bash version inconsistency in sarge
Something strange has happened to the bash version in sarge: version inconsistency between source and binary package: source package: bash, version: 2.05b-2-26 binary package: bash, version: 2.05b-26 If I read policy correctly, the upstream version is "2.05b-2". Something (debhelper?) drops the "-2" during the build process. Is this intentional? Does anybody know what's going on? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327473: ITP: wmmp -- Window Maker dock app client for Music Player Daemon (MPD)
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Michal Čihař" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: wmmp Version : 0.10.0 Upstream Author : Anthony Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.musicpd.org/WMmp.shtml * License : GPL Description : Window Maker dock app client for Music Player Daemon (MPD) WMmp is Window Maker dock application for controlling Music Player Daemon (MPD). It is based on a WMxmms and has a similar LCD-style interface for controlling MPD. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12 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]
apt with index diff support
Dear Friends, the idea to have some sort of incremental update support for the archive index files (Packages,Sources) in the archive and in apt has been around for some time now [1]. Anthony Towns analysed the problem in [2] and came up with the idea to use ed-style diffs to solve the problem. Andreas Barth implemented the server side of the index diffs generation and has a test-repository (with only the index-files) at [3]. I'm happy to tell you that apt is able to use those index files now. Robert Lemmen and I implmeneted the needed support. This massively speeds up a "apt-get update". If you e.g. update daily you will have to get only ~15kb-30kb worth of update information per day (instead of 2,7mb for the complete Packages.bz2 as it is now). We believe that the code is now "good" enough for wider testing. I have setup a repository for the patched version of apt with the pdiff support. Just add this line to your sources.list file: "deb http://people.debian.org/~mvo/apt/pdiffs/ /" When fully supported by the archive, the diff support will be completely transparent, no changes on your side necessary. In the moment however, the archive does not carry the diff files, so a little hack is needed to test this. The diffs are on merkel.debian.org, so change your sources.list to point there instead of your usual mirror: "http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian/"; E.g. from: deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian sid main to deb http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian sid main There are two issues with using merkel: 1. There is no Release/Release.gpg file on merkel so you get "not authenticated" warnings 2. merkel does not have the actual package files To work around (2) and make it possible to still download packages (even with merkel as the only entry in sources.list) a hack was added to apt called: "APT::URL-Remap::". This allows one to remap a URI. Example: apt-get install 3dchess -o APT::URL-Remap::http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian/=http://ftp.de.debian.org/d +ebian/" will ensure that archives pointing to merkel are actually fetched from ftp.de.debian.org. Please note that this hack will be removed once there are servers available with both index diffs and packages (it's just to make testing easier). To work around the authentication issue you can use the "--allow-unauthenticated" switch in apt, this will suppress the authentication checking. Again once we have full support for the diffs in the archive the authentification will work (and be checked). Known issues: - the progress-bar is a bit jumpy - the total transfered data information (at the end of the update) is totally incorrect Please report success/failure/problems directly to me. There are two debug switches that should be used if you are having trouble: -o Debug::pkgAcquire::Diffs=true -o Debug::pkgAcquire::RRed=true The source code of the patch is availab in my: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/apt--pdiff--0 [4] baz repository. Cheers, Michael [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=128818 [2] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2003/12/02 [3] http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian/ [4] at http://people.ubuntu.com/~mvo/arch/ubuntu -- Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt with index diff support
Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 2. merkel does not have the actual package files
> To work around (2) and make it possible to still download packages
> (even with merkel as the only entry in sources.list) a hack was added
> to apt called: "APT::URL-Remap::". This allows one to remap a
> URI. Example: apt-get install 3dchess -o
> APT::URL-Remap::http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian/=http://ftp.de.debian.org/d
> +ebian/"
Having to specify this at the commandline is messy, is there a way to put
this in /etc/apt.conf.d/? I've tried in vain using
APT::URL-Remap::http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian/
{"http://ftp.at.debian.org/debian";};
thanks, cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want > (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to > enter the scene... all over the world. Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any apparent ill effect on users. And do not forget that there are many places (e.g. California) which allow big companies (e.g. the MPAA or Adobe) to sue there people from other states or countries (e.g. people accused to violate the DMCA) without even the need for a license... If you look at the big picture, choice of venue clauses are not much important. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free > > it's up to you explaining why. > here they are: So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it has become popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the project was not looking, I believe that it is based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of DFSG #5. The purpose of this clause is to forbid licenses which provide the required freedoms only to some people (e.g. forbidding commercial use of the software), not to require that all recipients will receive the same set of rights which are not required by the DFSG. > I also think this abreaches the Debian Social Contract#4, since you expose > your > users on baseless charges of license violation for no good reasons all over > the world. Breaks "We will place their interests first in our priorities." This is not relevant. This way you could use the SC to forbid just about everything you do not like, while the SC itself and many years of practice define the DFSG as the criteria to be used to evaluate the freeness of licenses. > [1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star is > weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug. While it is obviously true that the ftpmasters are humans and therefore fallible beings, the fact that they have been accepting this kind of clauses in licenses since many years ago (QPL...) makes this interpretation unlikely. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > [...] Even if in the last two years it has become > popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the > project was not looking [...] Yes, the debian-legal cabal has been working in secret on its public mailing list and has devised a plot to overthrow debian, with no contributors who are DDs or discuss things with DDs! They are zealous, irrational and unreasonable, removing packages from the archive by force whenever and whereever they please, allowing no time to fix even the smallest licence bug! Not only that, but they molest cats and eat babies! Think of the children! Protect apple pie! Vote marco 1! Blasted troll, hiding in a longer email. Best wishes for a speedy recovery, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
curl situation is intolerable
reopen 318590 severity 318590 serious thanks So my package, libofx, builds a binary that wants to use curl. My package is GPL'd. Getting a libssl exemption is not the right thing, nor should it be necessary. I would like to build the package against libcurl3-gnutls-dev which will be just fine. Except that I can't even *install* libcurl3-gnutls-dev on my development system, because libcurl3-gnutls conflicts with libcurl3, and openoffice.org and many other important programs I rely on link against libcurl3. It is *not acceptible* for two Optional packages to conflict with each other. It has been *against policy* for as long as we've had policy. It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO LIBRARIES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES. There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead of the current approach, which totally breaks, violates policy, and doesn't really help much of anyone. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: curl 7.14.0-5: OpenSSL vs GnuTLS is still a problem
Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A GPL package (which only depends on libcurl3-gnutls) is installed: > libcurl3-gnutls gets pulled in > > A package that can't work with gnuTLS version of libcurl (and > therefore libcurl3-gnutls conflicts with it) is installed: > libcurl3 gets pulled in > > Packages of both above types are installed: > Unresolvable. However, this is also not possible now, unless > a GPL package is linking against the OpenSSL-using libcurl, > and therefore the GPL package has an RC bug. It could certainly be resolved: different libraries should install different files. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt with index diff support
On Saturday 10 September 2005 07:46 am, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Having to specify this at the commandline is messy, is there a way to put
> this in /etc/apt.conf.d/? I've tried in vain using
>
> APT::URL-Remap::http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian/
> {"http://ftp.at.debian.org/debian";};
I would expect that removing the braces would do the right thing.
APT::URL-Remap::http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian/
"http://ftp.at.debian.org/debian";;
Daniel
--
/--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --\
|"Some people make the kookiest laws...and hundreds of them |
| have been elected to run Europe!" -- Brian Sniffen|
| [ed: specialize as desired for your locality]|
\ The Turtle Moves! -- http://www.lspace.org ---/
pgpfoUNr0rEc3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: curl situation is intolerable
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then > applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead > of the current approach, which totally breaks, violates policy, and > doesn't really help much of anyone. I really need to support your request. -- 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." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327566: ITP: libcgns -- System for the storage and retrieval of CFD data
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Christoph Ulrich Scholler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libcgns Version : 2.4-3 Upstream Author : CGNS Steering Commitee * URL : http://www.cgns.org/ * License : CGNS-License (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/cgns/charter/license.html) Description : System for the storage and retrieval of CFD data The CFD General Notation System (CGNS) consists of a collection of conventions, and software implementing those conventions, for the storage and retrieval of CFD (computational fluid dynamics) data. The system consists of two parts: (1) a standard format for recording the data, and (2) software that reads, writes, and modifies data in that format. The format is a conceptual entity established by the documentation; the software is a physical product supplied to enable developers to access and produce data recorded in that format. The CGNS system is designed to facilitate the exchange of data between sites and applications, and to help stabilize the archiving of aerodynamic data. The data are stored in a compact, binary format and are accessible through a complete and extensible library of functions. The API (Application Program Interface) is platform independent and can be easily implemented in C, C++, Fortran and Fortran90 applications. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327568: ITP: gpe-calendar -- calendar for GPE
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Moray Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: gpe-calendar Version : 0.64 Upstream Author : Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/ * License : GPL Description : calendar for GPE gpe-calendar is a simple event organiser for the GPE Palmtop Environment. http://www.handhelds.org/moin/moin.cgi/GpeCalendar gpe-calendar also requires these libraries/programs: gpe-announce libeventdb libschedule libsoundgen libxsettings libxsettings-client -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (101, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-1-k7 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: curl situation is intolerable
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:21:51PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then >> applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead >> of the current approach, which totally breaks, violates policy, and >> doesn't really help much of anyone. > I really need to support your request. I agree (and had already suggested such) but it seems to have been ignored out of hand. Hence my later suggestion, which is suboptimal buts seems to be verbose enough to not be ignored. ^_^ Unless I missed something earlier in my search for users of those callbacks, or the gnuTLS support in libcurl is broken (apart from not supporting the callbacks which are the root of this discussion) I don't see why gnuTLS cannot be just slipped in underneath libcurl with no packages the wiser. gnuTLS has versioned symbols, right? -- --- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE 8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] "No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?" -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean" License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/ --- pgpvG7o0OjBJm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:54, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you > > want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane > > cases' to enter the scene... all over the world. > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any > apparent ill effect on users. Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has not been accepted. Many packages entered the Debian archive by incident has been removed. Past experience shows that licenses having choice of venue has been avoided [0][1]. > And do not forget that there are many places (e.g. California) which > allow big companies (e.g. the MPAA or Adobe) to sue there people from > other states or countries (e.g. people accused to violate the DMCA) > without even the need for a license... If you look at the big picture, > choice of venue clauses are not much important. Simple. This is where choice of venue enters the scene. If you think it is 'not much important' then argue with the license creator to remove it as well. Since it is obvious you are not a lawyer I doubt you know that such words make things important in lawsuits and suddenly 'very much unlikely' and 'very much important' becomes 'Yes'. [0] http://people.debian.org/~mjr/licences.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00533.html Note: I wont reply to all your redundant mails, you can find the answers in past discussions. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been > > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any > > apparent ill effect on users. > Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has not been > accepted. Many packages entered the Debian archive by incident has been > removed. Past experience shows that licenses having choice of venue has been > avoided [0][1]. You show that the same 5-6 debian-legal@ contributors do not believe that some licenses are free, but I do not see ftpmasters removing from the archive packages with a choice of venue clause in their license (I will not believe that they do not know about licenses like the MPL and QPL). > Note: I wont reply to all your redundant mails, you can find the answers in > past discussions. This is another argument popular among the DFSG-revisionists: "we already agreed about this last year, so shut up unless you can prove we are wrong" (nevermind that there is nothing to be proved, since most of their points are just opinions). -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star > > is > > weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug. > While it is obviously true that the ftpmasters are humans and therefore > fallible beings, the fact that they have been accepting this kind of > clauses in licenses since many years ago (QPL...) makes this > interpretation unlikely. Well, since star was previously in the archive under a different licence, i believe more that they never even noticed that the licence did change. I believe packages are only examined if they pass NEW, but then maybe i am wrong on this one. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:57:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been > > > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any > > > apparent ill effect on users. > > Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has not been > > accepted. Many packages entered the Debian archive by incident has been > > removed. Past experience shows that licenses having choice of venue has > > been > > avoided [0][1]. > You show that the same 5-6 debian-legal@ contributors do not believe > that some licenses are free, but I do not see ftpmasters removing > from the archive packages with a choice of venue clause in their license > (I will not believe that they do not know about licenses like the MPL > and QPL). Last time this came up about ocaml and the QPL, ocaml's upstream removed the choice-of-venue clause from the licence, under the menace of the package removal. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
