Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
>> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
>>
>> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
>> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
>>sync
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:52:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:33:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> > >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
> This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
>
> Bugs will be filed:
>
> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
> 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of
> the material i
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:42:57AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation
> >> > because some people do not like its
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Dominok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 09:15, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>> > Through SPI's presence?
>>
>> Well, i didn't search _that_ long but couldn'
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:23:16PM -0500, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:11:31AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>
> > I used dselect a lot back in the day (I don't know, like up until 2000
> > or so?). It had a clunky but useable interface (though I fully
> > understand how new
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:26:00PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 11:30 -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 08-Dec-04, 11:15 (CST), "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Get off your ass.
> >
> > Ah. I see. Courtesy is not your strong point.
>
> His pa
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:38:10PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Friday 10 December 2004 15.35, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off
> > timely releases
>
> Did Debian even try?
No, not since I've been around.
> I didn't follow the woo
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Dec 09, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I have been thinking about the blob problem for a while. I propose to
>> > remove blobs from the driver, and store them as files in
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 15:21 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> >> On Dec 09, Bruce Pere
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041210 19:55]:
> > Yup. There's never been a sense of urgency. The RM's throw out release
> > dates and goals every once in a while, but no one seems to take those
>
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:49:48PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 11, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If it made any sense at all for a mainboard's BIOS to loaded by the
> > Linux kernel at boot time with a non-free firmware blob, the curr
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As far as I'm concerned, distribution of the firmware is the
> > manufacturer's realm. Whether the manufacturer distributes it on an
> > E
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 11 d?cembre 2004 ? 11:00 -0800, Brian Nelson a ?crit :
> > You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
> > debian-legal. All other participants argue for non-free-firmware-usi
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:50:44AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
>
> It's hardly that. We distribute only free software, that's our rule.
> The res
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> > As far as
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:36:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think it's the case today, but I think that it will be soon.
> > It's the way the world is going.
>
> Especially if we and others just give in and say "ok, that's fine."
Act
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:49:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 02:23:16PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > While you have your pen and paper out, go ahead and write some hardware
> > that a contrib device driver can use without needing firmware loadable
&g
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:24:16PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Tim Cutts wrote:
>
> >If Debian tries to be too rigid, we run a serious risk of consigning
> >ourselves to history, because people just won't install Debian any
> >more if it doesn't work out-of-the-box on most hardware - and the ti
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 08:02:28PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:42:23PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Contrib exists for software dependencies. This is not a software
> > dependency issue. There is no direct relationship between firmware and
> >
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>> Architectural plans for a house, shipped in a Debian package, are
>>> software.
>>
>> I'm stunned. So anything in a Debian package is software. With alien I
>> can co
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:07:31AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> No, a definition of "software" was never decided upon. The vote was
>> about removing the word "software" in certain places from the DFSG,
>
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:42:07AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Package: ndiswrapper
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sarge, sid
>
> Hi,
>
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> > > Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source ha
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:50:59PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:15:53 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> >> Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
> >> into his shell and
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:24:34PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Javier Setoain wrote:
> >* Package name: cpufrequtils
> > Version : 0.2-pre1
> > Upstream Author : Dominik Brodowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >* URL : http://www.example.org/
> >* License : GPL
> > Des
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Our chances of actually releasing one day could only increase if we
>> dropped arches such as mipsel, s390, m68k, ... and concentrated on
>> those that actually mattered: i386, powerpc, amd64 -- an
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > But a total of eleven is insane.
>
> It is sometimes hard to get them all to work, yes.
>
> It also vastly increases the quality of the Free Software in our
>
Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> > > But a total o
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Nelson writes:
>>> That's an overstatement. Simply having two architectures (i386 and ppc)
>>> would be enough to reveal nearly all portability b
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson debian.org> writes:
>> And for the more obscure architectures, virtually all of the testing
>> comes from the build of the package. How many people out there are
>> actually using e.g. KDE on mi
"Thaddeus H. Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Not private. Reply on-list if you wish.]
>
>> However, I do think that not including amd64 (while keeping mips and
>> friends) in the sarge release due to mirroring problems is ridiculous.
>
> Amen, brother.
>
>> ... packages are uploaded too fre
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello Debian developers,
>
> It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
> wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
> to run the testing scripts.
>
> Debian certainly has enough goodwi
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:37:22PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
> >> whatever) to their autobuilders,
> >
> > True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the
> > Debian archi
Can we *please* ban Ingo from d-d? He's been a huge pain in the ass on
this list for months now, has absolutely nothing constructive to
contribute, and is actively trying to subvert the project.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:09:47PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:34:16P
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:58PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> As most people in this threas have expressed lot of bad feelings about
> this. I must tell that I think this proposal is a good step toward
> quicker releases etc.
>
> With the clarifications (see the new thread) I must sa
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:15:46 +0100, Romain Francoise
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Can we *please* ban Ingo from d-d? He's been a huge pain in the ass on
>>
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
>> Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
>> apt-get install debconf6-doc
>
> you will, and most likely it will be 100% complete. if someone
> packages it.
Uhhh, why would
Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> * Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
>>>> Hold on - does this mean I wil
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> while preparing an upload of gcc-2.95 which fixes its worst problems
> I wondered how many users of it are actually left. 9 packages in
> unstable still declare a build dependency on gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95,
> this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:27:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:52:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > >I also see the keyring's been updated earlier this week, including
>> > >both a replacement key for Horms from late last month, and Chi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
>> things newer kernels might require.
> OTOH, old kernel are buggy and out of date wrt modern hardware, and we
> lack the
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2006 à 14:21 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>> On Jan 04, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > udev has broken my system -- completely (as in: can't boot and/or log in)
>> > --
>> > _seven_ distinct times s
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 differ
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
>> proper interpretation would be:
>>
>> (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
>>
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
>> > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
>> > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which view
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
>> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
>> issue.
>
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> I completely agree, and
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:20:05AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
>
> @Bernard, I intend to package swsusp2 for Debian, just letting you
> know...
>
> * Package name: kernel-patch-swsusp2
> Version : 2.1.5.15
> Upstream Author : Bernard Blackham
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Debian currently ships two ODBC driver managers, unixODBC (source
> package "unixodbc") and iODBC (source package "libiodbc2"). These
> basically do the same thing. Every package that wants to provide
> database access through
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 09:05:56PM +0200, Fathi BOUDRA wrote:
> I'm looking for a sponsor for my qt4lab package.
> The project seems already promising, and there's a collaboration
> with qwt project.
>
> You can find my package here :
> http://fboudra.free.fr/debian/
>
> best regards,
>
> Fathi
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:03:07AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:31:52AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If you really want to retain your "everything is software" point of
> > view, think about the consequences and work on them _before_ starting
> > the removals - and pr
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:53:05PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hey! Shaun Jackman generously offered to meet in New Westminister over
> lunch to exchange gpg signatures
>
> Meeting other debian/linux/open source folks would be totally awesome!
If you're willing to cross the border, you co
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: qt-x11-opensource
Version : 4.0 beta 2
Upstream Author : Trolltech AS
* URL or Web page : http://www.trolltech.com
* License : Dual GPL/QPL
Description : Qt 4 cross-platform C++ application framework
Qt is a cross-plat
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:10:44PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Brian Nelson]
> > * Package name: qt-x11-opensource
> > Version : 4.0 beta 2
> > Upstream Author : Trolltech AS
>
> Is there some reason for the "-opensource" in t
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > A Replaces without a Conflicts is I think always wrong.
>
> No, absolutely not. See policy, section 7.5, for details -- especially
> section 7.5.1.
Policy i
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:06:07PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 June 2005 19.14, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> [...]
>
> Hmmm. Is it just my kmail, or does your mailer produce strange (or no?)
> In-Reply-To headers?
It's not just you.
> All your posts I saw (and none o
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:02:44PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:38:34PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > On 6/23/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > OK. How would I make use of this. I was going to adopt iceme and
> > > icepref, but then I
reopen 159971
reopen 124472
reopen 147059
reopen 70184
thanks
Anselm Lingnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 01:15:33 +0200
> Source: bwidget
> Binary: bwidget
> Architecture: source all
> Version: 1.6.0-1
> Distribution: unstable
> Urgency: low
> Maintainer: An
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:47:15PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
>> If your changelog merely says "New upstream version, closes: #123 #456",
>> it's no help whatsoever, and I will (rightly) think that you suck.
>
> This is debian-devel: as
Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon 26 May 2003, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>> Umm, no, the changelog is for listing changes (*change* log, get it?),
>> not for just closing bugs without any reason given whatsoever.
>>
>> Why do so many seem to have
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 08:39:50AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> > Perhaps a separate, concise message to debian-devel-announce?
>>
>> I doubt it would help. I see changelog abuse as an act of laziness, not
>> ig
Christian Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Brian
>
> On [26/05/03 23:13], Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Anselm Lingnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> >* Closes: #159971, #124472, #147059, #70184.
>
>> Umm, no, the changelog is for listing
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:15:37PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>> 1. To show others, especially NM's, what not to do. NM's mostly learn
>>by example, and I think it helps to ensure they don't follow bad
>
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was looking for some pointers about managing package sources with
> subversion. I've got a grasp of the basics and I have looked at a
> couple of examples (most notably Branden's SVN repository for the
> XFree86 packages). My main concern
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 10:12:28AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> I use subversion for some things, but I haven't moved my Debian
>> package repositories over yet because I've just had too many problems
>> w
Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Changes:
> tkdiff (1:3.08-4) unstable; urgency=low
> .
>* lintian fixes
Issues that lintian reports are, in most cases, bugs. Bugs that you
have fixed should be explicitly described in the changelog. After all,
lintian reports many different
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Issues that lintian reports are, in most cases, bugs. Bugs that you
>> have fixed should be explicitly described in the changelog. After all,
>> lintian reports many di
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:59:40PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>
> > >* New upstream version (Closes: #193497)
> >
> > Meep. No.
> >
> > Write proper changelogs and(or close bugs the right way[tm]. That
> > form is only acceptable f
Javier FernÃndez-Sanguino PeÃa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages
> who fail to produce a proper description?
>
> I would probably first do so for the packages whose short description =
> long description or who do not have
I'm going to be in Portland, Oregon, for June 22-28. I'll probably have
time for a keysigning and maybe a quick beer if any Debian developers
and/or users are interested. Just drop me a mail if you want to meet
somewhere.
-Brian
--
Poems... always a sign of pretentious inner turmoil.
pgp8Nkl
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> During some of the discussions lately on debian-devel another usage of
>> the changelog has risen interest:
>>
>> * New upstream release (closes: #123, #124, #125)
>>
>> This has also raised some discussion
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It's pointless to go through this again. Instead, I'll offer a concrete
>> example of the confusion this can create (the original submitter asks
>> for cla
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 02:02:04PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> What if the packages tells to dpkg which files or directories it will
>> create on the user's home directory and when a package is purged the
>> user could run a program to purge the fil
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>>
>> Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
>> get the impression that you are readin
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:19:59PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>> >> > Th
Sebastian Rittau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:51:07PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
>> It seems then that our options are as follows.
>>
>> (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix.
>> (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is not
>> release-critica
Halil Demirezen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> some useless architecture like arm or m68k
>
> Are we in dilemma on "should we support arch that are not used widely?" or
> "We should support all architectures"
No, this has nothing to do with usage. The question is why support
an arch if nobody i
Keith Dunwoody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chad Walstrom wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 03:52:51PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Package: wnpp
>>>Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-30
>>>Severity: wishlist
>>>
>>>* Package name: decss
>> Like that won't be a confusing package
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Oh, look, someone else who CCs when it is obvious the person they're
>> responding to is participating right here.
>
> Maybe you should stop whining and just set the Mail-Copies-To header,
> which is generall
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
>> statement by the project.
>
> So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in
> it are D
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:34:05PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> The aspell dictionary packages build-depend on aspell-bin (>> 0.60).
> aspell-bin is now a virtual package provided by aspell, but virtual
> packages cannot be versioned, so these build-dependency cannot be
> satisfied.
>
>
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So aspell changed the library name to libaspell15c2, which breaks all
> the existing packages that use libaspell.
>
> Was this really an ABI change in libaspell? If not, there was no
> reason to make the change as I understand it. Were high-sev
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> So aspell changed the library name to libaspell15c2, which breaks all
>>> the existing pac
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> The 'reopen' command takes an optional submitter argument, so it was
> difficult to get a version in here unambiguously. Instead, we've
> introduced a new 'found' command, which says "I've found the bug in this
> version of the package". You can use
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 09:39:23PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> It's a C++ library and the ABI changed due to being compiled with GCC
>> 4.0.
>
>> [Actually, although it's written in C++, AFAIK it only export
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:52:13AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, that fix is not in the stable package of aspell. In stable,
> > aspell-bin just depends on libaspell15 (>= 0.60), so a partial upgrade
> > o
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:52:51PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Reintroducing the libaspell15 could cause problems with
> /usr/bin/aspell,
>> since it actually goes outside the C API of libaspell and uses C++
>> link
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson wrote:
>> OK, very well then, I'll undo the GCC 4 transition for libaspell15.
>
> Isn't there still a binary-compatibility issue here? I thought that
> in an application, there must onl
Anders Breindahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 03 August 2005 02:16, Steve
> Langasek wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 06:32:44PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>> > Unsolicited Commercial Email. Please pay the standard $2000 fee for
>> > advertisments on Debian mailing lists.
>> Y'know,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 05:28:48PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:20:23AM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> > Qingning Huo suggested using diversions to make /usr/bin/git a little
> > selector script that lets the admin & user choose between git-the-shell
> > and
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 07:32:57AM +, OndÅ?ej SurÃœ wrote:
> there was three request to enable *spell extensions in php4/5 packages.
> Currently nobody from PHP maintainers team wants to add more burden on
> his shoulders, hence I request help from our fellow debian developers
> to package pspe
Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:47:33AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
>> Hi,
>> If you go through the list of wnpp bugs you will see alot of
>> open bugs which are very very old.
>> Especially the RFPs. What about closing an RFP bug
>> automatically after the t
Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
> * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050913 02:46]:
> [ long RFPs ]
>> Or don't even open RFP bugs in the first place because they're
>> thoroughly useless?
>
> Do you have a proposal for a
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Orphaning this package now - the maintainer has no time to work on it
> and agreed to the orphaning. If you want it: Fix the bugs, change
> maintainer, upload a new version.
Note that the previous maintainer was also upstream for the package...
--
Cap
Benjamin Mesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello
>
>
>> assume that an update to a package brings in a changed conffile, and
>> because the local admin had changed the conffile, he is asked, and he
>> refuses to accept the changed version.
> This brings up an issue that is bothering me as a use
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10469 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>>> Rejected: source only uploads are not supported.
>> I can't see the rationale for rejecting source uploads, and they used to
>> be accepted in the past.
>
> Because people then fuck up their packages eve
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:05:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:45:04PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:43:19AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
Firefox/x.y.z Iceweasel/x.y.z
Sounds too Firefoxy.
What's the pr
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > Figuring out a better solution for why the files in
>> > /var/lib/ispell and /var/lib/aspell are excluded from the md5sums
>> > generation because they change after installation is probably
>> > neede
Luca Filipozzi writes:
> ries is located at Brown University. Brown provides free hosting,
> bandwidth and remote intelligent hands. They have provided exemplary
> support but it doesn't include (nor should we have an expectation that
> it includes) 4-hour response.
>
> ries is covered by a nex
Joerg Jaspert writes:
>>> I don't think anyone disagrees with this, including the ftp-masters. The
>>> question is whether the source package also needs a copyright file of its
>>> own.
>> As we are distributing these files, it seems reasonable to document their
>> licence. But the Policy is not
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
