Is there a policy for the .desktop files?

[Charles Plessy]

Hi all.

Applications can be listed in the non-debian menu of desktop managers
such as Gnome and Kde by dropping a applicationname.desktop file in
/usr/share/applications/.

There is a lot activity in Ubuntu to provide applicationname.desktop
files to packages which lack them, so I decided to write one for a
package I am currently preparing (treeviewx, ITP#352506).

However, I could not find something equivalent to the menu policy. Can
any program register itself in the Application menu of Gnome and KDE, or
does it has to be done in coordination wiht the teams responsible for
these desktops ?

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles


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

Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?

[Marc Haber]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:58:05 -0400, David Nusinow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the
>trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request from the
>release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with beforehand.
>Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the magnitude of the
>problem, and not doing so was entirely my error.

Kudos for that. Maintainers, hear, hear! This is communication!

David, very well done. Please keep up your excellent work.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Hot Wet Nasty Phone Sex

[Chadace3]

hey whats up ready for some hot sex

GPG signing of debian packages

[davidek]

Dear experts,
   I am trying to build my own debian packages with GPG signature. I set 
up gnupg, ran gpg and gpg --gen-key and also filled the variable 
default-key with my generated keyID in ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf. I thought that 
this is all I have to do, since Debian Maintainer's guide claims that

 dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
needs as the input the secret passhprase (twice). I expected I 
would be asked for the passphrase, but it's not the case. When I 
ran that command, I only got the error message:


dpkg-deb: building package `sshguard' in `../sshguard_1.0.0-4_all.deb'.
 signfile sshguard_1.0.0-4.dsc
gpg: skipped "Tomas Davidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>": secret key not 
available

gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: secret key not available

The name and email address match those which I used for key generation, so 
this should be ok. Maybe one has to specify the sign-command (-p) in 
dpkg-buildpackage ? If so, how does such a command look like ? Or is 
there anything else wrong ?


Thanks a lot any hint,

best regards

   Tomas

 E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED],
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: GPG signing of debian packages

[gregor herrmann]

On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 10:19:33AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> dpkg-deb: building package `sshguard' in `../sshguard_1.0.0-4_all.deb'.
>  signfile sshguard_1.0.0-4.dsc
> gpg: skipped "Tomas Davidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>": secret key not 
> available
> gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: secret key not available
> 
> The name and email address match those which I used for key generation, so 
> this should be ok. Maybe one has to specify the sign-command (-p) in 
> dpkg-buildpackage ? If so, how does such a command look like ? Or is 
> there anything else wrong ?

>From man dpkg-buildpackage:

   -kkey-id
  Specify a key-ID to use when signing packages.

You might also take a look at the devscripts package (debuild, debsign, ...).

gregor
-- 
 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/
 `. `'   member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
   `-NP: Red Hot Chili Peppers: Scar Tissue


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

Re: Upload getting lost

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> * Manoj Srivastava:
>
>> Not quite correct.  Policy has the job of docmenting what is
>>  technically correct, and selecting one of a number of equally viable
>>  technical options where numerous possibilities exist.  The primary
>>  purpose of policy is to ensure that diverse packages under different
>>  maintainers can be seamlessly integrated.
>
> But the current specification has failed us in this regard.  It seems
> that every developer who reads the version specification in the policy
> interprets it differently.  We have at least four slightly different
> version comparison algorithms in the archive.

Version comparison is explained a bit vague in policy. The format of a
version is defined very strictly:

| epoch
|
|This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be
|omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the
|upstream_version may not contain any colons.


But all of this is irelevant to the actual problem. The problem is in
the encoding of the version into the filenames of debs. The encoding
drops the epoch, probably to (unsuccessfully) avoid ":" in filenames
which could cause problems for some protocols.

The DAK wrongfully assumes filenames have no ":" in them since the
epoch gets droped. But that is just a violation of policy and trivialy
to fix.

On the other hand the DAK could simply restrict the allowed versions
accepted by debian more than policy requires. Just like uploads have
to be in the override files or have a higher version than a previous
upload.

MfG
Goswin


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

Re: Upload getting lost

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> As other people have pointed out later in the thread, my point was
> that I was _not_ having an epoch with dots in it; my version string
> was 0:1.2.7:1.2.8-1, which is explicitly allowed by policy (if there
> is an epoch, then the upstream version can contain a colon.) and
> parses as:
>
>  - epoch: 0
>  - upstream version: 1.2.7:1.2.8
>  - Debian revision: 1
>
>
> I don't particularly care whether we allow colons in upstream version
> or not, but the behaviour of katie / britney / dpkg / ... and policy
> should definitely be consistent.

I hope you are aware that dpkg (correctly) takes no epoch as an
implicit epoch of 0. Apt on the other hand (wrongfully) tracks
explicitly if you have not epoch or an epoch of 0.

So better use an epoch of 1 to avoid this bug.

MfG
Goswin


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

Re: GPG signing of debian packages

[Luk Claes]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 10:19:33AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
>> 
>> dpkg-deb: building package `sshguard' in `../sshguard_1.0.0-4_all.deb'.
>>  signfile sshguard_1.0.0-4.dsc
>> gpg: skipped "Tomas Davidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>": secret key not 
>> available
>> gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: secret key not available
>> 
>> The name and email address match those which I used for key generation, so 
>> this should be ok. Maybe one has to specify the sign-command (-p) in 
>> dpkg-buildpackage ? If so, how does such a command look like ? Or is 
>> there anything else wrong ?

If you're the (co-)maintainer of the package the string in
debian/control should match the string in debian/changelog and in the
uid of your key... If the "John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" doesn't
match 100% you'll get the above failure...

>>From man dpkg-buildpackage:
> 
>-kkey-id
>   Specify a key-ID to use when signing packages.

This is only needed when the Uploader in debian/changelog doesn't match
an uid of the key (sponsoring) AFAIK.

Cheers

Luk

PS: This kind of questions should be sent to debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
- --
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint:   D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7   F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEQPrr5UTeB5t8Mo0RAuutAJ4rIa+MPpapQ0UUgokG6uXBIadEGgCgk3qY
xGmvKZajOILXoCkI5w15Sjg=
=iKYB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Fwd: Debian Light Desktop - meta package

[Jan-David Salchow]

hi
auf der debian-devel liste findet gerade eine diskusion ueber einen
debian light desktop. hier der stein des anstosses.

jan-david

"André Luiz Rodrigues Ferreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hi !
>
> I'm creating a meta package for install a lite desktop for old
> machines with poor hardware.
> I would like to receive opinions about my packages list:
>
> - x-window-system-core
> - xfce4 (beautiful!)
> - gdm
> - gftp
> - mozilla-firefox
> - mozilla-thunderbird
> - menu
> - gcalctool (or xcalc)
> - evince
> - eog
> - gaim
> - zip
> - unzip
> - arj
> - bzip2
> - file-roller
> - wvdial
> - gnome-ppp
> - gnome-utils
> - inkscape
> - gimp
> - abiword
> - gnumeric
> - gnumeric-plugins-extra
> - gnome-system-monitor
> - firestarter
>
> I made some tests with sucess in my machines with the following setup:
> Pentium 166 MHZ - 64 MB RAM - HD 2 GB
>
> Any idea?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Andre Luiz Rodrigues Ferreira (si0ux) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  ***
> Orlandia - SP - Brazil
>
> Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
> (Dennis Ritchie)

Re: Upload getting lost

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 14 Apr 2006, Florian Weimer spake thusly:

> * Manoj Srivastava:
>
>> Not quite correct.  Policy has the job of docmenting what is
>> technically correct, and selecting one of a number of equally
>> viable technical options where numerous possibilities exist.  The
>> primary purpose of policy is to ensure that diverse packages under
>> different maintainers can be seamlessly integrated.
>
> But the current specification has failed us in this regard.  It
> seems that every developer who reads the version specification in
> the policy interprets it differently.  We have at least four
> slightly different version comparison algorithms in the archive.

The version specification seems pretty precise to me.  I am
 surprised that implementations of such strong specifications would
 vary quite so much, perhaps some more experienced coder can have a
 look and fix the bugs in the implementations you mention?

manoj
-- 
"Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?"
Microsoft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !! -- Felix von Leitner,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: GPG signing of debian packages

[Andreas Metzler]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear experts,
>I am trying to build my own debian packages with GPG signature. I set 
> up gnupg, ran gpg and gpg --gen-key and also filled the variable 
> default-key with my generated keyID in ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf. I thought that 
> this is all I have to do, since Debian Maintainer's guide claims that
>  dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
> needs as the input the secret passhprase (twice). I expected I 
> would be asked for the passphrase, but it's not the case. 
[...]

Hello,
I think question has been answered already, just a tidbit:

- I personally always run dpkg-buildpackage with -uc -us and use
  debsign -kkeyid foo_changes to sign the /final/ packages
  afterwards. I usually build the packages more than once before
  uploading as I often find some last-minute bug, and don't like to
  type in my gpg-passphrase more frequently than necessary.

  cu andreas

-- 
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute
tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects,
howsoever undertaken.(c) Jasper Ffforde


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

Re: GPG signing of debian packages

[Luk Claes]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Andreas Metzler wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Dear experts,
>>I am trying to build my own debian packages with GPG signature. I set 
>> up gnupg, ran gpg and gpg --gen-key and also filled the variable 
>> default-key with my generated keyID in ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf. I thought that 
>> this is all I have to do, since Debian Maintainer's guide claims that
>>  dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
>> needs as the input the secret passhprase (twice). I expected I 
>> would be asked for the passphrase, but it's not the case. 
> [...]
> 
> Hello,
> I think question has been answered already, just a tidbit:
> 
> - I personally always run dpkg-buildpackage with -uc -us and use
>   debsign -kkeyid foo_changes to sign the /final/ packages
>   afterwards. I usually build the packages more than once before
>   uploading as I often find some last-minute bug, and don't like to
>   type in my gpg-passphrase more frequently than necessary.

Even than you should not need to specify the -kkeyid...

Cheers

Luk

- --
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint:   D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7   F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEQRbY5UTeB5t8Mo0RAs2NAKCZu5scoMYGMoHEnn5kEM/3+Av2OgCfW9Rn
aASp4/h78E1hdVf4YRxXrJA=
=WXnC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: Is there a policy for the .desktop files?

[Christoph Haas]

Charles...

On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 11:38:59AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Applications can be listed in the non-debian menu of desktop managers
> such as Gnome and Kde by dropping a applicationname.desktop file in
> /usr/share/applications/.
> 
> There is a lot activity in Ubuntu to provide applicationname.desktop
> files to packages which lack them, so I decided to write one for a
> package I am currently preparing (treeviewx, ITP#352506).

Good idea. My GUI packages also contain a .desktop file. The cluttered
classical "Debian" menu has a lot of potential for improvement. :)

> However, I could not find something equivalent to the menu policy.

IMHO there is none yet.

> Can any program register itself in the Application menu of Gnome and KDE,
> or does it has to be done in coordination wiht the teams responsible for
> these desktops ?

Just provide a .desktop file with the appropriate information. Here is the
formal description of .desktop files:

http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Standards/desktop-entry-spec

In my experience not all categories worked in my KDE Sid installation.
I didn't investigate that, yet.

Kind regards
 Christoph Haas
-- 
~
~
".signature" [Modified] 1 line --100%--1,48 All


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

Possible conflict with XFree 4.5

[gustavo halperin]

Hello

I think that we have a problem when the common library between XFree and 
/usr/lib are update in /usr/lib.
I currently have XFree  4.5, when the library libfontconfig1 was update 
to version 2.3.2-1 was also updated
the file  libfontconfig.so to the version 1.0.4 but in the XFree 
(/usr/X11R6/lib/) this library still be the version 1.
The problem came we we use programs like Gimp that must at least version 
1.0.2  of this library. I solve this
problem by link the libfontconfig in /usr/X11R6/lib to the newest 
library in /usr/lib. That is the solution or that

is a Bug in Debian System ??

 Thank you

  Gustavo Halperin


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

Re: regarding gerris package

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

Hi Kamaraju,

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:33:09AM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:

 > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354032
 > 
 > asking for the latest version (0.8.0) of gerris which has been
 > available since Oct 17, 2005. I have not received any reply to this
 > bug report even after 10 days. I know that 10 days is not a very long
 > period of time, but I just want to make sure that this package is not
 > abandoned by you.

 Due to reasons that I prefer not to discuss on a public mailing list, I
 haven't worked on my packages for the last few months.

 The last time I was working on an updated gerris package I had several
 problems, mostly related to compiler changes in unstable.  I just took
 a look at it, and it's still not compiling.

 If you have managed to compile a package for the newer versions, I will
 really appreciate a patch, if there's one.

 > If you want to abandon this package, please let us know by filing a
 > bug against wnpp package saying that you are orphaning this package.
 > This allows other interested persons (like me) to at least work on
 > this package.

 If you are willing to take over the package I'll be happy with that.
 Please drop me a note off-list letting me know that.

 Thanks,

 Marcelo


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

Bug#362793: ITP: sks -- Cryptographic tool based on ECC

[Nacho Barrientos Arias]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: sks
  Version : 0.92-1
  Upstream Author : Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://pagina.de/sks
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : Cryptographic tool based on ECC

  SKS is a public-key, command-line application for encryption/authentication,
  based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC).
  .
  This package can work with a public key and symmetric cryto systems
  and generate signs.
  .
  Homepage: http://pagina.de/sks

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-rc3
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) (ignored: 
LC_ALL set to [EMAIL PROTECTED])


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

Bug#362809: ITP: libcrypt-openssl-bignum-perl -- Perl module to access OpenSSL multipresicion integer arithmetic libraries.

[Luk Claes]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: libcrypt-openssl-bignum-perl
  Version : 0.03
  Upstream Author : Ian Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://cpan.org/
* License : same as Perl
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : Perl module to access OpenSSL multipresicion integer 
arithmetic libraries.

Presently, many though not all of the arithmetic operations that OpenSSL 
provides are exposed to perl.  In addition, this module can be used to provide 
access to bignum values produced by other OpenSSL modules, such as key 
parameters from
Crypt::OpenSSL::RSA.

Cheers

Luk


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

Re: Upload getting lost

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 03:54:27PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> As other people have pointed out later in the thread, my point was
>> that I was _not_ having an epoch with dots in it; my version string
>> was 0:1.2.7:1.2.8-1, which is explicitly allowed by policy (if there
>> is an epoch, then the upstream version can contain a colon.) and
>> parses as:

>>  - epoch: 0
>>  - upstream version: 1.2.7:1.2.8
>>  - Debian revision: 1

> I hope you are aware that dpkg (correctly) takes no epoch as an
> implicit epoch of 0.

Yes, that's what policy says the epoch semantics are.

> Apt on the other hand (wrongfully) tracks explicitly if you have not
> epoch or an epoch of 0.

Crap. :-( I forgot to remove the explicit zero epoch from my next
upload. Are you telling me that if I leave no epoch in my following
upload, apt won't detect it as an upgrade? That would be unfortunate.

> So better use an epoch of 1 to avoid this bug.

I kinda hoped I wouldn't have to keep an epoch forever...

-- 
Lionel


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

Re: GPG signing of debian packages

[Jens Peter Secher]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Andreas Metzler wrote:

> - I personally always run dpkg-buildpackage with -uc -us and use
>   debsign -kkeyid foo_changes to sign the /final/ packages
>   afterwards. I usually build the packages more than once before
>   uploading as I often find some last-minute bug, and don't like to
>   type in my gpg-passphrase more frequently than necessary.

Or alternatively install quintuple-agent and then have a script say
~/bin/adebuild like

  #!/bin/sh
  if [ ! -n "$AGENT_SOCKET" ]; then
  eval `q-agent &`
  fi

  if [ -n "$AGENT_SOCKET" ]; then
  debuild --linda -eAGENT_SOCKET -pagpg -sgpg $*
  else
  echo Quintuple agent not found.  Using standard debuild.
  debuild $*
  fi

to build your package.  Then you only have to type your password once.

But of course, what you really should do is use pdebuild to make sure
your package will build on a clean sid system.

Cheers,
/JP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEQTR7DuWXiv5j6KERAv/jAJ4jsu7PIeVztm9EV9xqOMUxGCz98gCgtmY6
Ont4aeVir3ut/VfCSyCxs54=
=kdL+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: Debian Light Desktop - meta package

[Linas Žvirblis]

Christian Perrier wrote:

> Well, I haven't followed the rest of the thread (the part where people
> wonder which package could pertain to a "Light desktop" task) but I've
> seen Joey suggest himself to turn it into a task.

So have I. But I am against it nevertheless.

Do not get me wrong. I am not against the idea in general, nor am I
against what André Luiz Rodrigues Ferreira is doing. I simply do not
think that this is the right way to do it. A CDD is fine, a meta package
is fine, but a task is not.

> So, if Joey himself, who is actually quite conservative when it comes
> at new tasks for tasksel, mentions that he thinks that a "light desktop"
> task is worth it, I tend to give him the needed credit.

I respect him and his work, and that is why I feel that it is important
to explain my reasons for being against it.

-- The Reasons --

Firstly, the number of people behind this. Both KDE and GNOME desktop
environments have come a long way of evolution during which they have
been thoroughly tested by a huge number of users and developers. We know
it (the idea behind each of them) works. We know their goals. We can
predict their future.

There are also Debian KDE and GNOME teams that present the product in a
highest quality possible.

Now this "Light Desktop" - something totally untested, composed of
entirely separate pieces of software that might or might not work well
together. Will we ever be able to do half as much testing in Debian, as
it was done for KDE/GNOME? Is it even ethical to use Debian users as
testing grounds for this?

Secondly, I do not consider this fair with other projects. I quickly
searched trough Debian websites and found at least a couple of projects
aiming to provide a certain desktop environment. Their goals may be
different, but does that mean that they are worse?

-- A Yet Another Alternative --

If we really need a lightweight desktop environment, why not give people
a lightweight version of what they already know?

Note that this is based entirely on my imagination, not what tasksel
actually does:

  1. I do not know (automatic) - kde-core, gnome-core
  2. Basic GNOME desktop environment   - gnome-core
  3. Full GNOME desktop environment- gnome
  4. Basic KDE desktop environment - kde-core
  5. Full KDE desktop environment  - kde

Five options - a lot, I know. They should probably not appear on main
tasksel window, but rather as another step if you chose "desktop"
previously.

Regards,
Linas


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

Re: Work-needing packages report for Apr 14, 2006

[Christoph Berg]

Re: Felipe Sateler 2006-04-14 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Shouldn't package maintainers close these bugs when they have
> received help?

Yes, definitely. If you are aware of any "solved" RFH bugs, could you
ping the maintainers?

Christoph
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Upload getting lost

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Apt on the other hand (wrongfully) tracks explicitly if you have not
>> epoch or an epoch of 0.
>
> Crap. :-( I forgot to remove the explicit zero epoch from my next
> upload. Are you telling me that if I leave no epoch in my following
> upload, apt won't detect it as an upgrade? That would be unfortunate.

I'm not sure but I would assume so.

>> So better use an epoch of 1 to avoid this bug.
>
> I kinda hoped I wouldn't have to keep an epoch forever...
>
> -- 
> Lionel

I would suggest renaming the upstream version s/:/+/ then. That is
often done for those doubly versioned versions.

MfG
Goswin


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

Bug#362856: ITP: yeahconsole -- drop-down X terminal emulator wrapper

[Damián Viano]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Damián Viano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: yeahconsole
  Version : 0.3.4
  Upstream Author : knorke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://phrat.de/yeahtools.html
* License : GPL2
  Description : drop-down X terminal emulator wrapper

 Yeahconsole puts an X terminal emulator window on top of your screen that
 drops-down like a console found in many games (similar to quake). It's
 visibility can be toggled by a keyboard shortcut. Currently supports xterm 
 and urxvt.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing-proposed-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'testing-proposed-updates'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 
'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i586)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8.1des-nv
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


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

libgtk2.0-0: changelog.Debian.gz is not an upstream changelog

[Christian Marillat]

Package: libgtk2.0-0
Version: 2.8.17-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 4.4

Hi,

Apparently you don't understand (or don't care), because this is the second
time I file the same bug report (#344125), but as this package isn't a
native package the upstream changelog should not be here.

If I want to read what new in that release I read the NEW file in the doc
directory.

Please remove these entreies from this changelog.

Christian

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (900, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)

Versions of packages libgtk2.0-0 depends on:
ii  libatk1.0-0   1.11.4-1   The ATK accessibility toolkit
ii  libc6 2.3.6-7GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libcairo2 1.0.4-1+b1 The Cairo 2D vector graphics libra
ii  libfontconfig12.3.2-5.1  generic font configuration library
ii  libglib2.0-0  2.10.2-1   The GLib library of C routines
ii  libgtk2.0-bin 2.8.17-1   The programs for the GTK+ graphica
ii  libgtk2.0-common  2.8.17-1   Common files for the GTK+ graphica
ii  libjpeg62 6b-12  The Independent JPEG Group's JPEG 
ii  libpango1.0-0 1.12.1-2   Layout and rendering of internatio
ii  libpng12-01.2.8rel-5.1   PNG library - runtime
ii  libtiff4  3.8.2-1Tag Image File Format (TIFF) libra
ii  libx11-6  2:1.0.0-6  X11 client-side library
ii  libxcursor1   1.1.5.2-3  X cursor management library
ii  libxext6  1:1.0.0-3  X11 miscellaneous extension librar
ii  libxfixes31:3.0.1.2-2+b1 X11 miscellaneous 'fixes' extensio
ii  libxi61:1.0.0-3  X11 Input extension library
ii  libxinerama1  1:1.0.1-2  X11 Xinerama extension library
ii  libxrandr22:1.1.0.2-3X11 RandR extension library
ii  libxrender1   1:0.9.0.2-3X Rendering Extension client libra

Versions of packages libgtk2.0-0 recommends:
ii  hicolor-icon-theme0.8-3  default fallback theme for FreeDes

-- no debconf information


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