I invite you to see my metroFLOG
Hi! I would like to invite you to visit my metroFLOG and see my latest photos. In order to visit my space, you must go to: http://www.metroflog.com/rajeshman metroFLOG is a completely personalized personal space for you to share with whoever you want. You can submit a daily photo with a comment and your friends can sign your guestbook. To create your own space, you must go to: http://www.metroflog.com Cheers! If you dont want to keep getting invitations from your friends to see their spaces, you must go to: http://www.metroflog.com/unsubscribe?email=debian-de...@lists.debian.org This message has really been sent by the mentioned sender, using the services provided in metroFLOG.com to do it. We guarantee that your email address has not been added to any list, and it will never be shared with third parties. Metroflog.com Franklin D. Roosvelt 1825 (C1428BLA) Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires Buenos Aires, Argentina -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100609092014.8e52f13a5...@liszt.debian.org
Re: Permission to NMU gcc-mingw32
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Bill Allombert wrote: > Well, mingw32 has not been updated since 2007 and is barely usable now. > The license issues looks more like a pretext to stall it than anything else > since it is still possible to use gcc 4.3 anyway. I fully agree. You're welcome to provide a working mingw32 cross-compiler. Cheers, Fathi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktiligyz3moitk8p6ue6rrb2b1kxmh_ut2izs-...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#585125: ITP: build -- script to build .rpm and .deb packages
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Fathi Boudra * Package name: build Version : 1.0+git.20100504 Upstream Author : Novell Inc. / SUSE Linux Products GmbH. * URL : http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/build * License : GPL2+ Programming Lang: Perl Description : script to build .rpm and .deb packages This package provides a script for building .rpm or .deb for various Linux distributions in a chroot environment. It enhances osc package and make 'osc build' command available. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100609115041.32378.12007.report...@dc7700p
Re: Bug#585125: ITP: build -- script to build .rpm and .deb packages
On 06/09/2010 01:50 PM, Fathi Boudra wrote: It enhances osc package and make 'osc build' command available. Isn't "osc-build" a better name then? (less generic) -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c0f82e8.7010...@dogguy.org
Re: Bug#585125: ITP: build -- script to build .rpm and .deb packages
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > On 06/09/2010 01:50 PM, Fathi Boudra wrote: >> >> It enhances osc package and make 'osc build' command available. >> > > Isn't "osc-build" a better name then? (less generic) discussion started, I opened a thread for renaming build on upstream mailing list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktil2o6e_bea7d3ydu_7ien3i8qy2nwovpelus...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#585125: ITP: build -- script to build .rpm and .deb packages
Hi Dne Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:02:48 +0200 Mehdi Dogguy napsal(a): > On 06/09/2010 01:50 PM, Fathi Boudra wrote: > > > > It enhances osc package and make 'osc build' command available. > > > > Isn't "osc-build" a better name then? (less generic) I don't think so because it is usable without osc as well. But sure, build is way too generic. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#585135: ITP: zyn -- ZynAddSubFX engines converted to LV2 plugin format
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Alessio Treglia * Package name: zyn Version : 1 Upstream Author : Nedko Arnaudov * URL : http://home.gna.org/zyn/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C, C++ Description : ZynAddSubFX engines converted to LV2 plugin format The zyn project main goal is to extract synth engines from ZynAddSubFX and pack them in LV2 plugin format. Resulting plugins are heavily based on work made by Nasca Octavian Paul. If you like the amazing sounds these plugins generate you should thank Paul for this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100609122048.2721.27502.report...@quadrispro-laptop
MAKEDEV, postinst and udev
Hello, what should package that require a specific device file do in their postinst ? Many packages verify that the device does not exist and verify that /dev/MAKEDEV exists and do "cd /dev && ./MAKEDEV something" only in that case. This works well in most cases but if you're using udev when installing the package, MAKEDEV will not be called and the device has no chance to be created on the on-disk filesystem. If you later remove udev, you will have a broken system since the device won't be present. Note that MAKEDEV has code to create the device in /dev/.static/dev/ if that's a mount point and if udev is used. Fixing this requires: 1/ udev to keep mounting the on-disk /dev on /dev/.static/dev 2/ fix packages to always call /dev/MAKEDEV if it exists (udev ensures it exists either as symlink to the real one or to /bin/true if makedev is not installed) Should we do this? In any case, I would like the result of this discussion to be summarized in a README.Debian in makedev at the very least and possibly in the Debian policy too. In that case, it should be mentionned that depending on makedev is not necessary but that calling it on systems that have it should always be done to support users that don't use udev. In general this is not a very important scenario but I just stumbled on the problem indirectly because I have a customized debian-installer where chroots/virtual-machines are created during install and debian-installer mount --bind his own udev-based /dev on /target/dev during initial installation. When I reboot on the target system (that does not have udev), the vtun service was not working properly (because its postinst does not run MAKEDEV since /dev/net/tun was already existing). Note that debian-installer was trying to do well and was mounting the underlying /target/dev as /target/dev/.static/dev but the current code is not working (see #585133). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100609150436.ga26...@rivendell
Re: status of circulars dependencies in unstable
[Bill Allombert] > Here the list of current circular dependencies: [...] > * perl perl-modules Heh, I suspect this one just caused a test upgrade I did of a KDE desktop from Lenny to Squeeze to fail. Upgrading perl-modules failed with this error message (in Norwegian, sorry about that): dpkg: Kravproblem hindrer oppsettet av perl-modules: perl-modules krever perl (>= 5.10.1-1). Men: Versjon av perl på systemet er 5.10.0-19lenny2. dpkg: Feil ved behandling av perl-modules (--configure): kravproblem - setter ikke opp pakken This is while trying to upgrade 725 packages. dpkg is complaining that perl-modules require perl (>= 5.10.1-1), while only perl version 5.10.0-19lenny2 is available and aptitude end up failing to set up perl-modules. In the same upgrade, several KDE packages fail to upgrade because of a missing conflict (#584861), so this is not the only issue left to fix for upgrades to work, but thought it best to mention it here and ask if this is caused by the perl<->perl-modules dependency loop or something else. Anyone know? Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flr5kgozc0@login2.uio.no
Re: MAKEDEV, postinst and udev
On Jun 09, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > This works well in most cases but if you're using udev when installing the > package, MAKEDEV will not be called and the device has no chance to be > created on the on-disk filesystem. If you later remove udev, you will have > a broken system since the device won't be present. Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Doctor: Then stop doing it. If you remove udev then you are on your own. > 1/ udev to keep mounting the on-disk /dev on /dev/.static/dev I removed this in 0.124-1, before lenny, and it will not be back. > In any case, I would like the result of this discussion to be summarized > in a README.Debian in makedev at the very least and possibly in the Debian makedev has extra priority and is not installed by default, it does not matter anymore. > Note that debian-installer was trying to do well and was mounting > the underlying /target/dev as /target/dev/.static/dev but the current code > is not working (see #585133). This code should be removed. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#585183: general: .deb packages open with Archive Manager by default, not Package Installer
Package: general Severity: normal Tags: squeeze In GNOME the default open action for when double-clicking on a .deb package is to open with Archive Manager, which then complains 'Could not create the archive: Archive type not supported.' The context menu shows as the second option 'Open with GDebi Package Installer', and I think it would be hard to argue against this being a better default, especially seeing as archive manager can't understand .debs itself from a clean install... -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-3-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100609212018.3542.8897.report...@iris.home.destroytrees.com
Re: MAKEDEV, postinst and udev
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jun 09, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > If you remove udev then you are on your own. There are still cases where not using udev is fine: chroots or in openvz containers. I would still want the packages requiring a device file to properly setup it in those cases. So it's still worth to document what they should do to support all use-cases... > > 1/ udev to keep mounting the on-disk /dev on /dev/.static/dev > I removed this in 0.124-1, before lenny, and it will not be back. Why? Except for the additional mount point showing up in /proc/mounts it did not hurt IMO. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100609214453.gb1...@rivendell
Re: Possible Mass Bug Filing: String Exceptions Removed in Python 2.6
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 04:43, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Without examining each package in detail, it's difficult to know the impact of > this error on each package. I expect to file the bugs at normal severity and > leave it to maintainers to adjust it up or down. The MBF just happened (result: 188 bugs sent). Given the current setup of the machine where it was executed, it might take some time for all the bugs to be on BTS. We decided for 'minor' as severity. Bugs are usertagged and are/will be visible on this[1] page. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org;tag=python2.6 Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimf-ib8oclhvrbq6gfrbe30eodeuf3vyogvh...@mail.gmail.com
A lot of pending packages
Hi all, I'm a simple debian contributor: I'm trying to get my work in debian through a sponsor [1] [2]. The problem is that I'm waiting for a sponsor since 7 days+ (and not only me, in mentors.debian.net there are 20+ pending packages) [3]. Why are they in pending status and nobody wants to upload them? I know, we all are busy with the real life things, but a bit of attention should be given to that situation. The most important questions are: if nobody wants to upload the pending packages, how can you encourage the people which is trying to contribute for debian? If that's not happening then it means you aren't doing a good work (yes and I'm sorry to say that). How can we ask ubuntu prospective developers to get their work in debian if their packages will not be sponsorized? [4] My wish (for me and other contributors) is to see the list of the pending uploads clean, with no pending packages. In case of inconsistence with the debian packages and the debian policy I'd suggest to use this mailing list as help for new contributions (someone is already doing that), but from many time I see just "RFS" first of the e-mail with few answer e-mail (not for all packages). [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/06/msg4.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/06/msg5.html [3] http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist [4] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-April/030716.html Kind regards, Lorenzo De Liso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276121151.32039.6.ca...@pc-lorenzo
Re: MAKEDEV, postinst and udev
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 17:04 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > what should package that require a specific device file do in their postinst ? > > Many packages verify that the device does not exist and verify that > /dev/MAKEDEV exists and do "cd /dev && ./MAKEDEV something" only in > that case. [...] They should do nothing. The device driver will generate a uevent when the device is created, and udev or other userland agent will create the device node. Since new device drivers do not get static device number assignments, there is no way to create their device nodes statically. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: MAKEDEV, postinst and udev
On Jun 09, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > There are still cases where not using udev is fine: chroots or in > openvz containers. chroots can bind-mount the original /dev if needed and openvz containers generally do not need other devices than the ones which come in the template. > > > 1/ udev to keep mounting the on-disk /dev on /dev/.static/dev > > I removed this in 0.124-1, before lenny, and it will not be back. > Why? Except for the additional mount point showing up in /proc/mounts it > did not hurt IMO. Too much pain, not enough gain. The details are in the changelog. Every feature has a cost in terms of development and support time. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A lot of pending packages
Hello, Il giorno mer, 09/06/2010 alle 22.44 +, Sune Vuorela ha scritto: > When I'm sponsoring packages, which happens from time to time, it is > normally packages that I somehow have a interest in. > I think that many other sponsors feel it the same way. Sure and I'm agree about that. > For example, my interests is mostly around KDE, and I really try to > avoid python stuff. That kind of rules your two packages out for me. That's right, everyone has its own skills, but if nobody will do that the packages will be never uploaded in debian and some contributors can feel themselves discouraged. > I browsed quickly thru those 20+ packages, and a lot of them hasn't > been presented on debian-mentors. If they are just uploaded to mentors.dn > and then left silent, then no one with notice. > I have also seen discussions in other forums about some of the specific > packages not presented on this list, so some people also just use > mentors.dn to share the work with their 'normal' sponsors, and do the > discussions outside this list, so that's also not a good metric. You're right, but I was talking for packages which has been presented in the debian-mentors mailing list. > A recommended strategy is to package some apps that are interesting > enough to get some DDs to work with you, and then you can also most > likely get them to look at other of your stuff. That's the most commonly situation, in this case, if the package will look OK it will be uploaded soon. But the problem is that the people can't find always free DDs to work with they. > And another often recommended strategy is to help with existing > packages, rather than introducing new. Yes, I'm agree but if someone can't find the right package? if they want their own packages uploaded into debian? Until now I have always uploaded my work in ubuntu (the reason? I can't find a sponsor for my debian work). Kind regards, Lorenzo De Liso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276124766.32039.21.ca...@pc-lorenzo
Re: A lot of pending packages
Il giorno mer, 09/06/2010 alle 18.12 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ha scritto: > I don't think you are going to get a lot of traction for any proposal that > removes a DD from the upload process. > > So, lack of free DDs will always be a potential issue. I suggest you > encourage people to become a DD. I know few DDs which are busy and sometimes they can't sponsor packages. Become a DD would be great but without a previous work for debian I don't think you can become a DD. Am I wrong? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276125728.32039.25.ca...@pc-lorenzo
Re: A lot of pending packages
Hello, Il giorno gio, 10/06/2010 alle 09.31 +1000, Craig Small ha scritto: > That's exactly how I work when sponsoring packages. I look after 7 of > them and all 7 have a reason for being there. There is only 9 packages > that are asking for sponsors. > > Whereas for me that would be my worst nightmare. A gui toolkit I don't > use and haven't got install and a language I don't understand. However, > the variety of interests and skills is a good thing. > > What Sune said is pretty good advice, you may also be able to ask people > who look after similiar packages. I sponsored purple-plugin-pack > because I maintaint pidgin-musictracker. Yes, what Sune said is right. But if it's supposed to be so then new uploads will be processed slowly or never. Kind regards, Lorenzo De Liso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1276126628.32039.28.ca...@pc-lorenzo
Bug#585183: general: .deb packages open with Archive Manager by default, not Package Installer
Le mercredi 09 juin 2010 à 22:20 +0100, di a écrit : > In GNOME the default open action for when double-clicking on a .deb package is > to open with Archive Manager, which then complains 'Could not create the > archive: Archive type not supported.' That’s because currently it requires ar, for which you have to install the whole binutils, which is 12 MiB. So we don’t do that. > The context menu shows as the second option 'Open with GDebi Package > Installer', and I think it would be hard to argue against this being a better > default, especially seeing as archive manager can't understand .debs itself > from a clean install... This is clearly not an acceptable solution since GDebi will not check whether the package has been signed by a trusted source before installing it. Because of that the presence of gdebi by default has already been questioned and I’m still not convinced. Acceptable solutions include: * splitting ar out of binutils; * writing a new backend for file-roller that uses dpkg-deb for debs instead of ar/tar. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#585383: ITP: xemacs-chise -- character prossessing based on CHISE Chaon model by xemacs
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: NIIBE Yutaka Owner: NIIBE Yutaka * Package name: xemacs-chise Version : 0.23 Upstream Author : MORIOKA Tomohiko * URL : http://www.kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/projects/chise/xemacs/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C, Emacs Lisp Description : character prossessing based on CHISE Chaon model by xemacs The goal of CHISE (CHaracter Information Service Environment) project is to organize a Knowledge-Base about characters in the world, especially Kanji characters. Chaon model is an architecture for text processing with character objects, instead of coded characters. XEmacs CHISE is a text editor implementation of CHISE Chaon model, which can handle various Kanji characters. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100610010900.4590.92826.report...@localhost.localdomain
Bug#585385: general: Package GTK+3
Package: general Severity: wishlist GTK+ 3 development has begun. There are already some tarballs of the actual development, take a look here: http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/GNOME/sources/gtk+/2.90/ This new version breaks ABI and API, so a new package should be created. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers lucid-updates APT policy: (500, 'lucid-updates'), (500, 'lucid-security'), (500, 'lucid') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-22-generic (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=es_ES.utf8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100610013350.21767.14033.report...@rhun
Re: A lot of pending packages
Firstly, 7 days is a very short period of time to be waiting for sponsorship, some have been waiting since 2006. About your two packages: autotrash: sounds like the functionality should be part of GNOME/KDE, please talk to upstream about moving it there. ardentryst: seems like a good fit for the Debian games team: http://wiki.debian.org/Games/Team We would definitely welcome new people, especially if they want to work on other games than their own. Please note the games team is having slight sponsorship issues too. On to your mail The fact is that there just aren't enough people who have time and are interested in sponsoring. Reviewing packages takes up a lot of time to do properly, especially for new packages. It has been this way for as long as I can remember. To fix this situation, we need: More interest from DDs in sponsoring packages both within and outside their areas of interest. More motivation from DDs to spend more of their time on Debian and less on other things like work, personal life, etc. More interest from maintainers in putting effort into their packages. More interest from maintainers in keeping the packages on mentors.d.n up to date and automatic removal of mentors.d.n packages that haven't been updated in more than X months. More automated QA stuff for mentors.d.n and more visibility for that info so maintainers actually notice issues. Ways for maintainers to give answers to common sponsor questions along with their upload so that the overhead for sponsors is reduced. Some of the above is part of the proposed design for debexpo, which really needs folks to step up and work on it (hint hint). Other parts can be helped by sending DDs to DebConf, I've found that a big motivator. On a regular basis I look back through the -mentors archives for RFS threads with no replies and do a review of a few that look interesting. Most of the packages I look at during those reviews are definitely not of sufficient quality to make me comfortable uploading them. Many contain non-free stuff, lack source, FTBFS etc etc blah. After I review them, often there are no replies, followups or updates to the package at all. People posting RFS mails don't seem to put in the effort to make good packages, which reduces my motivation to deal with -mentors. And if I actually do an upload, then usually the maintainer looses interest in Debian or in the package and it sits there on my QA page gathering bugs and reducing my motivation. Sometimes the package is beyond my skill level (such as Java or complicated maintainer scripts) or written in languages I strongly dislike (PHP), which means I review part of the package and will not sponsor it. Personally I won't be actually sponsoring packages on a regular basis until debexpo is in better shape and gets deployed. The exceptions are the occasional QA upload, RC bug fix, team upload or (much less likely) when I'm actually impressed with the quality of the initial RFS of a package. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikpoi1g9eqjvzbc-5xfruruu2dsopzfl97da...@mail.gmail.com
Processed: reassign 585385 to wnpp, retitle 585385 to RFP: gtk+3.0 -- the GTK+ 3.0 user interface library
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny7 > reassign 585385 wnpp Bug #585385 [general] general: Package GTK+3 Bug reassigned from package 'general' to 'wnpp'. > retitle 585385 RFP: gtk+3.0 -- the GTK+ 3.0 user interface library Bug #585385 [wnpp] general: Package GTK+3 Changed Bug title to 'RFP: gtk+3.0 -- the GTK+ 3.0 user interface library' from 'general: Package GTK+3' > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 585385: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=585385 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.127613621730515.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#585183: marked as done (general: .deb packages open with Archive Manager by default, not Package Installer)
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:24:56 +0200 with message-id <1276140296.9676.6.ca...@tomoyo> and subject line Re: Bug#585183: general: .deb packages open with Archive Manager by default, not Package Installer has caused the Debian Bug report #585183, regarding general: .deb packages open with Archive Manager by default, not Package Installer to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 585183: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=585183 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: general Severity: normal Tags: squeeze In GNOME the default open action for when double-clicking on a .deb package is to open with Archive Manager, which then complains 'Could not create the archive: Archive type not supported.' The context menu shows as the second option 'Open with GDebi Package Installer', and I think it would be hard to argue against this being a better default, especially seeing as archive manager can't understand .debs itself from a clean install... -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-3-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Le jeudi 10 juin 2010 à 01:56 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > Acceptable solutions include: > * splitting ar out of binutils; > * writing a new backend for file-roller that uses dpkg-deb for > debs instead of ar/tar. You can thank my insomnia; I just implemented the latter. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part --- End Message ---
Re: Bug#585183: general: .deb packages open with Archive Manager by default, not Package Installer
[Josselin Mouette] > That’s because currently it requires ar, for which you have to > install the whole binutils, which is 12 MiB. So we don’t do that. How many percent of the disk footprint of a Gnome desktop installation is 12 MiB? Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flfx0vph39@login2.uio.no
Re: A lot of pending packages
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:13:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Sometimes the package is beyond my skill level (such as Java or > complicated maintainer scripts) or written in languages I strongly > dislike (PHP), which means I review part of the package and will not > sponsor it. ---end quoted text--- It would be nice to have a page on mentors.d.n to advice uploaders to actually seek sponsorship from relevant Debian teams (Gnome/Java/PHP...) -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyID: 0xEDDDA1B7 GPG Fingerprint: 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8 B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100610053952.ga2...@ants.dhis.net
