Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is > this really what we want? > > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, > though it was too late (May?) to accept that. > > I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. > > Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it > seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. I've never understood the .X distinction anyway. What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience have any concept of the distinction? Why is sarge 3.1 and not 4.0? No good reason that makes any sense to me. It's a distinction completely without value since its too subtle for non-intimates to grasp and if you are very into debian, you'd know what the difference between versions is anyway. Just call them release N.0. Update rollups (like 3.0r5, 3.0r6 and presumably future 3.1r1 &c) could use the second digit. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Media players in Debian
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [César Martínez Izquierdo] > > Another reason is... lots of Debian users download mplayer from > > Marillat or other sources (maybe Marillat may provide some stats)... > > popcon.debian.org can provide stats. Of 16473 machines submitting > info, 3555 (22%) have the mplayer package installed. There are 84 > packages with mplayer in the name reported, and some of the are > alternative pcakages (like mplayer-586), so the installation base for > mplayer might be higher than 22%. You can have mplayer installed without it necessarily showing up for popcon. Since mplayer isn't in the debian repository proper, I have downloaded the source, compiled it myself and installed it into /usr/local. There are probably many other people like me. I am not sure how useful the popcon numbers are besides giving some kind of lower bound to mplayer. > I used the numbers in http://popcon.debian.org/by_inst.gz>. > > Friendly, > -- > Petter Reinholdtsen > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Johan KULLSTAM
Re: Media players in Debian
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Montag 25 September 2006 14:27 schrieb Johan Kullstam: > > You can have mplayer installed without it necessarily showing up for > > popcon. > > Or you don't have it installed and don't participate in popcon. > popcon does not show representative values but everybody knows that. Sure, but since mplayer isn't part of debian the numbers are probably a good deal more warped than for your run of the mill application package. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: daylight saving time and RTC clock
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Santiago> Why don't you just keep your RTC to UTC? It worked for > Santiago> me. > > It breaks if you need to dual boot to a competing operating system and > keep track of times. Hmmm. What was it called again? I think it was > this "Windows" program made be a small company somewhere in USA ;-). Windows can be set to GMT without daylight savings time. Sure, the time shown in windows might not be your local time, but windows does continue to work as well as it ever does. Windows can't do time properly, so I just let it lose. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: US mirror troubles
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > 35.9.37.225, in http.us.debian.org, and ftp.us.debian.org, has been > unreachable on port 80 from all the networks I have access to for days. > > This is ftp.egr.msu.edu. > > It is also still listed at http://www.debian.org/mirror/list > > It is listed "bad" at http://mirror.debian.org/status.html > > Can someone remove it from http.us.debian.org and the list until it's back? > > Also, would it be possible to notify mirror admins of bad mirrors > autoamtically in the future, so this problem can be avoided? > > Meanwhile, I can't seem to find a list of rsyncable US mirrors anymore. Does > anyone know where that list is kept? > > I'm not sure what list is best for this. Apologies if I found the > wrong one. I also notice that we have 4 servers listed under the name "http.us.debian.org" Using "host" from bind9-host, $ host http.us.debian.org http.us.debian.org has address 128.101.240.212 http.us.debian.org has address 204.152.191.7 http.us.debian.org has address 35.9.37.225 http.us.debian.org has address 64.50.238.52 And if you repeat the command, you will see the DNS doing round-robin returning the addresses in various orders. This seems great. However, libc6 resolv+ (I think - can someone confirm who is to blame?) goes out of its way to *sort* the list by IP number and thus thwarts the round-robin. Aptitude (and wget, &c) *always* choose 35.9.37.225. This server must be getting beat like a red-headed stepchild since *all* the debian update/upgrade trying http.us.debian.org go there. Where do I send a bug report about IP number sorting in (I presume) gethostbyname()? > (Should it be -project? Some ticket with the admins RT?) > > Thanks, > > -- John > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: US mirror troubles
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 09:24:24AM -0400, Johan Kullstam wrote: >> >> Using "host" from bind9-host, >> $ host http.us.debian.org >> http.us.debian.org has address 128.101.240.212 >> http.us.debian.org has address 204.152.191.7 >> http.us.debian.org has address 35.9.37.225 >> http.us.debian.org has address 64.50.238.52 >> >> And if you repeat the command, you will see the DNS doing round-robin >> returning the addresses in various orders. This seems great. >> >> However, libc6 resolv+ (I think - can someone confirm who is to >> blame?) goes out of its way to *sort* the list by IP number and thus >> thwarts the round-robin. Aptitude (and wget, &c) *always* choose >> 35.9.37.225. This server must be getting beat like a red-headed >> stepchild since *all* the debian update/upgrade trying >> http.us.debian.org go there. > > > See http://bugs.debian.org/438179 Hmm this makes me sad. Thanks for fighting the good fight. For the benefit of those who might not know, the solution is to edit /etc/gai.conf and put a line of "sortv4 no". IMNSHO it ought to be the default. For IPv4 RFC-3484 makes no sense. Round-robin DNS depends on clients prefering first address returned. This totally breaks a de-facto standard. In IPv4, Subnet is perhaps easy to detect and prefer, but how do you configure prefering a local-net? And since IPv4 blocks are more or less randomly strewn about the world, it doesn't help. It makes some sense of IPv6. But then, IPv6 is the internet of the future and - like fusion power - will always be. So why are we breaking today's internet for some vaporware? Screw 3484. > Kurt -- Johan KULLSTAM A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - R.W. Emerson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
