On Sunday 10 April 2011 20:19:42 Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 25.03.2011 at 14:17:06 +, Steve McIntyre
wrote:
> If we really want to meet the spec, we should be aiming for < 64
> characters, but that affects 98 packages and I'm not *too* bothered
>
> about it since testing shows no is
Hi,
On Fri, 25.03.2011 at 14:17:06 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> If we really want to meet the spec, we should be aiming for < 64
> characters, but that affects 98 packages and I'm not *too* bothered
> about it since testing shows no issues thus far. I'm tempted to file:
>
> * serious bugs on
Goswin von Brederlow Sun, April 3, 2011 5:17:06 PM
> Philipp Kern writes:
>
>> On 2011-04-03, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> OTOH, do you really want to type
>>> "apt-get install package-with-policy-compliant-utterly-long-silly-name"?
>>> There's a point when package name lengths become problemati
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2011-04-03, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> OTOH, do you really want to type
>> "apt-get install package-with-policy-compliant-utterly-long-silly-name"?
>> There's a point when package name lengths become problematic, and that
>> isn't just true for ISO images.
>
> That's why
On 2011-04-03, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> OTOH, do you really want to type
> "apt-get install package-with-policy-compliant-utterly-long-silly-name"?
> There's a point when package name lengths become problematic, and that
> isn't just true for ISO images.
That's why $DEITY invented tab completion.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 08:56:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > >Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > >> There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
> > >> using CDs and DV
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:54:49AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> >I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy
> >> >that sort of imposes the long name... so if we p
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:54:49AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy
>> >that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a too-short limit
>> >then we're asking them to
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:16:12PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:56:22 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> >Right, that's certainly true for the lib.*-perl packages, and I
>> >wouldn't know how we should rename them in a sane way.
>> In the worst case that I'm looking at, I'm
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:56:22 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >Right, that's certainly true for the lib.*-perl packages, and I
> >wouldn't know how we should rename them in a sane way.
> In the worst case that I'm looking at, I'm a little surprised by the
> names here on two fronts:
> libcgi-applica
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy
> >that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a too-short limit
> >then we're asking them to make an exception in the naming policy.
>
> So what's a reasonable name length l
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 03:18:12PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:56:14 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
>> > We already have arbitrary limits on filename length (~200 bytes or so
>> > on RockRidge), even before this. I'm just proposing to lower them for
>> > a common use case
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 08:56:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> >Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >> There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
>> >> using CDs and DVDs to
Andreas Metzler writes:
> In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Joey Hess wrote:
>> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>> There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
>>> using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
>
>> If I had to chose between that working, and not needi
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> And how would users then get those files? If you have a kernel without
> udf filesystem support then apt/aptitude/... would suddenly fail to find
> some files. Same if udf isn't the default filesystem for cds.
That's what the Rock Ridge extensions are for.
--
see sh
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:43 PM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>> Compatible with what? Bugs in other implementations?
>> What does that really gain us?
>
> The ability for the discs to be read on as many systems as possible. I'm
> not going to pretend to know what all someone else may need to do wi
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
That's not our problem, is it?
It is, if we are trying to be as compatible as possible.
Compatible with what? Bugs in other impl
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Joey Hess wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
>> using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
> If I had to chose between that working, and not needing to worry about
> filename leng
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John H. Robinson, IV
> wrote:
> > Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > > That's not our problem, is it?
> >
> > It is, if we are trying to be as compatible as possible.
>
> Compatible with what? Bugs in other implementations?
> What does that r
Hi,
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
>> xorriso -as mkisofs -o test.iso -J -joliet-long -graft-points \
>> /012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
>> 5678901234567890123456789=/some/file/on/disk
>
> Didn't worked over here with an uptodate Windows X
Hi!
Am 28.03.2011 11:23, schrieb Thomas Schmitt:
> Test reports from reading such an ISO image by a real Windows machine
> would be interesting ... :)
> E.g. with a file name of 100 characters:
>
> xorriso -as mkisofs -o test.iso -J -joliet-long -graft-points \
>
> /01234567890123456
Hi,
some technical facts about name lenght in Debian ISO 9660 images:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> What happens if you try to put too-long filenames on the CD with Joliet
> enabled?
libisofs, which produces the Debian i386 and amd64 images, truncates
oversized Joliet names. Collisions get resolved b
Joey Hess writes:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
>> using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
>
> If I had to chose between that working, and not needing to worry about
> filename lengths, I'd choose the latter.
>
>>
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:32:27 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy
> > > that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a too-short limit
> > > then we're asking them to make an exception in the naming policy.
> > Right, that's
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>> That's not our problem, is it?
>
> It is, if we are trying to be as compatible as possible.
Compatible with what? Bugs in other implementations?
What does that really gain us?
--
Olaf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-req
Am Freitag 25 März 2011, 21:59:31 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:48:15PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:27:57PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > > The
On Sat, 2011-03-26 at 15:18 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:56:14 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > > We already have arbitrary limits on filename length (~200 bytes or so
> > > on RockRidge), even before this. I'm just proposing to lower them for
> > > a common use case.
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:56:14 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > We already have arbitrary limits on filename length (~200 bytes or so
> > on RockRidge), even before this. I'm just proposing to lower them for
> > a common use case. Do we really care about supporting *very* long
> > names here?
> I t
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> >Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
> >> using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
> >
> >If I had to chose between t
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >>Why's that? Isn't UDF widely supported?
>> >
>> > Implementations often widely differ in their limitations - see the
>> > Wikipedia page for more details. The suggested way to make
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
>> using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
>
>If I had to chose between that working, and not needing to worry about
>filename l
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:48:15PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:27:57PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > The longest is:
> > >
> > > libreoffice-presentation-minimizer_1.0.3+LibO3.3.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:27:57PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > The longest is:
> >
> > libreoffice-presentation-minimizer_1.0.3+LibO3.3.1-1_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
> >
> > at 71.
>
> Good, then any bug against openoffice.
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>Why's that? Isn't UDF widely supported?
> >
> > Implementations often widely differ in their limitations - see the
> > Wikipedia page for more details. The suggested way to make a safe UDF
> > DVD is often along
On 2011-03-25, Joey Hess wrote:
>> >Is it possible to provide Joliet filenames for only a subset of files?
>> It is, yes. But not something I'd like to do if we can avoid it.
> One approach then would be to omit joliet filenames for the few long
> packages. This would not even impact your use case
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>Why's that? Isn't UDF widely supported?
>
> Implementations often widely differ in their limitations - see the
> Wikipedia page for more details. The suggested way to make a safe UDF
> DVD is often along the lines of "use the ISO9660 bridge
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:13:03PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>64 is quite low. Is there no way to use longer filenames that still
>>>works on all required platforms?
>>
>> To do that, we'll have to switch to a different filesystem. Th
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
> using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
If I had to chose between that working, and not needing to worry about
filename lengths, I'd choose the latter.
> >Is it possible to provide Joli
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:48:12PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> users. The problem is that Joliet has a limit for filename length (64
>> characters), and technically we're already past that length. From
>> genisoimage.1:
>
>64 is quite
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:52:35AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I've noticed a problem recently in the archive when building CDs,
>> aggravated to a certain extent by the newer source formats. Some of
>> the filenames in the archive are getting *very* long, and this is
>> causi
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>64 is quite low. Is there no way to use longer filenames that still
>>works on all required platforms?
>
> To do that, we'll have to switch to a different filesystem. That's a
> possibility (maybe UDF), but there's probably even more of a ch
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:27:57PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> The longest is:
>
> libreoffice-presentation-minimizer_1.0.3+LibO3.3.1-1_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
>
> at 71.
Good, then any bug against openoffice.org is not needed, as that obviously
will be + wontfix wheezy-ignore, because it sim
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I've noticed a problem recently in the archive when building CDs,
> aggravated to a certain extent by the newer source formats. Some of
> the filenames in the archive are getting *very* long, and this is
> causing issues. As a matter of course, we build CDs with RockRidge an
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> users. The problem is that Joliet has a limit for filename length (64
> characters), and technically we're already past that length. From
> genisoimage.1:
64 is quite low. Is there no way to use longer filenames that still
works on all requ
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:50:32PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 02:17:06PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Debian LibreOffice Maintainers
>>openoffice.org
>
>Dead. Any anything there is just transitional packages you need tor
>squeeze->wheezy upgrades, so need t
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 02:17:06PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Debian LibreOffice Maintainers
>openoffice.org
Dead. Any anything there is just transitional packages you need tor
squeeze->wheezy upgrades, so need to stay. Is libreoffice also affected?
>From your list it appears not...
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 02:17:06PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>Hey folks,
>
>I've noticed a problem recently in the archive when building CDs,
>aggravated to a certain extent by the newer source formats. Some of
>the filenames in the archive are getting *very* long, and this is
>causing issues. A
Hey folks,
I've noticed a problem recently in the archive when building CDs,
aggravated to a certain extent by the newer source formats. Some of
the filenames in the archive are getting *very* long, and this is
causing issues. As a matter of course, we build CDs with RockRidge and
Joliet support s
48 matches
Mail list logo
