On Sun, 19 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I was personally not too much interested in the past Debian releases, but was
> more interested in developing Debian further, rather than stabilizing it and
> hammering it together for a release. It was easy for me to do this, because
> the people wo
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Joined the cabal, you mean? You probably see it different because you
> are part of some groups, but this is how I see it. You still didn't
> manage to show it's different. It would be nice if reality was different...
When I became part of [EMAIL PROTE
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:40:54PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Try GNU/Hurd.
> This is Debian.
> Debian is going to be released.
> Release time is an "emergency", where people in Debian
> are required to be concentrated on releasing something useful.
>
> Please get a clue.
I was going to igno
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:38:47AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > I am a bit surprised about all those "if you want to be different, go away"
> > responses lately. "Debian" as a whole of course has to decide if it wants
>
> Frankly, I would not be su
Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit:
> > > You don't want to see it, do you? I want to know why this simple thing
> > > has to take more than 3 weeks.
> >
> > What do you mean by "You don't want to see it?"
>
> That you don't want to see that waiting and nothing being able to
>
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Mark Brown wrote:
> Frankly, I would not be surprised if most of the people saying that
> have nothing wrong with Hurd and everything wrong with the pointless
> flamewars which seem to have been following it around recently.
Not as pointless as people may think. Debian is be
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 09:17:06PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > Sometimes they give some useless "Think about me/us" mail when somebody
> > has some critic. But technically they always manage to reamin totally
> > obscure. It's just that we need to th
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:38:47AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I am a bit surprised about all those "if you want to be different, go away"
> responses lately. "Debian" as a whole of course has to decide if it wants
Frankly, I would not be surprised if most of the people saying that
have not
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> It's useful to have such a standard, that's why it's specified in the
> GNU Coding Standard. I don't think the FHS is a good standard
> however. The fact is that the loader in *BSD is in libexec and that's
> part of the ABI. It isn't in GNU/Hurd, I don'
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Oh, and they really screw up the Hurd port, the last status mail I've
> seen was "we are currently stalling and waiting for GCC 3.1 and the
> acceptance of libc0.3 and dpkg." GCC 3.1 is already released, but we
> are still waiting for the cabals. But I
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 08:54:56PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > You don't want to see it, do you? I want to know why this simple thing
> > has to take more than 3 weeks.
>
> What do you mean by "You don't want to see it?"
That you don't want to see
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 11:43:25AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 09:48:07PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > to modify Debian to work with GNU (and the *BSD port), as the current
> > practices in Debian cannot be used in GNU/Hurd!
>
> Cannot, or just don't want to be?
>
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Sometimes they give some useless "Think about me/us" mail when somebody
> has some critic. But technically they always manage to reamin totally
> obscure. It's just that we need to think about them but are not
> allowed to help them. It would work bette
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:13:46PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:12:29PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > > I assume that you're suggesting here that standardizing on the LSB would
> > > be a logical next step for Linux supporters to take after the FHS.
> > > That's n
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> You don't want to see it, do you? I want to know why this simple thing
> has to take more than 3 weeks.
What do you mean by "You don't want to see it?"
Do you know what the current situation is with the Debian release? We were
supposed to release on
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 08:30:33PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > Non-existant? In Debian the power is in the hands of a small group of
> > people who say in the public that they dislike transparency.
>
> Huh? That's backwards from how things are. Th
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 08:06:32PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > > What's wrong with having an empty sysvinit? I'm certain other packages
> > > would
> > > have this same issue, not just dpkg.
> >
> > Because having 100 dummy packages is just ugly an
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 08:08:29PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > I showed an example, can anybody show me why libc0.3 and dpkg have to
> > wait more than 3 weeks to enter the archive?
>
> dpkg has byhand files. This always delays it.
>
> However, th
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Non-existant? In Debian the power is in the hands of a small group of
> people who say in the public that they dislike transparency.
Huh? That's backwards from how things are. The group in power says nothing,
so you do not know who they are.
> Nice
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> I showed an example, can anybody show me why libc0.3 and dpkg have to
> wait more than 3 weeks to enter the archive?
dpkg has byhand files. This always delays it.
However, the just recently upload dpkg 1.9.21, was processed rather quickly.
Of course,
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > What's wrong with having an empty sysvinit? I'm certain other packages
> > would
> > have this same issue, not just dpkg.
>
> Because having 100 dummy packages is just ugly and bloat the
> archive. What's wrong with fixing the actual problem? The pr
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:36:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > It's useful to have such a standard, that's why it's specified in the
> > GNU Coding Standard.
>
> Well, but GNU != Debian. Debian follows Debian Policy, not the GNU Coding
> Standard.
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:36:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I can understand that certain packages, like inet-utils for example,
> cannot be ported to Debian GNU/Hurd and thus need to be packaged
> separately.
Actually, the GNU inetutils package has the same roots as the Linux netkit
packag
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:27:01AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 02:22:04PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > I am not a part of any non-existant cabal.
> >
> > Non-existant? In Debian the power is in the hands of a small group
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:35:45PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 03:02:58PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > > * Depends on sysvinit (>= 2.72), which is not available on the Hurd.
> > > A provides in some Hurd package is n
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> It's useful to have such a standard, that's why it's specified in the
> GNU Coding Standard.
Well, but GNU != Debian. Debian follows Debian Policy, not the GNU Coding
Standard. If you want Debian to follow the GNU Coding Standard, go to
debian-vote and
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 02:22:04PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > I am not a part of any non-existant cabal.
>
> Non-existant? In Debian the power is in the hands of a small group of
> people who say in the public that they dislike transparency.
*Please*
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:00:36PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I will try to reproduce this here. I don't know rdate, can I use any
> [host], anything else to keep in mind?
If I'm not mistaken, you'll get the same stuff using ntpdate (hmm, I
don't know if we have working ntp packages right n
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 03:02:58PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > * Depends on sysvinit (>= 2.72), which is not available on the Hurd.
> > A provides in some Hurd package is not good enough because dpkg can't
> > cope with versioned dependencies o
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 01:25:12PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:09:05AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2002 10:07:41 -0300
> > "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> > > Maybe smal
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 02:22:04PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > > > > Are the long delays due to the upcoming woody release? I mean these
> > > > > are not
> > > > > exactly new packages, they are named differently to be able to work
> > > > > side
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 03:02:58PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > * Depends on sysvinit (>= 2.72), which is not available on the Hurd.
> > A provides in some Hurd package is not good enough because dpkg can't
> > cope with versioned dependencies o
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> * Depends on sysvinit (>= 2.72), which is not available on the Hurd.
> A provides in some Hurd package is not good enough because dpkg can't
> cope with versioned dependencies on provided packages last time I checked.
What's wrong with having an
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 02:14:43PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > > One has to prove they can follow the current standard, before attempting
> > > to
> > > change.
> >
> > Could you please give me the standard describing how to port Debian to
> > anoth
* Adam Heath writes:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>> Could you please give me the standard describing how to port Debian to
>> another operating system? I couldn't find it, but of course I'm just a
>> random fool and you're God, so you can probably give me the url.
> There is none,
* Adam Heath writes:
>> > Do you not know what is currently happening in Debian?
>>
>> Well, the GNU/Linux part of Debian is in some kind of freeze. I have
>> no idea what actually is happening, because the cabals don't want
>> transparency. If they did, you could criticize them. Of course that
>>
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > > Are the long delays due to the upcoming woody release? I mean these are
> > > > not
> > > > exactly new packages, they are named differently to be able to work
> > > > side by
> > > > side to the older versions.
> >
> >
>
> Debian cabal philoso
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > One has to prove they can follow the current standard, before attempting to
> > change.
>
> Could you please give me the standard describing how to port Debian to
> another operating system? I couldn't find it, but of course I'm just a
> random fool a
--- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have filed bug#147079 that covers one compile failure - it then gets
> as far as mod_throttle before failing with a PATH_MAX bug.
>
> I had hoped to get this one quickly out of the way for James *g*, but
> I don't have time to finish it before next w
--- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have filed bug#147079 that covers one compile failure - it then gets
> as far as mod_throttle before failing with a PATH_MAX bug.
>
> I had hoped to get this one quickly out of the way for James *g*, but
> I don't have time to finish it before next w
On 18-May-02 07:03:51 Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
JD> It's more directed to the cabals in Debian. I know a lot of
JD> package maintainers are willing to help the Hurd port, but it's
JD> made impossible by small group of people who don't want to
JD> cooperate. And if you s
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:21:27AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you cannot agree to that, and do notice I never said we shouldn't
> > > change a few things on the way the f
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:15:19PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> The ones I have seen requested, have generally not taken into consideration
> the overall picture.
Please be specific. Which changes have been requested by whom and where?
Have you responded to them? Has anybody responded to them? I
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 04:14:14PM +0200, Tony Granberg wrote:
> I have found that SSH times out after some idle time: it just stops to
> respond. Restarting the sshd solves the problem for the moment.
It would be interesting to know in what state ssh is, so you could compile
it with debugging sy
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 10:07:41AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > GNU/Hurd is already part of debian, it deserves as much consideration as
> > any other part, no more, no less.
>
> So far so good. However, it is THE part that wants to move
I have found that SSH times out after some idle time: it just stops to
respond. Restarting the
sshd solves the problem for the moment.
running rdate -s [host], -can- make the whole network-establishment
FREEZE. Pinging is
impossible even. Reboot solves the problem for the moment, but returns
if
* Wolfgang Jährling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020518 06:16]:
> I don't think we are "just too impatient". We rather realize it when
> there is no hope. Do you know what Jeroens opinion was some months ago?
> I remember that he was very optimistic about fixing the problems in
> Debian (like you seem to b
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:55:31PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:51:02PM +0200, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
> > > A few weeks ago I uploaded new packes to ftp-master, i.e. horde2, turba
> > > and
> > > imp3. They were accepted in
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, [iso-8859-1] Wolfgang Jährling wrote:
>
> > True. But for most people in Debian, the Hurd doesn't exist at all and
> > they "don't feel like caring about the Hurd". That is not only my
> > subjective impression, but
Before posting my original reply, I asked some people on IRC (#hurd) how
they feel about Debian. I got answers like "Well, as we lack manpower,
we have to compromise". I can't remember anyone saying anything positive
about Debian, though.
Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Something needs
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:30:49AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote:
> This sets up animosity between "people"s without constructive feedback.
> I feel comments like this hurt the efforts of those Hurd people who DO
> care to continue forward. You and Jeroen, while certainly key
> developers and while yo
On Fri, 17 May 2002 22:59:01 -0500 (CDT)
"Adam Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One has to prove they can follow the current standard, before attempting
> to change.
>
> And, hurd has not even done that.
>
> Once we see that they can fit in with the rest of Debian, then hurd will
> be given t
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:02:08AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 06:24:39AM +0200, Wolfgang J?hrling wrote:
> > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > hurd does not exist alone in the universe, it exists alongside debian.
> >
> > True. But for most people in Debian, the
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:27:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 02:11:33AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > The Debian GNU/Hurd people are waiting weeks for dpkg and libc0.3 to
> > go into the archive. Somehow the ftp-masters think they know more
> > about the Hurd than the D
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 06:24:39AM +0200, Wolfgang J?hrling wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hurd does not exist alone in the universe, it exists alongside debian.
>
> True. But for most people in Debian, the Hurd doesn't exist at all and
> they "don't feel like caring about the
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 02:11:33AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> The Debian GNU/Hurd people are waiting weeks for dpkg and libc0.3 to
> go into the archive. Somehow the ftp-masters think they know more
> about the Hurd than the Debian GNU/Hurd people and think that they
> should make the decision
Wolfgang,
I respect your unhappiness with the status quo, I am sure you have
plenty of reasons to be angry. I am sure I share some of your concerns.
However I feel this is the wrong approach.
I've sent this to the debian-hurd list only for now, where it belongs
until the points are more clearly
57 matches
Mail list logo
