Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steve King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: ipfilter
Version : 4.1.10
Upstream Author : Darren Reed darrenr (at) pobox (dot) com
* URL : http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~avalon/ip_fil4.1.10.tar.gz
* License : BSD
Description
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world
understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he
was.
Again my question: Do
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:10:25AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Joe Wreschnig writes:
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:32 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every
memory
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
different dependencies and bugs.
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED], if you read that: Fix your mail setup, I'm not
interested in getting double mails from whatever setup you have there.
Thanks]
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Do we call RMS a Debian
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
than Ubuntu.
How does the
I am afraid, in such split packages with arch all will be duplicated
in all architectures. IMHO, there are only two solutions:
Move every arch in separate directory/server, and arch all too. Or
havely use hard links, like in debian-amd64 port. The second solution
looked worse, because don't
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian
regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us,
otherwise all these heated
Steve Langasek wrote:
Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential
is that you don't need to depend on it) is if we make it Essential: yes
as
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around
Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yourself to ubuntu, checking what other
Debian derivates, Fedora,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
contents. Rebuilding a package with a
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
do not end up with two .deb with the same
Hi all
I'm trying to get static naming for my network interfaces with udev,
without success.
the system is debian sarge based, with udev version 0.076-6 and kernel
2.6.14-7-686-smp on a P4. the network interfaces are a realtek 8139
integrated in the motherboard (eth0) and a 3com pci (eth1)
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* 1 FETCH (BODY[TEXT] {1008}
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when
Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is
OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged.
[don't be confused about the To header, this is merly just for testing a
propable b0rked setup]
* Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-18 10:26]:
Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a
metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly
Davide Natalini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all
I'm trying to get static naming for my network interfaces with udev,
without success.
As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the kernel
and they've nothing to do with udev.
To get a stable naming you should use some package
also sprach Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.18.1254
+0100]:
As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the
kernel and they've nothing to do with udev.
To get a stable naming you should use some package like ifrename.
ifrename is a hack and needed for
On Jan 18, Davide Natalini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the system is debian sarge based, with udev version 0.076-6 and kernel
Just to be sure, I suggest you upgrade your version of udev.
usually the two interfaces are named the wrong way, but sometimes they
are named fine.
IOW, renaming is not
On Jan 18, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the kernel
and they've nothing to do with udev.
Obviously you have no clue about udev (nor about proper quoting).
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents
should be implicit. However, regardless of whether it's an accurate
quote, it's quite
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
But linked against other libraries. The binary is downloaded from another
location(or installed from a different cd set). The program used to do the
download may be different.
Using this as rule, then all Debian CDD distributions would need to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: libfcgi-procmanager-perl
Version : 0.17
Upstream Author : James Jurach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
beside the fact that I find useful to name eth0 the realtek and eth1 the
other, there is a casuality in the naming process that I cannot remove
If you want to avoid racing with the kernel then you should choose
stable names from another namespace than the one that the kernel uses.
Suggestion:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
can caus different dependencies
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In case of CDDs, the only exception is it isn't build against other
libraries but it is installed by different cd set and downloaded from
another location in many cases.
If it is a CDD than it is installed from a Debian mirror and nothing else.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they
Well, that's a temporary hack until we have implemented solutions which
makes this superfluous.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Jan 18, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to avoid racing with the kernel then you should choose
stable names from another namespace than the one that the kernel uses.
Suggestion: Use 'eth_0' and 'eth_1' instead of 'eth0' and 'eth1'.
Md: Or is there something in udevd now
In any case I am hoping to see python-minimal included in Debian.
I now see that it is already in sid. :)
$ apt-cache madison python-minimal
python-minimal |2.3.5-5 | http://ftp.nl.debian.org sid/main Packages
--
Thomas Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
please remove me from callwave, [EMAIL PROTECTED]. thank you.
sharenknapp. 956 464 3214.
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible
Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly
'normally' entail different Debian package
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should
be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other
derivative, it's a significant operation on
Md wrote:
SuSE uses some scripts to handle persistent interface names
[...] I had no time yet to investigate the details.
I just looked at the rename_netiface script in that package. The
following comments in the script give an idea of how it handles the
race problem.
# look for a network
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might
have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a thing; while I would
love to work more closely with Ubuntu, the lack of personality is what's
holding me back---and I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number
*anyway*. It is
Dear, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have been successfully unsubscribed from Small Cap Reports.
We are sorry to see you go!
Visit our Ezine Directory for more newsletters!
http://subs.zinester.com
Fill in our questionnaire and receive a bonus: no ads in newsletters!
To fill in the questionnaire
On Wednesday, 18 January 2006 11:30, Riku Voipio wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around
Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yourself to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steffen Joeris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: php-net-imap
Version : 1.0.3
Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP
* License : php license
Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2006, 06:02 -0800 schrieb Sergio Talens-Oliag:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:38:08 +0100
Source: gnome-u2ps
Binary: gnome-u2ps
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.0.4-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Le mercredi 18 janvier 2006 à 18:07 +0100, Martin Schulze a écrit :
Andrew Suffield has lost his posting permission to debian-devel-announce
after making a rather sarcastic point that off-topic mails to this list are
unwanted.
Sorry to feed again the troll, but I would like to know what is the
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
of apt-cache shows the field
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Sorry to feed again the troll, but I would like to know what is the
rationale behind removing the permissions for Andrew and not for
Raphaël.
This has nothing to do with the technical aspects of Debian development
(too bad the
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
binary package have been rebuilt in an different
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin'
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Raphaël has also harmed the project by implicitly
linking it to Ubuntu.
Don't be ridiculous. Ubuntu explicitly acknowledge that they build on
Debian - see http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship - and Debian
positively
On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
The charter for this list says: Announcements for developers.
The charter for -private reads
Private discussions among developers: only for issues that may not be
discussed on public lists. Anything sent there should be treated as
sensitive and not to
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:21 +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential
is that you
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
dialogues I have initiated and participated in with
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
with Ubuntu, then you can be
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:25:07PM +, Dave Holland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Raphaël has also harmed the project by implicitly
linking it to Ubuntu.
Don't be ridiculous. Ubuntu explicitly acknowledge that they build on
Debian - see
Joerg Jaspert writes:
On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
The charter for this list says: Announcements for developers.
The charter for -private reads
Private discussions among developers: only for issues that may not be
discussed on public lists. Anything sent there should be
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they
Well, that's a temporary hack until we have implemented solutions which
makes this superfluous.
But exist!
--
O T A V I OS A
Hello!
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also sprach Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.18.1254
+0100]:
As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the
kernel and they've nothing to do with udev.
To get a stable naming you should use some package
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joerg Jaspert writes:
On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/01/msg9.html I
may lose posting permissions as well.
You should lose
Hi,
I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since
then, I can't create a kernel-image.
gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7)
Package: kernel-package
Version: 10.032
I just would love to know if we should set a bug on kernel-package
(AFAIK, that is the
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:01:18 20:23 +0100]:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joerg Jaspert writes:
On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote:
Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting
* Package name: php-net-imap
Version : 1.0.3
Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP
* License : php license
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your package
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP
License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting that
they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed up by
extensive debian-legal
* Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:01:18 14:54 -0500]:
This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles
somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK.
Sorry sweetie, I'm not a boy and have no pickle to compare.
--
off the chain like a
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
It is quite similar to what debian calls a binary NMU, but
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
Hi,
I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since
then, I can't create a kernel-image.
gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7)
Package: kernel-package
Version: 10.032
I just would love to know if
This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles
somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and
over, is my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on
otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:03PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves
anything?
There are other
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Well, that's a temporary hack until we have implemented solutions which
makes this superfluous.
But exist!
Sure they exist, but the statement you made about the maintainer field
was simply wrong, because it makes no sense to change the maintainer
On 1/18/06, Dallam Wych [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:03PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
The full quote is We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that
introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest
packaging efforts
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:57:13PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
You ignore that a lot of them are part of the Debian community. This
project would be better if people like you applied part of the
imagination to contribute (at least) with useful comments.
Rather, I think *you* missed my
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
Actually, binary-only NMUs,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a
world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement
on behalf of the
On 1/18/06, Dallam Wych [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:57:13PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
You ignore that a lot of them are part of the Debian community. This
project would be better if people like you applied part of the
imagination to contribute (at least) with
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any
such tool for modifying them.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential
is that
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
They obviously do. The version
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
packages in the wild that depend on it
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:28:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:19:55PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I'm glad that you contribute to Debian, you're part of the Debian
community as some people that you're pointing that changed sides for a
dollar. I'm sure that you don't know none of them, to say for sure.
Please, stop the troll
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:43:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes,
not to support stripped-down
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:30:22PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from
ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful
for a d-d-a mail so we are
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can't stop that; you can't say here's the package, but nobody
should use it.
Fortunately, no one attempted to do that. What we did do was discuss our
plan with Python upstream and ensure that our treatment of the package
satisfied their
The monthly Debian Installer team meeting which was initially
scheduled for January 14th is reported to January 21st, as several D-I
developers will attend the Extremadura session about the graphical
installer development
(http://wiki.debian.org/WorkSessionsExtremadura).
And, sorry, the
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to
change the maintainer field with that.
Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that
context.
Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do!
Please show me
Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
Hi,
I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since
then, I can't create a kernel-image.
gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7)
Package: kernel-package
Version: 10.032
I just
Package: general
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
The problem at hand is the proposed (and implemented) solution for
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332223 .
I'm unconvinced that bumping the priority on the other terminal
emulators is an
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
To clarify explicitly:
- Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian
- Most Ubuntu source packages are
Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote:
udevd uses ioctl(SIOCSIFNAME) to rename the devices. If you drivers are
compiled in, the get assigned eth[01] during init, but udev is called
much later. Renaming eth0 to eth1 will fail, because there already is an
eth1 and vis versa. Consider using another name
On Jan 19, Davide Natalini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maybe modifying mkinitramfs script to include udev in the initramfs
could help?
udev is already part of the initramfs, but its presence is not relevant.
The options are:
- use names which cannot be used by the kernel, or
- help me cleaning up
Op do, 19-01-2006 te 00:11 +0100, schreef Davide Natalini:
Marco, this is useful indeed, but the problem remains: in the debian
standard kernel the 8138too and 3c59x drivers are both modules, and both
are present in the initramfs.
If they are loaded and get the kernel name before udev starts
mdz writes:
It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
which have not been verified on Debian...
I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not
the bug is likely to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
What does /bin/sh point to?
Could you please explain what is exactly what you need to check?
ls -l /bin/sh
In other words, what does /bin/sh point to?
What shell is /bin/sh? bash? zsh(gods no)? posh? dash?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/18/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
It is
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo
