Re: Several X applications refuse to start
'ello Debian On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 08:40:30PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > asking Google for this problem just leaded to hints of some broken X > resources but I have no real clue what might have caused the failure > of at least three important applications which I'm running on a laptop > with an up to date testing. I never faced similar problems with three > other machines running more or less the same stuff. > $ emacs > X protocol error: BadValue (integer parameter out of range for operation) > on protocol request 45 > Fatal error (6). [..] > The problem is that this Laptop is the machine I installed most recently > and I want to share this obervations with other developers just to prevent > that something goes really wrong in Sarge ... > So the question is, which information do I have to provide to track down > this problem. Is this a Transmeta Crusoe based laptop? Have you seen bug 216933? I get this bug periodically. Apparently running the debugging server or recompiling to turn off optimisation in the X server may help. Though I guess your symptoms are a little different. -- --( ' huggie: je sais je suis nulle...mais )-- --( je suis très tetue alors ça compense :)' )-- Simon ( #parinux ) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.22
Buildds automatically dep-waiting on build-depends
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > What would help save many hours on slow systems is having a script > automatically set "Dep-Wait: libbfoo (>> 1.2-3)" for all new sources > according to Build-Depends to prevent useless buildd attempts and > failures and manual work to retry them. This has come up before and I wanted to have a look at it but I haven't had any spare time to even have a look let alone come up with a solution to this yet. But yes, one day I'll try and have a look if someone more familiar with wanna-build hasn't fixed it by then. Simon. -- Just another wannabie | "Bet ya five dollars I get | Just another fool --+ off" - Pusher to Mulder (3x17) +--- This message was brought to you by the letter E and the number 7. htag.pl 0.0.22 -- http://www.earth.li/projectpurple/progs/htag.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Experimental or unstable.
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 02:44:38PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Marc Haber [Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:40:45 +0100]: > > Experience with adduser shows that no-one besides the maintainers > > themselves and their closest environment uses experimental packages. > More evidence: > http://www.perrier.eu.org/weblog/2005/09/30#experimental-useless See this worries me a bit. I'd love for Debian users to test some more cutting edge versions of packages (partly so upstream gets more testers, partly so I can see the bits I hate about the new versions and try to get them fixed) but I don't want them in testing now until they are properly released as a stable series. In fact, I don't really want them in unstable if it means that in order to fix bugs which appear in testing I have to revert to the stable set of packages in order to get them in. I guess the compromise is just to realise that they just won't be thoroughly tested when they hit unstable if they've only been in experimental before. But then it does make you wonder if it's worth putting anything in experimental in the first place. Is there any better way I can get snapshots/betas tested by the majority of users? Do people think that this is the sort of thing that should just be uploaded to unstable and allowed to flow into testing? Simon. -- -+// "Step #1 in programming: understand people." -- Linus \\+- -+<<>>+- -+\\ //+- Colocate your server with http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experimental or unstable.
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:11:55AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 02:03:37PM +0000, Simon Huggins wrote: > > Is there any better way I can get snapshots/betas tested by the > > majority of users? Do people think that this is the sort of thing > > that should just be uploaded to unstable and allowed to flow into > > testing? > Provided you're willing/able to fix bugs that are found directly, not > just by reverting to the previous version, yeah, pretty much... Yeah. I suspect in the case I'm thinking of (xfce) that they aren't really close enough to the end of their dev cycle for this to be justified and I'm not just talking about one package so it gets harder still to support. (Anyone wanting to help in general with xfce.*plugin is most welcome over on the pkg-xfce alioth project... :)) I suppose it'll have to be experimental and then suffer the bug reports when it finally hits unstable when it's in a usable state. But yeah, I take the point that in general if it's only one package and you're going to stick with it then unstable is better as long as you are responsive. Simon -- ... Granny sighed. "Gytha, Greebo would like Norris the Eyeball-Eating Maniac of Quirm if he knew how to put food in a bowl." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 07:20:46PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Debian Xfce Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > xfce4-mixer > xfce4-mixer-alsa > xfce4-mixer-oss Can you remind me why circular dependencies are so terrible? These packages install fine and upgraded fine. What did we miss? -- Simon Huggins \ If at first you don't succeed, you'll get lots of advice. \ http://www.earth.li/~huggie/htag.pl 0.0.22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any volunteers for ploticus in Debian?
Hi, Does anyone want to adopt/help with the ploticus packages in Debian? The maintainer, James Penny, is more or less MIA in that he doesn't have time for Debian work at the moment and hasn't for a while which you can see from say the bugs page. It seems sad that upstream have incorporated ideas from http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284080 in February 2005 and then it didn't make sarge and hasn't seemingly been touched since. My only interest in it is that a user of a shell box I admin wanted it. Having investigated upstream it looks like a neat piece of software so it really does seem like a shame that noone would pick this up. jpenny writes: > I am, most ashamedly, MIA. I will be trying to resolve this, but it looks > like another month before I can consider becoming active again. I am > certainly willing to give ploticus up. No one has volunteered. So if you > want it, or you can find a volunteer, please do so. > Otherwise I will try to get current packaging out by Feb 28. > Note: the ploticus package itself is not very challenging. However, the > documentation is difficult to package. In the past it has required tools > not in debian to build, and it has tons of references to features that > could not be put in the debian version -- either due to patent issues or > depending on removed libraries. Go on, you know you want to. Simon. -- UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/ If a tree fell on a /* http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ **/ florist, would he make a /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ sound? /*** Black Cat Networks / / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Firmware handling in Debian
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 03:12:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 1) Distribute the non-free firmware. Our users are happy. > > 2) Don't distribute the non-free firmware. Our users either download the > > non-free firmware from elsewhere (bad) or replace their hardware with > > parts that have the non-free firmware in flash (worse - no improvement > > in freedom, and we've made them waste money and material) > I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive. Right but the installer needs firmware at times. So if we're shipping it in non-free we need to manage this there. There was talk about a new section called firmware or similar which would mean users that wanted just firmware wouldn't have non-free listed in their sources.list and accidentally stray to the Dark Side. This clearly needs some thought though and cooperation from the installer people and packages which depend on firmware (the kernel, speedtouch things like that). - Where should firmware ship? non-free? A new, separate section? - How should we make it available at install time when necessary? (think installing via a USB ADSL modem like a speedtouch) Simon. -- "There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling!" -- Comic Book Guy, The Simpsons. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Adrian Bunk, Please hold off a week or two
Adrian, I've noticed lately that almost every post you send is about the release; Pointing out problems with some feature or other of it or with the actions of the hard working people who are trying to get sarge out the door. Do you think you could manage to leave your critisms til next week when we might have released and turn them into constructive criticisms instead of merely demanding pieces of information from the release team? I don't know what you hope to achieve by doing this. "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance". Maybe you just don't realise that you're pestering the release team and others and drawing them into pointless debates which won't help release sarge. I'd like to ask you publically to hold off for a couple of weeks with these questions. I'm sure you have an entirely rational reason for asking them and that it will end up being productive for Debian but I honestly think it would be better if they were asked later on. A post-mortem of this release in order to better prepare for Etch might indeed help us and I can only imagine you're itching to write it given the number of questions you've asked. Once sarge releases I'm sure there'll be plenty of time to talk about how to get a quicker, predictable release schedule for Etch. Thanks, -- ,--huggie-at-earth-dot-listuff-thing-stuff--DF5CE2B4--. _| "1 girl was just abducted." - Mulder "Kidnapped." - Scully |_ | "Potato, potato.." - Mulder | `- http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ - http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ -' signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The release team has said in announcements before the second announced > release date for sarge that the whole release schedule was based on > the installer schedule. > For a casual reader of d-d-a it might not be obvious that this has > changed. Eh? Have you been reading some other d-d-a than the rest of us? The last ones have been about RC bugs[0],[1] and then[2] there was a call for upgrades which took longer "due to a hairy bug". No installer mentions there. The one before that[3] is a mixed bag of things that were fixed none of which were the installer. So I have to go back through 4 announcements and two months before I even find a mention of the installer which just says[4] that RC3 was done and that sarge will release with it. Perhaps by "casual reader" you mean certain journalists who don't even bother to read those messages at all? It's clear from d-d-a that the release not happening has had nothing to do with the installer lately. I don't know what your point is but I lump this post in with your other recent trolls and felt it needed debunking (no pun intended). You're a native German speaker right Adrian? Perhaps you could help Debian instead by pointing out the journalist's mistake(s). [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg00020.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg00011.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg00010.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/04/msg00023.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/04/msg3.html -- Simon [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\ "You heard of Kung Fu? Well get \** ** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ ready for Pork Chop!" \* ** [ Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\\ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:11:46PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > Almost all of the dep-wait and many of the not-for-us errors could be > detected by the software. Yeah that would be useful. > wanna-build could probably be turned into a distributed process if it > can't be handled on a single box, as could buildd logs. I think if the stresses of wanna-build on a central server are too much then the obvious answer is a per-arch server which contacts the central server (so only 11 connections needed) and then this per arch server sorts out how the packages get built for that arch. Though I say all this having never looked at the source. -- Simon Huggins \ "I have this terrible pain in all the diodes down my \ left side." - Marvin http://www.earth.li/~huggie/htag.pl 0.0.22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:25:22PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > To begin with we can all go back and review:
> > http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposals
> I reviewed it and it still all falls into two groups:
> - Votes for more money ("Suck less", "Release better and more often")
Why do you think release more often is a vote for "more money"?
I think having a target date, even a target month for release, would
help everyone and reduce the posts to -release lately where people have
finally crawled out of the woodwork to say please let such and such a
package in.
Has anyone stepped forwards to do release management of etch? What are
their ideas of what's achievable?
Simon.
--
Black Cat Networks-("Her name is Bambi?" - Scully)-
UK domain, email and web hosting -( )-
http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk -( )-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 02:18:28PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I think having a target date, even a target month for release, would > > help everyone and reduce the posts to -release lately where people > > have finally crawled out of the woodwork to say please let such and > > such a package in. > This one is "release managers should make real, practical, believable > plans and communicate them to the developers, and then stick to them". > Which, I will note, is not on that wiki page. Also it already seems to > have been happening for sarge, now that Anthony Towns has been > replaced, so I don't think it really qualifies as a proposal. Well ok, I see this as part of http://wiki.debian.net/?FixedReleaseDate Though I'd rather trade this off to say "we'll release in 18 months time" and then slip a month if we have to than have an absolutely fixed date. Simon. -- oOoOo If at first you don't succeed, you'll get lots of advice. oOoOo oOoOooOoOo oOoOo oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.22 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
Hi Scott, On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think > it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear > katie) are prepared to accept. Are you pushing for this or just seeing what's going to happen? Do you know if Ubuntu going to support the new format during etch's testing phase (say 18 months for argument's sake)? Simon. -- * "They were trying to manipulate behaviour. Alter people's * | decision making - what to buy, who to vote for .." - Mulder | * "You think they'll stop at commerce or politics?" - X * Brought to you by the letter G and the number 29 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I'm here to build the best free OS, not to collect the most liberal > > trademarks. If a trademark license allows us to ship the software the > > way we want and there are no practical problems in removing trademark > > references if it were ever needed then I think it's obvious that we > > would do a disservice to our users by removing from Debian such a widely > > know trademark without a good reason. > Well the whole issue is I don't believe we're allowed to ship the > software the way we want. We would be compromising our principles by > doing so. Sorry, I think I must have missed something here. Why are you bothering to ask -devel when you've clearly already decided upon your position? Like others in this thread I disagree with your position. I don't think you'd be compromising Debian's principles in doing this as it's just about the name and it's purported to be easy to change the name if downstream users do patch it. If people want to rip out the guts of firefox then they have to rename it. I see no problem here. Debian has proved it only wants to do nice, fluffy things to firefox, Gervase is being accomodating as far as I can tell. Why do you want to make Debian the distribution that users moan about shipping iceweasel when there is no reason not to just ship firefox? Pragmatically yours, Simon. -- UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/ "I got everything up to the /* http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ **/ part about `Now listen /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ closely'" - The Cat. /*** Black Cat Networks / / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:16:18AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Like others in this thread I disagree with your position. I don't > > think you'd be compromising Debian's principles in doing this as > > it's just about the name and it's purported to be easy to change the > > name if downstream users do patch it. > > If people want to rip out the guts of firefox then they have to > > rename it. I see no problem here. Debian has proved it only wants > > to do nice, fluffy things to firefox, Gervase is being accomodating > > as far as I can tell. > > Why do you want to make Debian the distribution that users moan > > about shipping iceweasel when there is no reason not to just ship > > firefox? Pragmatically yours, > Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you > don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla foundation is > against DFSG #8? Why not? You have the right to modify the code whether or not it is in Debian. The license to the code is not specific to Debian so I don't believe that this contradicts the spirit of DFSG #8. The rights are the same for you as they are for users i.e. they have the right to go to Mozilla and prove they produce good enough software to use Mozilla's trademark and call it firefox just as you have. The license isn't specific to Debian therefore this satisfies that clause. I honestly believe the above paragraph is consistent. Obviously there are people out there who will argue that this clause means you can't possibly do it as the name is different and Joe Random Hacker can't somehow break firefox yet ignore the Mozilla Foundation and trade on their good reputation by using their name. I think however that that is a specious argument and that all sane users of firefox will be able to negotiate as you have done or not bother and change the name. The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via Gervase in this long running debate which he has continued to follow despite the criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. Obviously if they turn around in the future and say "oh we hate your blah patch you can't use the name" then we can /then/ make it a big issue and change the name to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly think this is unlikely though and to do so now would be not only be premature but be harmful to users and your/the project's relationship with Mozilla. Simon. -- Just another wannabie | the seat on my | Just another fool --+ toilet has more uptime +--- This message was brought to you by the letter X and the number 39. htag.pl 0.0.22 -- http://www.earth.li/projectpurple/progs/htag.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:52AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:07:16PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > Indeed the most pragmatic thing to do is to keep the name. But you > > > don't feel that accepting a deal with the Mozilla foundation is > > > against DFSG #8? Why not? > > You have the right to modify the code whether or not it is in Debian. > > The license to the code is not specific to Debian so I don't believe > > that this contradicts the spirit of DFSG #8. The rights are the same > > for you as they are for users i.e. they have the right to go to Mozilla > > and prove they produce good enough software to use Mozilla's trademark > > and call it firefox just as you have. The license isn't specific to > > Debian therefore this satisfies that clause. > The code license is not in question. The trademark license/policy is. Right, my point is that the important thing for downstream of Debian is that the code is free not what the name is or if it has to be changed. If we can keep the name that's good for our users though so we should. > > The Mozilla Foundation have made many shows of good faith via > > Gervase in this long running debate which he has continued to follow > > despite the criticisms levelled at him/the Mozilla Foundation. > > Obviously if they turn around in the future and say "oh we hate your > > blah patch you can't use the name" then we can /then/ make it a big > > issue and change the name to iceweasel and be happy. I honestly > > think this is unlikely though and to do so now would be not only be > > premature but be harmful to users and your/the project's > > relationship with Mozilla. > Well actually to some degree they've already done this. Recently the > CAcert (www.cacert.org) project's root CA made it into our > ca-certificates package. However I can't have Firefox use that as a > root CA by default and still use the trademark: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.cacert/2752 > This seems like a pretty unacceptable to me. Hmm. That almost sets a precedent for stopping any changes they don't like via the blunt tool of the trademark license. Do they have the same problems with the SPI root certs? What are their reasons for this? Do they have the same concerns that you raise in #309564? Simon. -- UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/"To infinity and beyond!" /* http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ **/ /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ /*** Black Cat Networks / / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That there is such a hue and cry over rebranding Firefox in Debian > > indicates to me that it *is* a significant burden we would be (and are > > now) asking of our downstream users. > Second, the real problems with rebranding are not with the technical > work that has to happen, from the sound of it. They're with user > recognition and the ability of users to find the right package for > something they want to run. That *is* a significant issue, at least > in my opinion, but Debian taking that hit doesn't do *anything* to > help our downstream users. They still end up having to either take > the same hit or now undo Debian work to get back to the name that > their users will recognize. I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a license. Did I get the wrong end of the stick? Simon. -- * benj: mais il y a des thumbnails en 1600x1200 ;) * | | * * Brought to you by the letter J and the number 9 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:03:37AM +0200, Martin Waitz wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:18:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > The whole question is whether Debian can accept a Debian-specific > > agreement to call Firefox "Firefox". > sure, and the consensus seems to be that there is no problem in doing > so. > It's only you who doesn't want to accept that. That's unfair. I would have summarised more as "there's no problem doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes". I don't want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's happening here, rather it's the other way around - the code can be changed but if it's changed in a way that they don't like they could withdraw use of the mark) Mozilla however don't have any objective way of saying whether something is or isn't good quality and appear to want to micromanage these things. Gervase, perhaps you could come up with a better proposal that was objective and could be applied to all parties whilst not being overly onerous so that people meeting some specific guidelines for quality could use the trademarked name (oh and solve world peace, hunger and poverty at the same time, ta ;)). I believe Eric's asked for this in the past in this thread. Is it really such an impossible goal? I think it's the uncertainty that scares people here - the fact that if we don't meet some target we can't see or argue against we might have the license to use the trademark removed suddenly. I imagine that the packages will be renamed iceweasel or whatever as soon as Mozilla make some unpopular decision but I don't see how that serves Debian or Mozilla particularly. Sadly the way this thread is going I can all too clearly see Mozilla making some silly ruling in the future which doesn't sit well with Debian :( > You've done a great job in maintaining firefox, please don't rename > your package based on some personal differences with the mozilla > trademark policy. He's not intending to rename it or accept the trademark agreement if you read the original post AFAIK. Simon. -- oOoOourpmi, rpm, dpkg, apt... connais pas tout ca oOoOo oOoOo moi... moa bourrin... moa gruik dependencies managing oOoOo oOoOo oOoOo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Salut Gervase! On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:46:55PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: > Simon Huggins wrote: > >That's unfair. I would have summarised more as "there's no problem > >doing so as long as Mozilla are reasonable in Debian's eyes". I don't > >want Eric to accept the agreement if for every change of code he has to > >run to Gervase and ask nicely. (note that's not quite what's happening > >here, rather it's the other way around - the code can be changed but if > >it's changed in a way that they don't like they could withdraw use of > >the mark) > > > >Mozilla however don't have any objective way of saying whether something > >is or isn't good quality and appear to want to micromanage these things. > I don't think we want to micromanage - in fact, as your previous > paragraph states, what we suggested was pretty hands-off. Sorry, I was thinking of the CA issue. But if you have to do this for /every/ change it becomes onerous on the maintainer. Your "hot button" proposal seems sane. If this thread makes you codify your trademark proposal more than at least some good has come out of it :) > >Gervase, perhaps you could come up with a better proposal that was > >objective and could be applied to all parties whilst not being overly > >onerous so that people meeting some specific guidelines for quality > >could use the trademarked name (oh and solve world peace, hunger and > >poverty at the same time, ta ;)). I believe Eric's asked for this in > >the past in this thread. Is it really such an impossible goal? > I really think it is - at least, to the level that I think would be > required. Could you define such a set of guidelines for Debian itself, > to allow people to use the official Debian logos on modified versions > of Debian? Don't open that can of worms again :) Anyway the swirl is nicer and more people associate it with Debian precisely because the trademark license is onerous and has killed off use of the vase thing. [please don't start a logo flamewar here unless you really want swathes of mail] > I've said in the past that I'd be happy to draw up a non-binding > checklist of hot-buttons and so on, if that would help - to be worked > out between the MoFo and Debian. That offer stands. Would this not be useful for all people seeking to use the trademark license? I think it would be worthwhile. Do you have a few ideas off the top of your head now of definite things that cannot be touched? > Quality is not a checkbox matter. The control that trademark law > requires we exercise over trademark usage (which is reduced to an > absolute minimum in the suggested agreement) means we have to maintain > quality, not maintain "does X, Y and Z but not Q". > We say Debian has a reputation for shipping quality software, and we > want them to use the trademark. I would hope you guys also want to use > it, as a well-known free software brand. Why is our recognition of > Debian's quality used as a negative against that happening? Anyone > with a similar reputation (e.g. Ubuntu) can get a similar agreement. You want us to use the trademark, we want to use the trademark. It's a question of whether we feel we can compromise our rights to change things freely and still use it that is the issue here. > >I think it's the uncertainty that scares people here - the fact that > >if we don't meet some target we can't see or argue against we might > >have the license to use the trademark removed suddenly. > My proposal covered that concern - the Foundation would not have the > power to withdraw the trademark from use in a frozen or shipping > version of Debian. Sure and that's useful to have. > >I imagine that the packages will be renamed iceweasel or whatever as > >soon as Mozilla make some unpopular decision but I don't see how that > >serves Debian or Mozilla particularly. Sadly the way this thread is > >going I can all too clearly see Mozilla making some silly ruling in > >the future which doesn't sit well with Debian :( > What from this thread makes you think that the silliness will be on > our side? Just the CA issue; that there's no clear decision one way or the other and CAs are one thing you want to control closely. I just wonder how many more issues like this there are - without a list or a codified document of things that are likely to piss you off it's hard to know. > I'm still under the impression, waiting to be corrected, that Debian's > policy for including new root certs is "we include the root cert of > anyone who asks"... If we say that it's not acceptable for such a >
Re: WTF ? (Fwd: Your message to Yaird-devel awaits moderator approval)
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 02:10:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > maintainer addresses HAVE to accept bug reports and mails from > non-subscribers. This setting is not correct, please fix it asap. If messages do indeed get through to the list why is this a problem? -- --( "Everybody, everybody's dead, everybody's dead )-- --( Dave." - Holly )-- Simon ( ) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Guidelines for packaging projects on Alioth
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:13:13PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > * All existing packaging projects should use svnmailer to send SVN diffs > to the Package Tracking System. A sample configuration file is provided > and I can help if you have troubles installing it. Are you proposing that existing projects that send to a project mailing list should change and send to the PTS and if so can you put forward some reasons? I'm just curious really. -- Simon [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\ "Peace and understanding through \** ** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\brute force." -- David Parsons \* ** [ Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\\ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Guidelines for packaging projects on Alioth
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 08:49:58AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Simon Huggins wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:13:13PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > * All existing packaging projects should use svnmailer to send SVN diffs > > > to the Package Tracking System. A sample configuration file is provided > > > and I can help if you have troubles installing it. > > Are you proposing that existing projects that send to a project mailing > > list should change and send to the PTS and if so can you put forward > > some reasons? > No, I'm not proposing that. I'm just asking to send diffs to the PTS > as well as to the mailing list. > I even documented that configuration in the sample configuration file. Sure the config file was clearer on that than your mail certainly. > That's what I've done with python-modules recently. Some people > subscribe to the -commits list because they are very involved in the > team and other just use the PTS to follow the 2-3 packages that are of > interest to them. Yes this makes more sense now. I must admit I still thought the PTS was only really a way to get all the bugs for a package. Is there a reason that when you subscribe to the PTS you don't just get everything by default? (cf http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-resources.en.html#s-pkg-tracking-system ) I'll go look at adding the PTS to pkg-xfce now anyway. Simon -- ... "Did someone say they wanted toast?" -- Talkie Toaster -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Guidelines for packaging projects on Alioth
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 03:46:36PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I'll go look at adding the PTS to pkg-xfce now anyway. > Thanks! Except as discussed on IRC in #alioth it sends to the first package affected if many packages are so I've not added this in yet. We're sending to our list (as we have been for ages) for now. Simon. -- "I fought in the Korean war, you know. I killed four men..." - Basil "He was in the catering corps. He poisoned them." - Sybil, Fawlty Towers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mdadm 2.4.1-1 ready for tests
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:11:43AM -0500, martin f krafft wrote: > Here's the changelog: > mdadm (2.4.1-1) experimental; urgency=low >* The "I'll kill that maintainer... uh, wait, it's me" release. Sorry for > the delay, here's the long awaited new upstream release, > which closes: Bug#318230, Bug#321751, Bug#337903, Bug#352798, Bug#363592, >Bug#356153, Bug#271033 I know this isn't the sort of feedback you want but these aren't all "please ship the new version of mdadm" bugs and whilst they might well be fixed by this version I thought consensus was to try to describe what it was about this release that fixes these bugs. -- --( "And what have they ever given us in return?")-- --( "The aqueduct?" )-- Simon ( ) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: alternatives and priorities
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:41:12PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:25:28PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Fixing this wasn't very hard, but it made me consider why we let a > > maintainer decide what the alternative priority of an editor would be. > Mm -- I always wondered why xfce-session-manager had a priority over > gnome-session-manager by default. (One might argue that GNOME is > installed by default, though, so if a user installs XFCE that's a > conscious choice...) Hmm. Recent gnome-session and xfce4-session call update-alternatives with a priority of 50. ksmserver appears to use 40. gnome-session in sarge used 20, ksmserver in sarge used 40 and xfce4-session still used 50. It does look like we might have started a bit of priority inflation there. I don't remember why we set the priority to 50 in the first place. I'd be happy (as one of the xfce guys) for everyone to use the same priority to be honest. -- Simon [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\ "Emergency! Emergency! There's an \** ** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ emergency going on!" - Holly \* ** [ Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\\ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packages violating policy 8.2
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 07:56:54PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't see why this could be a problem for multiarch. The library is > > only used by the binary which is the same package, so they are always > > in sync. > libfoo:i386 contains > /usr/bin/foo > /usr/i486-linux-gnu/lib/libfoo.so.0 > libfoo:amd64 contains > /usr/bin/foo > /usr/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/libfoo.so.0 > When both get installed dpkg will complain about trying to overwrite > /usr/bin/foo. Surely you're just pushing this out to libfoo-bin:i386 contains /usr/bin/foo and likewise libfoo-bin:amd64 and getting the conflict there. How do you resolve that? Simon -- ... "You still here Basil?" - Sybil "No, I went a couple of minutes ago, dear, but I expect I'll be back soon." - Basil, Fawlty Towers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recent sid amd64 rpath oddity?
Hi, On the 3rd May I built libxfce4util and generated libxfce4util2_4.3.90.1-1_amd64.deb. This is in the archive exactly as I built it. It has a couple of lintian failures that I missed and have since been fixed in our SVN. Upstream have released recently and whilst checking these packages more thoroughly I've fixed up the lintian errors but I've also built the new package and I noticed that it's defining an rpath. So I rooted around and tried to work out why but couldn't really work it out. Upstream's libtool and autotools looked recent to me. If I relibtoolize though this does go away. Out of curiousity I rebuilt the previous package i.e. 4.3.90.1-1 again from the same source files as before but with current sid and this time it fails with two extra lintian warnings: W: libxfce4util2: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath ./usr/lib/libxfce4util.so.2.1.0 /usr/lib W: libxfce4util2: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath ./usr/sbin/xfce4-kiosk-query /usr/lib If I rebuild the same package on i386 current sid then I don't get the rpath installed. I guess I have several questions: - how can the same source package over a few months build differently in this way? - am I really going to have to relibtoolize every xfce package before I upload or make them do it themselves? :-/ - how evil is an rpath on /usr/lib anyway? I'd welcome any testers on amd64 or not and on recent sid or not to narrow this down. Or any clues as to how on earth this can happen. If you do want to relibtoolize then install xfce4-dev-ools and run xdt-autogen in the package dirrectory. Thanks. Simon. heh, good sigmonster. -- oOoOo Open source is about letting go of complete control. Accept oOoOo oOoOo the fact that other people are wonderful resources tooOoOo oOoOo fixing problems, and let them help you. - Linus Torvalds oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.22 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
xfce-goodies - help needed; Rudy Godoy MIA?
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:57:57PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 05:26:35PM +0000, Simon Huggins wrote: > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > There are currently 11 orphaned xfce4-* packages in unstable, including > three that have just been removed from testing due to RC bugs that went > virtually unnoticed since the last upload in May. I know the -goodies packages are in bad shape. > Please take some time to help figure out what should be done with > these packages -- cleaned up/adopted, or removed from the archive -- > before ITPing more packages in the xfce4 namespace. Sure. I think for sarge they can be cleaned up/updated. I've just finished a stretch getting the 22 packages for the main body of xfce4 for 4.2.0 for experimental sorted this weekend so I'm a bit knackered currently. To be honest I'd been expecting others to sort out the -plugins for sarge given people had said they would. Rudy Godoy seemed interested at one point but now his mail is bouncing though I'm ccing him again in case it got fixed. Likewise Emanuele Rocca seemed interested. There were some packages that made it to mentors.debian.net - and there is still some work up there. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/ I'll try and pull something together for unstable against the 4.0.x libs I guess at some point but if others have more time and inclination then I'd be much obliged of the help. -- --( "That's why we like you, Mulder; your ideas are )-- Simon ( weirder than ours." - Byers) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.22 pgpRY8uGMG0Cq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: xfce-goodies - help needed; Rudy Godoy MIA?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:22:14AM +0100, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > * [ 17-01-05 - 01:50 ] Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There were some packages that made it to mentors.debian.net - and there > > is still some work up there. > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/ > WNPP bugs for some of the -goodies need to be retitled from O: to ITP:. > I found the time to check -battery-plugin and -clipman-plugin, and I > must admit that they're not in a good shape (ITP bugs not closed in the > changelog, bugs marked as fixed are actually still reproducible, lintian > is not happy)... Ok. > I don't want to be rude, but I am wondering if Rudy is the right > person for these 13 packages, considering that he's got 9 packages in > main yet. Rudy, have you really got the time to maintain all the > -goodies properly? Fair enough. > Why is the Debian Xfce Packages Alioth project dead? [0] Madkiss hasn't revived it for whatever reason. *shrug* I asked in the summer when you and Rudy were talking about the plugins and nothing happened. > IMHO putting these packages under collaborative maintenance would be a > better idea. I set up the xfce4-debian list for exactly that reason so we can coordinate stuff. Simon. -- [ "Ah, here we are - `How to Raise the Dead.'" - Bart Simpson ] pgpKrzTk9WXlV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: buildd failure
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:43:25AM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Attila SZALAY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > # out of date on hppa: libzorpll, libzorpll-dev (from 2.0.5.2-1) > Hm, http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=&pkg=libzorpll seems to > indicate that the hppa autobuilder never attempted 2.0.26.4-1 for some > reason. Try building it yourself in paer's sid chroot? http://auric.debian.org/~tausq/buildd/hppa-latest.html lists it as "Not-for-us" I have no clue why though as it doesn't appear to be architecture specific? -- --( Users rock, it's programmers should )-- Simon ( should be shot.. ) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.22
Use volatile?
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:10:04PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > As it is being currently discussed on debian-security [1], security > team has hard times supporting mozilla family of packages, because of > unfriendly upstream policy - they don't want to isolate security fixes > from a large changesets of new upstream releases. And given the huge > size of the package, isolating security patches at Debian level also > fails. [..] > Maybe in rare cases like this one, when these seems to be no other way > to keep important package set secure, we should allow new upstream > into Debain Stable? What happens if they require new versions of libraries which already exist in stable? I think you need a couple of ways out and to decide between them possibly just leaving well alone and making users aware of the issue (perhaps pointing them at volatile?) if library upgrades are needed as well as the case where new self-contained upstreams could be allowed in. Is volatile not a better general place for such packages though really? Maybe we just need more emphasis on volatile to our users. (i.e. get the installer to prompt about it etc). Simon. -- Granny grasped her broomstick purposefully. "Million-to-one chances," she said, "crop up nine times out of ten." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[semi-troll] Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:18:42AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:21:18 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Creating system users needs to cope with the fact that users might > >have greated them before hand. > adduser copes with that. If a system user to be created does already > exist with the required properties, adduser is a no-op and exists with > a zero exit code. If a system user to be created does already exist > with different attributes, it exists with non-zero exit code, as this > is an error. And yet /usr/share/doc/exim4-base/README.Debian-accountname says: To avoid accidentylly zapping a locally used account, we intended to use a name from a name space with low potential for name conflicts. Aren't you the same Marc Haber that wrote that document? Is there a popcon equivalent for the most often reported bug? Does Debian-exim take the prize? Simon. -- oOoOo "And 1.1.81 is officially BugFree(tm), so if you receive oOoOo oOoOo any bug-reports on it, you know they are just evil lies." oOoOo oOoOo - Linus Torvalds oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.22 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
libburnia/libisofs/cdrskin in Debian.
The libburn packages in Debian are severely outdated and back in June I tried to poke various people to see what was going on. Sean Harshburger is nowhere to be seen despite mails, bugs and so on dating back to August 2006 so I think can be called MIA. cdrskin has been actively maintained as a statically linked binary package and the most active contributor in Debian on this is George Danchev who is almost all the way through NM now just waiting on DAM. Eduard Bloch said he didn't really have enough time to do much with the packages back in June. George filed an RFH on cdrskin which is #450873 I've been looking at it periodically since I suggested that we just use the Ubuntu packages more or less as is. Since then upstream released 0.4.0 which broke the soname (shipped with libburn.so.0 after libburn.so.4) but SVN has fixed this (so that's what I packaged). Upstream also ship a Makefile.am that deliberately builds a static cdrskin that I don't quite get but anyway. I've created new packages for libburn and libisofs based on the Ubuntu ones but modified. As I said I've made cdrskin dynamically linked. I've kept Ubuntu's use of cdbs in the hope that we can standardise on the same packaging (or almost) in both distributions. If uploaded, they would replace the current cdrskin and libburn source packages in the archive and the cdrskin, libburn-1, libburn-dev, libisofs-1 and libisofs-dev binary packages. They are currently available at: http://the.earth.li/~huggie/libburn/ and at least cdskin works fine for me. It's entirely possible I did something stupid in which case send hot patches. I really do think Debian needs something like this for its libburn and cdrskin as the current situation is rather sad. I'm happy to sponsor them in for George to maintain and to continue to do so but I'd rather not maintain them long term. If no one objects I'll upload them in a week or two though I'd prefer someone who really wants to maintain them changes the maintainer and does so. If anyone has any better ideas, let me know though if it is "we've had lots of really good discussion about this and we've got a plan we're going to implement RSN" then I'm not that interested as I was told that in June. -- ,--huggie-at-earth-dot-listuff-thing-stuff--DF5CE2B4--. _| "JarJar Binks^W^WSupport for CRLF<->LF translation in the kernel |_ | must die." - Alexander Viro | ` http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ ---' signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to cope with patches sanely
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 05:45:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 05:37:03PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> This work flow simply doesn't work with our current source package > >> format and a patch management system. Requiring this to work *with the > >> current source package format* essentially means outlawing using patch > >> management systems to manage Debian packages. That's why this proposal > >> is controversial. > > I agree with Lars that we should move toward requiring it to work. > What I'd like to see is a Debian source package format that supports > essentially quilt metadata -- in other words, a series file and a set of > patches. It's a very minor addition to the current format, and I think > it's very close to the intention of wig&pen. Why do you need more than wig&pen? The meta data can easily be in these version control systems that everyone on these threads seems to love so much. If you want to keep more patches than you expose through wig&pen then just don't publish them in the dsc. I think all Debian really needs is tools to generate a wig&pen source package and the appropriate tools to then deal with it e.g. dak and sbuild updates. -- Simon Huggins \ - Oh no. It's closed. \ - We're not pre-school toys Slinky; we can read. http://www.earth.li/~huggie/htag.pl 0.0.22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to express bullet lists
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:22:17AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On the other hand > http://packages.debian.org/sid/ht > is perfectly formatted on the web pages. It seems to be according > to the fact that parts of the description where a line starts with > two spaces are wrapped into tags in the HTML code. This > could be used as workaround. > (Did I missed some documentation of this behaviour?) Yes. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Description The others are probably bugs then. Do you have a list to name and shame? Simon. -- oOoOo An acronym that sticks to your brain likeoOoOo oOoOo butter to teflon oOoOo oOoOo oOoOo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to express bullet lists
Hi Andreas, On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 02:14:30PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Simon Huggins wrote: > >http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Description > >The others are probably bugs then. Do you have a list to name and > >shame? > Ahh- shame on my first for missing this. ;-) > For a quick shot I used: > grep -B13 -A1 "^ [^ ^a-z^A-Z^0-9^)] " /var/lib/dpkg/available So doing this on the Packages file from amd64 in unstable currently there are list problems in the following dd-list'd packages. I think mostly they could easily just be s/^ / / on the affected lines though sipcalc is interesting in that it uses two levels of indent for effect. I've attached the lines that I think are wrong to this message. OHASHI Akira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> easypg Mirco Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mono-tools (U) Debian GNOME Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gnome-terminal (U) Debian Java Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jarjar libxapool-java Debian Mono Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mono-tools Debian Python Modules Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> python-mysqldb Scott M. Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> bitcollider Sebastian Dröge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gnome-terminal (U) mono-tools (U) Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> libroxen-adbanner Sylvain Le Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ocamlgraph Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> bind9 (U) David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> libsvn-web-perl Debian QA Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ude Daniel Gubser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uptimed (U) Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> libhttp-dav-perl Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mapnik Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> python-mysqldb (U) Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ion3-doc LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> bind9 Jan Luebbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kvm Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> libclass-dbi-pager-perl Alastair McKinstry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> lcov Jonas Meurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> python-mysqldb (U) Loic Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gnome-terminal (U) Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gnome-terminal (U) Guilherme de S. Pastore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gnome-terminal Adriaan Peeters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sipcalc Franz Pletz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kiki Michael Schiansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mp3c Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> aspectc++ Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> aspectc++ (U) Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jarjar (U) Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uptimed Torsten Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> libxapool-java (U) Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> python-mysqldb (U) And then there are: libcgi-ssi-parser-perl latex-cjk-korean libmath-nocarry-perl xmove which have other oddness that I picked up and will file bugs on. -- Simon [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\ "Bet ya five dollars I get off" - \** ** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ Pusher to Mulder (3x17) \* ** [ Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\\ Package: aspectc++ Description: aspect-oriented programming extension for C++ - an aspect language extension to C++. - an aspect weaver that does source-to-source translation. Package: bitcollider Description: collects bitprint and other information from files for bitzi.com * It examines the file, calculating a distinctive digital fingerprint, * It launches your web browser to do a lookup at our website, submitting Package: bitcollider-plugins Description: bitcollider plugins * It examines the file, calculating a distinctive digital fingerprint, * It launches your web browser to do a lookup at our website, submitting Package: dnsutils Description: Clients provided with BIND - dig - query the DNS in various ways - nslookup - the older way to do it - nsupdate - perform dynamic updates (See RFC2136) Package: easypg Description: yet another GnuPG interface for Emacs - "The EasyPG Assistant" - "The EasyPG Library" Package: gnome-terminal Description: The GNOME 2 terminal emulator application - Access a UNIX shell in the GNOME environment. - Run any application that is designed to run on VT102, VT220, and xterm terminals. Package: ion3-doc Description: documentation for Ion3 and ParticleMan * 'Ion: Configuring and extending with Lua' describes how to * 'Ion: Notes for the module and patch writer' is an unorganized Package: kiki Description: tool for python regular expression testing - exploring and understanding the structure of match objects - testing regexes on sample text before deploying them in code. Package: kvm Description: Full virtualization on x86 hardware * Make sure you run
Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 06:14:26AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > I seems I'll need to clarify this as well To be honest, I'd love to see you ignore this entire thread if it means you'll spend time whipping the triggers stuff into whatever shape you think it needs to be in to go into sid. Perhaps you and Ian can decide on an intermediary who knows the dpkg code base and can help get this done? Simon. -- Think of me as CVS with a brain and with some taste. - Linus Torvalds signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Project News - April 21st, 2008
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:10:05PM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > Welcome to the first issue of the Debian Project News, the newsletter > for the Debian community! From now on we'll keep you informed about > recent events and interesting developments in and around the Debian > Community on a biweekly basis. But we could still use some help, so > feel free to take a look at our [1]wiki. > 1. http://wiki.debian.org/ProjectNews/ Wow. Thanks for your work on this. -- Simon [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\If a tree fell on a florist, would \** ** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ he make a sound? \* ** [ Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\\ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is master unsuitable to receive mail from lists.debian.org?
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 11:05:31AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Executive summary: master.debian.org, where I receive debian email,
> > has stronger spam filtering than lists.debian.org, as master seems
> > to use some kind of "content filtering". As a result, some spam
> > messages distributed by lists.debian.org are rejected by
> > master.debian.org.
> The problem is that the filtering is differential; master.debian.org
> should be reconfigured to either just accept these messages from
> lists, or discard them.
> As listmaster has nothing to do with the mail configuration on master,
> there's not much listmaster can do about it.
I'm not convinced that's really true.
You obviously have some system that generates the messages based on
bounces and that records which message bounced. If many subscribers
bounce the same mail that's a good indication that it's spam.
Perhaps instead of sending these content-free notes that we're going to
be unsubscribed some time, after some undisclosed number of bounces,
listmasters could consider these messages as hints with which to adjust
the spam filter used.
--
--("Do you have a girl coming over?" - Scully)--
Simon ("What's a girl?" - Mulder ) Nomis
Htag.pl 0.0.22
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Is master unsuitable to receive mail from lists.debian.org?
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:30:45AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 05 May 2008, Simon Huggins wrote: > > Perhaps instead of sending these content-free notes that we're going to > > be unsubscribed some time, after some undisclosed number of bounces, > > listmasters could consider these messages as hints with which to adjust > > the spam filter used. > When we see spam getting through to the lists, we already adjust the > spam filters. If you think you can do a better job, the spamassassin > rules are all publicly available, and we gladly accept patches. I can't find the bit in there that stops you sending the contentless bounce message? Can you point me at it so I can send a patch to include how close to the threshold I am and also patch it so that DDs can disable it? Thanks, Simon. -- [ "No, the radio works. You don't" - Basil, Fawlty Towers ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to express bullet lists
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:49:20PM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > I've attached the lines that I think are wrong to this message. I filed bugs today for those that are still broken. -- Simon [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\ "Ah, here we are - `How to Raise the \** ** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\Dead.'" - Bart Simpson \* ** [ Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\\ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the FTPMaster meeting
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > source-only uploads > --- > After some discussion about this, there are two opinions within the > ftp-team about this matter. Given that other distros experience has > shown that allowing source only uploads results in a huge loss of > quality checks and an increased load on the buildds from packages > FTBFSing everywhere, some members of the team believe that source+binary > uploads should happen as currently, but that the maintainer built > binaries should be rebuilt by the buildds (i.e. be thrown away at accept > time). Other members of the team think that we should allow source-only > uploads and that if some people keep uploading packages which FTBFS > everywhere (showing a lack of basic testing), this should be dealt with > by the project in other ways which are out of the scope of the ftp-team. What's the difference between these options? If you throw away the binaries, a DD can upload a binary package with a sole binary that prints out banana and a source package that builds the right thing presumably. Are there any checks to prevent that? I'm trying to work out if you get what you think you do from building but throwing away that makes it better than entirely source-only. Simon. -- oOoOo "If you need to find a good pub in London follow peopleoOoOo oOoOo wearing Debian shirts. It works, it really does. " --oOoOo oOoOo Alan Cox oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.24 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:18:18AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > So do we call the tech committe to force a decision? Perhaps you could try talking to the people concerned (not via a bug, perhaps on IRC or in person or private mail) first? Simon. -- [ If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried. ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#430896: general: GNOME or KDE desktops should issue a warning when the user unplugs USB media without unmounting.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:49:29AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > On jeu, 2007-06-28 at 06:24 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> I'm not sure if XFCE in Debian already uses > >> gnome-mount, though. > > No, and we don't really want to depends on gnome stuff, especially > > looking at the huge dependencies list of gnome-mount. We already use > > exo-mount, which doesn't yet provide this functionality, afaik. > the long list of GNOME dependencies is because of the nautilus plugin. > Would that be acceptable for you XFce guys? If you'd consider to use > gnome-mount in that case I would prepare a updated version of > gnome-mount. It's not a case of us trying to change this for Debian; you'd have to get upstream to change this which I suspect isn't going to happen. I can't really see much benefit to it. There's no upstream support in exo for gnome-mount currently. This may change when gnome-mount gets updated for the policykit/consolekit hal stuff but we'll see how upstream react to that at the time. The "unsafe" unmounting is done by hal anyway and whilst you may end up with some sort of corruption if you're very unlucky about when you pull the cable out, most of the time you'll just end up with files not deleted or no noticeable difference (except the annoying message of course ;)). Simon. -- Black Cat Networks-( I only play with my computer on )- UK domain, email and web hosting -(days that end in "y".)- http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk -( )- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ssh.upload.debian.org
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:15:58AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Instead, you seem to be saying, "how could anyone be so stupid as to use > > a non-symbolic name?" when nobody is actually being that stupid. We're > > just using the symbolic name we were told to use the last time the names > > were changed. > I never intended to say that and my initial mail didnt do that (pasted > below). > > ftp.upload.debian.org > - > To untie the upload queue from the archive DSA setup an alias to be used > for future uploads. Please change your configuration of dput, dupload or > whatever you use to no longer use ftp-master.debian.org but > ftp.upload.debian.org instead. > Your second mail (the one referenced in this thread) said: Please always only use the symbolic names for the places to upload to (ie ftp.upload.debian.org and ssh.upload.debian.org), do not use any machine name directly. Queues may move at any time, without further notice and the symbolic names will be updated. That seems to reflect what Thomas was saying. People using ftp-master weren't using the machine name directly yet this symbolic name isn't going to move it seems. Perhaps you could have considered moving all the internal scripts that reference ftp-master to some other service name rather than trying to change every single dput config file out there in the wild and the mindset of all the developers of the distribution. Simon. -- [ "The claw chooses who will go and who will stay" ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Josselin Mouette and Planet Debian
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:04:24PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > As the Debian culture is opposed to censorship, I believe that such posts do > not belong on Planet Debian - which is for many people the public face of > Debian. To be clear, this means that as the Debian culture is opposed to censorship, you want to censor him? -- _hug...@earth.li -+*+- fou, con et anglais _ (_) "Even if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?" - (_) (_)Marvin(_) \______/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 02:45:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in > the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of > the options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the > simplest, safest and most easily justified seems to be "stop > discussing this and release lenny"... I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to release... Sure, either way the conclusion is undoubtedly "release Lenny". I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release. Simon. -- oOoOo"A mess, eh?" - Morgan "Feels like home..." - MulderoOoOo oOoOo(Piper Maru)oOoOo oOoOo oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.24 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:07:33AM +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +0000, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change > > the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to > > release... > If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny > with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, that would > seem accurate. The ftpmasters and DDs in general are the arbiters of what goes in main. The release team switch a symlink amongst other things (like doing a hell of a lot of work to make sure we have fewer RC bugs than we did at the start of the freeze and policing transitions etc). -- --( "I'm gonna eat you, little fishy!" - The Cat )-- --( )-- Simon ( ) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.24 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#444021: ITP/RFP: sugar
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:08:32PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > x-debbugs-cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * Package name: sugar > Version : snapshots > Upstream Authors : 14 people, see AUTHORS > * URL : http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar > * License : GPL > Programming Lang: Python > Description : OLPC Human Interface > Sugar is the core of the OLPC Human Interface. Its goal is to turn the Laptop > into a fun, easy to use, social experience that promotes sharing and > learning. But, er, what does it /do/? I read the webpage but that has the same marketing style waffle. Is it a replacement for a window manager? A replacement for gnome/kde/xfce? -- Simon [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\ "The machine is dead" - Deep Throat \** ** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\\* ** [ Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\\ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-infrastructure-announce: please announce it on d-d-a
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 09:19:16AM -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote: > Instead of a mailing list, why not a status/notes page? You can see machine status on db.debian.org e.g. http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=ries (though it's not always updated straight away and things like #debian-devel's topic are often quicker) Simon -- ... In most countries selling harmful things like drugs is punishable. How come then that people sell Microsoft software and go unpunished? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#457473: ITP: extended_threading -- Extension of the python threading api
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > * Package name: extended_threading > Description : Extension of the python threading api Shouldn't the package name be something like python-extendable-threading then? i.e. have python- in it? Also you're not allowed _s. Simon. -- [ "No problem is too big it can't be run away from" -- Linus ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please write useful changelogs
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:26:00AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Wed, January 16, 2008 10:13, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > please write what actually changed, what the issue was about. > > | bzip2 (1.0.4-1) unstable; urgency=low > > | > > | * Synchronise with Ubuntu. Closes: #456237 > > This says about nothing at all. It gives me no more information than > > "Something changed". > For all fairness, you cut out the rest of the changes below it, which > included the full Ubuntu changelogs where this refers to. It can be > debated if this is a nice style, but the information is there. Without looking at the bug, can you tell which bit of that #456237 relates to then? I thought best practice was to make sure from just the email that the bug reporter could work out which bug was fixed and with what action. Simon. -- Just another wannabie |"Ah. So you're a waffle| Just another fool --+ man!" - Talkie Toaster +--- This message was brought to you by the letter Z and the number 12. htag.pl 0.0.22 -- http://www.earth.li/projectpurple/progs/htag.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: common maintainer mailing list for low-level burning apps and libs
[debburn-devel cc'd since readers there probably want to know. Hence whole mail left; please trim] On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 03:26:43PM +0200, George Danchev wrote: > Hereby I would like to propose usage of common mailing list > (debburn-devel) for all the packages involved in low-level burning and > image manipulation process. > As of now all they have their lists on alioth, which is somewhat > suboptimal in my opinion and there is room to avoid unnecessary > subscriptions or searching through several list archives given as > maintainer address. > Why common list: > > * most of the low-level burning apps and libraries tend to have common > or similar source of problems, so sharing symptoms and diagnosises > would be helpful. > * some apps (excluding GUIs) reuse or rely on other apps or libraries. > * that would help to discuss more closely and eventually alleviate > more efficiently the issues during the 'transfer of authority' from cdr* > to alternatives. > * that would help external packages like GUI frondends which could use > more than one low-level app/lib like versatile brasero to find their way > in case of not yet clear source of issues concering the lower level. > > Why debburn-devel: > > * most of the cdrkit maintainers are already there, so we get their > subscription for free. > * most of the other packaging lists seems to be unused. > * the name seems to be project neutral. > * some upstream authors are already subscribed there too. > > That being said, I see setting Maintainer field of libburn, libisofs, > libisoburn, dvd+rw-tools, libcdio (did I miss any low-level app/lib?) to > debburn-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org and have their maintainers > subscribed there as a useful optimization, which was my motivation to > propose this. > > Other similar suggestions or eventual rebuttals welcome. I don't have a problem with moving maintainer addresses onto a common list but I suspect what would happen is that there would be a lot more noise on the debburn list and that people may unsubscribe. Most people aren't very interested in all the associated noise from dak for things they don't directly maintain or if they are they subscribe to the PTS for that package. Perhaps a better way is to highlight bugs there and new library releases on that list and to encourage all the maintainers of packages to highlight common bugs there. Simon. -- oOoOo "... Alan Cox, but he's actually not human, but about aoOoOo oOoOo thousand gnomes working in under-ground caves in oOoOo oOoOo Swansea." -- Linus Torvalds. oOoOo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:46:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > - as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice Not sure what you mean here. Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it breaks that package or are you not bothered about breaking non-free software? Simon. -- Just another wannabie | "I get mail; therefore I am." | Just another fool --+ - Dilbert+--- This message was brought to you by the letter H and the number 20. htag.pl 0.0.24 -- http://www.earth.li/projectpurple/progs/htag.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: pinging Bradley Marshall: gnokii licence violation
'ello On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 09:49:04PM +1000, Bradley Marshall wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:34:27AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > Are there any people interested in the package? Would someone help > > out in resolving #266566? I am working with the Gammu folks > > (together with Jonas Smedegaard), so it would be best to have an > > independent third-party approach the Gnokii bunch. > If someone could help with this, that'd be great. I've sent an email > to the gnokii-users list to find out their take on the situation. Gammu was written after MyGnokii which was based on the work of gnokii as far as I remember. I believe most gnokii code was removed from Gammu but the reason for the split from gnokii in the beginning as far as I could see was that patches from Marcin Wiacek weren't being accepted by gnokii's maintainers. What I saw on the list was an acrimonious strop which ended up with Marcin creating his own gnokii equivalent due to being unable to work with the gnokii maintainers. There may be legal issues with the files but I would be very careful about taking the views of a disgruntled developer for granted. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnokii-users/2002-04/msg00049.html and http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnokii-users/2002-04/msg00108.html illustrate the fundamental disagreements between these two. And he pissed off the list: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnokii-users/2002-05/msg00400.html followed up by: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnokii-users/2002-05/msg00406.html The list archives are all public so feel free to read around this. Simon -- ... "I'm gonna eat you, little fishy!" - The Cat
Re: Some questions about dependencies
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 01:55:31PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote: > I know about the five rules, valid candidates, the excuses page(s) and > packages.qa.debian.org. I'm mostly looking at valid candidates and there are > a few things that I don't understand: I have a feeling you want to discover update_output.txt and http://www.debian.org/devel/testing -- Simon Huggins \ "Problème délicat, résolu par notre présidente qui a \ installé Caudium" -- Laurent Rathle http://www.earth.li/~huggie/htag.pl 0.0.22
Re: Debian MIA check
Hiya, On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:25:49AM +0200, Héctor García Álvarez wrote: > El mar, 13 de 05 de 2003 a las 18:11, Joey Hess escribió: > > Tor Slettnes > I am the maintainer for those packages and I'm not MIA for the moment. > Please check your list again. > Héctor García Álvarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm guessing Joey's grep for [EMAIL PROTECTED] wasn't anchored and so picked up [EMAIL PROTECTED] too. -- _[EMAIL PROTECTED] -+*+- fou, con et anglais _ (_) "Ah. So you're a waffle man!" - Talkie Toaster(_) (_) (_) \______/
Re: Answers to "Why is package X not in testing yet?"
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:51:15AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:37:45AM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote: > > Updating fam makes 177 packages uninstallable on alpha: amor, ark, > > bibletime, dcoppython, eyesapplet, fifteenapplet, galeon-nautilus, ... > I can't figure out why this is so: why would updating fam break so many > apparently unrelated packages, but only on alpha? Pssst, read right to the bottom of the page. And they aren't unrelated. Dig around a bit and you'll see that they are indeed related in some way to fam. Simon. -- oOoOo "I get mail; therefore I am." - DilbertoOoOo oOoOooOoOo oOoOo oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.22 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/
Re: Debian Wiki
Hiya Debian, On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:24:54PM -0500, michael d. ivey wrote: > I'm pleased to announce that Debian Wiki (http://wiki.debian.net) is > back online, and should stay that way. [..] Am I missing something or is there no diff/version control functionality? Does this mean there is no version control of pages or just that it's hidden from users? *looks* Hmm, actually looking at the code it looks like there isn't any version control at all. Isn't this rather open to abuse then? One of the advantages of wikis for me has been their resilience to stupid attacks like people adding spam-type pictures/text to pages. It's easy to undo these changes by going back to a previous version, editting it and saving it over the top or just looking at the diff and removing the spam content. And being able to access the diffs directly from RecentChanges has always been of great use to be in moderating content for such attacks. Is this a change which will occur soon in Kwiki? If not might you be better off using something else? For what it's worth, I'm using moin[0] which is easily extendable if you know python though even though I didn't I managed to cobble some code together for it. Simon. [0] moin.sf.net is the project pages and http://twistedmatrix.com/users/jh.twistd/moin/moin.cgi/ is the real wiki -- * "I got everything up to the part about `Now listen closely'" -* | The Cat. | * * Brought to you by the letter S and the number 25
Re: To the aqualung NMUer....
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 10:10:13PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > 1. Don't spam devel to contact just one person. For reference, who-uploads from devscripts is useful for working out who NMU'd something. Simon -- ... "Be wewy wewy careful. There be dragons here." -- Linus Torvalds -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Packaging a library when upstream does not build a .so
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:42:37AM +, Enrico Zini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:17:37AM +, Enrico Zini wrote: > > I would like to get to the point of uploading #519184. However I have > > one issue on which I'm unsure: the library API and ABI would be stable > > enough, but upstream is not building or supporting shared libraries yet. > > Last time I asked, he had some libtool problem in some obscure > > architecture and no time to investigate on it. > I'll pick 1 unless I get significant objections. Is there a reason you need this now and can't wait until you've managed to argue for the shared library from upstream and cajoule them into producing a .so? I had an upstream that wasn't very confident with soname changes and went through a long process explaining that and the benefits but ultimately it was worth it. -- _hug...@earth.li -+*+- fou, con et anglais _ (_) debian-legal "consensus" is worth approximately all of the (_) (_) lint currently residing in my belly button. -- Brian Nelson (_) \______/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
