Luk Claes wrote:
apt-get install debian-backports-keyring
or
gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 16BA136C
gpg --export | apt-key add -
This involves 3 separate commands, and modifies files under
/root/.gnupg/ at the same time. Seems overly complicated, especially for
non-tech
Adam Majer wrote:
Certainly, the backports.org keyring is useful to some people, *but* it is,
1. not free software
Presumably the following packages would never have made it into Debian
if a public key didn't comply with the DFSG.
debian-archive-keyring - GnuPG archive keys of the Debian
Mike Bird wrote:
> It seems to me that it ought to be against policy to use a
> maintainer script to delete files belonging to another
> non-conflicting non-replacing package, but I haven't found
> such a policy.
>
> Does anyone have the answer so I can give it to reportbug?
If I understood your
su, 2008-06-22 kello 16:07 -0700, Mike Bird kirjoitti:
> It seems to me that it ought to be against policy to use a
> maintainer script to delete files belonging to another
> non-conflicting non-replacing package, but I haven't found
> such a policy.
>
> Does anyone have the answer so I can give i
Patrick Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Neil,
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 09:54:43PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>> > Do you mean from a central repository, somewhat like a keyserver? :-)
>> > How would one check integrity then?
>>
>> Precisely as you do with any key - signatures and
It seems to me that it ought to be against policy to use a
maintainer script to delete files belonging to another
non-conflicting non-replacing package, but I haven't found
such a policy.
Does anyone have the answer so I can give it to reportbug?
TIA,
--Mike Bird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> FIXME: what if a line changes? Only allow certain changes?
>
> ... that's a rather large FIXME. Without fixing this, such an
> implementation of declarative diversions would be pointless churn.
>
> You should perhaps discuss this with Ian Jackson, the
Hi
> | On Jun 18, Igshaan Mesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > Description : The halockrun program provides a simple way to
> | > implement locking in shell scripts.
> |
> | What does this offer over lockfile (procmail package) or dotlockfile
> | (liblockfile1 package)?
Aren't those
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francois Marier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: cil
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Andy Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.kapiti.geek.nz/software/cil.html
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Perl
Desc
Hello,
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 18:55 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> There used to be http://wiki.debian.org/NewInEtch but it's gone
> without a trace, and I can't figure out how to ask moin to tell me
> where it went. Does anyone know?
I have rebuilt the page, based on :
http://web.archive.org/web
Drake,
Okay, I'll plan on "ttf-unifont", "xfonts-unifont", and "unifont"
package names. The "xfonts-unifont" package will contain a PCF font,
but not a BDF font (since BDF fonts now seem forbidden according to the
latest Policy Manual). The source package won't contain a pre-built
TrueType font
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:34:15PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> >> I'm still not that sure if its a good idea to add a non-offical debian repo
> >> keyring into the archive... But I let the decision to the ftp-m
Hi Neil,
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 09:54:43PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Do you mean from a central repository, somewhat like a keyserver? :-)
> > How would one check integrity then?
>
> Precisely as you do with any key - signatures and gpg integrity checks
> when the key is imported into apt-
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 22:39 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 09:37:46PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > PS: I would prefer if apt-get could fetch and verify keyring updates
> > directly from a repository though. Keyring packages are awfull for key
> > rollovers.
>
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 09:37:46PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> PS: I would prefer if apt-get could fetch and verify keyring updates
> directly from a repository though. Keyring packages are awfull for key
> rollovers.
Do you mean from a central repository, somewhat like a keyserver? :-)
H
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 01:08:30PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > In my humble opinion they should be allowed to be packaged as if they
> > are normal packages. Don't get me wrong, but Debian is a distribution,
> > so what we basically do is pack up things that are wo
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> I'm still not that sure if its a good idea to add a non-offical debian repo
>> keyring into the archive... But I let the decision to the ftp-masters..
>
> Well, currently a problem is the only way to get a tr
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:54:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
[...]
> Actually, how are debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring free-software,
> anyway? Do I get source code for the all GPG keys they contain?
The most widely accepted definition of source code is the one found in
the GNU GPL: th
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 2008-06-22 12:04:53 -0700:
> Is it best to add "Build-Depends: xfonts-utils" even if all a package
> needs from xfont-utils is bdftopcf?
If you need bdftopcf to build, and bdftopcf is in xfonts-utils, I
don't see another way to do it than Build-Depending on xfonts-utils
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 21:37 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> PS: I would prefer if apt-get could fetch and verify keyring updates
> directly from a repository though. Keyring packages are awfull for key
> rollovers.
As maintainer of the emdebian-archive-keyring package and one of the
signatori
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If backports.org keyring get distributed, then I would argue it allows
> others, non-software data to be packaged as well. For example, some free
> anime movies, or the Gutenberg project packages.
>
> Debian is for *free software* (and some non-free) and st
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 18:31 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Because hypre upstream doesn't make static libs, and I got tired of
>> > making a new patch with every release, libhypre-dev is arc
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> working on dpkg reminded me that I wanted to propose a better
> diversion and alternatives handling for debian packages. Currently
> they have to be manually added and removed in the maintainer
> scripts. This method is prone
Drake,
I didn't specify...yes, all of these dependencies are only for
Build-Depends.
Is it best to add "Build-Depends: xfonts-utils" even if all a package
needs from xfont-utils is bdftopcf?
I am aware of the /usr/share/fonts/truetype directory. I've been
running Sarge, and it is there. Howeve
On Sunday 22 June 2008 12:08:30 Adam Majer wrote:
> AFAIK, we do not distribute "things", we distribute *software*. Some
> packages are just composed of data though, but other packages depend on
> it. Some is just data that is very useful in the *Debian* project. This
> includes the keyring.
>
> Ce
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> In my humble opinion they should be allowed to be packaged as if they
> are normal packages. Don't get me wrong, but Debian is a distribution,
> so what we basically do is pack up things that are worth distributing
> and distribute them. This way Debian users can benefit
On 22-Jun-08, 12:02 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The updated package will have some new dependencies, and the Debian
> Policy Manual says that any package dependencies should be agreed upon
> by consensus on the debian-devel list before uploading .deb files.
No, it says that any "Pre-Depend
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 18:31 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Because hypre upstream doesn't make static libs, and I got tired of
> > making a new patch with every release, libhypre-dev is arch all without
> > static libs. However, it needs to
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 2008-06-22 10:02:15 -0700:
> If I must convert that to PCF it will add a dependency (on bdftopcf)
> that doesn't exist today. Must I never install the BDF font, but
> add a dependency for bdftopcf and only install a gzipped PCF
> version?
Are you confusing Depends and
The Debian unifont package was orphaned in 2006, so I posted an Intent
to Adopt it about a month ago. Before submitting the Debian package, I
wanted to have complete Unicode 5.1 BMP coverage complete because I was
so close to that goal. Now it is done and I can proceed with the
package. Anthony
Hi,
working on dpkg reminded me that I wanted to propose a better
diversion and alternatives handling for debian packages. Currently
they have to be manually added and removed in the maintainer
scripts. This method is prone to errors and can easily leave
diversions or alternatives behind. Instead
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because hypre upstream doesn't make static libs, and I got tired of
> making a new patch with every release, libhypre-dev is arch all without
> static libs. However, it needs to depend on openmpi on some arches, and
> lam4-dev on others. Using the s
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:49AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
>> moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
>> where a grave bug (bug #47960
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> I don't really see this as a bug, certainly not as grave. The problem
>> seems to be that lilo simply can't handle large images and the default
>> ramdisk just has now hit that limi
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 01:38:07PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> But backports.org is still unofficial.
so what? Its unofficial, but still its of great use for the most Debian
users.
> If it were permitted, then what
> would happen when other unofficial repository maintainers want to
>
I was approached by the maintainer of libmtp in Ubuntu regarding a fix for
LP#197968 [1]. The bug reporter cites the file /etc/udev/rules.d/README
(which does not exist in Debian), that says:
The udev daemon watches this directory with inotify so that changes to
these files are automatica
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> However, this has never been enabled by default because the odbcinst
> interface is very basic, with the result that on every upgrade any local
> modifications to the config for this driver would be lost. The debconf
> question is also not sho
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 21 June 2008 11:38:07 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 07:34:59PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Saturday 21 June 2008 15:52, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> > > I'm still not that sure if its a good idea
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 05:52:19PM +0200, Ulrik Haugen wrote:
> As you can see readahead actually increase the boot time for me in
> both cases so I uninstalled that package.
I get 28 seconds with or without readahead (Thinkpad R50e, P4 1.6GHz,
512 RAM).
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't expla
39 matches
Mail list logo
