Re: pbuilder status update

: new upstream release > >available: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/tmp/20050821/ All done. >regards, > junichi > >-- >Junichi Uekawa, Debian Developer http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/ >183A 70FC 4732 1B87 57A5 CE82 D837 7D4E E81E 55C1 Anibal Monsalve Sal

Re: Bug#323227: new list: debian-planet to distribute planet.debian.org postings; archive to enable searching

* Christoph Berg | I'd like to have a debian-planet list that would receive blog postings | from planet.debian.org. | | The main reason is that after postings expire on the planet website, | it's very hard to find old postings if you cannot remember who wrote | it. Think of "there was some nice

Re: arch, svn, cvs

* "Roberto C. Sanchez" | OK. Then please just name two or three. I am geniunely interested. | I switched from CVS to subversion exclusively for my own use when | Sarge went stable. I still use CVS occasionally since some projects | to which I contribute use CVS (e.g., on sourceforge). I just

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for August 19, 2005

* Piotr Roszatycki | The WNPP messages was dropped. The RC report are the only messages generated | automatically and flooding debian-devel-announces list. I suggest using a bigger mailbox for your d-d-a subscription if one mail a week is considering «flooding». Even when said mail is 4500 lin

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd love to see people migrating to Arch Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you that Arch has been orphaned upstream. Currently baz is the only version being developed, and it's unclear for how long, as Canonical has their eyes on

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for August 19, 2005

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 12:04:34PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > I suggest using a bigger mailbox for your d-d-a subscription if one > mail a week is considering «flooding». Even when said mail is 4500 > lines long. One of the things with d-d-a is that it's not a list where you want to have pe

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:05:43PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd love to see people migrating to Arch > > Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you that Arch has been > orphaned upstream. Correction: tla, an Arch frontend, h

ITP: python-utidylib -- Python wrapper for TidyLib

retitle 244110 ITP: python-utidylib -- Python wrapper for TidyLib owner 244110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] thanks Hi all, thanks for a quick response, I'm taking over this ITP. Here's the final package description (just for the record): Package name: python-utidylib Version : 0.2 Upstre

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 09:11:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:05:43PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd love to see people migrating to Arch > > > > Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you tha

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.21.0306 +0200]: > Uhm, CVS implements RCS, but exposes a different interface. I don't think this is accurate. CVS uses RCS internally, but provides its own implementation in case $RCSBIN/$PATH don't contain the RCS binaries. It does not adver

Bug#324296: ITP: ldapscripts -- Add and remove user and groups stored (using ldap)

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: ldapscripts Version : 1.2 Upstream Author : Ganaël LAPLANCHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://contribs.martymac.com/ * License : GPL Description : Add and remove

Re: Bug#324296: ITP: ldapscripts -- Add and remove user and groups stored (using ldap)

owner 324296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] submitter 324296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] thanks damned, why don't reportbug honour DEBEMAIL ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpWXjIt

Re: Bug#324296: ITP: ldapscripts -- Add and remove user and groups stored (using ldap)

Package: reportbug Version: 3.15 Severity: important Le Dim 21 Août 2005 17:02, Benjamin Seidenberg a écrit : > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > owner 324296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] submitter 324296 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] thanks > > > > damned, why don't reportbug honour DEBEMAIL ? > > Had same issue, check y

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > >> > > most popular open source revision control software. > >> > > >> > And among the most horrib

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements -- requirements that > a port would need to fulfill in order to be allowed on t

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official Debian Developers. Is that intended to change, or is it a typo in the proposal? I don't know what is the rule but personnally, I never upload a package I haven't build, I rebuild all packages I sp

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 19:28 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in > > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements -- req

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

Hi Jonas! You wrote: > > - binaries must have been built and signed by official Debian > > Developers > > Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official > Debian Developers. Sponsors do build the packages they sponsor themselves. Or at least, they should. -- Kind re

Bug#324354: ITP: libpathan -- open source implementation of the W3C XPath 2 specification

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Tomas Fasth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libpathan Version : 2.0beta Upstream Author : DecisionSoft Limited <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://software.decisionsoft.com/pathan2Info.html * License : BSD Description

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in > > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official > Debian Developers. They are supposed to be BUILT by the sponsor of non-DDs, not just signed. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official > Debian Developers. Ahem, no! As the sponsor, you should rebuild the package from source using the diff from the packager, and using the upstream sources, not

Be sure you pack your bags yourself (was: Results of the meeting...)

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official > Debian Developers. Be sure you pack your bags yourself. Keep your bags under your control at all times. Never carry a package with unknown contents for any re

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:28:55 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by > official Debian Developers. Can you share with us the list of developers merely signing sponsored packages, so action can be taken? > Is that

Sponsoring procedures

Scripsit Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > As the sponsor, you should rebuild the package from source using > the diff from the packager, and using the upstream sources, not the sources > provided by the packager. See this page: > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging

vancouver revisited

Hi, Some comments : > Initial: > - must be publically available to buy new Trivially true for any architecture, even VAX. > - must be freely usable (without NDA) > - must be able to run a buildd 24/7 without crashing > - must have an actual, working buildd > - must include basic UNIX functional

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 19:55 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official > > Debian Developers. > > > > Is that intended to change, or is it a typo in the proposal? > > > I don't know what is the rule but perso

Re: vancouver revisited

Hi, * Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050821 22:39]: > Some comments : > > - must include basic UNIX functionality > Whatever that may mean there are processes. there is dns name resolution. there is networking. there is chroot. etc. Just really basic things (and, of course, none of

Re: Be sure you pack your bags yourself (was: Results of the meeting...)

On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 19:44 +, W. Borgert wrote: > I hope, that no DD ever signs a package, unless created by a DD > and already signed by them. There would be no reason to do it. If one of us already signed, then it is valid; if there are two (or maybe more) sign on a package, then it can not

Re: vancouver revisited

Hi, > > > Bogus requirement. At the moment we have less then 1 s390 buildd for > > example. > > "machine" translates with partition btw - though the two different > partitions should be in different physical locations, for obvious > reasons. Yes, we want a redundancy for good reasons. > Which

Team have veto rights, because they can just refuse the work anyway? (Was: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal)

[Wouter Verhelst] >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work. This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to accept decisions made by a majority of debian developers, or rejects democratic control,

Re: vancouver revisited

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:54:43PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050821 22:39]: > > > - must have a working, tested installer > > Trivial. debootstrap does that. > How do you boot the system to run debootstrap? (Note: the answer > "gentoo" or "Win

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21-08-2005 21:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:28:55 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > >>Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by >>official Debian Developers. > > > Can you

Re: Be sure you pack your bags yourself

Scripsit Laszlo Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 19:44 +, W. Borgert wrote: >> I hope, that no DD ever signs a package, unless created by a DD >> and already signed by them. > There would be no reason to do it. If one of us already signed, > then it is valid; It may b

Re: version numbering

On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 00:52 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lars Bahner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.18.2346 +0200]: > > Please CC: me as I am not on this list! > > Please consider setting Mail-Followup-To accordingly. > > > Upstream names the betas for 0.7.3.3 as 0.7.3.3.b1-b30 - as

[PATCH] Simple parallellized boot sequence (and a plea for LSB complience)

Recently, I have been investigating how to speed up the boot process in Debian, and during this work, I found a simple way to change /etc/init.d/rc to run all init.d scripts with the same sequence number in parallell. Patch included below. For this change to work as it should, we need to make sur

Re: [PATCH] Simple parallellized boot sequence (and a plea for LSB complience)

also sprach Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.22.0113 +0200]: > Any comments on this approach? The place to discuss issues like this would be the initscripts-ng project on alioth. There's a mailing list... -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`.

Re: version numbering

Robert Collins wrote: > martin f krafft wrote: > > Lars Bahner wrote: > > > Please CC: me as I am not on this list! > > > > > Upstream names the betas for 0.7.3.3 as 0.7.3.3.b1-b30 - as you no > > > doubt already guessed. > ... > > > So now that there is no beta-versioning, the installer sees this

how to fully replace another package

The (still not uploaded) coldplug package conflicts+depends+provides hotplug. The issue is that since all the important parts of hotplug are conffiles they are not deleted when the package is removed, and this is bad (as in "the system will probably not boot" bad). Does a way to force purging the

Re: [PATCH] Simple parallellized boot sequence (and a plea for LSB complience)

On Aug 22, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in parallell. Patch included below. For this change to work as it > should, we need to make sure init.d-scripts are ordered according to > dependency, so scripts needed by other scripts get a earlier sequence > number. And to make it p

Re: Team have veto rights, because they can just refuse the work anyway? (Was: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal)

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Wouter Verhelst] > >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to > >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work. > This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to > accept de

Re: version numbering

also sprach Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.22.0053 +0200]: > I think the ~ is the Right Way. > 0.7.3.3~b1 < 0.7.3.3~b30 < 0.7.3.3 This will not yet work with the Debian archive scripts. It will be the right way, but not yet. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read th

Re: vancouver revisited

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:24:48PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > well, if the package is bogus from the language usage, than that's not > > the porters problem (but how often did that hit exactly one arch?). If > I have seen multiple examples of builds failing because the testsuite or

Re: Team have veto rights, because they can just refuse the work anyway? (Was: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal)

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Wouter Verhelst] > >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to > >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work. > > This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to > accept d

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> - binaries must have been built and signed by official Debian >> Developers > > Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official > Debian Developers. I always build the packages before sponsor it since I usually check against

Re: version numbering

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:31:34PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > An example where an epoc would be needed would be if 0.7.3.3 was > uploaded as 7.3.3 instead. The epoc is designed to handle this > problem and allows 1:0.7.3.3 to be later than 7.3.3 to fix that > situation. But that is not the case h

Re: Bug#324179: ITP: quake3 -- a famous first person shooter by ID-Software

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 02:42:18PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: > But we've know about it for a week. That's plenty of time to register > a source-forge project, knock up a coming-soon webpage, install a > piece of webforum software and a blog, and maybe a wiki, produce a > list of things

Re: [PATCH] Simple parallellized boot sequence (and a plea for LSB complience)

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:13:08AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > +for pid in $pids ; do > +wait $pid > +done Isn't just: wait enough? -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject o

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement > it? Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about reimplementing it? Daniel -- /--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECT

version numbering

On Aug 18, Lars Bahner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Hi, > > Please CC: me as I am not on this list! > > As I upgraded rscheme today to the final non-beta version I ran into > problems with the version numbering. > > Eg: > old version (0.7.3.3.b30-1) in unstable >= new version (0.7.3

Re: Mindterm

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 12:18:29AM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: > Many internet cafe's or kiosk computers (or school computers, *sigh* > though they're a lot better than they used to be) prevent running > executables from outside specific paths, and limit write access to > those paths. Also, I

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation with special emphasis in security

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement > > it? > > Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about > reimpleme

Bug#324422: ITP: quaneko -- An index tool of TXT, PDF, DOC, HTML and others

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: LI Daobing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: quaneko Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : Thomas Jund, Andrew Mustun and Laurent Cohn * URL : http://quaneko.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Description : An index tool

Re: arch, svn, cvs

[Tollef Fog Heen] > I just stumbled across one issue: it doesn't handle the case where > you change your encoding without checking out the repository again: > > : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/svn/trunk > LANG=en_US.UTF-8 svn st > svn: Valid UTF-8 data > (hex: 46) > followed by invalid UTF-8 sequence > (he

Re: Sponsoring procedures

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Henning Makholm wrote: > In practice it is acceptable for the sponsor to recompute the .diff.gz > and .dsc using dpkg-buildpackage (which in any case ought to produce > identical files). But I think the sponsoree should provide a .dsc > nevertheless, if only to document the ch

Re: vancouver revisited

[Andreas Barth] > > "machine" translates with partition btw - though the two different > > partitions should be in different physical locations, for obvious > > reasons. Yes, we want a redundancy for good reasons. [p2] > Which is very arbitrary to me, machine to me means physical box with > har

Re: arch, svn, cvs

On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 21:00 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Greg Hudson contributes an interesting viewpoint: > >> > >> > > > > Well written, but does it contribute to our discussion here? Arch > > and Baz can both be used centrally, and

Re: Bug#323855: ITP: opencvs -- OpenBSD CVS implementation withspecial emphasis in security

Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 02:20:45PM -0700]: > > For several reasons, one being that the BSD folks use CVS extensively, it's > > part of how the ports system (and upgrades) work. > > How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement > it? The OBSD crowd h

Re: Mindterm

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 12:18:29AM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg > wrote: > >> Many internet cafe's or kiosk computers (or school computers, >> *sigh* though they're a lot better than they used to be) prevent >> running executabl

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in > > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements