Package: wnpp
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
Severity: wishlist
*** Please type your report below this line ***
* Package name: efilinux
Version : 0.8.0
Upstream Author : Matt Fleming
* URL : http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/boot/efilinux/
* License : BSD
Programm
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: recorditnow
Version: 0.8.1
Upstream Author: Kai Dombrowe
URL: http://recorditnow.sourceforge.net/
License: GPLv2
Description: Qt/KDE application to capture desktop
--
es
Thanks Peter. That was the tip I needed for debugging the program on the
Debian system. ipcs(1), when run as the same user as the program, did
not show any shared memory being created. However, running ipcs(1) as
root showed the memory being created by the non-root user with
permissions of . Ob
On 2011-08-29, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Samuel Thibault writes:
>> Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 29 Aug 2011 16:49:17 +0200, a écrit :
>>> Those packages should be set Not-For-Us anyway, no? So they still need
>>> an action from porters or buildd maintainers.
>> We want to avoid Not-For-Us. Maintainers sho
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110829 20:42]:
> Samuel Thibault writes:
> > Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 29 Aug 2011 16:49:17 +0200, a écrit :
>
> >> Those packages should be set Not-For-Us anyway, no? So they still need
> >> an action from porters or buildd maintainers.
>
> > We want to avoid Not-
Russ Allbery (29/08/2011):
> Does this work now? Previously, setting the architecture list didn't
> do anything useful if the source package built at least one arch: all
> package.
Since arch: all as per-arch (…) now, I guess that limitation is gone.
And yes, arch restrictions have been working
Samuel Thibault writes:
> Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 29 Aug 2011 16:49:17 +0200, a écrit :
>> Those packages should be set Not-For-Us anyway, no? So they still need
>> an action from porters or buildd maintainers.
> We want to avoid Not-For-Us. Maintainers should simply set the
> architecture list.
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> We might chose to make ruby1.9.1 the default ruby implementation for
> wheezy (instead of ruby1.8). I still hope that all porting issues
> affecting ruby1.9.1 will be resolved.
> But if it's down to those four choices, what should I do in a couple of
> weeks, when the new
Hi Lucas,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> But if porting software to
> KFreeBSD's linuxthreads-based threading library with slightly broken
> semantics becomes my own task, I won't try to solve issues on KFreeBSD
> and instead stop supporting it, because I just don't have the time to do
> that.
That sou
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:49:17PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 29/08/11 at 16:16 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > or test suites failing for various random reasons.
> Like what? In my experience rebuilding the archive on amd64, there are
> only a handful of packages where the test suite fails
On 29/08/11 at 18:21 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 04:49 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [...]
> >> In my experience you would get a lot of issues which are nothing porters
> >> need to solve, like libraries not being available as the hardware just
> >> doesn't exist for that architecture
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Torsten Werner
* Package name: libjsoup-java
Version : 1.6.1
Upstream Author : Jonathan Hedley
* URL : http://jsoup.org/
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Java
Description : Java HTML parser that makes sense of re
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 13:10]:
> If you take a list of packages that failed on $PORTER_ARCH, but built
> fine on at least two or three other architectures, do you really expect
> to get many false positives (i.e, non-arch-specific problems)?
If we have methods which pr
On 08/29/2011 04:49 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
>> In my experience you would get a lot of issues which are nothing porters
>> need to solve, like libraries not being available as the hardware just
>> doesn't exist for that architecture
>
> Those packages should be set Not-For-Us anyway, no? S
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> they decided to remove one of (typically) gnome's dependencies, which
> caused the metapackage to be removed as well.
That also causes an effect of "GNOME gets removed!" even without any
additional autoremoved packages :(
--
WBR
Hi all,
is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then recommend
packages they are meant to pull in?
The rationale behind this question is [0] that we see a plethora of users in
#debian who ask questions like:
"Why did apt remove all my system??⸘one!one!eleven!"
and we h
On 29/08/11 at 13:06 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> If you take a list of packages that failed on $PORTER_ARCH, but built
> fine on at least two or three other architectures, do you really expect
> to get many false positives (i.e, non-arch-specific problems)?
Such a list would be easy to generate
Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 29 Aug 2011 16:49:17 +0200, a écrit :
> On 29/08/11 at 16:16 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > On 08/29/2011 01:06 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > On 29/08/11 at 09:47 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >> * Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 08:59]:
> > >>> I'd lik
On 29/08/11 at 16:16 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 01:06 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 29/08/11 at 09:47 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> * Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 08:59]:
> >>> I'd like to reinforce the fact that it's the porters' responsibility
> >>> to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sergio Oller
* Package name: festvox-ca-ona-hts
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Sergio Oller
* URL : http://www.talp.cat/festcat/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Lisp
Description : Catalan text to speech voice
On 08/29/2011 01:06 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 29/08/11 at 09:47 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 08:59]:
>>> I'd like to reinforce the fact that it's the porters' responsibility
>>> to investigate porters issues, and propose the following
>>>
On 29/08/11 at 09:47 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 08:59]:
> > I'd like to reinforce the fact that it's the porters' responsibility
> > to investigate porters issues, and propose the following
> > responsibilities:
> > (1) It is the responsibilit
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 08:59]:
> I'd like to reinforce the fact that it's the porters' responsibility
> to investigate porters issues, and propose the following
> responsibilities:
> (1) It is the responsibility of porters to:
> - track architecture-specific bugs (
23 matches
Mail list logo
