On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:25:28AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.03.0006 +0200]:
> > Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the
> > same (to retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary
> > package maintainer
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:06:10PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Every Debian derivative I have seen does this the same way. There is some
> > > inaccuracy in either case, but I think this is the le
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:38:01PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Hi Matt!
>
> On Sun, 01 May 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I don't think that the packages.*-code is part of the problem.
> > > Ubuntu treats th
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:30:39PM +0200, Juergen Strobel wrote:
> Almost noone uses kernel-patch-cryptoloop, so I let things slide. AFAIK,
> sarge is to use a 2.6.x kernel, so this package is mostly useless.
> However, a few people expressed interest recently, and added to the old
> bug report #25
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:33:24PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
[mjp: I sure didn't write this, but that's how it's been attributed...]
> > Whenever someone submits an ITP for the software A, whose functionality
> > is already provided in Debian by B, t
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:45:19AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> Matthew Palmer([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-04-08 19:14:
> > You'd be wanting wnpp-check, in the devscripts package. Check out rc-check
> > while you're at it. Both are cronable.
>
> ahh ... devscripts. I
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:12:13AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> I am interested in the intersection of packages installed on my
> machines with the list of orphaned packages. This is to be sure
> a program in use isn't orphaned without me becoming aware of it.
> Ideally the program would be run fr
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:19:12PM -0300, Leonardo Serra wrote:
> You can use it to create SSH accounts for users who will
> only use them for SSH-tunneling; to create an encrypted
> tunnel to your servers.
Or you can use the -N option to OpenSSH.
- Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital sign
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:30:26PM +, Alex Papadopoulos wrote:
> Ok thanks for the quick reply. Another question though that I forgot
> before, if the sponsor uploads the packages is he automatically the
> maintainer of the package (because if this is the case, then it means that
> sponsorin
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:18:28PM +, Alex Papadopoulos wrote:
> After having read the documentations I understood that I needed to apply as
> a new maintainer (with the appropriate identification process, needing an
> "advocate" Debian developper) and then find a sponsor that would accept
>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:49:39AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:13:05 +1100, Matthew Palmer
> >"Some would say that this has already happened". Not a fork, per se, but
> >Ubuntu's licencing policy (and the general level-headedness of the p
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:29:35AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:40, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being
> > supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no
> > longer avai
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:32:30PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:06:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> > And I believe that the Vancouver proposal, if implemented as intended up
> > to now, will not only affect what Debian really *is*, but in some ways
> > will *destroy
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:14:05PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:06, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > To know in how many packages to split or not to split the packages ?
> >
>
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:44:26PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 22:09, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > On 10231 March 1977, David Schmitt wrote:
> > >> > Collecting tidbits of
> > >> > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
> > >> > that informatio
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:57:11PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > On 10231 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > >> - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> > >> aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 1
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:43:52PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Sven Luther:
> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:36:25PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > > - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> > > > ar
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:52:35AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 3) Only some people can install the patches.
[...]
> (3) raises the question: who chooses who can install the patches directly
> and who cannot?
The people who run the show, just like any Free Software project. You earn
the tr
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:44:15AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote:
> > Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to
> > this?
> >
>
> Even less (likely zero) testing of packages by the maintainer before they
> uplo
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:36:25PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It would be nice to have the opinion of the ftp-masters on this, if this
> > seems
> > credible, and if there are design issues with it.
>
> A checklist of what NEW processing actually entails would be
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:29:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ideally we would see forming a little NEW-reviewing comittee which would
> facilitate the job of the ftp-masters. This is also in accordance of the
> small-team proposal in debian.
>
> It would be nice to have the opinion of the ftp-ma
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:13:25AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:27:37AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Thus, for sarge, we plan to offer officially:
> >
> > * ISO images for business card and netinst CDs (for all architectures)
> > * ISO images for normal install CDs
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:59:00PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:31:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > If his job is keeping him from working on Debian, he should step down
> > > from his post.
> > My job is keeping me from working on Debian as much as I'd li
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:04:09AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
> >> Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
> >> done to begin with, nothing about who works
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:32:16AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > | How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
> > | Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how every
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:05:20PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> In the contrary I assume that currently the security mechanism for
> alls archs is hindered by the fact that the slowest arch sets the pace.
> There has been a XSF-SVN commit for the latest libxpm vulnerability some
> days ago, w
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:00:30AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
> > - Might it be reasonable to not check for duplicates before sending the
> > reports? I'm using a relatively recent Packages file from unstable -
> > and checking whether it is a duplicate probably is much e
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:53:14PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:46:51AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of
&
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:14:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for
> > example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) without them being severity
> > serious.
>
> Can the po
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:49:31PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > - First of all, we should take the details as a starting point for
> >> > discussion, not as a decision that has made. Neverthe
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:44:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Notice that one of the main arch having problem some time back was arm, and
> the buildd where maintained by who ? elmo.
Which, considering he was one of the people who signed off on the proposal,
makes me think that the problem can't
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:26:58PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:18:54 -0500, David Nusinow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
> >> current
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
>
> I consider that requirement to be not warranted, and indeed unjustified.
>
> If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:15:34PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Thiemo Seufer
>
> | For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
> | requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter.
>
> You do realise this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing? (Grab ?r
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:24:47PM +0100, Aur?lien Jarno wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt a ?crit :
> >I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the
> >hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing unstable,
> >especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildd
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:47:08AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:41:35PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > >> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commerc
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:19:32PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
> immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
> couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this
> Project.
You're going to purge a
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:17:52PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050312 05:25]:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (ar
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 09:58:49AM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 04:18:06PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I'm with a problem about sending emails @debian.org. My ESP (email
> > service provider) has a restrictive rule about sending emails with a
> > >From header
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 04:24:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw
> > hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we coul
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > > completly static order. Any c
[Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
> - package priority
> - package section
> - package
Package: wnpp,phpwiki
Version: 1.3.7-3
Severity: wishlist
I no longer use PHPWiki myself, and don't have time to do the necessary work
to keep PHPWiki as sharp as it needs to be. Personally, I don't think it's
suitable for release as-is, so anyone who wants to see PHPWiki in Sarge
should probably
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:38:35AM -0600, Nick Welch wrote:
> > This is why random Joe off the street should not be writing licences.
>
> >From what I can gather, the license was developed through discussion on
> OSI's mailing list, and in the end it was OSI who approved it. Quite
> different fro
[no cc thanks]
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 12:16:03AM -0600, Nick Welch wrote:
> > Thanks for pointing this out. Now we have a concrete example of just
> > how screwed up OSI is. That licence does not grant any permission to
> > modify, redistribute, or otherwise deal in the work in a Free manner.
>
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 07:59:11AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > That licence does not grant any permission to modify,
> > redistribute, or otherwise deal in the work in a Free manner. For it to be
> > judged as satisfying the Open Source Definition
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 10:38:49PM -0600, Nick Welch wrote:
> (not sure if i can post to this list, but what the hey)
>
> > That's not a free license. In fact, it's about as non-free as you can
> > get, since it's essentially "all rights reserved"; there's no
> > permission to modify or redistribu
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:07:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 01:59 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 06 mars 2005 ? 01:17 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu a ?crit :
> > > TinyWM is a ridiculously tiny window manager implemented in nearly as
> > > few lines of C as pos
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:42:15AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> - scarce resource such as release managers, ftp admins, ...
> >> if we have to look after arches that are *not really used*.
> >
> >All of whom have sai
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:39:22AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Matthew Palmer debian.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > > undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all
> > > other
&g
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all other
> arches, with a fraction of users in maybe two, three, four other arches ---
> and comparitively nobody in the other fringe arches we keep around for n
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Clint Byrum spamaps.org> writes:
> > Now, can someone please tell me how messages like the one below, and
> > others, aren't indicative that debian should drop s390, mipsel, and
> > maybe hppa from the list of architectures? How
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:26:12PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> On Thursday 17 February 2005 21:32, Michael Koch wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:09:41PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:18, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 07:38:08AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > Francesco P. Lovergine writes:
> > > It depends on programs, sometimes the same usage function is used for
> > > either --help or invalid options.
> >
> > Sure
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:19:12AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 15, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I suppose I will start filing minor bugs against packages that do
> > this. I'd like to hear other people's opinions, though. (It occurs
> > to me that help output to stderr
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:28:19AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:58:55PM +0300, Sergei I. Kononov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03 at 20:23:20 (+0100), Christoph Berg wrote:
> >
> > > What's the difference to makejail and debootstrap?
> >
> > 1. Created chroot enviroment us
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:04:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer:
>
> >> As a user, I think this is very convenient. The ability to switch
> >> back to a known-to-work version by tweaking a few configuration files
> >> is reassuring, even
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:04:40PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 02-Feb-05, 18:31 (CST), Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So archive bloat is not a problem for you, and "apt-get dist-upgrade" not
> > actually providing upgrades to
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:38:10PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:27:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Lars Wirzenius:
> >>
> >> > ti, 2005-02-01 kello 15:25 +, Stephen Quinney kirjoitti:
>
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:27:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lars Wirzenius:
>
> > ti, 2005-02-01 kello 15:25 +, Stephen Quinney kirjoitti:
> >> This is the 3.4 series of RT, it can be installed alongside the 3.0
> >> and 3.2 series without any problems. This release is a big
> >> im
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:46:51PM +, Stephen Quinney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > ti, 2005-02-01 kello 15:25 +, Stephen Quinney kirjoitti:
> > > This is the 3.4 series of RT, it can be installed alongside the 3.0
> > > and 3.2 series withou
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:28:53AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > "Because I don't wanna play by the rules!" is not a rationale.
>
> You are mistaken. I want to play by the rules, but the rules say
> executabl
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > My question: does anybody have further references for the question
> > whether it is ok or maybe even preferable to install non-programs in
> > /usr/bin?
>
> You forgot to quot
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:15:29PM +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
> And splitting does indeed
> change something. If his kids are not root they cannot install the
> "offensive" part.
Absolutely false. But thanks for playing.
- Matt
signature.asc
Descrip
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:15:52AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:46 -0600, Steve Greenland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 24-Jan-05, 03:45 (CST), Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Last time I looked, invoke-rc.d was not yet a requirement to be used
> >> by packa
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:59:59PM -0500, SR, ESC wrote:
> Le lun 2005-01-24 a 19:26:34 -0500, Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a dit:
> >
> > I do not believe that being thick-skinned enough to cope with people who
> > are very agressive or insulting should be a requirement for involvement
>
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 02:40:43PM -0300, Nicol?s Lichtmaier wrote:
> I've checked debian-keyring's changelog and I seem to have been marked
> as "emeritus":
>
> ~ Emeritus \E*mer"i*tus\, n.; pl. {Emeriti}. [L.]
> ~ A veteran who has honorably completed his service.
>
> I certainly appreciat
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 05:21:02AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Also, is there a way to avoid a dpkg upgrade overwriting /usr/bin/dpkg
> and (IIRC) divert /usr/bin/dpkg -> /usr/bin/dpkg.real, so that I dont
> have to remember to redo this step?
man dpkg-divert
It rocks. Hard.
- Matt
signature.a
[No Cc please, as per list policy]
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:16:43AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 12 Janvier 2005 01:31, Matthew Palmer a ?crit :
> > So you patch libfile2.php to require_once 'mylib/libfile1.php'
> > instead of just 'libfile1.php'.
&g
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:13:05AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 12 Janvier 2005 01:31, Matthew Palmer a ?crit :
> > [No Cc needed, as per list policy]
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:47:42PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > it's _quite_
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
> >
> > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they compl
[No Cc needed, as per list policy]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:47:42PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > it's _quite_ true that you don't need to play with include_path.
> > your library has to know it's installed
> > into /usr/share/php/ and either :
> > * use some __FILE__ magic in its requires/
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:04:55PM +0100, Kees Leune wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:20:03 +0100, Pierre Habouzit
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMHO, web apps should be installed in /usr/share/*appname*/
>
> Agree; it seems that most of the responses boil down to that. The next
> question then
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:20:03PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> as a php web app packager, I should say that the policy is a real mess,
> since there is no policy (and I really hope to become a DD soon, in
> order to work on one with other interested people).
There's no need to be wearing you
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have conveniently
> > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >>Should I go on?
> >
> >
> >No, I think you've adequately demonstrated that you don't have the foggiest
> >idea what you're talking about.
>
>
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:53:51AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> I'm stunned. So anything in a Debian package is software. With alien I can
> convert a tar.gz into a debian package, so all tar files are software. With
> tar I can create a tar.gz from any file, so all electronic data is software
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 02:30:51PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op za, 11-12-2004 te 20:12 -0500, schreef Glenn Maynard:
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > What about the rest of the driver? I think that if you remove the BLOB,
> > > it's Free Software. It t
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 11:39:30PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> [..]
> > There are a number of reasons that a device's firmware won't generally
> > be opened to us:
> >
> > 1. The manufacturer's concerns regarding the proprietary n
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 06:06:59PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Dan Jacobson said:
> > Off line with just the Packages file, you can't tell a dusty 1997
> > package from an up to the minute state of the art package.
>
> You have the changelogs. Use them.
You must hav
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 09, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The whole system has to be DFSG-free. Debian won't compromise on that.
> Which DFSG? The original one or the "clarified" one?
Give it up, Marco. Your little tantrums aren't cute.
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:33:30PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Why don't standard ABIs suffice?
Not that I'm necessarily arguing in favour of a set of common packages, but
defining an ABI is not a sufficient condition to ensure compatibility.
Consider a function int s(int, int) -- you can have tw
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:13:08PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> On 06/12/2004 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Publishing houses never let writers edit their own work -- at least until
> > they're famous and have mindless followers who'll buy and read any formulaic
> > tripe they slap together. I don't t
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:53:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Also, to the best my knowledge the kernel doesn't contain any pictures
> > > of naked people either. I might be mistaken.
> >
>
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:28:51PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Manoj>Well, remember to exclude the Linux kernel, then. It
> Manoj> is certainly not minor friendly.
>
> How many children look at the Linux kernel source cod
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> >>The advantage of using glastree over pdumpfs is that it is implemented
> >>in Perl rather than Ruby (this is in fact the reason that I encountered
> >>it in the fir
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 07:02:38PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:00:22 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >3314kB, including pdumpfs itself. I'll donate a 32MB USB key to store it
> >all on for anyone that is *truly* that star
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 04:10:01AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Meanwhile, what's
> > the total installed space for glastree if you're not a Perl lover?
>
> Perl-base is 'Proirity: required'
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:30:05PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
> > > > Is there any benefit to using glastree over dirvish or pdumpfs?
> > >
> > > The advantage of using glastree over pdumpfs is that it is implemented
> > > in Perl rather than Ruby (this is in fact the reason that I encountered
>
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 07:58:17PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:59:09PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
> > > > In what ways is this package different to, say, dirvish, which I use
> > > > in a manner which is, AFAICS, identical to the way this package
> > > > operates?
> > >
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:59:09PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
> > In what ways is this package different to, say, dirvish, which I use
> > in a manner which is, AFAICS, identical to the way this package
> > operates?
>
> glastree provides a subset of the functionality of dirvish. It is
> actually m
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 03:04:15PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
> The poor man's daily snapshot, glastree builds live backup trees, with
> branches for each day. Users directly browse the past to recover older
> documents or retrieve lost files. Hard links serve to compress out
> unchanged files, whil
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:38:54AM +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> I can volunteer to provide some naked photos of myself, but I guess they will
> be more suitable for section "fun" than section "erotic".
There was discussion on IRC in the last few days about a "Men of Debian"
calendar.
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:50:08PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Yes, hotbabe is sexist (at least in it's current incarnation - if it
> included a male theme then it would only be sexually offensive to
> some)
Anyone who feels that hot-babe would become less sexually offensive because
it included
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:17:33AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 11:04 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > So, let me get this straight - fakepop will allow people to log in
> > (using their username and password) in the clear and THEN tell them
> > that they should have used POP o
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:12:12PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Steve McIntyre]
> > So, let me get this straight - fakepop will allow people to log in
> > (using their username and password) in the clear and THEN tell them
> > that they should have used POP over SSL instead. Quite how is th
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:29:38PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> When running apt-get dist-upgrade I'd like to be able to set a list of
> packages whose confiles shall be replaced by the newer versions
> supplied by the package (if any) , while other packages' confiles
> should be keep
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 12:31:18PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> On the topic of all those talks about reducing network traffic caused by
> apt-get update, without putting too high load into server (as rsync does).
>
> Can't CVS (or Subversion or other similar tool) solve this problem?
> S
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Hartmut Rummel wrote:
> This is cory yearwood from Exsis. Please can you remove the e-mail from your
> website..
And yet the name in your From: line is Hartmut Rummel, and you're using a
totally different e-mail address.
Either way, I doubt that post
101 - 200 of 294 matches
Mail list logo
