Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries? (and API docs too)

Neil Williams wrote: > There is a distinct lack of man (3) and "coordinated" documentation for > libraries in Debian. True, some poorly documented packages include test > programs or examples somewhere under /usr/share/doc/ but it isn't > simple to track these down. Is it unreasonable to expect

Re: [ITH] xmltex, passivetex, offer to take over jadetex

Daniel Leidert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Am Montag, den 23.04.2007, 15:46 +0200 schrieb Frank K?ster: > > > in the last months or even years, xmltex and passivetex have been > > basically unmaintained (and they *do* have bugs), and responses from the > > list which is listed as maintainer are v

Processed: Re: Bug#420678: dmesg spam: ACPI: Unable to turn cooling device [c18e0dec] 'on'

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 420678 hal Bug#420678: dmesg spam: ACPI: Unable to turn cooling device [c18e0dec] 'on' Bug reassigned from package `general' to `hal'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system ad

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:29:55PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > 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

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:05:22 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> I would rather add it as a recommended practice in policy, with a >> note that it will become a should/must as we get better coverage, and >> _also_ provide examples of what maintainers need to do to create >> separate de

Bug#420678: dmesg spam: ACPI: Unable to turn cooling device [c18e0dec] 'on'

Package: general Severity: minor The following line is repeated continually in dmesg: ACPI: Unable to turn cooling device [c18e0dec] 'on' This begins shortly after hald loads and repeats about ten times a minute. uname -a: Linux hanyuu 2.6.18-4-k7 #1 SMP Mon Mar 26 17:57:15 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Lin

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 22:14 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * 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)

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 22:31 +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > 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 >

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries? (and API docs too)

Neil Williams wrote: > I chose Debian as a development platform for my own reasons and my > decision was "not deemed to be wise" in the eyes of some of my upstream > colleagues. As the newbie to that particular team, I was under > significant pressure to "upgrade to Fedora or SuSE". Debian needs to

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries? (and API docs too)

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 12:00:59AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:15:02 -0500 > Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 23-Apr-07, 15:51 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think that all libraries - without exception - must come with some > > >

Re: Bug#388701: Why Beryl has just four packages?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:55:47 -0500 "Anibal Avelar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If both projects joins but you don't upload them in unstable, but > while we can have beryl, I like beryl than compiz due to the > beryl-manager ;) I guess beryl-manager will be merged as well (probably renamed). --

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries? (and API docs too)

Neil Williams wrote: > Would these changes need a GR? Why would a policy change need a GR? How could a GR possibly be the best way to choose a sound technical policy? -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries? (and API docs too)

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:15:02 -0500 Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23-Apr-07, 15:51 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that all libraries - without exception - must come with some > > API documentation and the docs should be as complete and as accurate > >

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries? (and API docs too)

On 23-Apr-07, 15:51 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that all libraries - without exception - must come with some > API documentation and the docs should be as complete and as accurate > as possible - ideally generated from the source itself. That's not a Debian issue. Al

Bug#140230: good advertisement

The world has gone wireless and Mobile Airwaves (mbwc) is in the right spot in the right time with a Red Hot Product! We are awaiting Financial Results to be announced by the Mobile Airwaves any moment. With all the New Contracts they have acquired we are awaiting Record Earnings! mbwc is

Bug#206187: great information

The earth has gone wireless and Mobile Airwaves (mbwc) is in the right place with a Red Hot Product! We are awaiting Financial Results to be announced by the Mobile Airwaves any day. With all the New Contracts they have acquired we are expecting Record Earnings! mbwc is currently under val

Bug#212049: good information

The world has gone wireless and Mobile Airwaves (mbwc) is in the right spot in the right time with a Red Hot Product! We are awaiting Financial Results to be announced by the Mobile Airwaves any moment. With all the New Contracts they have acquired we are waiting for Record Earnings! mbwc

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries? (and API docs too)

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:39:26 +0100 Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After reading the responses so far, the -doc element of my original idea needs modification. > I'd like to see all library source packages having a minimum of 4 > binary packages required by Policy: the SONAME, the -dev,

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:19:39 +0100 Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reading between the lines I think Neil is assuming that good > documentation has to be large enough to be worth splitting out. In a lot of cases, yes. I do accept that some libraries - and particularly perl modules - do no

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:22:40 -0500 Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You seem to be arguing that the man pages should be in the core > library package, yes? I would prefer a -doc package that covers the entire API in a comprehensive and detailed manner, registered with helper programs

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:22:40PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 22-Apr-07, 17:01 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think libraries should be encouraged to provide significant > > documentation - what we have now is simply not enough. > You seem to be arguing that the ma

Re: Debian Development environments.

On Monday 23 April 2007 12:58, Alan Ezust wrote: > let's say you need to build from source a program such as "gimp" which has > many library dependencies. You don't know what they are, and you want > debian to auto-install the -dev packages you need. apt-get build-dep is > your friend. Speaking of

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:19:23PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Hmm, I hope this isn't a potential security hole.. I'd be happy if there > were a way to remove that info from the package, actually. I have done some work with debugedit, which is shipped with RPM - it's supposed to be able to do this,

Re: Bug#388701: Why Beryl has just four packages?

Hi. On 4/23/07, Shawn Starr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've stopped Beryl for now since they are officially merging with compiz. I need to speak to the compiz maintainer. I know something about this. Do you know is officially? The compiz and beryl teams has problems with this process (was

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:08:41PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Yes, it's deliberate. People rarely need them just because they're > > debugging something linked to libc.so.6. Having them slows down GDB > > startup and increases its memory usage, for _every_ debug sessio

Bug#420648: ITP: liburi-template-perl -- handle URI templates in perl

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: liburi-template-perl Version : 0.06-1 Upstream Author : Brian Cassidy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~bricas/URI-Template-0.06/ * License : Same as Perl

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > Are you sure the source code is in there with -g? I was pretty sure it > wasn't, only line numbers. I was fooled by the fact that the debug packages I was using have: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib>strings libaa.so.1.0.4|grep joey /home/joey/src/packages/aa

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

Mike Hommey wrote: > The point is that it's pretty useless to have a backtrace without line > numbers. That depends on whether the problem you're debugging is a bug in the library itself, or only a bug triggered by code that calls the library, or in code called by the library. -- see shy jo si

Re: Bug#388701: Why Beryl has just four packages?

I've stopped Beryl for now since they are officially merging with compiz. I need to speak to the compiz maintainer. I have 0.2.1 in a local git repository but im likely just going to chuck it out. With the merge its moot now. - Original Message From: Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > Are you sure the source code is in there with -g? I was pretty sure it > wasn't, only line numbers. You're right, it doesn't include the actual code, but the size is still roughly porportional to the size of the code in the library. -- see shy jo signature.asc Des

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Yes, it's deliberate. People rarely need them just because they're > debugging something linked to libc.so.6. Having them slows down GDB > startup and increases its memory usage, for _every_ debug session. Ok. Of course, this is also generally an argument against havin

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > 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 re

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > It would be nice if the standard iso images that Debian makes > available could be made to exclude -dbg packages as a trade-off. It > actually felt painful someday when doing jigdo on the archive, only to > see loads of -dbg packages getting downloaded, and knowing I w

Re: Debian Development environments.

let's say you need to build from source a program such as "gimp" which has many library dependencies. You don't know what they are, and you want debian to auto-install the -dev packages you need. apt-get build-dep is your friend. /etc/apt [EMAIL PROTECTED] apt-get build-dep gimp Reading package l

Re: Error with fakeroot

Heya, >> 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? with the nvidia module - yes [1]. I'm pretty sure I've seen this happen with {svn,dpkg}-buildpackage before, too - but I j

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:10:15PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:06:55PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > The point is that it's pretty useless to have a backtrace without line > > numbers. It would be interesting if there was an option similar to

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On 22-Apr-07, 17:01 (CDT), Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On 22-Apr-07, 17:29 (CDT), Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > >

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:06:55PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > The point is that it's pretty useless to have a backtrace without line > numbers. It would be interesting if there was an option similar to -g1, > but that would keep the line numbers (without the burden of keeping the > whole source co

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:28:06PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:38:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > 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 n

Re: [ITH] xmltex, passivetex, offer to take over jadetex

Hi, Frank and all. # I'm reading debian-tex-maint. From: Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [ITH] xmltex, passivetex, offer to take over jadetex Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:46:15 +0200 > We offer to do the same with jadetex, if Ohura thinks this is the way to > go. If you prefer to keep

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:29:55PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Even with separated debugging symbols, -dbg packages are frequently > larger than the package they provide debugging symbols for. See for > example xserver-xorg-core-dbg. Looking through the 227 lib*-dbg > packages, I found few contain se

Re: debootstrap/cdebootstrap failure: libsasl2 cannot be installed

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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 b

Re: debootstrap/cdebootstrap failure: libsasl2 cannot be installed

On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:35:13PM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: > 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:

Best Practices and Financial Risk - May NYC

Best Practices & Financial RiskPresented by The Energy Management Institute When: May 21-22, 2007Where: NYC Area Request syllabus Register

Bug#420605: ITP: gaim-rhythmbox -- gaim plugin to display rhythmbox's currently playing song

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: gaim-rhythmbox Version : 2.0beta5 Upstream Author : Jon Oberheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : * License : GPL-2 Programm

Re: [ITH] xmltex, passivetex, offer to take over jadetex

Am Montag, den 23.04.2007, 15:46 +0200 schrieb Frank Küster: > in the last months or even years, xmltex and passivetex have been > basically unmaintained (and they *do* have bugs), and responses from the > list which is listed as maintainer are very rare. jadetex is actually > maintained by you,

[ITH] xmltex, passivetex, offer to take over jadetex

Hi everybody, in the last months or even years, xmltex and passivetex have been basically unmaintained (and they *do* have bugs), and responses from the list which is listed as maintainer are very rare. jadetex is actually maintained by you, Ohura-san, but maybe gets not as much care as it could

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:38:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > 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

Re: How to setup co-maintainer

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:59:44 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote: > > But the co-maintainer can't upload a package yet so I'm > > not sure if this is true in my case. > > You can still just add him to the Uploaders field. I see. On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:32:14 +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > The package will

Re: how to handle changelogs in experimental/unstable

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:52:09 +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: > Often the package in experimental gets superseded with a package in > unstable at a later time (i.e. weeks or even months later). In that > case the new package uploaded to unstable should most probably > incorporate the changelog entries

Re: patches.ubuntu.com and the Debian PTS derivatives

On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:30:32PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > 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,

ITP: fontypython -- Manage your ttf fonts on your GNU/Linux

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Kartik Mistry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: fontypython Version : 0.2.0 Upstream Author : Donn.C.Ingle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/fontypython * License : GPL Description : Manag

Bug#420581: ITP: libjflac-java -- Java Free Lossless Audio Codec

Package: wnpp Owner: Varun Hiremath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Severity: wishlist * Package name: libjflac-java Version : 1.2 Upstream Author : David R Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL or Web page : http://jflac.sourceforge.net/ * License : BSD Description : Java Free Lossl

Re: how to handle changelogs in experimental/unstable

Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > Hi all, > > I've recently adopted texmacs package and to fix a grave bug > I uploaded the package in experimental to unstable with > a fix but I found that changelogs of a package in experimental > and unstable are mutually independent, i.e. the one isn't a > subset of the

Bug#420564: ITP: python-asterisk -- Asterisk Manager API interface module for Python

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: python-asterisk Version : 0.1a3+r160 Upstream Author : David M. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://py-asterisk.berlios.de/py-asterisk.php * License : MIT Programm

Re: Bug#420165: ITP: commons-configuration -- Java based library providing a generic configuration interface

On 4/22/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

Le dimanche 22 avril 2007 à 20:39 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit : > 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

Re: How to setup co-maintainer

Hi, * Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-23 10:11]: > I maintain texmacs with a co-maintainer who is not a DD yet > but don't know exactly how to set him up in a control file > (or anywhere). > > developers-reference teaches me; > > Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and ad

Re: How to setup co-maintainer

Hi, On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:49:41PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > developers-reference teaches me; > > Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address > to the Uploaders field in the global part of the debian/control > file. > > But the co-maintainer can't upload a package yet

How to setup co-maintainer

Hi all, I maintain texmacs with a co-maintainer who is not a DD yet but don't know exactly how to set him up in a control file (or anywhere). developers-reference teaches me; Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the Uploaders field in the global part of the debian/con

how to handle changelogs in experimental/unstable

Hi all, I've recently adopted texmacs package and to fix a grave bug I uploaded the package in experimental to unstable with a fix but I found that changelogs of a package in experimental and unstable are mutually independent, i.e. the one isn't a subset of the other. In this case, what is the ri

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?

On 2007-04-22, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Openoffice currently ships a -g1 -dbg package. If it wasn't -g1, the deb wo