57:28AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Having options for the sake of having options is, frankly, a hideously
> stupid design doctrine. Whose life will this package make easier? As
> a user, I have never been confused by Debia
#include
* Robert Millan [Fri, Nov 07 2003, 02:37:35PM]:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: linux
> Version : 2.4.22
> Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see:
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/CREDITS
>
Hi Eduard,
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> Before you do any such things, please ask whether anybody has more
> important things to change on the kernel packagement. And, believe me,
> there are ideas for the post-Herbert era.
>
> And now make you ready for the
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 06:12:20PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
>
> a good choice for the power user, who typicaly wants to re-compile Linux
> perself, apply per's own set of patches, etc. However, I feel that an option
> for newbie users to "install & forget" just like we do for every Debian
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:19:23PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> [ Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 11:57:28AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> >
> > Having options for the sake of having options is, frankly, a hideously
> > stupid design doctrine. Whose life wil
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are (at least) the following benefits:
>
> - Easy understanding of the package. Developers looking at the package will
>find every piece in the place Debian packages normaly put it. The binaries
>are in .deb, pristine upstream sources are
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> You have not obsoleted any of the kernel patch packages.
It's not my intention to obsolete anything, but whenever I have to add my own
patches they will be in debian/patches directory where people expect them to
be, not in a s
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:32:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Have you perhaps noticed that the kernels from every architecture build
> > from different source packages? Why don't you spend a little time
> > working out why
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:32:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Have you perhaps noticed that the kernels from every architecture build
> > from different source packages? Why don't you spend a little time
> > working out why this is so, what the issues are with trying to do it
> > from one pac
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >
> > > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> > > This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description users)
> >
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:19:20PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> This is a meaningless observation in the context of how the package
> should be structured.
You said before:
"I have never been confused by Debian's \"normal\" Linux kernel packages."
I understand the confusion in the current s
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> And then, which package does provide /usr/src/linux directory?
none should.
-Original Message-From: Kerri Bowman
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003
2:48 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Half Priced
Viag&ra
> -Original Message-
> From: Wagner,Kirby,GREENWICH,SAP Team
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Winters,John,GREENWICH,Information Services
> Cc: Halliday,Steve,GREENWICH,Information Services
> Subject: RE: Inventory Count Test
>
> John,
> Please e-ma
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryant,Susan,GREENWICH,Information Services
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:24 PM
> To: Winters,John,GREENWICH,Information Services
> Subject: RE: Resolved Deduction Report
>
> Thanks for confirming. I think we will just leave it lie u
-Original Message-
From: Fine,Paul,GREENWICH,Information Systems
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:31 PM
To: Winters,John,GREENWICH,Information Services;
Moffa,Robert,GREENWICH,Information Services
Cc: Daley,Tom,GREENWICH,Information Services
Subject: RE: Invalid SAPOFFICE user ID in rec
> -Original Message-
> From: Melody,Thomas,GREENWICH,Information Services
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 3:09 PM
> To: Winters,John,GREENWICH,Information Services
> Cc: Fine,Paul,GREENWICH,Information Systems
> Subject: FW: rice doc status
>
>
> John,
>
> Was
> -Original Message-
> From: Fine,Paul,GREENWICH,Information Systems
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:28 AM
> To: Winters,John,GREENWICH,Information Services;
> Melody,Thomas,GREENWICH,Information Services
> Subject: RE: rice doc
>
> I thought this was standard pro
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial, btw.
>
> If you think that, then you don't understand why they are all built
> separately.
I don't need to understand that.
> They all require diffe
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial,
> > > btw.
> >
> > If you think that, then you don't understand why they are all
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:35:54PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial, btw.
>
> No, the fix is a fucking huge amount of work, which is why nobody has
> done it before, even for the upstream kernel.
Appliing patches dinamic
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > If you think that, then you don't understand why they are all built
> > > separately.
> >
> > I don't need to understand that.
>
> You don't need to understand
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:48:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > If you think that, then you don't understand why they are all built
> > > > separately.
> >
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:49:59PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't. I'm going to track the latest minor version, just like the rest
> > of Debian packages do.
>
> And then you won't build on any architecture unless the architecture
> moves to that kernel version. This has been
Hi All,
I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
Policy & the Developers Reference imply that I upload V1.0 and file a
bug against ftp.debian.org to have V1.0CR2 removed from the
archive. This seems like an odd way
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:48:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Then how do you suggest maintaining a kernel 2.4.20 for one
> > architecture and a 2.4.22 for another architecture, when you can't even
> > test on either of them?
>
> I wouldn't. I'm going to track the latest minor version, just
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Then how do you suggest maintaining a kernel 2.4.20 for one
> architecture and a 2.4.22 for another architecture, when you can't even
> test on either of them? And how do you expect to ever upgrade the
> result without duplicat
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:57:54PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
> 1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
>
> Policy & the Developers Reference imply that I upload V1.0 and file a
> bug against ftp.deb
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:59:51PM +0100, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:48:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Then how do you suggest maintaining a kernel 2.4.20 for one
> > > architecture and a 2.4.22 for another architecture, when you can't even
> > > test on either of th
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
> - Automatical major updates (the x in 2.x.y). When 2.6 is suitable to be
> the default version, a simple change in -defaults package (ala
> gcc) would enforce updating on all existing systems that use this
> method. This prevents us from encount
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:35:54PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial,
>> > btw.
>> No, the fix is a fucking huge amount of work, which is why nobody has
>> done it before, even for
供应印刷设备:您好!
致
礼!
www.wztpy.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2003-11-08
Robert Millan wrote:
>I wouldn't. I'm going to track the latest minor version, just like the rest
>of Debian packages do.
You really, massively, hugely fail to understand the problem here. The
upstream kernel tree works on a small number of architectures. To deal
with this, several other architec
Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
> 1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
> Policy & the Developers Reference imply that I upload V1.0 and file a
> bug against ftp.debian.org to have V1.0CR2 removed from
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:55:25 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if you are virused, or if your sender has been spoofed, or
what. Anyway, you might want to look into this. You appear to be
spewing odd word documents people you don't know.
Jim Penny
>
>
> > -Original Message-
hello,
most of the debian kde packages start with a description, what KDE is. I am
not sure if it is a good idea to have such more geenric background info at
the beginning of a package description. I would suggest something like:
kuickshow:
--
KDE image/slideshow viewer
This package is part of
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:20:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > Then how do you suggest maintaining a kernel 2.4.20 for one
> > architecture and a 2.4.22 for another architecture, when you can't even
> > test on either
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:13:18PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> At least, the ability to do
>
> apt-get source linux
>
> as it should always have been.
>
>
> I think it's time we put an end to this euphemism called "the kernel"
> and start calling it by its proper name (if we refer to Linux, t
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: linux
> Version : 2.4.22
> Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see:
>http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/CREDITS
> * URL :
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> cu and- I would not use an epoch unless I was forced to,
> ugly package versions go, epochs stay forever -reas
You know what, version numbers stay forever too. Well, they would
if it weren't for the epoch...
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 i
On Nov 7, Mark Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
> 1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
1.0.0 will do the trick, and I think that's cleaner than something like
1.0really.
--
Neil Roeth
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:37:16PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > >
> > > > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> > > > This will
79 matches
Mail list logo
