Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Russ Allbery
"brian m. carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As for the signal numbers, different architectures have different signal > numbers. See signal(7), but the most common ones *are* identical. > However, signals such as SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are not, and using a number > for these will break on at lea

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Russ Allbery
"Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Supporting "local x" would be relatively simple; suggestions for a > reliable regex to catch use of -a/-o welcome... :) There was a fairly good one in Lintian that I took out once Policy blessed it, or at least we didn't get a lot of false positive

Re: Generating debian package using cmake (take 2)

2008-06-23 Thread Sune Vuorela
On 2008-06-23, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > for months, looking at you drowning in your brain-dead system, you > should try to write patches to make cdbs and/or debhelper 7 work > transparently with cmake. This is the right way, and it requires much cdbs already works pretty well

Re: Generating debian package using cmake (take 2)

2008-06-23 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 00:20 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > Stop. Don't even try to go further. This is NOT the right way. Your > > brand new wheels are going to drive you straight into a wall after way > > too much effort. > > Please give such real world examples of failure (if they are > doc

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: > > There were some other people who seemed to more or less agree with > Anthony Towns. But he was certainly the loudest one complaining about > this. I think it's quite likely I objected to you appearing to speak authoritatively on behalf of the

Re: Generating debian package using cmake (take 2)

2008-06-23 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le lundi 23 juin 2008 à 22:11 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : >> That's just rude. Even if you are a super star in the debian-world >> and a fantastic hacker, your comment can not possibly be coming from a >> grown

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the?backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Michael Banck
Hi, On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:54:09PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > Actually, how are debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring free-software, > anyway? Next time you have a similar question about these things, please consider dropping -devel from the list of CCs. thanks, Michael --

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:31:02 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:15:16 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > > I don't think that "modifying" has any reasonable meaning when talking > > > about cryptographic keys. > > > > Why not? > > Because it implies

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > But then, I was harshly accused of not making it clear enough that > > I am neither a lawyer, nor a Debian developer, that I'm not providing > > legal advice, and that I don't speak

Re: Generating debian package using cmake (take 2)

2008-06-23 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 23 juin 2008 à 22:11 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : > That's just rude. Even if you are a super star in the debian-world > and a fantastic hacker, your comment can not possibly be coming from a > grown up adult. Rude? Come on. You are trying to reinvent the wheel in the worst possib

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:15:16 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > I don't think that "modifying" has any reasonable meaning when talking > > about cryptographic keys. > > Why not? Because it implies that you'd obtain something meaningful after the modification. The intent of

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the?backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Jacobo Tarrio
El domingo, 22 de junio de 2008 a las 12:54:09 -0600, Wesley J. Landaker escribía: > 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 /usr/share/doc/debian-keyring/copyright even says "The keys in

Bug#487732: O: ispell -- International Ispell (an interactive spelling corrector)

2008-06-23 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Hi, I'm forwarding this orphaning bug to debian-devel as I hope this rises the chances to find somebody who is willing to take care of ispell. According to http://ficus-www.cs.ucla.edu/geoff/ispell.html the version in Debian is pretty outdated, also there's a number of bugs to triage... Best rega

Re: Generating debian package using cmake (take 2)

2008-06-23 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Mathieu Malaterre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 3. I was suggested libopensync for cmake/debian package start. >> 3.1 where is the internal name 'libopensync1exp3' coming from ? what >> does the '1exp3' stand for ? > > Y

Re: Generating debian package using cmake (take 2)

2008-06-23 Thread Frank Küster
"Mathieu Malaterre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3. I was suggested libopensync for cmake/debian package start. > 3.1 where is the internal name 'libopensync1exp3' coming from ? what > does the '1exp3' stand for ? You shouldn't try to invent a new system for building packages if you are not famil

Re: subversion 1.5.0 in experimental

2008-06-23 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 23 juin 2008 à 20:10 +0200, Bastian Blank a écrit : > > For merge info to be fully supported you'll need to update > > your repositories manually using svnadmin or some other > > method, e.g. dumping and reloading the repository. > > This can't be true. I used merge tracking on a format 3

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread brian m. carlson
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:07:27AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: With our move to dash as sh we have to remove all bashisms from scripts run by /bin/sh. However, checkbashism seems to moan about clauses that work in dash as well. I don't know in which shells a trap with a signal number is guarante

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Walter Landry
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:16:28 +0200 Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. > > > > Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write. > >

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

2008-06-23 Thread Daniel Widenfalk
Ian Campbell wrote: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 11:32 +0200, Daniel Widenfalk wrote: Ian Campbell wrote: On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 14:16 +0200, Daniel Widenfalk wrote: Ok, so dropping back a step. Let's assume that I build the 3.2.0 XEN hypervisor and dom0 kernel using 2.6.18 as base. I should

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > work in dash as well. I don't know in which shells a trap with a signal number > is guaranteed to work, but it seems to work well in dash. The signal numbers are different on various architectures. I think in the GNU world at least mach and FreeBSD kern

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Christian Perrier
Quoting Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. > > Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write. I disagree. For the very first time after too may years of electronic

Re: subversion 1.5.0 in experimental

2008-06-23 Thread Bastian Blank
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:59:01PM +0200, Daniel Widenfalk wrote: > If you update your svn client to 1.5.x it will automatically > upgrade your working copies (I guess on first use) so that > they become incompatible with earlier clients! This was already the case with 1.4, so what? > For merge i

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 19:45 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:33:21PM -0400, James Vega wrote: > > > >From this I'd say for Lenny using trap with a signal number is fine. > > > > > > Also they same question comes up with the "local" keyword. Dash seems to > > > support thi

Re: subversion 1.5.0 in experimental

2008-06-23 Thread Daniel Widenfalk
Peter Samuelson wrote: A few days ago upstream released Subversion 1.5.0, a fairly major improvement over 1.4.x. Last night I finally fixed enough build and testsuite bugs to be able to upload it to experimental. For those of you who _haven't_ been caught up in the git craze yet, and are still

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:15:16 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Ken Arromdee wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > OK, that said, if you wanted to modify a public key (in order to obtain > > > something else), what form would you use for making modifications? > > > I think the

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 09:00 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Francesco Poli wrote: > > OK, that said, if you wanted to modify a public key (in order to obtain > > something else), what form would you use for making modifications? > > I think the preferred form would be the one in w

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread William Pitcock
Hi, On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 19:34 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > I *used* to think that those disclaimers are implicit in most cases. > > But then, I was harshly accused of not making it clear enough that > I am neither a lawyer, nor a Debian developer, that I'm not providing > legal advice, and th

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Michael Meskes
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:33:21PM -0400, James Vega wrote: > > >From this I'd say for Lenny using trap with a signal number is fine. > > > > Also they same question comes up with the "local" keyword. Dash seems to > > support this, while it is not POSIX. > > The "local" keyword is an explicitly

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 19:28 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:39:07PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > It's not guaranteed to work in any shell implementing POSIX without > > extensions, which is what Policy says you're allowed to rely on (well, > > plus a few extensions

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I've found no similar text for run-time relationships. > > > > Should the policy be updated on this? > > It probably should if all of the software or at least most (plus all of > the package installation software) supports them properly. Does it? No.

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread James Vega
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:28:36PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:39:07PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > It's safe for use with dash, but using it is technically a violation of > > Policy (albeit a widespread one). There is a Policy bug open requesting > > that the

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:16:28 +0200 Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. > > Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write. > Could people please stop always writing them, its fairly

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Michael Meskes
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:39:07PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > It's not guaranteed to work in any shell implementing POSIX without > extensions, which is what Policy says you're allowed to rely on (well, > plus a few extensions, but not including trap and kill with signal > numbers). Right

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Michael Banck
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 09:33:14PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > On a hunch I checked the Packages.gz files on my system and found the > following example: > > Package: libgnomevfs2-dev > Architecture: amd64 > Source: gnome-vfs > Version: 1:2.22.0-4 > Depends: libgnomevfs2-0 (= 1:2.22.0-4),

Re: Generating debian package using cmake (take 2)

2008-06-23 Thread Michael Banck
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:04:09PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > 3. I was suggested libopensync for cmake/debian package start. I suggested it as a package which builds for different python versions. By that time, I didn't realize you were doing something like deb-creation support in cmake. I

Generating debian package using cmake (take 2)

2008-06-23 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
Hi there, Because of the recent feedback I got in building debian package using cmake, I decided to rewrite the current -broken- support. As far as I understand : 1. dpkg-buildpackage *has* to be the entry point (nothing else, not even 'cmake') 2. dpkg-buildpackage requires a 'debian' subdir

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread James Vega
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:07:27AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > With our move to dash as sh we have to remove all bashisms from scripts > run by /bin/sh. However, checkbashism seems to moan about clauses that > work in dash as well. I don't know in which shells a trap with a signal number > is gu

copyright nonsense (was Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository)

2008-06-23 Thread Joey Hess
brian m. carlson wrote: >> I don't think there's a legal basis to claim copyright on a blob of random >> bytes generated by a program. Who's the copyright holder? gpg? The authors >> of gpg? The person who typed gpg in command-line? The entropy source? > > Copyright (in the United States) requ

Re: bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Michael Meskes wrote, 2008-06-23, 10:07:27 +0200: With our move to dash as sh we have to remove all bashisms from scripts run by /bin/sh. However, checkbashism seems to moan about clauses that work in dash as well. I don't know in which shells a trap with a signal number is guaranteed to work, b

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:34:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Different situation. The ocaml debs have the same depends on every >> architecture for the individual deb. They might differ between debs >> but not between archs for one arch:

Re: Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Adam C Powell IV
Terrific, I will give that a try, thanks very much! -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

bashism question

2008-06-23 Thread Michael Meskes
With our move to dash as sh we have to remove all bashisms from scripts run by /bin/sh. However, checkbashism seems to moan about clauses that work in dash as well. I don't know in which shells a trap with a signal number is guaranteed to work, but it seems to work well in dash. I just ran a shor

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Francesco Poli wrote: > OK, that said, if you wanted to modify a public key (in order to obtain > something else), what form would you use for making modifications? > I think the preferred form would be the one in which the GPG public key > is distributed by keyservers or some

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Russ Allbery
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Interesting. > > The problem with them is that policy does not allow them :-) Well, to be > precise, policy mentions that build-time relationships in debian/control > can be restricted to a certain set of architectures; it does not state > anything

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread brian m. carlson
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:05:28PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 01:08:30PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: Certainly, the backports.org keyring is useful to some people, *but* it is, 1. not free software I don't think there's a legal basis to claim copyright on a blob of ra

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Robert Millan
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 01:08:30PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > > Certainly, the backports.org keyring is useful to some people, *but* it is, > > 1. not free software I don't think there's a legal basis to claim copyright on a blob of random bytes generated by a program. Who's the copyright hol

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote: > Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write. Could people please stop always writing them, its fairly clear by itself that debian-legal does NOT do any lawyers work (and w

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:34:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Different situation. The ocaml debs have the same depends on every > architecture for the individual deb. They might differ between debs > but not between archs for one arch:all deb. Nope. I was talking about OCaml programs sh

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:26:21AM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote: > What is the problem with arch-specific dependencies in control? I've > used them just fine (in wine, see libwine-dev) for a while, no apparent > problems. I think they do only work for arch:any packages, though, as > they seem to b

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Julian Andres Klode
Ove Kaaven wrote: > Stefano Zacchiroli skrev: >> Since apparently there are quite cases like that, what is the reason for >> forbidding arch-specific dependencies in control? Can we reconsider >> that? > > What is the problem with arch-specific dependencies in control? I've > used them just fine (

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Patrick Schoenfeld
Hi, On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:20:33AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > The beauty of signatures is that you do not have to trust the source > of the key, only the signatures. It truely doesn't matter wher you get > the key from. yes, you are right (given that you mean signatures on the key f

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 04:28:28PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: >> I maintain a set of packages which depend openmpi which is missing on >> certain architectures. To get around the latter problem, I use > > I've frequently a similar issues: OCaml

Re: RFC: Idea for improved diversions and alternatives handling

2008-06-23 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Er, I've for the life of me never understood why --rename is even an > *option* to dpkg-divert. What does dpkg-divert do without it, and how is > that useful? Only thing I can think of is something like this: dpkg-divert --package my-libc6-wrapper --

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Ove Kaaven
Stefano Zacchiroli skrev: Since apparently there are quite cases like that, what is the reason for forbidding arch-specific dependencies in control? Can we reconsider that? What is the problem with arch-specific dependencies in control? I've used them just fine (in wine, see libwine-dev) for a

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Patrick Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Goswin, > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:07:38AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> For example: Each repository puts its keyring into Release.keyring >> (next to Release and Release.gpg). The Release.keyring could be listed >> with checksum in

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Robert Millan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:39:36AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > 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

Re: Arch-dependent Depends

2008-06-23 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 04:28:28PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > I maintain a set of packages which depend openmpi which is missing on > certain architectures. To get around the latter problem, I use I've frequently a similar issues: OCaml programs compiled in bytecode depends on C stubs to in

Re: RFC: Idea for improved diversions and alternatives handling

2008-06-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:08AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > 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

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

2008-06-23 Thread Patrick Schoenfeld
Hi Goswin, On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:07:38AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > For example: Each repository puts its keyring into Release.keyring > (next to Release and Release.gpg). The Release.keyring could be listed > with checksum in Release so frontends know it is there and when it > chan