Le Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:07:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>
> > > We'll be consulting all key teams within Debian to see how their plans
> > > and schedules can fit into a new timeline. Before the end of August we
> > > hope to
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:39:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > About freeze timing we think that DebConf should definitely not fall
> > into a freeze
> > We noticed that releases in the first quarter of the year
> > worked out quite
Package: wnpp
Owner: Ryan Niebur
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libcarp-always-perl
Version : 0.09
Upstream Author : Adriano R. Ferreira
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Carp-Always/
* License : Artistic | GPL
Harald Braumann, le Tue 11 Aug 2009 01:33:58 +0200, a écrit :
> Or do you mean the user pays the price, because if the encoding is set
> to UTF-8 then performance would suffer? In that case, I'd love to see
> some real life numbers. I doubt the difference would be noticeable.
Google utf-8 grep pe
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:45:40 +0200
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 13:09 +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of
> > tomcat to utf-8 after reinstalling a server.
> > Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug to tomcat,
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > There is a namespace issue here, that falls in scope for Policy because it
>> > impacts interoperability; if there are going to be limits placed on the
>> > names of packages in the
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I would also add that the debug symbols should live in
>> "/usr/lib/debug/" . /full/path/to/lib_or_binary, blessing the current
>> practice.
>
> You are missing the new features of build-id as written e
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:46:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Reading through this thread, I don't see a compelling reason for using
> a .ddeb extension given that they are just regular .debs, nor for
> keeping the packages separate from the main archive (if the size of the
> Packages file is an i
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:50:07PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> c) patch it to display /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright ?
>
> That would be against policy.
> No package is supposed to rely on /usr/share/doc/$package for doing stuff.
if [ -f $file ]; then cat $f
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:20:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Or even just -dbg, since aren't the existing debug packages basically
> >> .ddebs, modulo bugs?
> > There are a few significant exceptions, such as libc6-dbg and libqt4-dbg,
> > where the packages contain complete alternate deb
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There is a namespace issue here, that falls in scope for Policy because it
> > impacts interoperability; if there are going to be limits placed on the
> > names of packages in the main archive, that almost certainly *does* belong
Stephen Gran writes:
> The only reason I can see for an extension like .ddeb is that it would
> signal that they're like more like .udebs than .debs (not for regular
> user consumption, may not have all the files under /usr/share/doc, may
> have some funky layout based on this build-id idea, what
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > Could we not just use a "-ddbg" suffix for "detached debug" information,
> > perhaps with a new archive section to match? This will not conflict
> > with existing practice for -dbg, so could go int
On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would also add that the debug symbols should live in
> "/usr/lib/debug/" . /full/path/to/lib_or_binary, blessing the current
> practice.
You are missing the new features of build-id as written earlier by
insisting on this.
/Sune
--
To UNSUB
On 2009-08-10, Roger Leigh wrote:
> That's what I meant (just not sure of the correct dak terminology).
> Would this present problems for the ftp-masters, since TTBOMK currently
> source and binary packages are restricted to the same area? i.e. would
> work on projectb/dak be required to implemen
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Could we not just use a "-ddbg" suffix for "detached debug" information,
> perhaps with a new archive section to match? This will not conflict
> with existing practice for -dbg, so could go into Policy without
> violating any prexisting namespace conventi
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> Also, It is indeed trivial to add that to non-helper-package using
>> packages, it just requires some editing (just like modufying helper
>> packages will need editing).
>
> Since it's trivial, I look forward to seeing patches from you to
> implement p
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:42:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:49:34PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > I didn't call utf-8 itself rubbish, I am myself a strong proponent for
> > utf-8, only your quote that it is "about as compact as an extended encoding
> > is going to
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:55:51PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > nor for keeping the packages separate from the main archive (if the size
> > of the Packages file is an issue, can't they just go in a separate debug
> > section/component?)
>
> The Packages file lists all
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:52:23AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:42:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Or even just -dbg, since aren't the existing debug packages basically
>>> .ddebs, modulo bugs?
>> There are a few significant exceptions, suc
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:52:23AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:42:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I don't have a strong opinion on whether ddebs should be documented in
> > > policy, but I certainly don't agree with requiring dpkg to understand
> > > them as a pr
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:49:34PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 10 Aug 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > >> Of course there's a penalty for certain operations. But UTF-8 is about
> > >> as compact as an extended encoding is going to get.
> [...]
> > make UTF-8 bad per se to call it "rubbish
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:50:07PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> c) patch it to display /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright ?
That would be against policy.
No package is supposed to rely on /usr/share/doc/$package for doing stuff.
Regards,
Rene
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 02:06:44PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Thomas Koch wrote:
> >I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of
> >tomcat to utf-8 after reinstalling a server.
> >Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug to tomcat, I want to ask
> >(and invite to discuss) s
Andrey Tataranovich wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I working on packaging eiskaltdc - direct connect client (see #540458).
> This program have extra licence information (you can see it on
> http://rootshell.be/~ice/tmp/COPYING) wich installed by default in
> /usr/share/eiskaltdc/COPYING. This produced lin
On Mo, 10 Aug 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> >> Of course there's a penalty for certain operations. But UTF-8 is about
> >> as compact as an extended encoding is going to get.
[...]
> make UTF-8 bad per se to call it "rubbish".
I didn't call utf-8 itself rubbish, I am myself a strong proponent for
u
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 19:53 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:45:40PM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > While utf-8 covers the broadest set of character glyphs possible, it
> > suffers from size as well as performance penalties. Characters no
> > longer are guaranteed to fit
On 2009-08-10, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 10 Aug 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Of course there's a penalty for certain operations. But UTF-8 is about
>> as compact as an extended encoding is going to get.
> Rubbish. You know why in Japan and other Asian countries UTF8 is not
> so common? Beca
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Why is it not trivial?
> >
> > Because it requires editing the rules file for each such package?
> > (debhelper using packages all get tweaked in a single
On Mo, 10 Aug 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Of course there's a penalty for certain operations. But UTF-8 is about
> as compact as an extended encoding is going to get.
Rubbish. You know why in Japan and other Asian countries UTF8 is not
so common? Because many of their glyphs need 4 (four!) bytes,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:45:40PM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 13:09 +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of tomcat to
> > utf-8
> > after reinstalling a server.
> > Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Why is it not trivial?
>
> Because it requires editing the rules file for each such package?
> (debhelper using packages all get tweaked in a single shot.)
Rubbish. I suspect all cdbs using packa
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Now we could concentrate on removing from the archive programs without
> proper UTF8 support.
There are, sadly, some very useful programs with no adequate replacement
that don't have UTF-8 support. tf5, for instance.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 04:28:33PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Most -dbg packages *shouldn't* live in the archive, but maintainers
> >> keep adding them by hand anyway, and we don't have anywhere else to
> >> put them.
> > Well, right now there
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> Why is it not trivial? I have such a hook in my pakages, and it
>> is not rocket science.
>>
>> If you think that adding stuff like
>> --8<---cut here---start->8---
>> file
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why is it not trivial?
Because it requires editing the rules file for each such package?
(debhelper using packages all get tweaked in a single shot.)
Don Armstrong
--
All my dreams came true.
I just didn't think them through.
-- a softer world #
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 07:37:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> >> > dpkg doesn't know about filenames AFAICS. So you can't coinstall
>> >> > foo_1.0-1_i386.deb and foo_1.0-1_i386.ddeb, right? So we do want the
>> >> > -ddeb suffix.
>
>> >>
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:42:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > I don't have a strong opinion on whether ddebs should be documented in
>> > policy, but I certainly don't agree with requiring dpkg to understand
>> > them as a prerequisite for implemen
On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Most -dbg packages *shouldn't* live in the archive, but maintainers
>> keep adding them by hand anyway, and we don't have anywhere else to
>> put them.
> Well, right now there is nowhere to put the .ddebs either, and
> they are really just .debs w
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 06:48:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > The main point is probably that they shouldn't live in the main
>> > archive due to space reasons. Of course we could also filter out
>> > '*-ddeb*' or '*-dbgsym*' as long as it's n
retitle 485330 Allow context diff in debian/patches/ in 3.0 (quilt) format
thanks
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> That said, yes, using non-unified diff is as laughable as using RCS or
> SCCS nowadays. Though I consider it a bug if dpkg refuses to apply a
> patch that patch(1) (that
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:33:58AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>>
>> > The dh_make template for debian/copyright induces many developers to put
>> > their
>> > packaging work under the
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:42:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I don't have a strong opinion on whether ddebs should be documented in
> > policy, but I certainly don't agree with requiring dpkg to understand
> > them as a prerequisite for implementing a general purpose, public
> > archive for au
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 03:37:23PM +0200, Patrick Winnertz wrote:
> * Package name: gamessq
> Version : 1.1
> Upstream Author : Brett Bode
> * URL : http://www.msg.chem.iastate.edu/GAMESS/GamessQ/
> * License : GPLv3
> Programming Lang: C
> Description
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 06:48:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The main point is probably that they shouldn't live in the main
> > archive due to space reasons. Of course we could also filter out
> > '*-ddeb*' or '*-dbgsym*' as long as it's not '*-dbg*', which should be
> If automa
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 07:37:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > dpkg doesn't know about filenames AFAICS. So you can't coinstall
> >> > foo_1.0-1_i386.deb and foo_1.0-1_i386.ddeb, right? So we do want the
> >> > -ddeb suffix.
> >> If we are going to enshrine ddebs into policy, w
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Winnertz
* Package name: gamessq
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : Brett Bode
* URL : http://www.msg.chem.iastate.edu/GAMESS/GamessQ/
* License : GPLv3
Programming Lang: C
Description : gamess scheduling fr
Hi!
Rene Engelhard schrieb:
>>> a) rename/move this file another place and patch code
> Depends on the license. If it was (L)GPL you could use
> /usr/share/common-licenses/...
GPL with OpenSSL permission. No default template for that.
But yes, that would be option c) wich doesn't work in this c
Le lundi 10 août 2009 à 14:06 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi a écrit :
> But let to concentrate to the first task: having a good UTF-8 support
> in all programs/terminals/etc.
This task should have been completed for etch.
Now we could concentrate on removing from the archive programs without
proper
Hi
Dne Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:09:21 +0200
Thomas Koch napsal(a):
> I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of tomcat to utf-8
> after reinstalling a server.
> Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug to tomcat, I want to ask (and invite
> to
> discuss) shouldn't utf8 be the defa
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:48:55PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Andrey Tataranovich schrieb:
>
> > What should I do to satisfy DEBIAN policy?
> >
> > a) rename/move this file another place and patch code
Depends on the license. If it was (L)GPL you could use
/usr/share/common-l
Hi,
I've been tasked as part of the release team of finalising and pushing
through the Webapps Policy, whcih can be found at
http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/
The source for this is at
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/webapps-common/webapps-common/trunk/doc/Webapps-Policy-Manual-DR
Thomas Koch wrote:
Hi,
I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of tomcat to utf-8
after reinstalling a server.
Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug to tomcat, I want to ask (and invite to
discuss) shouldn't utf8 be the default character set everywhere? So when
installing
On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> dpkg "knows" about them the same way it "knows" about debs, AFAICS.
>> Why, then, the .ddeb suffix? Why are these not just .debs, with
>> a specific naming schema?
>
> At least they shouldn't clash with
Hi Andrey,
Such questions are better suited for the debian-mentors list.
Andrey Tataranovich schrieb:
> What should I do to satisfy DEBIAN policy?
>
> a) rename/move this file another place and patch code
> b) add lintian override
I would go for b).
Best regards,
Alexander
signature.as
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 13:09 +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of tomcat to utf-8
> after reinstalling a server.
> Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug to tomcat, I want to ask (and invite
> to
> discuss) shouldn't utf8 be the defa
Hi all,
I working on packaging eiskaltdc - direct connect client (see #540458).
This program have extra licence information (you can see it on
http://rootshell.be/~ice/tmp/COPYING) wich installed by default in
/usr/share/eiskaltdc/COPYING. This produced lintian warning
(W: eiskaltdc: extra-licen
Hi,
I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of tomcat to utf-8
after reinstalling a server.
Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug to tomcat, I want to ask (and invite to
discuss) shouldn't utf8 be the default character set everywhere? So when
installing a package from Debian
On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> dpkg "knows" about them the same way it "knows" about debs, AFAICS.
> Why, then, the .ddeb suffix? Why are these not just .debs, with
> a specific naming schema?
At least they shouldn't clash with maintainer-defined ones, IMHO, as they
are create
59 matches
Mail list logo