[Re-adding Cc to Kurt, as he's mentioned he isn't subscribed]
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:20:26PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> > > > And third, klik doesn't really "install". It brings exactly 1 addition
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "OndÅej Surý" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: ldns
Version : 1.0.1
Upstream Author : NLnetlabs
* URL : http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ldns/
* License : BSD
Description : dns client utilities
The goal of ldns is to s
I may add also libsdl1.2-dev depends on xlibs-dev.
Nicola Canepa
Responsabile FM
SysNet s.n.c.
Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
---
Office: +39.0521.918369
Mobile: +39.348.1561144
Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Hi,
thank you for ur assistance i got the example code of ospf routing
protocol & have understood the same ...
thank you,
with regards,
deepak
9880741114
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
>> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
>> installed without python also installed, the
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
>>> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
>>> i
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:49:12PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
> >> of being impartial in this case given his personal intere
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > The difference between "installed" ("was installed initially") and
> > "installed" ("is installed now"). The compromise we struck with upstream
> > was that we would not give the user a system with a "broken" Python. If
> > they c
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:20:32 -0500, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Obviously, your course is now clear: start a process for a GR that
>> states that the GFDL licensed works without invariant sections do
>> not fall afo
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you
> guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by
> the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full
> python som
Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> > > And third, klik doesn't really "install". It brings exactly 1 additional
> > > file (the *.cmg) onto the system. It works with "user only" privileges.
> >
> > Hang on. You loop-mount with user-only privileg
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:53:16 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is
> capable of being impartial in this case given his personal
> interests[1] in this issue.
> [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xht
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:18:15 -0500, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:27, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> The Secretary has the authority to adjudicate constitutional
>> disputes of interpretation under §7.1.2.[1] Since modifying the
>> Foundation Documents re
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:09:30PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
> > there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
> > installed without pyt
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:15:46PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> And to reiterate:
> If Debian wants to be legally safe w.r.t. mpeg encoder patents, removing some
> mpeg encoders and not others -- when the others have been pointed out -- is
> really a bad idea.
Nathanael, stop trying to make
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
> installed without python also installed, they can also now assume that
> all of python, inclu
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
>> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
>> issue.
>
> You may question it, but it doesn't affe
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem also isn't our machines but some mirror in
> low-diskspace-land.
The amount of disk it takes to carry a complete Debian copy is simply
going to be increasing. We have to tradeoff dropping a mirror or two
against the costs of weakenin
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
>> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
>> contribution, and which is (from th
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed,
>> > though? This is only an issue when mixing packages between different
>> > derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very
>> > much inclined to try to u
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
> arguing on abstract philosophical grounds r
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
> issue.
You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
>> > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
>> > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which view
Thanks to those who saved me the time and hassle of filing some wnpp
bugs.
> bricolage
#348948
> dbacl
#348949
> libcache-mmap-perl
#348951
> libmasonx-interp-withcallbacks-perl
#348952
> libparams-callbackrequest-perl
#348953
> libstring-crc32-perl
#348954
> scottfree
#348950
--
T
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:11:11 -0500, Christopher Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has
> the authority to determine these matters of interpretation?
> Specifically, who decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The
> developers do,
On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
> > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
> > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
> > the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. Thi
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
>> proper interpretation would be:
>>
>> (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
>>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
> No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
> officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
> the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no
> way arguing for any sort of exception or
* David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:58]:
> For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for breaking
> the standard library in to its component parts and not installing it all by
> default. This problem has been largely abrogated as of late, but I'd rather
> not see
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:26:29 +0100, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
>> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact that
>> works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
>> resolution to allow
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> > And third, klik doesn't really "install". It brings exactly 1 additional
> > file (the *.cmg) onto the system. It works with "user only" privileges.
>
> Hang on. You loop-mount with user-only privileges? How?
The klik client insta
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:54, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
> > Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
> > invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
>
> But if this amendment passes
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> > > not us.
> >
> >
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
> Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
> invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
But if this amendment passes, we would still have to modify the DFSG for
the sake of consistenc
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> > not us.
>
> Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
Ah, ok
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
distro's agree on then.
And one more problem:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> And third, klik doesn't really "install". It brings exactly 1 additional
> file (the *.cmg) onto the system. It works with "user only" privileges.
Hang on. You loop-mount with user-only privileges? How?
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > > of base, but not full pytho
On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
> proper interpretation would be:
>
> (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
> two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 15:15 -0500, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
> Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
The ffmpeg package doesn't include any faad, mp3, or other encoders for
which patents are actively enforced. Therefore there is no reason to
remove it from main
On Jan 19, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
Yes, I object to asking for removal of MPEG encoders because there is no
good reason to do it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le Jeu 19 Janvier 2006 22:47, Matt Zimmerman a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be
> > > part of base, but not full python, and th
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> > upstream explicitly objects to.
On 10539 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Congrats Jeroen van Wolfellaar, ftpmaster extraordinare, not afraid to take
> on
> the difficult cases (he also managed the REJECT on rte IRRC).
Nope, he didnt reject rte.
--
bye Joerg
> 16. What should you do if a security bug is discovered in o
* Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> upstream explicitly objects to.
Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, n
Em Qui, 2006-01-19 às 07:32 -0700, Joseph Smidt escreveu:
> I'm just intimadated by:
> " I provide these files without any warranty. Use them at your own
> risk. If one of these packages eats your cat or your rabbit, kills
> your neighbour, or burns your fridge, don't bother me. "
Hmmm... Just thi
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
> contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
> non-controversia
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
>
> a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
>that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
> b) include only the modules
Colin Watson wrote:
> FWIW the relevant design docs from when this was done in Ubuntu are
> here:
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EssentialPython (requirements)
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PythonInEssential (details)
>
> The rationale for the set of included modules is in the latter, and was
> basi
Apologies to AJ and the ftpmasters. I found the *important* part of the
thread, which I'd apparently missed during December, in which the
ftpmasters...
drumroll
explain what would be needed for mplayer to go into Debian now, barring
finding additional problems.
Congrats Jeroen van Wolfella
> Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 08:48, Peter Samuelson a écrit?:
> > For those following along at home, it seems klik is some sort of
> > gateway to install Debian packages on various non-Debian distributions.
> > I imagine it's an ftp frontend to alien.
>
> Well..
> In fact, it is a scripted version of
aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
> MJ Ray's already done such a summary; it's rather trivially inadequate,
> due to the information its summarising being equally inadequate.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00901.html
So the summary amounts to "patents". Is that right? In other wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How did bin-NMU numbers work for the old numbering scheme on native
> packages?
In a Complicated Way. Essentially, the debian revision and NMU revision were
filled in with 0s (which were, accordingly, not supposed to be used in normal
version numbers).
>What prohibit
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
> > available via http://klik.atekon.de/.
>
> You know, I almost didn't bother to visit the web site, since you're
> unwilling to even sign your name to your message, and you didn't say
> anything about what k
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:31 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Some reasons:
> > >
> > > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported
> > > back
> >
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006, Simon Richter wrote:
> I'm unconvinced that bumping the priority on the other terminal
> emulators is an adequate solution, hence I'm opening this "general" bug
> for discussion on how to reflect individual users' choices properly.
We had a similar problem for G
* Frank Küster [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:04:03 +0100]:
> The answer also depends on the understanding of "officially supported".
> By definition, backports are not part of a release and can never get the
> same level of support as a stable release gets, like upgrade tests (we
> already don't support up
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
> resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
> rider to be added to the SC, s
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
On second thoughts...
> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG.
The amendment intentionally talks only about what Debian is going to
do ("allow
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
>
>> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
>> the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.
>
> I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit
Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>> * Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
>> > * Joseph Smidt wrote:
>> > > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
>> > > Debian?
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> i remember a conversat
* Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:38:45]:
> * Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > * Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
> > > * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > > > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > > > Debian?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
> > available via http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having
> > unmaintained recipes and therefore some of them do not work
> > properly. I think
* Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
> > * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > > Debian?
> >
> > No.
>
> i remember a conversation where you pointed out some principal
> problems (secu
On Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:35 AM, Jérôme Warnier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
> generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
> experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
Further to
* Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
> * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > Debian?
>
> No.
i remember a conversation where you pointed out some principal
problems (security support, manpower) but in general were
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
> resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
> rider to be added to
* Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Norbert Tretkowski [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:02:03 +0100]:
> > * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > > Debian?
> >
> > No.
>
> Is this to be read "as the person behind backports.org, I don't have
> in mind working to m
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:41:19 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, the text of the amendment says at its very end:
> ,
>> Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation
>> document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority
>> to pass.
> `
>
* Norbert Tretkowski [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:02:03 +0100]:
> * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > Debian?
> No.
Is this to be read "as the person behind backports.org, I don't have
in mind working to make them official", or "I believe ftp
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
> Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> Debian?
No.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for
> > > programs
> > > i
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> > which do not su
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
> python. That is a "ease of development" helper for ubuntu.
All of those can be done today using dependencies.
.config scripts, for example, cannot.
--
- mdz
--
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
> >box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
> >unmodifi
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
> arguing on abstract phi
Hi,
> >
> > * Let's modify pbuilder to run test-build tests and (if
> > possible) also the generic tool and test-install tests.
> > These belong, I think, better into pbuilder then piuparts,
> > but it might be that piuparts should run them also.
>
> pbuilder hook is ava
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
> > that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
>
> To clarify explicitly:
>
> - Ubuntu does
I was wondering if the developers thought Backports will ever become an
official part of Debian, one where the bugs are tracked on the BTS
etc... I really want to use backports, I'm just intimadated by:
"
I provide these files without any warranty. Use them at
your own risk. If one of thes
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:08:42AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Eric Dorland]
> > This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
> > respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
> [Nathanael Nerode]
> > IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
> > after
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Then the *source* packages can legitimately use the same Maintainer: field.
> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian, the
> binaries
> can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in Debian, because they
> are essentially the same pack
Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
What does /bin/sh point to?
Could you please explain what is exactly what you need to check?
ls -l /bin/sh
In other words, what does /bin/sh point to?
What shell is /bin/sh? bash? zsh(gods no)? pos
> > >2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html
>
> the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it
> can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution.
Please read the message to debian-legal that I originally referenced. It
outlines recent
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25:45AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could
> be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is
> metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an
> Ubuntu developer in the same
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
>box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
>unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years*
>bef
On Jan 19, Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe I miss something, but for what I see we don't need udev not to
Indeed. udev can rename the modules without any need to mess with the
initramfs or change anything else. Even if the driverss have already
been loaded, network hotplug even
Md wrote:
udev now can rename the interfaces, because they haven't a name yet.
udev still loads the modules, you just have been lucky.
This is not a solution in any way.
maybe I miss something, but for what I see we don't need udev not to
load the modules: we just need they are not loaded *be
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
> > sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
> > suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
> > "distinguishing version nu
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [2006-01-19 19:21:07]:
> > > In Ubuntu, we've split the package in
> > > order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are
> > > part
> > > of base).
> > Then what's the benefit of having pyt
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
>> available via http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having
>> unmaintained recipes and therefore some of them do not work
>> properly. I think it wou
On Jan 19, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Interfaces renaming must be handled by udev because if it's not then
> > network hotplug handlers will be called with the wrong interface name.
> When are those network hotplug handlers called?
When udev receives the events from the kernel,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:54:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Interfaces renaming must be handled by udev because if it's not then
> network hotplug handlers will be called with the wrong interface name.
When are those network hotplug handlers called?
I've got udev loading the network drivers,
* Anthony Towns [2006-01-19 19:21:07]:
> > In Ubuntu, we've split the package in
> > order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are part
> > of base).
>
> Then what's the benefit of having python(-minimal) be essential at all?
you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and p
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 21:51, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
> > syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian
> > regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull
> > by Debian (in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jan 19, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Merging that into Debian would mean that udev would replace some
>> ifupdown planned functionality.
> Wrong.
I think that ifupdown maintainers are the ones who can say that for
sure,
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 12:43 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:35:45PM +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
> > After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
> > generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
> > experimental (currentl
On Jan 19, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've looked into the Suse sysconfig package, and it includes all the
> network configuration utils, such as ifup and dhcp handling, and
> they're coupled with the udev rules. As previously said those
Look harder, because there is n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jan 19, Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> udev now can rename the interfaces, because they haven't a name yet.
> udev still loads the modules, you just have been lucky.
> This is not a solution in any way.
Maybe network interface renamin
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
