Re: Request for transition: evolution-data-server

2006-08-10 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 03:27:19PM +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote: The new upstream version of evolution-data-server, 2.6.3, creates a library package with soname change. libegroupwise1.2-10 is replaced by libegroupwise1.2-12. The only rdepends outside of the source package is evolution, which is

Request binNMUs for the quantlib transition

2006-08-10 Thread Luk Claes
Hi Can someone please schedule binNMUs for rquantlib_0.2.3-1, Rebuild against libquantlib-0.3.13, 1, !hppa, !m68k P-a-s for m68k, hppa should be Dep-Wait gcc-4.0 = 4.0.3-6 or something like that (gcc-4.0 FTBFS on hppa, but has Arch:all packages...) Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes -

Request binNMUs for qdbm transition

2006-08-10 Thread Luk Claes
Hi Can someone please schedule binNMUs for bogofilter_1.0.3-1, Rebuild against libqdbm14, 1, !arm not yet build on arm... Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D signature.asc

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-10 Thread Sven Luther
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:29:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I apologize for responding to Marco's post; in retrospect he was clearly trolling and I should not have responded to him. The point of my initial message was not to argue: it was that the etch timeline is unrealistic, because

Re: Request for transition: evolution-data-server

2006-08-10 Thread Øystein Gisnås
On 10/08/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 03:27:19PM +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote: The new upstream version of evolution-data-server, 2.6.3, creates a library package with soname change. libegroupwise1.2-10 is replaced by libegroupwise1.2-12. The only

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-10 Thread Thiemo Seufer
Nathanael Nerode wrote: [snip] http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing is grossly out-of-date, but I will integrate the relevant information from that in the process. KernelFirmwareLicensing is supposed to track information about mis-licensed firmware. IIRC you mentioned to have found at

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-10 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And even for an aggregation of works the DFSG holds and you are still in trouble. Sure, the DFSG says that we need the source code for those, and

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-10 Thread Sven Luther
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:52PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And even for an aggregation of works the DFSG holds and you are still

Re: Bug#374569: groff-base: groff-base includes non-free material

2006-08-10 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 11:08:34AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:54:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On 20 Jun 2006, Colin Watson verbalised: It's dual-licensed upstream; I contacted upstream years ago about this issue (before it became particularly public that

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-10 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:52PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not familiar enough with how library are run, but there is some very different way in which libraries called by programs work, and the way

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-10 Thread Sven Luther
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:14:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where people buy their hardware or how free their hardware is has little to do with Debian main. It is a problem for the linux upostream authors to support the hardware with free

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-10 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please don't lose track of the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong with a sourceless binary if that's all the source anyone *has*. I think in most of the cases under consideration, we have firmware which a hardware manufacturer wrote and then

Re: Please reschedule libgnomesu 0.9.5-3 on ARM

2006-08-10 Thread Andreas Metzler
On 2006-08-10 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:05:22PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: libgnomesu 0.9.5-3 initialy FTBFS to temporary uninstallable build-depends and when vorlon re-scheduled on july 31st it suffered the same fate as the directfb transition

Packages to be frozen next week: odds

2006-08-10 Thread Stefan Huehner
Hi, i'm referring to Andreas Barths post to debian-devel-announce and specifically the following list of packages: http://ftp-master.debian.org/~he/base-freeze-packages Looking at this is noticed some packages which are priority 'important' at the moment but this doesn't seem right any more: