Re: HOWTO Help (was: Debian DPL Debate Comments)

El día 23/03/2005 a 05:32 Alexander Schmehl escribio ... > * Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 22:25]: > > > > AFAIK we don't have a good "What you can do to help us" documentation > > > (please correct me, if I am wrong). > > How about http://www.debian.org/devel/join/ ? > > Which is linked

Re: A new arch support proposal, hopefully consensual (?)

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:56:31PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Believe what you like about what I said. I could not care less. > > What was apparently blatantly obvious to you about the nature of the > post was not to me, and I wanted to step forward to be sure that Sven's > points (which ar

Re: A new arch support proposal, hopefully consensual (?)

Believe what you like about what I said. I could not care less. What was apparently blatantly obvious to you about the nature of the post was not to me, and I wanted to step forward to be sure that Sven's points (which are near to my heart as a SPARC user) were not discarded over a triviality. Is

7 Hours of Photoshop Video Training

7 Hours of Photoshop Video Training - $29.95 Download a DEMO Here http://photoshop-teacher.com/DEMO.htm Adobe Photoshop CS Adobe Photoshop CS is a professional tool for editing digital images. With Photoshop Tutorials on Video, you'll get to peek over the shoulder of a professional graphic de

update-menus runs in the background?

It seems that /usr/bin/update-menus now runs in the background. I ran sudo apt-et install glade, and after it finished, I ran ps -ef |tail -5, and the last commands running were update-menus.real, and install-menu. Is it supposed to be a background job, and, if so, why? Thanks, please Cc: me, Ju

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> "Jorge" == Jorge L deLyra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jorge> /etc/init.d/ start Jorge> in its postinstall script to start that daemon. I was not Jorge> talking about booting a system, but about using a chroot Jorge> shell to install packages in the filesystem structure of a

Re: Vancouver meeting - clarifications

On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 01:07:07PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 01:46:17AM +0100, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > > - Debian: 11 ports, 9157 packages (sarge) [17593 in sid] > > - NetBSD: 55 ports, 5300 packages > > It should be noted that the definition of 'port' isn't necessari

Re: Bug#301083: ITP: libevolution-ruby -- revolution, ruby binding for the evolution mail client

David Moreno Garza wrote: >On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 17:31 +, Henning Makholm wrote: > > >>Scripsit David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >>>Revolution is a little Ruby binding to the excellent Evolution email >>>client. >>> >>> >>Is it so little that it would be better to in

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

Florian Ernst wrote: > echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nexit 101' > /chroot/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d \ > && chmod a+x /chroot/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d > > as mentioned by Steve Langasek in > . Would someone like to package this? (No, I'm not really kiddin

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

* Jorge L. deLyra [Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:54:40 -0300]: > test -e /proc/mounts || exit 0 Others have already pointed out that a policy-rc.d script is the way to do what you want. Still, I thought I'd share a way of testing if you're inside a chroot even if /proc is mounted. IIRC, it was LaM

Re: Bug#301083: ITP: libevolution-ruby -- revolution, ruby binding for the evolution mail client

* Matthias Urlichs [Fri, 25 Mar 2005 01:46:45 +0100]: > Hi, Adam M. wrote: > > Thus, libevelution-ruby doesn't need to depend on Ruby. It only needs to > > depend on evolution. > What happens if/when ruby is updated in a non-binary-compatible way? > Or if/when somebody decides to remove ruby sinc

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

"Jorge L. deLyra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK, I read you. Your message gave me the impression that something like it > was already in place. That meaning doesn't have to be "this is a chroot", > but just "don't start daemons", for whatever reasons there may be for that > in any particular c

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

Scripsit "Jorge L. deLyra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> zless /usr/share/doc/sysv-rc/README.policy-rc.d.gz > I was not aware of this structure, but it seems to relate to controlling > the start of damons during boot or changes in runlevel. I do not see how > this will prevent a package that has a > /e

Re: Bug#301083: ITP: libevolution-ruby -- revolution, ruby binding for the evolution mail client

Hi, Adam M. wrote: > Thus, libevelution-ruby doesn't need to depend on Ruby. It only needs to > depend on evolution. What happens if/when ruby is updated in a non-binary-compatible way? Or if/when somebody decides to remove ruby since, after all, nothing depends on it? If that happens, you have

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> I think you miss my point. > > Rather than keying "restart daemons" to /proc (who would ever guess > that?!), I'm saying create something *new*, that means "this is a > chroot, don't restart demons". OK, I read you. Your message gave me the impression that something like it was already in place.

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> At least some of these packages call /etc/init.d/ start *only* if > invoke-rc.d cannot be found. Ah! This is another way how I miscounted them, since I just seached for instances of /etc/init.d/ being executed... Cheers, --

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> Pray tell, how was this list generated? The three examples that I picked > at random all use invoke-rc.d. [Two of which because they use debhelper > to do the invoking.] Oh, I see. Looks like I did a poor job here. I just searched for instances of /etc/init.d/something being executed. So, I take

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

"Jorge L. deLyra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But you might need /proc. > > Well, I am starting to see that this might not be a good way to solve the > problem but, still, if you need it, just mount it, and be aware that some > daemons may come up and down on the server if you install or upgr

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> But you might need /proc. Well, I am starting to see that this might not be a good way to solve the problem but, still, if you need it, just mount it, and be aware that some daemons may come up and down on the server if you install or upgrade some package in these circumstances. If you do not ne

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:58:22PM -0300, Jorge L. deLyra wrote: > > > I was not aware of this structure, but it seems to relate to controlling > > > the start of damons during boot or changes in runlevel. I do not see how > > > this will prevent a package that has a > > > > > > /etc/init.d/ start

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Jorge L. deLyra wrote: > nfs-kernel-server This uses invoke-rc.d: invoke-rc.d nfs-kernel-server $act > ntp-server invoke-rc.d ntp-server start || exit 0 > ntpdate as does this: invoke-rc.d ntpdate start || exit 0 Pray tell, how was this list generated? The three examp

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> > Is there some other, better solution to this problem? > > echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nexit 101' > /chroot/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d \ > && chmod a+x /chroot/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d > > as mentioned by Steve Langasek in > . OK, I got to this point:

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels (Was: Re: NEW handling ...)

On Mar 24, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That may be true for documentation but certainly not for firmware, which > has been discussed to death. (Not with a satisfactory outcome, imho.) And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not been discussed is that most p

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: > Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > What we have is source code (yes code that can be compiled) which is > > unencumbered, we can modify,compile, distribute etc... whether it is > > _harder_ to modify or not because of choices the _

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> > I was not aware of this structure, but it seems to relate to controlling > > the start of damons during boot or changes in runlevel. I do not see how > > this will prevent a package that has a > > > > /etc/init.d/ start > Well if they do they won't work on file-rc system , so are already broken

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

"Jorge L. deLyra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There is nothing wrong with mounting /proc in a chroot; you should not > > assume that chroots all lack /proc. > > Yes, I know, and I'm not. But it would be nice if one could prevent the > packages from starting the daemons by simply choosing not

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:42:01PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 24 mars 2005 ?? 14:54 -0300, Jorge L. deLyra a ??crit : > > Now, all this can be avoided very simply by a line in the init.d/ script > > for the daemon, checking that /proc is mounted. Since it will be mounted > > on norma

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> There is nothing wrong with mounting /proc in a chroot; you should not > assume that chroots all lack /proc. Yes, I know, and I'm not. But it would be nice if one could prevent the packages from starting the daemons by simply choosing not to mount /proc in the chroot.

Bug#301260: ITP: achims-guestbook -- php driven guestbook

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: achims-guestbook Version : 2.52 Upstream Author : Achim Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.lkcc.org:8500/ * License : GPL Description : php driven guestboo

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Hi Quanah, On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:58:01PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > You can find the patch for adding "-q" to slapadd on OpenLDAP 2.2 here: > > Great, thanks! Applied it to the subversion

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> I was not aware of this structure, but it seems to relate to controlling > the start of damons during boot or changes in runlevel. I do not see how > this will prevent a package that has a > > /etc/init.d/ start Well if they do they won't work on file-rc system , so are already broken ... Alban

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

"Jorge L. deLyra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now, all this can be avoided very simply by a line in the init.d/ script > for the daemon, checking that /proc is mounted. Since it will be mounted > on normal systems but typically not when using a chroot shell, it serves > as a flag to enable the d

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:54:40PM -0300, Jorge L. deLyra wrote: > Installation via chroot can be very useful for embedded systems, and also > for diskless machines that boot remotely from a server and mount the root > via NFS. If a package is being installed via chroot running in the server > it d

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels (Was: Re: NEW handling ...)

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:28:36AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put > > non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what > > isn't for all types of pa

Re: Bug#301083: ITP: libevolution-ruby -- revolution, ruby binding for the evolution mail client

On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 17:31 +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Revolution is a little Ruby binding to the excellent Evolution email > > client. > > Is it so little that it would be better to include it with the > evolution package? Not quite sur

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Jorge L. deLyra wrote: > > Write a policy-rc.d script for the chroot that denies starting either > > the particular demon or all demons in general. > > > > zless /usr/share/doc/sysv-rc/README.policy-rc.d.gz > > I was not aware of this structure, but it seems to relate to > con

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

Josselin Mouette wrote: I don't know whether we have ports without /proc, the Hurd has no /proc. Regards, Daniel -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBS

Re: Bug#301081: ITP: mutt-ng -- Mutt next generation (mutt-ng) is a fork of the well-known email client mutt

* Elimar Riesebieter: > Differences between mutt and mutt-ng: You should make clear that this list of features compares the mutt and mutt-ng packages (I hope it does). Debian's mutt package contains some of the mutt-ng patches. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

> Write a policy-rc.d script for the chroot that denies starting either > the particular demon or all demons in general. > > zless /usr/share/doc/sysv-rc/README.policy-rc.d.gz I was not aware of this structure, but it seems to relate to controlling the start of damons during boot or changes in run

Re: Getting openswan 2.2.0 back into sarge

Rene Mayrhofer wrote: >Hi all, > >[Please CC me in replies, I am currently not subscribed to this list.] > >As some have already noticed, openswan has been removed from testing a while >ago, most probably because of bug #291274, which did not apply to package >version 2.2.0-4 (the one that has

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

Scripsit "Jorge L. deLyra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Although most packages do in fact survive this process, in the sense that > the installation completes despite some errors when stopping and starting > daemons, some do cause the package tools to exit in error, leaving behind > a broken package. One

Re: discrepancies between uploaded and source-built .deb

Jeroen van Wolffelaar: > [Karl Chen:] > > > I didn't know about debdiff - that would have saved me from > > basically re-implementing it. > > Common problem unfortunately in the open source/Debian world... not that > $what_you_want doesn't exist, but that you just don't know it exists nor > where

Re: OPORTUNIDADE

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luis JordÃo escreveu: :: *O futuro à vocà quem faz... [...] Looks like a pt_BR SPAM. :o) - -- // // Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // GUD-PR / DUG-PR || http://www.debian-pr.org // GUD-BR / DUG-BR || http://www.debi

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

Scripsit Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put > non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what > isn't for all types of packages. Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason bac

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What we have is source code (yes code that can be compiled) which is > unencumbered, we can modify,compile, distribute etc... whether it is > _harder_ to modify or not because of choices the _owner/author_ has > made or not... is nothing to do with free

Re: Bug#301083: ITP: libevolution-ruby -- revolution, ruby binding for the evolution mail client

Scripsit David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Revolution is a little Ruby binding to the excellent Evolution email > client. Is it so little that it would be better to include it with the evolution package? -- Henning Makholm "Al lykken er i ét ord: Overvægtig!"

OPORTUNIDADE

O futuro é você quem faz...Existem boas escolhas a serem feitas... E as conseqüências de suas escolhas é que determinarão os resultados. Você está satisfeito? Como estão suas perspectivas? O que você está fazendo para mudar seu futuro?Comece já seu negócio em casa... Quais são seus sonho

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels (Was: Re: NEW handling ...)

Andreas Barth wrote: > Actually, I believe the Debian project as whole _wants_ to getting > >software released. That was at least the decision in all GRs where >people didn't hide the intents ("editorial changes"). > > Indeed. These types of changes are akin to changing a country's constitution

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

Hello! On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:54:40PM -0300, Jorge L. deLyra wrote: > Here is the story: Debian packages including daemons may be a problem for > people installing them via chroot, due to the fact that the packages will > typically try to stop and restart the daemons. In fact, this can interac

Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.

Le jeudi 24 mars 2005 Ã 14:54 -0300, Jorge L. deLyra a Ãcrit : > Now, all this can be avoided very simply by a line in the init.d/ script > for the daemon, checking that /proc is mounted. Since it will be mounted > on normal systems but typically not when using a chroot shell, it serves > as a flag

Re: Bug#295131: JFTR: sdl(glib2.0) vs. wx2.4(glib1.2) only affects scorched3d

Le jeudi 24 mars 2005 Ã 14:27 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a Ãcrit : > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > I'm not sure what to do now. Is it possible to link our wxgtk2.4 against > > > glib2.0? Or unlink libsdl from using libglib? > > > > I'm afraid there is no miracle soluti

Re: Bug#301081: ITP: mutt-ng -- Mutt next generation (mutt-ng) is a fork of the well-known email client mutt

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 the mental interface of Paul Hampson told: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:53:38PM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote: > > Elimar Riesebieter: > > > Package: wnpp > > > Severity: wishlist > > > Owner: Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * Package name: mutt-ng > > > Also n

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels (Was: Re: NEW handling ...)

Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put > non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what > isn't for all types of packages. Actually, nobody from the "more lenient" side has given a description

Bug#77570: Bug #77570 - corrupted *status* file (tagged unreproducible but shloudn't it be closed ?)

Could i close this bug ? This is a followup for bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=77570 > Configuring packages ... > dpkg: parse error, in file `/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line > 22622: > invalid package name (character `<' not allowed - only > letters, digits and -+._ allo

Re: Call for votes for the Debian Project Leader Election 2005

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 05:24:15PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > Hi, > >FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE DEBIAN PROJECT LEADER ELECTION 2005 >= === = === === == === == > > Votinge period starts 00:00:01 UTC on March 21st, 2005. >

Idea: about package installation under chroot.

Dear Debian developers, I would like to consult the developer community on the following issue. Here is the story: Debian packages including daemons may be a problem for people installing them via chroot, due to the fact that the packages will typically try to stop and restart the daemons. In fac

Re: HOWTO Help (was: Debian DPL Debate Comments)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Schmehl wrote: > I think it is quite short and is missing some quite easy tasks that can > be done by nearly everyone. > > I did the mentioned talk and am about to write the document, because I > got asked a couple of times what people can

Re: Bug#295131: JFTR: sdl(glib2.0) vs. wx2.4(glib1.2) only affects scorched3d

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > I'm not sure what to do now. Is it possible to link our wxgtk2.4 against > > glib2.0? Or unlink libsdl from using libglib? > > I'm afraid there is no miracle solution. Getting wxgtk2.5 to install Miracle? no. Technical, sound, and sane? Yes: Versi

Re: Bug#295131: JFTR: sdl(glib2.0) vs. wx2.4(glib1.2) only affects scorched3d

Le jeudi 24 mars 2005 à 14:37 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo a écrit : > [ sid / unstable ] > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED])~$ldd /usr/lib/libSDL.so > libartsc.so.0 => /usr/lib/libartsc.so.0 (0x40103000) > libgmodule-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x40109000)

Re: Bug#295131: JFTR: sdl(glib2.0) vs. wx2.4(glib1.2) only affects scorched3d

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:11:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: [...] > Sarge and sid have the same SDL version. You are basically comparing > libsdl1.2debian-all and libsdl1.2debian-oss. Yes you're right. I didn't notice that I'm using -all on my box. > > Any reason for such huge disproport

Packages count (was Re: Vancouver meeting - clarifications)

> So looks like "sarge" above should be "woody". Oh, yes. I was wondering why I found so few (!) packages, because last time I installed a fresh sarge, some debconf screen told me I could install something like 14K packages... BTW, is there any other distrib that includes officially so many packa

Re: Debian-Installer rc3 released

|| On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:53:25 -0500 || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: jh> The Debian Installer team is proud to announce the third release candidate jh> of the Debian Installer for Debian GNU/Linux Sarge. We love doing this so jh> much that we couldn't resist updating the installer one mo

Re: Bug#301081: ITP: mutt-ng -- Mutt next generation (mutt-ng) is a fork of the well-known email client mutt

* David Schmitt [Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:44:31 +0100]: > how many prospective maintainers have already failed to fill out these > fields. #293361 - reportbug: add reminder to fill fields to the ITP template -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Don't ask the barber whe

Re: Bug#295131: JFTR: sdl(glib2.0) vs. wx2.4(glib1.2) only affects scorched3d

On Thursday 24 March 2005 14:37, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: [analysis skipped] > I'm not sure what to do now. Is it possible to link our wxgtk2.4 against > glib2.0? Or unlink libsdl from using libglib? I found the cause: libSDL.so from libsdl1.2debian-all links against glib2.0 (and much othe

Re: Bug#295131: JFTR: sdl(glib2.0) vs. wx2.4(glib1.2) only affects scorched3d

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:42:48AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > zion:~# apt-cache showpkg libsdl-mixer1.2 libsdl-net1.2 libsdl1.2debian-all | > grep '^ ' | sort -u | cut -d ',' -f 1 > /tmp/sdldeps > zion:~# apt-cache showpkg libwxgtk2.4 | grep '^ ' | sort -u | cut -d ',' -f > 1 > > /tmp/wxdep

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:31:22AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > Henning Makholm writes: > > Yes, but we shouldn't act as if it was a _freedom_ problem. > > If it was deliberately made bloody horribly ugly and painful in order to > make changing it difficult, it's a freedom problem. Not really. How

Getting openswan 2.2.0 back into sarge

Hi all, [Please CC me in replies, I am currently not subscribed to this list.] As some have already noticed, openswan has been removed from testing a while ago, most probably because of bug #291274, which did not apply to package version 2.2.0-4 (the one that has been removed from testing). As

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels (Was: Re: NEW handling ...)

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:59:37AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 22:39]: > > I'm also not satisfied with the non-productiveness of the removal of > > useful documentation. I'm also ashamed that some hardware doesn't work > > out of the box on Debian

Re: Two thougts about testing

Steve Langasek wrote: [snip] > Auto-removal of orphaned packages from unstable is also bad if it's an > orphaned library that's still needed (which happens often enough). Auto-removal of orphaned (build-)dependency leaves sounds useful. This would also remove orphaned libraries after a while if th

Re: Found an http SourceForge archive mirror

|--==> Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo writes: BFaf> [1 ] BFaf> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote: >>For who cares.. >> >>I've noticed that my old sf ftp mirror [0] is down/broken/unmaintained. >> >>After googling a bit I found a new one: >> >>http://sf.gds

Development files for manipulating Debian packages

Hello all, Does Debian package management suite provide C APIs for easier program manipulation of .deb files? I am looking for something like RedHat's rpm-devel C API but still in vain... -- Best Regards, Ivan Kirchev [If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.]

Re: Two thougts about testing

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:55:05AM +0100, Erik Schanze wrote: > Joerg Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > reading larger parts of the recent threads triggered by the > > 'Vancouver proposal' brought me to write this mail. > > > > Over the last two years testing became more and more a second > > (alm

Re: Bug#301081: ITP: mutt-ng -- Mutt next generation (mutt-ng) is a fork of the well-known email client mutt

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:03:02AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > > Same problem here. Reported to Norbert but never got deeper into it. > > Let's try renaming mutt_dotlock to muttng_dotlock ;) > > I did that after your report a while ago, and my last package[0] > includes muttng_dotlock

Re: Possible compromise on releasing architectures

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:59:19AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: > Release candidate architecture: > > * testing managed by port release manager(s) > * testing consists of packages that built on the candidate and > are in release architecture testing with the same version Please specify what appl

Re: Bug#301081: ITP: mutt-ng -- Mutt next generation (mutt-ng) is a fork of the well-known email client mutt

* Jesus Climent wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:33:27PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > > On the other hand, I'm having a problem with the package, it > > doesn't include muttng_dotlock, and seems to think my mailspool > > (mbox in /var/mail) is read-only. (vanilla) Mutt can use it fine. > > Same

Processed: Re: fonts, entiity and konqueror/qt

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > clone 238833 -1 Bug#238833: general: not all fonts contain glyphs for all codepoints Bug 238833 cloned as bug 301194. > reassign -1 libqt3c102-mt Bug#301194: general: not all fonts contain glyphs for all codepoints Bug reassigned from package `general'

Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

n Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:44:15AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote: > > Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to > > this? > > > > Even less (likely zero) testing of packages by the maintainer before they > uplo

Re: If Debian's too radical for you... [was: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:50:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Is it as easy to participate with Ubuntu as it is with Debian? In some respects it is easier. For one thing you can become a maintainer there without going through an NM ordeal. -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels (Was: Re: NEW handling ...)

* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 22:39]: > I'm also not satisfied with the non-productiveness of the removal of > useful documentation. I'm also ashamed that some hardware doesn't work > out of the box on Debian because we decided that firmware are software > and thus should meet DFSG.

Re: Bug#301081: ITP: mutt-ng -- Mutt next generation (mutt-ng) is a fork of the well-known email client mutt

On Thursday 24 March 2005 00:09, Petri Latvala wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:35:35PM +0100, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > Version : x.y.z > > Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://www.example.org/ > > * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X,

Re: *** SPAM *** Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels (Was: Re: NEW handling ...)

* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050324 00:35]: > On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:40, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being > > supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no > > longer available, I'd

Re: Possible compromise on releasing architectures

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:12:35AM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:59:19AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: > > Release candidate architecture: > > > > * testing managed by port release manager(s) > > * testing consists of packages that built on the candidate and > > are in

Re: debian development diagram: major rework!

On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:05:28PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 20 mars 2005 à 08:48 -0500, Kevin Mark a écrit : > > Hi all you folks who have exercised your fingers and eyes because of > > 'vancouvor', > > In my quest to see how things work, I have made some major revision to > > m

Re: If Debian's too radical for you... [was: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:49:39AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:13:05 +1100, Matthew Palmer > >"Some would say that this has already happened". Not a fork, per se, but > >Ubuntu's licencing policy (and the general level-headedness of the people I > >know who are deeply involve

Re: Vancouver meeting - clarifications

Pierre THIERRY wrote: Scribit Anthony Towns dies 23/03/2005 hora 21:52: Pierre THIERRY wrote: - Debian: 11 ports, 9157 packages (sarge) [17593 in sid] Hrm, where are those numbers from? wc -l (modulo the first lines) of the allpackages.txt file on the website Aha, with just a straight wc -l of thos

Possible compromise on releasing architectures

The Vancouver meeting concluded that more of the burden of supporting the various architectures needs to be on the port teams, but did not supply a workable way for releases to be made on less popular architectures. Here's a proposal that will hopefully both meet the main desires of the release ma

Re: Bug#301081: ITP: mutt-ng -- Mutt next generation (mutt-ng) is a fork of the well-known email client mutt

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:39:04AM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:33:27PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > > On the other hand, I'm having a problem with the package, it > > doesn't include muttng_dotlock, and seems to think my mailspool > > (mbox in /var/mail) is read-only. (

Re: sliced bread (was: Debian-Installer rc3 released)

On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 09:19 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Code? Where's the code? According to DFSG clause 2, you must give me > the source code for sliced bread!!!1 You just want your cake, and to eat it too. Or is that something else?? ;-) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.seigan.org PGP Key finger

sliced bread (was: Debian-Installer rc3 released)

Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kudos to Joey and the D-I team for all the effort, dedication and time spent > in making D-I one of the best pieces of code ever since the invention of apt > and sliced bread. Code? Where's the code? According to DFSG clause 2, you must give me the sou