Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Apr 03, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A free kernel can't support that hardware. It's a shame, but it's This is a lie. Devices which need a firmware upload are supported by totally free drivers. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:52:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > > On Apr 02, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So what? > > > So it is a problem, because currently it would not be allowed. > > Where does it say that such images are not

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > | Installer images x, y, and z belong to the 'main' distribution of > | Debian, and therefore do support various recent makes of hardware > | (link to list) that require non-free firmware that cannot go into > | 'main'. If you need

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > One example: with our current package management tools once you've got > > an apt source in your configuration the packages it provides will start > > to show up in things like searches.

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Apr 03, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > | Installer images x, y, and z belong to the 'main' distribution of > > | Debian, and therefore do support various recent makes of hardware > > | (link to list) that require

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 06:15:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers. > A free kernel can't support that hardware. It's a shame, but it's > true. Do you mean to say a free in

Building issues on sparc

Hi, I am attempting to build packages on my spanking new Debian system running on sparc. Unfortunately, I have run into the following problem, when executing dpkg-buildpackage: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/sandbox/xpad/xpad-2.6$ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -us dpkg-buildpackage: source package is xpa

Re: Building issues on sparc

Søren Boll Overgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/sandbox/xpad/xpad-2.6$ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc > -us > dpkg-buildpackage: source package is xpad > dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 2.6-1 > dpkg-buildpackage: source maintainer is Soeren Boll Overgaard <[EMAIL

Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?

On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said: >> For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if >> the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? > > That's what Unstable is for. Why, if tests can be automated, do we have a need to go through the process of spreading a

Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:26:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said: > >> For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if > >> the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? > > > > That's what Unstable is for. > > Why, if tes

Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > It seems there are only minimal checks, so developers can unwittingly > upload broken packages. Any numbers where you can proof your claim? Developers are required to test the packages before upload, and I havent noticed any uninstallable package in year

Re: Vancouver meeting - clarifications

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 05:03:50PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > You don't need to install anyone else's operating system. You can easily > do : > > Boot target using NFS root Ah but how do you create an NFS root for one architecture on another? This is one of the limitations of FAI

Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:28:36PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > It seems there are only minimal checks, so developers can unwittingly > > upload broken packages. > > Any numbers where you can proof your claim? Developers are req

Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:26:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said: > >> For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if > >> the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? > > > > That's what Unstable is for. > > Why, if tes

Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria (was: Vancouver meeting - clarifications)

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:04:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > As you say, _most_ of the issues are triggered by one of those three > > chips, not all. And, by not making a hard requirement to compile the > > packages which will n

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:51:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:52:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > > > On Apr 02, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> So what? > > > > > So it is a problem, because curren

Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > Why, if tests can be automated which tests? Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

Scripsit Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: >> Scripsit Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > One example: with our current package management tools once you've got >> > an apt source in your configuration the packages it provides will s

Re: How to find out why a package was removed from testing?

Frank Küster wrote: Well, the point is that I thought about doing an NMU. However, I don't feel like digging into the problem if the package was removed for an unrelated reason which I cannot change (like dead upstream, better replacement available). Err, those are reasons to remove the package fr

Re: Vancouver meeting - clarifications

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 10:30:03PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 05:03:50PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > > > You don't need to install anyone else's operating system. You can easily > > do : > > > > Boot target using NFS root > > Ah but how do you create an

Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria (was: Vancouver meeting - clarifications)

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 10:37:25PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:04:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > As you say, _most_ of the issues are triggered by one of those three > > > chips, not all. And, b

Re: How to find out why a package was removed from testing?

I demand that Martin Michlmayr may or may not have written... > * Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-01 19:28]: >> - its open bugs (one RC, but worked on) > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/vorlon contains > # bug #295060 > remove wwwoffle/2.8e-1 > So, yes, because of an RC bug

Re: How to find out why a package was removed from testing?

I demand that Andreas Barth may or may not have written... [snip] > perhaps replacing maintainers with bugs is a good idea). I'm not so sure. What do the bugs know about package maintenance? ;-) -- | Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington, | sarge,| youmustbejoking | Northumb

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sunday 03 April 2005 05:51 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Putting items from the non-free archive in the installer images does > just that. It is debatable whether the intention is the same, but by our > rulebook, this is not allowed. Wait...so you're saying it's OK to put non-free stuff in the

bug #255367: Lake of PPTP in Debian first CD

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'd like to raise a discussion about PPTP (package name is pptp-linux). The package is used to connect to the internet, mostly with DSL connections. According to popcon.debian.org is at #3218 with 323 installations. Although that number isn't ver

Re: bug #255367: Lake of PPTP in Debian first CD

On Apr 03, Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to hear what people have to say for/against this bug report. I believe this is a reasonable request. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: bug #255367: Lake of PPTP in Debian first CD

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005, Lior Kaplan wrote: > I'd like to raise a discussion about PPTP (package name is pptp-linux). > The package is used to connect to the internet, mostly with DSL connections. I thought that was pppoe? Isn't pptp some half-assed encripted VPN protocol from MS ? -- "One disk t

Re: bug #255367: Lake of PPTP in Debian first CD

On Apr 03, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought that was pppoe? Isn't pptp some half-assed encripted VPN protocol > from MS ? No, but it's related. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: bug #255367: Lake of PPTP in Debian first CD

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I rather use PPPoE, but that's not always an option due to ISPs' choice (of hardware or software). Quoting http://www.poptop.org : "What is PPTP? PPTP stands for Point to Point Tunneling Protocol. It was developed by a consortium including Microsoft a

unsubscribe

-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#250202: Standardizing make target for 'patch' and 'upstream-source'

On Friday 01 April 2005 02:12, Scott James Remnant wrote: > I was initially thinking along these lines myself > , however I'm now starting to lean > towards not allowing arbitrary shell to just open up a source package; > it doesn't "feel" safe enough. > > I als

Bug#302993: ITP: cduce -- Programming language adapted to the manipulation of XML data

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Thomas Petazzoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: cduce Version : 0.3.1 Upstream Author : Alain Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.cduce.org * License : MIT-like license Description : Programming langu

Re: intend-to-implement: script to obtain Debian Source

Hi, > The new toolset(tentatively called dbs-ng while I'm developing it) supports > what I call pre-patched source. Was this a April-fools joke, or do you have some code that we can look at? However, the concept looks possible to implement, and will fix most of the problems we have with handlin

Re: intend-to-implement: script to obtain Debian Source

Hi, > | I second suggestion given at #250202 and like to see "unpacked" and > | "patched" targets to hit Policy 4.8. > > If so, it should be «unpack» and «patch» to match the build and > install targets. Note that there are existing packages that use 'unpack' and 'patch' targets for other meanin

Re: bug #255367: Lake of PPTP in Debian first CD

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005, Lior Kaplan wrote: > I rather use PPPoE, but that's not always an option due to ISPs' choice > (of hardware or software). I see. Well, since it IS being used to setup access, then I can't see how we could object to moving the required packages to support pptp to the first CD.