Re: how to divert /etc/profile?

2011-07-05 Thread Thilo Six
Lars Wirzenius wrote the following on 04.07.2011 12:33 Hello > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:50:58AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: >> I would like to install a private package diverting >> /etc/profile (to support /etc/profile.d). Problem: >> There is no owner for this file. > > Stock Debian already

Re: Speeding up dpkg, a proposal

2011-03-02 Thread Thilo Six
Chow Loong Jin wrote the following on 02.03.2011 18:51 > Hi, > > On Thursday 03,March,2011 12:02 AM, Marius Vollmer wrote: >> [...] >> - Instead, we move all packages that are to be unpacked into >> half-installed / reinstreq before touching the first one, and put a >> big sync() right before

Re: Removing the manpage requirement for GUI programs?

2010-02-27 Thread Thilo Six
Josselin Mouette wrote the following on 27.02.2010 21:03 -- -- > Indeed it is not sufficient for gcc-4.4. But I still think it is > sufficient for gcalctool. I have just downloaded the lenny gcalctool_5.22.3-2_i386.deb. Where in /usr/share/gnome/help/gcalctool do you read about the file "~/.gca

Re: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team

2010-02-01 Thread Thilo Six
Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 21:50 Thanks both Benjamin and James for your replys. I gone a live with it. -- bye Thilo 4096R/0xC70B1A8F 721B 1BA0 095C 1ABA 3FC6 7C18 89A4 A2A0 C70B 1A8F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team

2010-02-01 Thread Thilo Six
Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 20:34 Hello I would like to ask 2 question as user regarding your proposal. -- -- > Binary package name > === > > The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of > mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix

Re: Linux image packages going to depend on python

2009-11-30 Thread Thilo Six
Noah Meyerhans wrote the following on 30.11.2009 17:42 > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 02:15:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Perhaps you should consider making the script just create a >> ./fstab.new file, and not overwriting /etc/fstab? makes it easier to >> test the script out withou

Re: GDM, getty and VTs

2009-11-15 Thread Thilo Six
Hello Christian Perrier wrote the following on 15.11.2009 07:13 > Quoting Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be): > >>> * I don't think we need more than 2 of these. They are still >>> useful for servers or when some disaster happens in the GUI, but >>> who opens 6 console sessions n

[DSA 1916-1] New kdelibs packages

2009-10-27 Thread Thilo Six
Hello i have a question regarding above named DSA. It has been announced on October 23th but still the mirror i am using doesn't have it: $ apt-cache policy kdelibs kdelibs: Installed: 4:3.5.10.dfsg.1-0lenny2 Candidate: 4:3.5.10.dfsg.1-0lenny2 Version table: *** 4:3.5.10.dfsg.1-0lenny2 0

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

2008-10-23 Thread Thilo Six
Manoj Srivastava wrote the following on 23.10.2008 19:06 <- *snip* -> > Look, I am not proposing we have a GR for every upload. I am > saying that non-free bits in main are a bug. A serious bug. A RC > bug. It is a big fucking deal. It comes to the core of what Debian is. > >

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

2008-10-23 Thread Thilo Six
Luca Capello wrote the following on 23.10.2008 10:53 <- *snip* -> >> That should be good enough to install, and then add non-free to >> sources.list and get the firmware required for the driver to work >> (absent a non-free debian installer that bundles non-free bits). This >> is no di

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

2008-10-22 Thread Thilo Six
> <- *snip* -> > >> That should be good enough to install, and then add non-free to >> sources.list > > now it gets really absurd. > > Either be "free" and clearly tell the people that you are not willing to > support their hardware or don't blame RMs for the same thing you did above.

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

2008-10-22 Thread Thilo Six
Manoj Srivastava wrote the following on 22.10.2008 15:28 <- *snip* -> > That should be good enough to install, and then add non-free to > sources.list now it gets really absurd. Either be "free" and clearly tell the people that you are not willing to support their hardware or don't bl