[frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]

[Francesco Paolo Lovergine]

The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
and per-arch patches).
I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage.
IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost
unuseful and should be removed from sarge...


- Forwarded message from Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

Old-Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Status of kernel-patches in sarge
Mail-Followup-To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

I'm performing an ongoing activity to check the applicability of current
kernel-patches against sarge kernel-sources for 2.4.27 and 2.6.8.

An almost complete summary is available at 

http://people.debian.org/~frankie/kernel-patches-checks.txt

As you can see, there are a few patches which cannot be used
with neither 2.4.27 nor 2.6.8. Marked patches should be simply RC bugged
and hinted for remove if not aligned properly.

I would also point that too often patch names differes from their kernel-patch 
names,
without justification. I'm working on a little script to do this kind of
light check automatically, too.

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- End forwarded message -

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#310044: ITP: proguard -- java class file shrinker, optimizer, and obfuscator

[Sam Clegg]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sam Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: proguard
  Version : 3.2
  Upstream Author : Eric Lafortune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://proguard.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
  Description : java class file shrinker, optimizer, and obfuscator

 ProGuard is a free Java class file shrinker, optimizer, and
 obfuscator.  It can detect and remove unused classes, fields,
 methods, and attributes. It can then optimize bytecode and remove
 unused instructions. Finally, it can rename the remaining classes,
 fields, and methods using short meaningless names. The resulting jars
 are smaller and harder to reverse-engineer.

This package builds just with jikes-classpath and runs with kaffe
which are both in main.

My provisional packages are available here:

http://people.debian.org/~samo/experimental/

There is an archived ITP for proguard from over a year ago and
I have checked with the original filer that he is no longer
interested in this package.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]

[Bill Allombert]

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
> and per-arch patches).
> I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage.
> IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost
> unuseful and should be removed from sarge...

Sometime you can apply them manually even if the apply script fail:

kernel-patch-skas apply fine to 2.4.27 but unfortunately, the apply
script does not know (I use it with 2.4.27 since several months without
any problem).

I should really have NMUed this package months ago...

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#310048: kicker: sometimes eats 100% CPU after logout from KDE

[Alexey Feldgendler]

Package: kicker
Version: 4:3.3.2-1
Severity: important

Sometimes after I log out from KDE, the kicker remains hanging and
starts eating 100% CPU. It doesn't die off even when I log in again,
so I have to kill it with SIGKILL. This happens or not happens without
obvious reasons, and the probability of hanging seems to be about 50%.

I've tried attaching to the hanging kicker process to find out what's
it busy with. Using strace has shown that it's not doing any syscalls.
Here is what I found out with gdb:

0x4b7b8332 in mallopt () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
(gdb) up
#1  0x4b7b817e in mallopt () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
(gdb) up
#2  0x4b7b6ffb in free () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
(gdb) up
#3  0x45c7eed8 in QImage::freeBits () from /usr/lib/libqt-mt.so.3
(gdb) up
#4  0x45c7e6aa in QImage::reset () from /usr/lib/libqt-mt.so.3
(gdb) up
#5  0x45c7dfeb in QImage::~QImage () from /usr/lib/libqt-mt.so.3
(gdb) up
#6  0xb7b42da2 in TaskBarContainer::sizeHint () from /usr/lib/libtaskbar.so.1
(gdb) up
#7  0x4b7701d2 in exit () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
(gdb) up
#8  0x463b3203 in _kde_IceDefaultIOErrorHandler () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#9  0x463b4822 in _kde_IceWrite () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#10 0x463b4355 in KDE_IceFlush () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#11 0x463ab35c in DCOPClient::callInternal () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#12 0x463aaafc in DCOPClient::callInternal () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#13 0x463aa5c5 in DCOPClient::call () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#14 0x463aa3ea in DCOPClient::call () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#15 0x463ac222 in DCOPClient::disconnectDCOPSignal () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#16 0x463a008e in DCOPObject::~DCOPObject () from /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4
(gdb) up
#17 0xb79333a6 in KMFactory::~KMFactory () from /usr/lib/libkdeprint.so.4
(gdb) up
#18 0xb793673f in KStaticDeleter::destructObject () from 
/usr/lib/libkdeprint.so.4
(gdb) up
#19 0x46273825 in KGlobal::deleteStaticDeleters () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.4
(gdb) up
#20 0x461e13ac in KApplication::~KApplication () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.4
(gdb) up
#21 0x46282157 in KUniqueApplication::~KUniqueApplication () from 
/usr/lib/libkdecore.so.4
(gdb) up
#22 0x46b513e8 in Kicker::~Kicker () from /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kicker.so
(gdb) up
#23 0x46b4f441 in kdemain () from /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kicker.so
(gdb) up
#24 0xb7ff88a6 in kdeinitmain () from /usr/lib/kde3/kicker.so
(gdb) up
#25 0x0804cd30 in ?? ()

If you need more debugging information of some kind, or information
about my system configuration, just write what info you need, I'll try
to collect it.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (800, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-1-686
Locale: LANG=ru_RU.KOI8-R, LC_CTYPE=ru_RU.KOI8-R (charmap=KOI8-R)

Versions of packages kicker depends on:
ii  kdebase-data  4:3.3.2-1  KDE Base (shared data)
ii  kdelibs4  4:3.3.2-5  KDE core libraries
ii  libart-2.0-2  2.3.17-1   Library of functions for 2D graphi
ii  libc6 2.3.2.ds1-21   GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libfam0c102   2.7.0-6client library to control the FAM 
ii  libgcc1   1:3.4.3-12 GCC support library
ii  libice6   6.8.2-5.1  Inter-Client Exchange library
ii  libidn11  0.5.13-1.0 GNU libidn library, implementation
ii  libkonq4  4:3.3.2-1  Core libraries for KDE's file mana
ii  libpng12-01.2.8rel-1 PNG library - runtime
ii  libqt3c102-mt 3:3.3.4-3  Qt GUI Library (Threaded runtime v
ii  libsm66.8.2-5.1  X Window System Session Management
ii  libstdc++51:3.3.5-12 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii  libx11-6  6.8.2-5.1  X Window System protocol client li
ii  libxext6  6.8.2-5.1  X Window System miscellaneous exte
ii  libxrender1   0.9.0-0ubuntu4 X Rendering Extension client libra
ii  libxtst6  6.8.2-5.1  X Window System event recording an
ii  xlibs 6.8.2-5.1  X Window System client libraries m
ii  zlib1g1:1.2.2-4  compression library - runtime

-- no debconf information


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

mdadm+udev needs testing!

[martin f krafft]

[Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

mdadm has three udev-related RC bugs (#294404, #273182 and #301560),
which I seem to have been able to fix using previous work by Steve
Langasek and Marco d'Itri. Since mdadm is a critical piece of
software, I herewith call to those of you with the ability to test
it in a udev environment to do so!

I have tested this fix only on VMware (but with SCSI, so modules are
being used, but via initrd).

You can get mdadm 1.9.0-2.2 for i386 as well as the source package
from

  deb http://debian.madduck.net ~madduck/packages/nmu/mdadm/
  deb-src http://debian.madduck.net ~madduck/packages/nmu/mdadm/

or

  http://debian.madduck.net/~madduck/packages/nmu/mdadm/

Cheers,

-- 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
 
"work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do.
 play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do."
   -- mark twain


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [PATCH] dpkg: add transparency support to dselect, misc. fixes

[Otavio Salvador]

> "adeodato" == Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

adeodato> * Bernhard Fischer [Fri, 20 May 2005 18:23:14 +0200]:
>> Hi,
  
adeodato>   Hi Bernhard, I'm not a dpkg person at all, but the
adeodato> following advice sounds like common sense to me, and
adeodato> perhaps it even helps. ;-)

Hello to both :-D

>> Attached patch implements support for transparent terminals in
>> dselect.  It also contains various cosmetic fixes as well as a
>> potential real bug in lib/varbuf.c.

adeodato>   What about spliting the thing into three separate
adeodato> patches then? They are certainly three separate issues,
adeodato> with three different priorities, so chances are that
adeodato> some will get applied before than the others.

Yes. This is really better.

Is best if you have fixes and improvements in two or more patches.

>> PS: The patch is against dpkg-1.10.27 from testing as gluck was
>> down at the time i wrote it.

adeodato>   As I can't be sure the above implies you're aware of
adeodato> it, I'll mention: development on dpkg is happening on
adeodato> the experimental version (1.13.4 atm), so it'd be
adeodato> helpful to make sure your patch is up to date.  There's
adeodato> also an Arch repo, so if you're familiar with it you may
adeodato> want to maintain a branch.

I suggest instead of plain patches try to use arch or bazaar and
make one branch for each feature. Then you can sync your patches
easier and is a lot easier for dpkg hackers merge them too.

Of course, use the development branch for include new features
since it will probably be moved to unstable when sarge goes out.

-- 
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
-
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

[repost] Policy for Scheme implementations supporting SRFI 22, also virtual packages

[Jorgen Schaefer]

  Note:
  This is a repost of the mail at
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/04/msg01000.html - no
  replies were received at that time. I have now created a bug
  report against debian-policy (#310113) requesting the creation
  of the virtual packages mentioned in the policy. I will wait a
  few days before doing any more steps in this regard.


Hello!
The Scheme programming language is notorious for its lack of
standardization. The SRFI process[1] is trying to mitigate this
problem. Particularily, SRFI 22[2], "Running Scheme Scripts on
Unix", tries to standardize interpreter names for Scheme scripts.
This is relevant to Debian as this introduces a name conflict if
two implementations of Scheme both want to support SRFI 22, and
thus provide the same interpreter command.

This should be solved as usual by using the alternatives system.
In a
talk between the package maintainers of Scheme implementations, a
policy document was formulated which expresses the ideas and
concerns of all parties involved. This policy draft can be found
at

http://people.debian.org/~forcer/debian-scheme-policy/debian-scheme-policy.html/

The essence of the document is that

a) The interpreters defined in SRFI 22 should be managed by
   update-alternatives
b) Implementations should Provides: the appropriate interpreter
   names
c) Scripts should Depends: on the appropriate interpreter names

The problem with b) and c) is that there's no standard available
to portably install Scheme modules as Debian packages, which
somewhat lowers the usability of the virtual packages, as
libraries that are required for a script might not be available,
and no Depends: line will make it available. Still, this at least
allows to depend on SRFI 22 implementations.

One other concern was that this policy talks a lot, but says
little. It can be summarized easily, as seen in the enumeration
above. The proposition was to use something like this instead:

   Please use update-alternatives to provide /usr/bin/scheme-r5rs,
   /usr/bin/... if appropriate. Priorities should reflect the
   relative maturity and completeness of the implementations,
   typically ranging from 10 to 50. Packages should "Provides:
   scheme-r5rs" etc. if the named functionality provided is
   standards-complete, or nearly so.

This is of course much shorter, but lacks the examples and detail.

As for virtual packages, this policy would create:
- scheme-r4rs
- scheme-r5rs
- scheme-ieee-11878-1900
- scheme-srfi-0
- scheme-srfi-7
- scheme-srfi-55

I have not yet created the bug report against debian-policy, as
this discussion might conclude that the virtual packages should
not be created.


Any comments on the proposal, or the mentioned problems of the
proposal?


Greetings,
-- Jorgen

[1] http://srfi.schemers.org/
[2] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-22/srfi-22.html

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.forcix.cx/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#294397: I am willing to make this package

[Romain Beauxis]

Package: wnpp
Followup-For: Bug #294397
Owner: Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Hi!

I had already tried to package it few mounths ago, for my first try...
So that was not that clean.. ;)

Now I'm restarting from scratch, and I will do the following packages:
-- mediabox404-web: package with all the PHP interface files
-- mediabox404-streamer: package with the streaming client
-- mediabox404-daemon: package with the scheduler daemon.

The main issue remaining would be to compile the streamer WITHOUT the
mp3 encoding support in order to have it compliant with debian policy.

Romain


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11.8-1stday
Locale: LANG=fr_FR, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR (charmap=ISO-8859-1)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I can see you like watching tv

[Luz Olariu]

Hi,

Do you wanna watch TV for free?

SURE YOU DO!

Will work on all U.S. and Canadian cable systems!

Check it out:

1clickchannel.com

Thanks,
Billie Lewis


blue watermellon cyan grapefruit
Were those science teachers missing walking a few days ago?. Have you missed reading recently?.
yellow grapefruit pink mango
I'll study as soon as you have liked skiing.. The musicians have missed playing since a few days ago..

Re: Release update: freeze progress, closing date for non-RC fixes

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:17:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:55:12AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 04:42:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >...
> > > According to , the official
> > > count of release-critical bugs affecting testing is 61.  Since security
> > > bugs are an, er, "renewable resource", and can be fixed out-of-band, we
> > > can exclude them from our reckoning and get the number at the bottom of
> > >  instead,
> > > which is 41.  This is pretty good progress, but it's still a far cry
> > > from the estimate of 15 RC bugs that our timeline called for by this
> > > Wednesday.  We fortunately did put a little bit of padding into this
> > > timeline, but being off on the RC count by a factor of 2-3 is stretching
> > > things a bit, y'know?
> > >...
> 
> > I'm not a big fan of your metric, but if you are using it please note 
> > that at least the following issues make your numbers at the URL you are 
> > referring to [1] lower than they actually are:
> 
> > - relevant pseudo-packages are not listed (the "kernel" pseudo-package 
> >   alone has 3 RC bugs)
> 
> Fair point, thanks.
> 
> > - the exclusion of bugs that are tagged both "sarge" and "sid"
> >   (e.g. #303860) is obviously wrong
> 
> Actually, it's the tags that are now wrong on that bug, because celestia has
> been removed from sarge.  'ignore=sid' ignores bugs that *only* apply to
> sid.

I could have sworn I checked packages.debian.org before writing this...

> Steve Langasek

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Inconsistent handling of sourceless packages in main

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>...
> And all have problems:
> 
> package  | danger
> -+--
> kernel-image*| kernel-source* update replaces source
>  | rebuild differs
>  | but old version is retrievable through included patches
>...

Silly question:

Is e.g. kernel-source-2.6.8 2.6.8-15 in sarge really sufficient to 
satisfy the GPL requirements for kernel-image-2.6.8-sparc 2.6.8-6 in 
sarge built against kernel-source-2.6.8 2.6.8-11?

IANAL, but I'd have said this was a violation GPL section 3 .

> MfG
> Goswin

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:33:01PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:00:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Other issues like #308762 are also still possible on direct
> > mysql-server/woody -> mysql-server-4.1/sarge upgrade paths - and
> > there will be users doing such upgrade paths.
> 
> i'm going to call you out on this again.  if there are problems, please stop
> making vague asides report the bugs.

Last time, I sent a perfectly fine bug report after verifying exactly 
what the problem was (which always takes some time).

This time I have to correct myself:
I tried to reproduce the problem, but wasn't able to.

>   sean

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> I see the same three options.  Joey has said he is working on a final woody
> point release for the last weekend in May; you'll probably need to
> coordinate with him and get something uploaded soon if you want to try for
> this option.

AFAIR, upgrades from Debian 3.0r0 to Debian 3.1 are supported.

If this is not true, Debian 3.1 CDs will have to include a CD that 
upgrade Debian 3.0r0 to Debian 3.0r7 or you will leave your users 
without an upgrade path.

> 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a
> package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner, so having a corner
> case of "partially upgraded woody system and installing mysql-server-4.1 and
> messed with a package directory" is not the end of the world...

It's a quite common usage in database environments.

> Cheers,
> Steve Langasek

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:35:03AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:08:28PM +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> > > 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace 
> > > a
> > > package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner
> 
> > If you consider this an user error, then what is the officially blessed
> > way of relocating a package-prodived directory to a different (already
> > mounted) file system?
> 
> currently, that would be bind mounts.

Which are not supported by most kernels shipped with woody.

> Steve Langasek

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [repost] Policy for Scheme implementations supporting SRFI 22, also virtual packages

[Eric Dorland]

* Jorgen Schaefer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>   Note:
>   This is a repost of the mail at
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/04/msg01000.html - no
>   replies were received at that time. I have now created a bug
>   report against debian-policy (#310113) requesting the creation
>   of the virtual packages mentioned in the policy. I will wait a
>   few days before doing any more steps in this regard.

Been a while since I've done anything Schemey, but this looks like a
good proposal. 

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: unrar version confusion

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:58:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 03:45:10PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > Quoting Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >Why is the latest version in debian lower than the one before?
> > >Regards Nico
> > 
> > Becuase it is, in fact, a different program.  The higher numbered releases
> > are of a non-free version of unrar.  The newer releases are of a free 
> > version
> > that is going into main.
> 
> Then the new program should still have a higher version number, to allow
> people who currently use the non-free program to upgrade to the free
> program.
> 
> If the non-free program has more features than the free program,
> however, then it should probably have a different name.

The non-free program has more features, and I'm therefore still not a 
fan of the fact that the free version got the name of the non-free 
version while the non-free version was renamed.

I don't believe it's a good way to convince people of the superiority of 
free software by automatically replacing non-free software with inferior 
free software on upgrades...

Why didn't the non-free program simply keep it's name with the free 
program getting a different name?

That the free unrar is a one year old version 0.0.1 (and there doesn't 
seem to be any more recent version) doesn't make it better...

Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to 
unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty 
straightforward and doable for sarge.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: unrar version confusion

[Roberto C. Sanchez]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to 
> unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty 
> straightforward and doable for sarge.
> 
Package unrar

* stable (utils): Unarchiver for .rar files [non-free]
  2.71-1: alpha arm i386 powerpc sparc
* unstable (utils): Unarchiver for .rar files
  1:0.0.1-1: alpha amd64 arm hppa hurd-i386 i386 ia64 m68k mips
mipsel powerpc s390 sparc

Package unrar-nonfree

* unstable (utils): Unarchiver for .rar files (non-free version)
[non-free]
  3.4.3-1: arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k powerpc s390 sparc
  3.3.6-2: alpha mips mipsel

It is not even Sarge.  That sort of makes it a non-issue for the
moment.

I guess the more pressing issue is what will happen to people that have
it installed under Woody and then upgrade to Sarge and find that the
package no longer exists?

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:

> The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
> and per-arch patches).
> I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage.
> IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost
> unuseful and should be removed from sarge...
>...

I'd even ask whether all these patches are _really_ required for sarge.

Each of the patches might be broken by a security update for the 
kernel and each of them requires security support.

Does sarge e.g. really need a lowlatency patch for kernel 2.4?

> Francesco P. Lovergine

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: unrar version confusion

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:24:50PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to 
> > unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty 
> > straightforward and doable for sarge.
> > 
> Package unrar
> 
> * stable (utils): Unarchiver for .rar files [non-free]
>   2.71-1: alpha arm i386 powerpc sparc
> * unstable (utils): Unarchiver for .rar files
>   1:0.0.1-1: alpha amd64 arm hppa hurd-i386 i386 ia64 m68k mips
> mipsel powerpc s390 sparc
> 
> Package unrar-nonfree
> 
> * unstable (utils): Unarchiver for .rar files (non-free version)
> [non-free]
>   3.4.3-1: arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k powerpc s390 sparc
>   3.3.6-2: alpha mips mipsel
> 
> It is not even Sarge.  That sort of makes it a non-issue for the
> moment.

Which is a result of the renaming of the non-free unrar...

> I guess the more pressing issue is what will happen to people that have
> it installed under Woody and then upgrade to Sarge and find that the
> package no longer exists?

- rename the unrar-nonfree package back to unrar
- rename the free unnrar package to unrar-free (it can even be left out 
  of sarge (version 0.0.1 that is the one year old latest upstream 
  version...))
- get the non-free package that is again named unrar back into sarge

> -Roberto

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Example where testing-security was used?

[Adrian Bunk]

As far as I understood it, the missing infrastructure for 
testing-security was the reason why the release of sarge was delayed by 
more than half a year.

As far as I have seen, it seems most security updates go either through 
unstable or through testing-proposed-updates.

Can anyone point me to an example where testing-security has actually 
been used?

TIA
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

sshs.. get low cost software cds or download!

[Bessie]

Need software? Click here. 
http://hgkd.rgv6c89ko1ryosr.aladfala9.com




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:01:58AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >...
> > I see the same three options.  Joey has said he is working on a final woody
> > point release for the last weekend in May; you'll probably need to
> > coordinate with him and get something uploaded soon if you want to try for
> > this option.
> 
> AFAIR, upgrades from Debian 3.0r0 to Debian 3.1 are supported.
> 
Yes, this works, I've done it recently at home - with one caveat.

I installed the system from a Woody DVD (Linux Emporium 3.0r0) BUT
then immediately upgraded it from the network - which took it to 3.0r6
or whatever - before apt-get upgrading to 3.1. As/when Woody becomes
oldstable - hopefully at the end of the month, we'll still need to keep
that upgrade path via the network available to patch Woody 3.0r???
to 3.0r7 in preparation for 3.1.

The other alternative for those few people without a network connection
is to essentially include a complete Woody in the Sarge DVD's :(
[This would add another DVD which would probably make four for some
architectures for the binaries - Hmm, two "double sided" DVD's for 
binaries + same for source makes four DVD's - would package well in
an Infomagic style box :) ] 

> If this is not true, Debian 3.1 CDs will have to include a CD that 
> upgrade Debian 3.0r0 to Debian 3.0r7 or you will leave your users 
> without an upgrade path.

Sarge on CD is going to be pretty unwieldy. 14/15 CD's of binaries
plus the same of source. I've recently installed Sarge on a
non-networked machine which needed to have access to everything Debian
so needed to burn those 14. The number of people needing to do this
is probably going to be fairly small - but I was landed with a new
server which ONLY had a CD drive because the DVD drive cost
significantly more. [When I mentioned that the machine it replaces had
a DVD writer for backups and data transfer, the sysadmin went white
at the probable cost and paperwork needed to get the upgrade done at all
- bloody proprietary hardware :) ]

Andy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: unrar version confusion

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:20:47AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:58:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 03:45:10PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > > Quoting Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >Why is the latest version in debian lower than the one before?
> > > >Regards Nico

> > > Becuase it is, in fact, a different program.  The higher numbered releases
> > > are of a non-free version of unrar.  The newer releases are of a free 
> > > version
> > > that is going into main.

> > Then the new program should still have a higher version number, to allow
> > people who currently use the non-free program to upgrade to the free
> > program.

> > If the non-free program has more features than the free program,
> > however, then it should probably have a different name.

> The non-free program has more features, and I'm therefore still not a 
> fan of the fact that the free version got the name of the non-free 
> version while the non-free version was renamed.

> I don't believe it's a good way to convince people of the superiority of 
> free software by automatically replacing non-free software with inferior 
> free software on upgrades...

> Why didn't the non-free program simply keep it's name with the free 
> program getting a different name?

> That the free unrar is a one year old version 0.0.1 (and there doesn't 
> seem to be any more recent version) doesn't make it better...

> Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to 
> unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty 
> straightforward and doable for sarge.

$ grep-excuses unrar 
unrar (- to 1:0.0.1-1)
Maintainer: Niklas Vainio 
320 days old (needed 10 days)
Not touching package, as requested by freeze (contact debian-release if 
update is needed)
unrar (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, 
s390, sparc) is buggy! (3 > 0)
Not considered
$ grep-excuses unrar-nonfree
unrar-nonfree (- to 3.4.3-1)
Maintainer: Chris Anderson 
Section: non-free/utils
171 days old (needed 10 days)
Not touching package, as requested by freeze (contact debian-release if 
update is needed)
out of date on alpha: unrar-nonfree (from 3.3.6-2)
out of date on mips: unrar-nonfree (from 3.3.6-2)
out of date on mipsel: unrar-nonfree (from 3.3.6-2)
unrar-nonfree (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, 
powerpc, s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 > 0)
Not considered
$

Not really an issue for sarge anyway...

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature