On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi
>
> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> > it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> > aren't Debian).
>
>
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-free, not har
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:26:20AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> > it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> > aren't Debian).
>
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-free, not harder.
Permission to redistribute some bits of non-free may be specific to
Debian. Alternatively, packages may be buildable but no permission to
rebuild them g
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
>> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
>> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
>> aren't Debian).
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-f
> > On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
> > > contract, one is entitled to contract-law standards of the
> > > reasonableness of one's attempts to cure a breach when notified. The
> > > "automatic term
Joey Hess wrote:
[snip]
> doctorj
Seem to just be a SPARC buildd issue holding this out of sarge, as
reported to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] previously.
Can someone with access to a SPARC do a binary-NMU to get this into
sarge, please?
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2005/04
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: bubnbros
Version : 1.3
Upstream Authors: Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bub-n-bros.sourceforge.net/
* License : MIT
Description : The Bub's Brothers
This is a new striking n-multiplayer crazy
On 08/05/2005-10:35, Joey Hess wrote:
> ocaml-getopt
According to [1], this package was removed because of bug#306074, which
is now fixed. ocaml-getopt in unstable is now 12 days old, so I think it
can be allowed back in testing.
Thanks,
Julien Cristau
[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:45:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> >bb
> I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
> programs at exhigition boothes. It currently has no RC bug (the only
> grave bug was solved two weeks ago.
>
> So so
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 12:36:16PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:45:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
> > >bb
> > I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
> > programs at exhigition boothes. It currently has
Hello
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:03:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
...
> mnemo2
This package was 10 days old when sarge was frozen. It contain just one
minor bug. I think it can be safely added.
...
Regards,
// Ola
--
- Ola Lundqvist ---
/ [EMAIL P
On Saturday 07 May 2005 16.56, Brad and Billie Fick wrote:
> do you know how I can get the sheet music to this? If so I would greatly
> appreciate it. Thank you
There we go again. I am so glad this happens, helps to lighten the mood
everywhere and certainly eases the way to general happiness in
Hi all,
The following two packages are the only ones not in testing that I
currently use. Note that both are in woody, so it would be good they
also shipped with sarge. (packages maintainers cced, in the hope they
might fix these themselves).
(Note: I'm not a dd, so I can't fix these myself.)
Hi Gürkan,
Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2005 12:01 schrieb Gürkan Sengün:
> * Package name: bubnbros
> * URL : http://bub-n-bros.sourceforge.net/
> * License : MIT
Is it really MIT-licensed? I had a short look at making a package of that
myself, and found the following statement o
* Jaldhar H. Vyas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050506 20:00]:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
> > bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
> Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of t
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On 08/05/2005-10:35, Joey Hess wrote:
> > ocaml-getopt
> According to [1], this package was removed because of bug#306074, which
> is now fixed. ocaml-getopt in unstable is now 12 days old, so I think it
> can be allowed back in t
Hi everybody!
Although I guess there's no chance for it to make it in,
Openswan is the one on my personal wishlist.
Yes, the package is still buggy but AFAIK the bugs are eighter on the
kernel-patches (I don't use KLIPS in favor of the in-kernel ipsec layer,
and since they seem to be a real burd
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 15:01 -0400, Bruno Barrera C. wrote:
>
> So, I recently sent an email to the bbconf upstream to know if they're
> going to keep working on it. Therefore, I think that we should wait a
> bit to know his answers and then I will reply.
Quoting Upstream:
"Hm. Well, I agree, it
[Joey Hess]
> So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> being held out of sarge[1].
I would be even more interested in seeing which packages in woody are
now missing in sarge. Anyone have such a list available?
It would be nice to have some working upgrade path for th
On Sunday 08 May 2005 05:02, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> >> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> >> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> >> aren't Debian).
> > Wait a second, if you *are
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the other
> arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that explanation
> I am
> forced to agree with Ed - the
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:07:44PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Joey Hess]
> > So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> > being held out of sarge[1].
>
> I would be even more interested in seeing which packages in woody are
> now missing in sarge. Anyone have
On 4 May 2005, at 6:39 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote:
On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does
make
it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another
pac
> At the bottom is a complete list of the 2070 binary packages present in
> woody but not in sarge (including nun-US and contrib/non-free).
Correction: 2069 binary packages
The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling
Ed Cogburn writes:
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the
> internal politics of Debian. Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem
> providing access to, but not support for, non-free.
One of
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
>> > other
>> > arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that
>> > explanation I am
>> > forced to
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
> > other
> > arch! If this is not the case please explain why.
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:03:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> ...
> > mnemo2
> This package was 10 days old when sarge was frozen. It contain just one
> minor bug. I think it can be safely added.
Sorry, I don't think it's a net win to accept packages that were NEW
just before
Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> > partimage
> Bug: #294953 partimage - refuses to restore image on i386 which is
> created on s390.
>
> Synopsis: partimage seems to be i386 only, yet is still built for other
> arches. The changelog for 0.6.4-10 says:
>
> partimage (0.6.4-10) unstable; urgency=low
>
Hi Malte,
> Is it really MIT-licensed? I had a short look at making a package of that
> myself, and found the following statement on their homepage
> (http://bub-n-bros.sourceforge.net/authors.html):
Yes I have seen that as well.
> Almost all sprite images, sounds, background musics and levels a
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>>On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi
>>>
>>> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
>>> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
>>>aren't Debian).
>>>
>Not necessary. For 'sattrack
Hi,
One of my packages (ncmpc) is kept out of testing because of a missing
build for sparc (it is unblocked). Looking at the buildd log for sparc
[1], the package seems to have built successfully on April 25th 2005.
Unfortunately, there has been no upload until now. I have contacted
[EMAIL PROTECT
René van Bevern wrote:
> One of my packages (ncmpc) is kept out of testing because of a missing
> build for sparc (it is unblocked). Looking at the buildd log for sparc
> [1], the package seems to have built successfully on April 25th 2005.
> Unfortunately, there has been no upload until now. I hav
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Ren=E9 van Bevern wrote:
>> One of my packages (ncmpc) is kept out of testing because of a missing
>> build for sparc (it is unblocked). Looking at the buildd log for sparc
>> [1], the package seems to have built successfully on April 25th 2005.
>> Unfortu
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out". If people aren't going to file
bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urgency when they *are*
filed at the wrong severity, there's
Unless the theatre can ennoble you, make you a better person, you should flee
from it.
Looking for popular sfotware, but tight on budget?
We are selilng world bestseslers at the chaepest prcices around!
Why so csheap? We don't sel'll progrmas in a fancy box, with printed
documentation, etc., mean
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FWIW, I've noticed that "3.1" is already used in quite a lot of
> documentation and on websites with articles relating to Debian. It
> was announced quite some time ago, and so it would be rather
> inconsiderate [gross understatement] to change it at this
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out". If people aren't going to file
>> bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
>> treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urge
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ed Cogburn writes:
>> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
>> provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the
>> internal politics of Debian. Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem
>> providing ac
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:02:51AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:38:39PM +0200 , Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:23:51PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> > > The NMU is very simple... I don't have a problem with doing it myself in
> > > a week or two.
>
"Adam M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
>>>On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>>
>>>
Hi
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
>>>
Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
>> > other
>> > ar
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I agree completely here that all bugs should be fixed and the fact that
a bug should be RC but is not marked as such qualifies also for removal
If a bug is RC but not marked such then mark it. Then it is RC and
marked such and any discussion about qua
hoi :)
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:42:39PM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> I think the package is ready for a wider audience. I just updated it
> to the just-released upstream version 0.9, it's available here:
why do you patch the Makefile?
does 'make prefix=/usr' not work?
--
Martin Waitz
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Bruno Barrera C. wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 14:54 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > I intend to ask for removal of the following packages in the next few
> > days unless someone is willing to step up as maintainer. All of these
> > packages have been
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>"Adam M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>We are not part of Debian. We are not allowed to use certain Debian
>resources such as buildd.d.o for buildd logs, access to the incoming
>queue for buildds or wanna-build and several other things.
>
>So if Debian itself does not
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:09:27PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Allow me to explain a bit about the purpose of this application.
>
> This portion of the Launchpad application, when it is completed, will
> provide a composite index of all of the packages available in Ubuntu and in
> Debian, and l
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 22:54 -0700, Dillinger wrote:
> What do you guys think?
Go ahead. When you have something to show, I'd bet many people would be
more interested.
Benefit of doubt.
--
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/
"I think there is a world market for maybe f
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 13:11 +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> Any chance you'll at least fix the rc bug so phpdoc will enter sarge?
> It's a very small fix to the build-dep line.
What about NMUing? Sorry if this was solved before, I'm replying offline
and have not Internet access since a few days ago.
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:35:21AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> While this sounds like a very useful tool, AFAIK it is a proprietary
> service (for now?), and I wonder whether this clashes with part two of
> our social contract, at least with the spirit of it (as Debian obviously
> did not write
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: r-cran-bayesm
Version : 0.0-2
Upstream Authors: Peter Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rob McCulloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
* URL: http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/peter.rossi/resear
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 00:24 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>
> Your latest comment in #259581 is completely different from this --
> please keep the relevant wnpp bug in the loop for stuff like this!
>
> Specifically, your latest recorded comment about bbconf is "No, I will
> not take care a
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
] On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:42:39PM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
] > I think the package is ready for a wider audience. I just updated it
] > to the just-released upstream version 0.9, it's available here:
]
] why do you patch the Makefile?
] does 'ma
Get it here:
http://highlab.com/~seb/debian
Before 0.10, the upstream installed both the binaries (actually shell
scripts) and the shell libraries in /usr/bin. Starting with 0.10, the
shell libraries are moved to /usr/lib/cogito. This seems to me like a
fine thing to do, any reason Debian
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
the same directory names used across distributions provides r
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 01:10:41AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrea Mennucc]
> > me, I do my part of the work in Debian
> >
> > and nobody ever contacted me regarding the choice of the number
>
> What that...? Why on earth would you think you should be contacted
> before this sort of d
Hi,
Ok. Took me about 6 hours, but I think I checked all licenses for
non-free that were in debian/*copyright. I didn't look for other files -
there is too much stuff in non-free and I don't want to go crazy.
Anyway, I compiled the licenses and summary for what Amd64 could
distribute in
http://pe
58 matches
Mail list logo
