On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:16:41PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Perhaps it would be possible to use the FOIA to get the terms of the
> contract?
Bwa ha ha ha, it has been the Bush administration's directive to all
Federal agencies since BEFORE September 11th of last year to flush all
FOIA requests
> "Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> Sun's JDK.
I know for a fact there's no use of dynamic C++ libraries in any JDK
prior to 1.4.1 and I just check the latest 1.4.1 beta & find no
mention of libstdc++ in any of the executables. If there's C++ code
in there, it'
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 11:49:03PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joseph> Sun's JDK.
>
> I know for a fact there's no use of dynamic C++ libraries in any JDK
> prior to 1.4.1 and I just check the latest 1.4.1 beta & find no
> mentio
Hi,
I intended to ask for removal of this list but Joey sugested to ask
first whether anybody intents to use this list or finds it useful as it
is now.
In my -release folder I found:
| Total messages since November 2001: 128
| (some spam has been fltered out by SA locally, I won't dig them out)
|
This one time, at band camp, Joseph Carter wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/j2sdk1.4.0_01/jre/plugin/i386/ns610$ ldd
>libjavaplugin_oji.so
> libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x40044000)
> libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x4008e000)
> libdl.so.2 => /lib/libd
Previously Peter Palfrader wrote:
> I intended to ask for removal of this list but Joey sugested to ask
> first whether anybody intents to use this list or finds it useful as it
> is now.
I think it would be useful, but if the release manager doesn't use it
we might as well remove it I guess.
Wic
>> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> or do a staging in experimental or somewhere else. Upload everything
> there, let people look at it for a day or two then move it over.
That's the way I interpreted this, too. It's insane to try to NMU 1000
packages in one day.
My one p
Hi,
The following is a list of packages which I found to be missing dependencies on
libpng2-dev or libpng3-dev, although their runtime library depend on libpng2 or
libpng3.
I want these packages to depend on libpng2-dev or libpng3-dev
specifically, so that mix-match dependency of libpng2 and lib
>> Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The disadvantage is that we must know all C++ packages in advance.
A large majority of C++ packages depend on libstdc++*; the ones that
doesn't are probably libraries which have been linked using cc instead
of c++. For example libsigc++-1.1-5 and
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 06:11:10PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> >That's one hell of a figment of my imagination. Although, it does seem
> >the plugin is the only thing which uses libstdc++.
>
> ldd will traverse the library dependencies tree for all libraries, so it's
> possible that the libst
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am planning Debconf 3 to be held in Oslo, from Friday July 18th to
> Sunday July 20th.
Nice initiative.
--
Peter Makholm | I have something to say: It's better to burn in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | hell, than to f
>> Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I only created the list manually, so I might be missing something.
> If anyone knows of a better way to find out a list, please tell me.
Check the library packages for a dependency on libpng2 or libpng3,
obtain the Source package name, look for
Here's an update.
After consulting with debian-legal, I emailed Bigelow and Holmes
tonight to ask them to reconsider the license they have chosen so that
they can be included in debian. If anyone is interested, I can post
that email here.
I've ITP'd the one latin ttf font I know of which is not
Title: ÖйúÖÆÔì×ÊÔ´Íø
µÚÒ»ÆÚ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin v. Loewis) writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My concern is that locally compiled apps built against C++
>> libraries other than libstdc++ will silently stop working on
>> upgrade. This is certainly not the most important issue facing us
>> in the tr
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 13:27:24 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> This is not how Debian has done similar transitions in the past: libc4 to
> libc5, and libc5 to libc6, did not cause this breakage in Debian. Old
> programs continued to work without user or operator intervention (in fact
> libc4 b
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:49:21AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The disadvantage is that we must know all C++ packages in advance.
> A large majority of C++ packages depend on libstdc++*; the ones that
> doesn't are probably libraries whic
Here is a plan on how to do so. It requires to modify dpkg but allows
complete compatibility and no breakage of binaries (building with
G++-2.95 would no longer work unless wrappers are written).
1. Create a new version of dpkg that does the following;
In the postinst script it checks whether /us
[Matthew Wilcox]
> I got sick of listening to people discuss the gcc 3.2 transition in an
> uninformed manner. So I've whipped up a transition plan which will
> hopefully get us from A to B without causing too much pain. Haha.
> I'm entirely fallible and I don't pretend to understand all the issu
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A large majority of C++ packages depend on libstdc++*; the ones
> > that doesn't are probably libraries which have been linked using
> > cc instead of c++. For example libsigc++-1.1-5 and libgtkmm1.3-14
> > would pass unnoticed even if the
On 17 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> Here is a plan on how to do so. It requires to modify dpkg but allows
> complete compatibility and no breakage of binaries (building with
> G++-2.95 would no longer work unless wrappers are written).
>
> 1. Create a new version of dpkg that does the following
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:34:24AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > or do a staging in experimental or somewhere else. Upload everything
> > there, let people look at it for a day or two then move it over.
> is probably upwards biase
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:49:21AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > >> Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The disadvantage is that we must know all C++ packages in advance.
>
> > A large majority of C++ package
Hi,
In case noone noticed this, and noone posted this, I will post my observation
to the list:
libgdk-imlib2 was introduced, to allow png3-linked gdk-imlib, so that gtk2.0
applications
can link with gdk-imlib.
libgdk-imlib-dev accompanies libgdk-imlib2 ( which I think should have been
libgd
> HAHAHAHAHA. No.
>
> .__.
> _|doogie|_ <-- dpkg hat
>
No because of technical reasons, or because it's too much work?
IMHO since changing library filenames breaks compatibility with other
distributions, this is the only way to allow installation of old
packages (that, still IMHO, must abs
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > is probably upwards biased). This would represent a 2% increase
> > in the number of packages (1 GB increase in the archive size? 400
> > kB average size for a library package? Sounds ok, we have some
> > pretty large
>
> 1 GB*12 active archs in unstab
I forgot an important thing: all new non-C++ packages should be tagged
as non-C++ in some way so that dpkg doesn't need to scan them.
This should of course be done by having the build tools scan the package
build directory and set either a new field ('Uses-C++-ABI: No') or by
dependency on the new
(first-time poster, beware of possible stupidity)
I'll throw in my views on the subject:
(1) If I understand correctly, SONAMEs are not meant to provide any
other metadata than a reference to the *library's* ABI. Using SONAMEs for
anything else, like which compiler the library was built with, wil
On 17 Aug 2002 17:47:17 +0200
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Comments and corrections welcomed.
>
> When this was discussed in June, one of the suggestions was to include
> the ABI format (compiler name/version) in the library package name and
> soname. Did you consider it wh
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:23:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> libgdk-imlib2 was introduced, to allow png3-linked gdk-imlib, so
> that gtk2.0 applications can link with gdk-imlib.
gtk2.0 applications should be using the gdk-pixbuf included with gtk2.0,
which is already linked against png3. gdk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:23:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
[...]
> Christian Marillat decided to recompile libgnome against
> libgdk-imlib2, and libpng3, so some parts of gnome1 are recompiled
> against libpng3.
> And more ABI breaking here -- why are we breakin
On Friday 16 August 2002 20:26, you wrote:
> On Friday 16 August 2002 15:51, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> If it is done by the platform porters a special build server has to be
> setup for each platform recompiling all packages depending on c++. A wanna
> build feature creating packages for NMUs can b
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 05:59:42PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > A large majority of C++ packages depend on libstdc++*; the ones
> > > that doesn't are probably libraries which have been linked using
> > > cc instead of c++. For ex
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 09:24:34AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It should be easy enough to find all the C++ libraries that need to be
> > recompiled. First, find all the packages that depend on some version of
> There's also the case that with gcc-2.95, you could cheat and write C++
> wi
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so when you go to recompile the programs with gcc 3.2, you'll find
> that the build fails because ld can't resolve (differently-mangled)
> symbol names in the libsigc++ and libgtkmm libraries.
Oh, I see what you meant before. Yeah, that sounds
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 09:24:34AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It should be easy enough to find all the C++ libraries that need to be
> > recompiled. First, find all the packages that depend on some version of
>
> There's a
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 08:00:02PM +0300, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> I'll throw in my views on the subject:
> (1) If I understand correctly, SONAMEs are not meant to provide any
> other metadata than a reference to the *library's* ABI. Using SONAMEs for
> anything else, like which compiler the libr
Luca Barbieri wrote:
HAHAHAHAHA. No.
.__.
_|doogie|_ <-- dpkg hat
No because of technical reasons, or because it's too much work?
IMHO: No because it is unclean/ugly/fragile/hacky/total mess/etc.
IMHO since changing library filenames breaks compatibility with other
distributions, this is the o
On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 12:23, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I haven't had time to experiment, but I think there should be some
> occurrences of
> libpng2 and libpng3 being linked at the same time, which we tried to avoid,
> but
> failed.
Indeed. Try recompiling the latest Evolution, for example. It
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 09:24:34AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:49:21AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > >> Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > The disadvantage is that we m
> "Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> That's one hell of a figment of my imagination. Although,
Joseph> it does seem the plugin is the only thing which uses
Joseph> libstdc++.
And I asked originally were you refering to plugin code or a JDK.
plugin != JDK
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 01:38:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 08:00:02PM +0300, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> > I'll throw in my views on the subject:
>
> > (1) If I understand correctly, SONAMEs are not meant to provide any
> > other metadata than a reference to the *libra
Moving the thread off of private.
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 05:41:39PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> 2. I don't understand your point. In fact I can't see what your point
> is. I suspect Glenn can't either since the discussion when arround
> in circles a couple of times.
Gratui
it seems like people still don't get that bugtraq is subscribed to
debian-security-announce...
And bugtraq seems unable to add some Footer to the posts that clarifies
this...
Couldn't we
- unsubscribe bugtraq from our list
- send out security-announces to bugtraq separately?
Gruss,
Erich Schubert
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 14:51:04 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Indeed. Try recompiling the latest Evolution, for example.
Gnumeric is another; see my messages in the "New gnome-libs package build
against libpng3" thread on debian-gtk-gnome.
Ray
--
[...] computer source code, though unintelligib
On 17 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > HAHAHAHAHA. No.
> >
> > .__.
> > _|doogie|_ <-- dpkg hat
> >
> No because of technical reasons, or because it's too much work?
Because you have no clue what you are talking about.
> Because you have no clue what you are talking about.
The problem is that people who have a clue are proposing solutions that
would break existing packages and would cause the user to recompile
everything he has compiled on his own.
Furthermore, they don't explain what is wrong with the approach
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Moving the thread off of private.
Thank you.
> > 2. I don't understand your point. In fact I can't see what your point
> > is. I suspect Glenn can't either since the discussion when arround
> > in circles a couple of times.
>
Firewall died, taking down disk. New disk: clean install of Woody
upgraded to testing. Two network cards: 3COM 3C905C 10/100M as (internal)
card (eth0) 3COM Etherlink III as cable modem facing (external) card eth1.
Simple Iptables firewall. DHCP needs to work, as does ddtc for resolving
dynamic
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 09:46:42PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> it seems like people still don't get that bugtraq is subscribed to
> debian-security-announce...
> And bugtraq seems unable to add some Footer to the posts that clarifies
> this...
>
> Couldn't we
> - unsubscribe bugtraq from our li
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 20:56:48 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Now flooded with screens full of
> IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:00:04:76:de:b9:53:08:00 SRC=0.0.0.0
> DST=255,255,255,255 LEN=328 TOS=0x10 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=0 PROTO=UDP SPT=68
> DPT=67 LEN=308
> on all machines.
>
> Advic
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 12:05:59PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Joseph> That's one hell of a figment of my imagination. Although,
> Joseph> it does seem the plugin is the only thing which uses
> Joseph> libstdc++.
>
> And I asked originally were you refering to plugin code or a JDK.
> IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:00:04:76:de:b9:53:08:00 SRC=0.0.0.0
> DST=255,255,255,255 LEN=328 TOS=0x10 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=0 PROTO=UDP SPT=68
> DPT=67 LEN=308
> on all machines.
Configure your firewall correctly.
That message is a DHCP request. Just don't log DHCP requests.
DHCP request
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:34:54PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > Gratuitous changes to library names are bad? We're still struggling
> > with the png2 -> png3 upgrade, because of how much it affects;
> > throwing a new soname into the mix is not helpful.
> In general yes. What Havoc
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A
Severity: wishlist
* Package name : totem
Version : 0.8
Upstream Author : Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL: http://www.hadess.net/totem.php3
* License : GPL v2
Description : A simple movie player for the Gnome desktop based on xine.
Its features :
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:07:27 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think Junichi said this is not a recent change. Apparently we've
> > been skipping newer upstream releases because of this change. Our
> > libpng is 1.2.1, upstream's beta is 1.2.5. Junichi said fixes are
> >
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 11:58:07PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:00:04:76:de:b9:53:08:00 SRC=0.0.0.0
> > DST=255,255,255,255 LEN=328 TOS=0x10 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=0 PROTO=UDP SPT=68
> > DPT=67 LEN=308
> > on all machines.
>
> Configure your firewall correctly
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 09:46:42PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> it seems like people still don't get that bugtraq is subscribed to
> debian-security-announce...
> And bugtraq seems unable to add some Footer to the posts that clarifies
> this...
[...]
> P.S. Or wasn't this recent mail from branden
Is anyone else seeing major breakage on Gnome2 tonight?
On current debian ppc sid, I found after rebooting that while
gdm2 still worked and I could login that Nautilus2 is very
broken and reports that variety of directory as being invalid
with alerts at startup. Also the Applications menus are
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-17
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libtime-piece-perl
Version : 1.07
Upstream Author : Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.cpan.org/
* License
It would appear the problem may be with the gnome-vfs2
currently built on voltaire. I had built my own copy waiting
for it to come off of voltaire earlier in the week. With that
locally built copy of gnome-vfs2 installed, nautilus2 works
fine. Also, if I rebuild current gnome-vfs2 against curre
61 matches
Mail list logo
