* [ 17-01-05 - 01:50 ] Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:57:57PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There are currently 11 orphaned xfce4-* packages in unstable, including
> > three that have just been removed from testing due to RC bugs that went
> > virtuall
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:22:14AM +0100, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> * [ 17-01-05 - 01:50 ] Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There were some packages that made it to mentors.debian.net - and there
> > is still some work up there.
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/
> WNPP
Hi DDs,
I was just wondering about the number of packages that go through the
debian flavors per release.
X packages went in stable, Y packages went in testing, Z
packages went in unstable,
where X < Y << Z
for potato, woody and sarge(so far).
IE. woody(x)=8000 and sarge(x)=15000
Any pointers to w
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi DDs,
> I was just wondering about the number of packages that go through the
> debian flavors per release.
> X packages went in stable, Y packages went in testing, Z
> packages went in unstable,
> where X < Y << Z
> for potato, woody and sarge(so far).
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 13:04, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Count the number of entries in the Packages / Sources file?
>
> You should realy count source packages I think as that better reflects
> the amount of software than all the multi deb packages.
>
> MfG
> Goswin
Quick test:
[EM
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: pitivi
Version : 0.1.1
Upstream Author : European Institute of Technology
* URL : http://www.pitivi.org/
* License : GPL
Description : GStreamer based non-linear audio/video editing software
*** DRAFT (i.e.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: cupid
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Author : Ronald Bultje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ronald.bitfreak.net/me/cupid.php
* License : GPL
Description : GStreamer based video/audio recorder
*** DRAFT (will r
On 17 Jan 2005, at 5:42 pm, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:28:56AM +, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
lvm2 - in active development, upstream helpful but often busy.
device-mapper - largely stable. occasional releases.
lvm10 - stable. no more upstream development at a
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:46:18PM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2005, at 5:42 pm, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:28:56AM +, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
> >>lvm2- in active development, upstream helpful but often
> >>busy.
> >>device-mapper - larg
[Brian May]
> Whatever happened to the idea of even numbered kernels being
> "stable"?
You didn't get the memo? That's an obsolete standard - the 2.6.x line
of development has been much more aggressive than past stable series,
as far as allowed tree changes, and last July or so (I think it was),
* Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-15 11:51]:
> I have tried to unload this onto Rafael for a few years now, but he can't
> take Octave either. This may be best served by a maintainer group via
> alioth, and I could be persuaded to help. But I can't set up such a group
> or lead it,
On 18 Jan 2005, at 4:06 pm, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:46:18PM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
On 17 Jan 2005, at 5:42 pm, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:28:56AM +, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
lvm2 - in active development, upstream helpful but often
busy.
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:11:50 +, Tim Cutts wrote:
>
> On 18 Jan 2005, at 4:06 pm, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:46:18PM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17 Jan 2005, at 5:42 pm, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:28:56AM +, Patrick Caulfi
I've set the s attrtibute of halt since on my desktop any user may stop
the system. But about each second month or so it's set back to it's
original rights probably by a package upgrade. Is there a way to keep
the access rights or any better way to handle these kind of problems.
O. Wyss
--
Devel
[Otto Wyss]
> I've set the s attrtibute of halt since on my desktop any user may
> stop the system. But about each second month or so it's set back to
> it's original rights probably by a package upgrade. Is there a way to
> keep the access rights or any better way to handle these kind of
> proble
Some of us have woody running on LVM1... well I have this with 2.4 Debian
kernel and LVM1. For LVM1 to work with a kernel that has devfs compiled in
(debian kernels for woody do) then /dev/ has to be a mounted devfs.
For people such as myself sarge as it stands will provide a 2.4.27 kernel
with de
Hi,
(Disclaimer: I never coded C seriously for any useful commands.)
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:24:05PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Qui, 2005-01-13 às 19:12 +0100, Osamu Aoki escreveu:
> > * Parsing of GNU long-option and /etc/gksu.conf may share codes.
>
> I don't know what you me
I don't read the Debian Devel list all that often, as it's traffic rate
is far too much for me to keep up with. ;-) In any case, I was referred
to your post by the Debian Weekly News article on it (you're pretty
popular right now). I would have to agree with posters that suggested
you follow the
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> so unless Debian wants to stay with stoneage kernels you're better of
> starting to fix D-I.
We're not going to destabalise d-i by beginning to make large changes to
it, like not using devfs, until sarge is released.
FWIW, the main current d-i release blocker is a lack
Alex Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some of us have woody running on LVM1... well I have this with 2.4 Debian
> kernel and LVM1. For LVM1 to work with a kernel that has devfs compiled in
> (debian kernels for woody do) then /dev/ has to be a mounted devfs.
>
> For people such as myself sarge a
Hey!
Em Ter, 2005-01-18 Ãs 22:34 +0100, Osamu Aoki escreveu:
> First add these extra long options to "struct option long_opts[] = { ..."
>
> Then right before calling "gtk_init (&newargc, &newargv);" you source
I see your point (even more after reading your other post), but I think
messing up wi
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:50:55AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > There are currently 11 orphaned xfce4-* packages in unstable, including
> > three that have just been removed from testing due to RC bugs that went
> > virtually unnoticed since the last upload in May.
>
> I know the -goodies packa
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:52:04PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > > Yes, and if ev67 is instruction upper compatible with ev56 (I
> > > > guess so), I think it's acceptable to add a symlink "ln -sf
> > > > lib/ev67/libfoo.so lib/ev56/libfoo.so".
> > >
> > > Ugh... that pushes the burden o
At Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:09:03 -0600,
Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:52:04PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes, and if ev67 is instruction upper compatible with ev56 (I
> > > > > guess so), I think it's acceptable to add a symlink "ln -sf
> >
24 matches
Mail list logo
