On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:29:55 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So while I'd love to have a way to have -dbg packages available for
> every binary, I actually am happy with this proposal to do it for only
> every library (plus whatever other binaries really need it). And it's
> a direct
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 08:26:38PM -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'd be interested to see some numbers on the archive size impact - my
> > experience with C++ suggests that the size inflation caused by debug
> > symbols can be enormous.
>
> I don't know about
On 4/23/07, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, doubling the size of the archive is less of an issue than it
might have been in the past, since we've done the archive split, and
since ftp-master has 1.4 Terabytes of disk with half that unused, but
it is still a concern, for mirrors, numb
Package: wnpp
Owner: Varun Hiremath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libvorbisspi-java
Version : 1.0.2
Upstream Author : Joseph Hines, Dong Yang, Scott Pennell, Dmitry Vaguine
* URL or Web page : http://www.javazoom.net/jlgui/api.html
* License : LGPL
Package: wnpp
Owner: Varun Hiremath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libjlayer-java
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Joseph Hines, Dong Yang, Scott Pennell, Dmitry Vaguine
* URL or Web page : http://www.javazoom.net/jlgui/api.html
* License : LGPL
Des
On 4/2/07, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As some of you may have noticed, the patches.ubuntu.com website and
equivalent mailing of changes to the Debian PTS and ubuntu-patches
mailing list has been offline, or at least intermittent, for a few
weeks.
This was caused by the hostin
Mark Brown wrote:
> I'd be interested to see some numbers on the archive size impact - my
> experience with C++ suggests that the size inflation caused by debug
> symbols can be enormous.
I don't know about C++, but for C it depends. For example, aalib is a
102 kb library that compresses to 44kb.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 08:39:26PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev, the -dbg and
> a -doc package. (Libraries for perl or other non-compiled languages
> would be exempt from
I demand that Neil Williams may or may not have written...
[snip]
> Upstream are using SourceForge or Berlios, not Alioth. Upstream don't use
> dh_strip or debhelper
And, of course, upstream is not a Debian package maintainer.
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashi
Neil Williams wrote:
> > > Certain packages have already had bug reports requesting a -dbg
> > > package.
> >
> > I'd rather see some offline debug-symbol infrastructure for all
> > packages implemented, so that you can download the debug symbols when
> > you need them.
>
> But the -dbg package on
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:15:36PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> If there are concerns over archive size, why don't we drop all static
> .a libraries at the same time. Given that in Debian we typically
> always link dynamically, is there a need for .a libraries in all but a
> handful of cases?
I'd
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:31:04PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Did you ever try to debug an application compiled with optimizations?
> No, either you build an optimized version (-O2) or you build a debug version
> (-g). If you want to debug what was coded, you better compile without
> optimiz
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 22:56 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Did you ever try to debug an application compiled with optimizations?
>> Yes, I do it all the time.
> Hmm, must be personal preference, then. It m
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:15:36PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> If there are concerns over archive size, why don't we drop all static
> .a libraries at the same time. Given that in Debian we typically
> always link dynamically, is there a need for .a libraries in all but a
> handful of cases?
D
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 04:40:45PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 22-Apr-07, 16:22 (CDT), Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Because segfaults are often not easily reproduced. Having the ability to
> > analyse a crash that occured when the user did not have the -dbg
> > package
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 22-Apr-07, 14:39 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
>> binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev, the -dbg and
>> a -doc package. (Libraries for p
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
> > 2. Why a seperate -doc? API docs should be part of the -dev package.
>
> In practice, such attitudes are commonly expressed as RTSL. (Read The
> Source, Luke). That does NOT encourage upstream usage of Debian as a
> distro.
>
> Is man (3) really so
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 04:40:45PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> That's an argument in favor of making the base library package built
> with debug symbols and then stripped[1], not of requiring -dbg packages.
Depends what you put in the -dbg package; it could be the symbols
stripped out of the
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:39:26 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev, the -dbg and
> a -doc package. (Libraries for perl or other non-compiled languages
> would be exempt from -dbg p
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:14:04 -0500
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22-Apr-07, 14:39 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> > binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev, the -dbg
> >
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:31:04PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 22:12 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> > Actually, you don't. See the features of dh_strip introduced at debhelper
> > level V5. And of course you can do the same thing by hand.
> >
> > gdb will read the resulting
On 22-Apr-07, 16:22 (CDT), Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 16:14 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 22-Apr-07, 14:39 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> > > binary pack
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 16:14 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 22-Apr-07, 14:39 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> > binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev, the -dbg and
> > a -doc package.
Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 22:56 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 22:12 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> >> Actually, you don't. See the features of dh_strip introduced at
> >> debhelper level V5. And of course you can do the same thing by hand
On 22-Apr-07, 14:39 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4
> binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev, the -dbg and
> a -doc package. (Libraries for perl or other non-compiled languages
> would be exem
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 22:12 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> Actually, you don't. See the features of dh_strip introduced at
>> debhelper level V5. And of course you can do the same thing by hand.
>> gdb will read the resulting detached debugging symbols
Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 22:12 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 21:39 schrieb Neil Williams:
> >> Apart from those limitations, is there a *technical* reason why -dbg
> >> packages should not be available? Is it worth taking to -policy
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 22:39:41 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> For a start, it would probably make sense to file Priority: important
> bugs on sun-java5 and sun-java6 describing the breakage. Then wait a
> bit, and if upstream is too busy with other things like OpenJDK to
> address the issue, up
* Steve Langasek:
> "unstable" doesn't mean "it's ok to upload packages with known bugs
> that render the system unusable to many users and drives them away
> from using unstable because they're using non-free software and that
> shouldn't matter to us". The consequences of breaking Java for most
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:44:28 +0200
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Certain packages have already had bug reports requesting a -dbg
> > package.
>
> I'd rather see some offline debug-symbol infrastructure for all
> packages implemented, so that you can download the debug symbols when
>
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:02:37 +0200
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 21:39 schrieb Neil Williams:
> > Apart from those limitations, is there a *technical* reason why -dbg
> > packages should not be available? Is it worth taking to -policy?
>
> You essentially ne
* Neil Williams:
> Apart from those limitations, is there a *technical* reason why -dbg
> packages should not be available?
GCC's debugging information at -O2 will continue to worsen (in part as
a result of -O2 getting better). Hence, -dbg libraries would need to
be compiled with different optim
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 22:02:37 +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 21:39 schrieb Neil Williams:
> > Apart from those limitations, is there a *technical* reason why -dbg
> > packages should not be available? Is it worth taking to -policy?
>
> You essentially need to build al
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 21:39 schrieb Neil Williams:
>> Apart from those limitations, is there a *technical* reason why -dbg
>> packages should not be available? Is it worth taking to -policy?
> You essentially need to build all library packages 2 ti
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:02:37PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 21:39 schrieb Neil Williams:
> > Apart from those limitations, is there a *technical* reason why -dbg
> > packages should not be available? Is it worth taking to -policy?
>
> You essentially need to build a
Am Sonntag 22 April 2007 21:39 schrieb Neil Williams:
> Apart from those limitations, is there a *technical* reason why -dbg
> packages should not be available? Is it worth taking to -policy?
You essentially need to build all library packages 2 times, then.
Any examples for debian/rules file?
But
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:44:28PM +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 08:39:26PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > After getting some positive feedback on this from a blog entry and
> > personal mail, I wondered if the idea deserves a wider airing.
> >
> > htt
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 08:39:26PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> After getting some positive feedback on this from a blog entry and
> personal mail, I wondered if the idea deserves a wider airing.
>
> http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/18-Mandatory-dbg-packages-for-lib
After getting some positive feedback on this from a blog entry and
personal mail, I wondered if the idea deserves a wider airing.
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/18-Mandatory-dbg-packages-for-libraries.html
Others have expressed the same idea:
http://ze-dinosaur.li
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francesco Namuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package name: gnofract4d
Version : 3.3
Upstream Author : Tim whidbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL : http://gnofract4d.sourceforge.net/download.html
License : BSD
Programming Lang: C
Package: wnpp
Owner: Varun Hiremath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libbasicplayer-java
Version : 3.0
Upstream Author : Joseph Hines, Dong Yang, Scott Pennell, Dmitry Vaguine
* URL or Web page : http://www.javazoom.net/jlgui/api.html
* License : LGPL
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 00:00 +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Did it require a manual action from ftp-master ? Either way I guess
> it takes a few days to happen.
It requires manual action. There's a bug open for its removal: #419418
> Until that time, 'pbuilder create' and 'debootstrap' and
> 'cde
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:00:48AM -0400, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:38:39AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:55:30AM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 00:27, Anibal Avelar wrote:
> > > > Hi. I see you h
Hi,
> > Does anyone know why, and better yet, how to fix this situation?
>
> Wait for libsasl2 to be decrufted out of the archive, since it's no longer
> built from cyrus-sasl2 source?
Thanks.
Did it require a manual action from ftp-master ? Either way I guess
it takes a few days to happen.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 04:34:24PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:00:48AM -0400, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:38:39AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:55:30AM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > > > On Wednesd
Hi,
cdebootstrap sid failed today :
O: The following packages have unmet dependencies:
O: libsasl2: Depends: libsasl2-2 (= 2.1.22.dfsg1-8+b1) but 2.1.22.dfsg1-9 is
to be installed
I'm not quite sure why cdebootstrap is trying to pull in libsasl2;
all packages in base seem to have already migr
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:38:39AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:55:30AM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 00:27, Anibal Avelar wrote:
> > > Hi. I see you have in queue NEW three packages: beryl-plugins,
> > > beryl-settings and emerald [1] and not
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:20:55PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> cdebootstrap sid failed today :
> O: The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> O: libsasl2: Depends: libsasl2-2 (= 2.1.22.dfsg1-8+b1) but 2.1.22.dfsg1-9
> is to be installed
> I'm not quite sure why cdebootstrap is tryi
Kinh thua quy vi!
Ung thu la can benh gay nguy co tu vong cao neu khong duoc phat hien som va
dieu tri dung va kip thoi.
Hoi thao "Tien bo trong dieu tri Ung thu the ky 21" do Tap doan Benh vien
Parkway to chuc.
Vao ngay : 5/5/2007
Tai: Khach san Bamboo Green Central,
158 Phan Chu
Torsten Werner wrote:
> I call the binary package
> libcommons-configuration-java but not the source package.
This is one of the two conventions used by the Java packaging team (and IMHO
the best option), cf. commons-logging and commons-daemon packages. The
other common option is to name both sour
> I doubt that.
> You can easily run into this problem by using
> make-kpkg --rootcmd fakeroot modules-image
> and the nvidia module will fail with
Does this happen every time?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GROUP Watchdog
Server: HUX01
---
Az Ön által küldött levél tiltott állománytípust tartalmazott, ezért nem került
kézbesítésre. /
Your mail item contained attachments that are denied by type.
--
On 4/21/07, Damián Viano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mmm... I think commons-configuration can be a slightly misleading
name, how about libcommons-configuration-java following lots of
libcommons-* packages already in the archive?
A full name would be: libapache-jakarta-commons-configurati
Hi,
On 4/22/07, Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Take into account that if upstream later on changes the version to
something not date based you might have to use an epoch.
sure.
Cheers,
Torsten
--
blog: http://twerner.blogspot.com/
homepage: http://www.twerner42.de/
--
To UNSUBSC
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:23:56 +0200 Evgeni Golov wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:25:22 +0200 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > > Out of 10126 diff.gzs I got from sid, 1241 have "bad" dependencies -
> > > time for mass-bugfilling?
> >
> > Have you checked that those are effectively dependencies from "Ar
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:55:30AM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 00:27, Anibal Avelar wrote:
> > Hi. I see you have in queue NEW three packages: beryl-plugins,
> > beryl-settings and emerald [1] and not ready (yet) beryl.
>
> Firstly, the beryl packages were REJECTED b
56 matches
Mail list logo
