Bug#281786: ITP: xplc -- Light weight component system
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2004-11-17
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: xplc
Version : 0.9.10
Upstream Author : Pierre Phaneuf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://xplc.sourceforge.net
* License : LGPL
Description : Light weight component system
XPLC ("Cross-Platform Lightweight Components") is a component system that
will provide extensibility and reusability both inside and between
applications, while being portable across platforms (and languages) and
having the lowest possible overhead (both in machine resources and
programming effort).
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux alps 2.4.18-1-686 #1 Wed Apr 14 18:20:10 UTC 2004 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8
Re: ldap - a completely new method for fetching lists of packages?
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:47:38AM -0500, sean finney wrote: > please, please treat this machine politely. it's my workstation and > i have no qualms with turning off slapd if it's getting in the > way :) If you're using OpenLDAP, there is no way that this could ever be fast. But, your idea is not an unreasonable one. Simon
Re: ldap - a completely new method for fetching lists of packages?
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:56:21PM -0500, sean finney wrote: > now, if the apt method kept a timestamp of the last successful update, > it could send as part of the ldap query filter something like > '(debTimeStamp>$lasttime)'. this would make keeping debian up to > date over dialup a much easier experience i imagine. You'll want to ask the LDAP server for its time. We can assume that the server's time will always be correct, while the client might mess it up sometimes. > the one major problem with using a method like this is that apt > is designed with the assumption that it fetches the list of packages > in the same manner that it fetches the packages themselves. i think > this could be worked around, but it's the only real stumbling block > i see to building an ldap protocol method into apt. One way you could work around this is by writing a sumb HTTP proxy which translates information queried from LDAP into Packages.gz, Release.gz, and Sources.gz. Granted, APT would have to parse those files over again. But you wouldn't be grabbing needless data off the network. Simon
Bug#311371: ITP: elektra -- A framework to store configuration atoms hierarchically
Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2005-05-31 Severity: wishlist * Package name: elektra Version : 0.5 Upstream Author : Avi Alkalay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://elektra.sourceforge.net/ * License : BSD Description : A framework to store configuration atoms hierarchically Elektra provides a universal and secure framework to store configuration parameters in a hierarchical key-value pair mechanism, instead of each program using its own text configuration files. This allows any program to read and save its configuration with a consistent API, and allows them to be aware of other applications' configurations, permitting easy application integration. While architecturally similar to other OS registries, Elektra does not have most of the problems found in those implementations. -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux alps 2.4.18-1-686 #1 Wed Apr 14 18:20:10 UTC 2004 i686 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dual CPU compilation.
Hello, I'm the lucky new owner of a dual Pentium Pro system. It seems, however, that compiling stuff just doesn't use my extra CPU. I know I can compile with 'make -j 2' to use the second processor; but I don't know how to convince kernel-package and dpkg-deb (apt-get source) to do that for me. Any tips? Thanks, Simon
Re: Bug#198682: ITP: kernel-patch-2.4-low-latency -- Reduces the latency of the Linux kernel
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:43:06AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:43:34AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > It's already packaged: > [...] > > > : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ > apt-cache show kernel-patch-lowlatency-2.4 > > Package: kernel-patch-lowlatency-2.4 > > Oops ! Sorry, closing the bug... > > I searched with apt-cache for low-latency and it didn't give me this > package. However, lowlatency give this package in the results... Hmmm, I'm going to file bugs against this. Simon
Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:24:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [snip] > == > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election > >4.1. Powers > > Together, the Developers may: > 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. > 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. > 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. > 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they > agree with a 2:1 majority. > -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. > - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its > - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical > - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian > - software must meet. > - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. > +5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and > statements. > + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its > + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical > + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian > + software must meet. > + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. > + 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as > + "Foundation Documents". These documents are those > + that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project, > + they tend to define what the project is, and lay the > + foundations of its structure. The developers may > + modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1 > + majority. > > + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists > + of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the > + documents known as the Debian Social Contract and the > + Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents > + that are deemed to be "Foundation Documents" may be changed > + by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. > 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about > property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See > s.9.1.) > > == > Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite > ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two > wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the > language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical > documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of > the project the same protection against hasty changes that the > constitution itself enjoys. > == [snip] > I am now formally looking for seconds for this proposal. Seconded. Simon pgpe1pAJgq2oA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian policy about "experimental" ?
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 08:09:57PM +0200, jjluza wrote: > The announcement tells we should get out "-snapshot" from the name of > the package, before puting it in experimental. So there is no > difference in the package name anymore. So now, since cvs package > version is 0.0.date, apt always ask for upgrading to an older version > (the stable one : 1.4 for mozilla). > > I'm right, or do I make a mistake ? If I'm right, What is the solution ? Apt supports pinning. See man apt_preferences for more details. Simon
How tightly should main be self-contained?
Hi guys, Some users have approached me about my packaging on tvtime, which lives in main. It benefits greatly from libdscaler, a contrib package. They are asking that tvtime Suggests libdscaler. I thought that the appropriate thing to do was to have libdscaler Extends tvtime. My impressions of the spirit of Policy 2.2.1 is that main should stand alone, and should not recommend any non-free software. Here is the verbatim text for your inspection. 2.2.1 The main section Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). In addition, the packages in main * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package), * must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and * must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual. I would be glad to change it if there were a fair number of developers who think that suggesting contrib software is fine. Simon
Re: How tightly should main be self-contained?
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:05:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:40:27AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > > > Some users have approached me about my packaging on tvtime, which lives > > in main. It benefits greatly from libdscaler, a contrib package. They > > are asking that tvtime Suggests libdscaler. I thought that the > > appropriate thing to do was to have libdscaler Extends tvtime. > > > My impressions of the spirit of Policy 2.2.1 is that main should > > stand alone, and should not recommend any non-free software. > > Well, that's correct -- and it /doesn't/ recommend any non-free > software, it would merely /suggest/ it. :) > > With the exception of the recent aptitude bug, this makes all the > difference between pulling in non-free packages by default, and > informing the user by default that a non-free package is available which > complements the chosen package. Excellent. I shall change this behaviour then. Simon
Discussion - Free the Debian Open Use logo
Debian Open Use Logo License Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest -This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the -Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. +This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone, but does not +indicate endorsement by the Debian project. Note: we would appreciate that you make the image a link to http://www.debian.org/ if you use it on a web page. + +Note: this copyright license does not grant a trademark license. If +it is applied to a trademark, you should be sure that you are not +violating trademark rights. Rationale: The old Open Use logo was not DFSG-free, so we really shouldn't be shipping it in main. The proposed license keeps the spirit of the old one, while not restricting the logo's use. It seems that the Open Use Logo is not DFSG-free and there has been no objection to this claim on debian-legal. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00823.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00842.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00877.html The current Open Use license prevents modification if it is not used to refer to the Debian project. This fails DFSG 8. Simon pgppfJXyGtUjj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussion - Free the Debian Open Use logo
M-F-T set to debian-project. On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:23:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:35:14PM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > > The old Open Use logo was not DFSG-free, so we really shouldn't be > > shipping it in main. > > Where are we shipping it in main? And even if we are (possibly somewhere in > the installation docs), who cares? It's our logo, for crying out loud, it's > not part of the operating system. We are including it with X display managers, as wallpaper, in icons, and other assorted places throughout the main archive. Since our Open Use logo ships in main, it must be licensed in a DFSG-free manner. Simon pgpI9f02OmqY0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: popularity-contest
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:21:10PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote: > I could not reach [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is mentioned > on the following page: > http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/ Avery is a little busy right now. But he can probably be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon
Re: Library namespace conflicts
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:11:33AM +0100, Patrick Caulfield wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 04:40:43AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > As the man page at http://libdnet.sourceforge.net/dnet.3.txt refers to the > library as "dnet - dumb networking library" how about renaming it libdumbnet? > > :-) One step ahead of you. That's exactly what the package I'm in the process of creating is named[1]. Could you be a dear and mention libdumbnet in your package description, for people who would be looking for the canonical name? Simon [1] Ack! I need to turn libdumbnet into a shared library. Oh, and his Autoconf scripts are broken. Aye!
Re: Upcoming bug mass-filing re. non-free TrueType fonts in main
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:36:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:45:06PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > > Ben> "How am I going to deal with it when someone changes my font to > > Ben> something ugly and it reflects poorly on my skills as a > > Ben> fontographer?" > > > In that context, it is part of the rationale for the Q license, > > AFAIK. (Redistribution only as original source + patches). > > The Artistic license also tries to address this need by requiring that > modified versions to be clearly identified as such. If you are consider the Artistic, please go for the Clarified Artistic License. It clears up a lot of the ambiguities in the Artistic license. Simon
Re: ZINF pkgs crashing dpkg - please test
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:44:30PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > If i get no crash reports 'till Monday, I will upload my ZINF > packages, assuming this is a local problem. You most certainly want to test this in a chroot environment. May I suggest using debootstrap or pbuilder to do this. Please do not upload your packages until you are sure that they work properly. Thanks for doing proper QA! Simon
Re: GCC 3.2 transition
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 08:38:53PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote: > Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >At some point in the future, we will change gcc-defaults to make > >gcc-3.2 the default on all architectures. At that time, you should > >remove the setting of CXX and the explicit dependency on g++-3.2. You > >should not rename your package to remove the `c' suffix until upstream > >change their soname. > > In Jeff's plan: All C++ packages will be uploaded via NMUs. The > package maintainer can upload their packages afterwards if they have > to make other corrections. Indeed, this is the entire reason apt-rdepends exists. I looked really hard to see if anything else does what apt-rdepends did. Alas, no. I am looking to integrate this functionality into apt-cache, ASAP. Simon
Bug#183860: Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:16:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:34:36PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > > Debian can't legally distribute such an info document. Because the > > GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, it is prohibited to even > > create an info document from GFDL'd texinfo source. See #183860. > > Hrm, if that's the case, we can't distribute, eg, the pcl-cvs.texi > file either -- after all, it's licensed under a "verbatim copying only" > license, but has the "\input texinfo" line at the top. > > I don't think that is the case though, for two reasons: > > (1) we don't actually distribute pcl-cvs anything that's made use > of the TeX stuff; so we haven't made copies of texinfo.tex, > and don't need to be concerned with its copyright > > (2) the TeX output probably comes under the exemption in section 0 > of the GPL -- `...the output from the Program (texinfo.tex) > is covered only if its contents constitute a work based > on the Program (independent of having been made by running > the Program).' In this case, texinfo.tex is akin to a header file that a program. The program would be TeX (or a variant that implements the TeX macro language.) However, this only applies to DVI and PDF forms of this work. The info documentation is generated by makeinfo, which does not put any significant chunks of itself within the output. Simon
Re: anti-spam trick for debian ml (was Re: News about the Package Tracking System)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 12:46:03AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 20, Jarno Elonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >How about keeping a whitelist database in which the users can add > >themselves by sending a mail in certain format to something like > >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? Only after that would mail from that > >address be accepted without bouncing. That should filter out most of > >the spam. > > This is what I'm doing for the linux.debian.* Usenet gateway and so > far it has worked well. How about ensuring that all addresses on the Debian keyring are whitelisted by default? Simon
Re: Non-debian running DD's (Was: Re: stop abusing debconf already)
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:01:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 08:58, LapTop006 wrote: > > I use both Mutt and OE to read my E-mail (mostly mutt). The one feature > > OE has (on both mac and windows) that NO other client I've seen matches > > (Mozilla 1.0 came close, haven't tried since then) is its support for > > offline IMAP. > > Try Mac OS X's "Mail" program. It has at least as good offline support > as OE, and is much nicer, too. > > /me wishes "Mail" were free. Please hack on GNUMail.app. It is in the gnumail package. Simon
Re: /run and read-only /etc
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:35:58PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It would also be nice to have some blessing of /run in the policy first, > > but that doesn't seem terribly likely. > > What is more important for now is whether there is broad enough > agreement with the reasoning behind /run/. I strongly support the /run initiative. If people actually change over to /run, then it means there will be less resistance to the /var and /com split, which will make /run redundant. Of course, I believe many developers were quite incessed the last time a /var and /com discussion came up, so we really shouldn't take it into a flame war. Simon
Re: Debian conference in the US?
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:25:47PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > While convenient for american developers, there are rather a number of > > non-american developers who will not set foot on American soil, due in > > part to the DMCA and (I imagine) the apparent dangers to non-americans > > coming into the country. > > Two of the people I originally contacted said this too, but always in > the third person. I ask again, who on this list actually still feels > this way? Please don't hold the conference in the U.S. I am a Canadian who has not stepped foot on American soil since your government declared it was at war. Simon
Re: Proposing task-debian
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 01-May-01, 12:50 (CDT), Vince Mulhollon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 05/01/2001 12:40:24 PM roland wrote:
> > >> Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> > >> > From my poor memory, the "generally agreed best idea" is to setup two
> > >> > packages, vaguely like this:
> > >> >
> > >> > Package name: task-abc
> > >> > Conflicts: task-abc-remove
> > >> > Depends: abc, bcd, cde, def
> > >> >
> > >> > Package name: task-abc-remove
> > >> > Conflicts: task-abc, abc, bcd, cde, def
> > >>
> > >> Please, NO! This is a pretty ugly hack and there are better ways to do
> > >> this, e.g. the debfoster aproach. I don't agree at all with you that
> > >> this is the "generally agreed best idea". Rather the opposite.
> >
> > Oh, I don't know if it's an ugly hack.
>
> Well, one reason it's ugly is that your -remove "tasks" will show up in
> the Task Selection dialog that runs before the initial install. I expect
> that many new users would be rather confused...
It's also an ugly hack because you'll have to:
apt-get install { -remove }
which happens to be REALLY ugly. Better to have apt-get support
task-removals. For example:
apt-get remove --remove-task [--purge] { }
Simon
Re: Bug#126567: libreadline4 no longer respects directory separators in tab-completion
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Matthias Klose wrote: > [CC to debian-devel, asking if report #126567 is reproduceable] > > Bill Gribble writes: > > > I simply cannot reproduce the behaviour you describe. > > > > Well, why don't you describe for me what you have tried to do. "Simply > > cannot reproduce" could mean just about anything, including that you > > haven't tried. How about this: > > > > $ mkdir foo > > $ touch foo/bar > > $ cd fo > > > > On my machine, 'fo' is replaced with 'foo/bar'. That is incorrect. > > > > It doesn't seem to me that you are interested in locating this problem. > > I'm taking my time to file a bug report in an effort to help the Debian > > project. In your role as maintainer, please do me the courtesy of at > > least pretending to be interested. > > calm down and don't flame around. the initial report did have an > example which I tested on more than one machine. Then I tagged the > report as unreproduceable to mark the current state. If I were not > interested I would have closed the report without notifying you. Can we confirm whether this is a libreadline thing? It could be bash's programmable completion feature. Has the user defined any `complete`s? If so, maybe he should look at what he's set for his `cd`s. Simon
Re: Bug#126567: libreadline4 no longer respects directory separators in tab-completion
On 27 Dec 2001, Bill Gribble wrote: > On Thu, 2001-12-27 at 10:29, Simon Law wrote: > > Can we confirm whether this is a libreadline thing? It could be > > bash's programmable completion feature. Has the user defined any > > `complete`s? If so, maybe he should look at what he's set for his > > `cd`s. > > I have not done any bash customization at all. My rc files do nothing > more than set some environment variables. It's possible that the > problem is coming from bash's use of libreadline rather than libreadline > itself, but it's very unlikely that the problem is my configuration > (famous last words, I know). Hrm... Could you list the output of `complete` and `set -o` for me? I have the same inputrc, and am unable to reproduce the problem. I am running libreadline4 4.2a-3 and bash 2.05a-3. Simon
Re: Bug#126567: libreadline4 no longer respects directory separators in tab-completion
On 27 Dec 2001, Bill Gribble wrote: > On Thu, 2001-12-27 at 10:54, Simon Law wrote: > >Hrm... Could you list the output of `complete` and `set -o` for > > me? I have the same inputrc, and am unable to reproduce the problem. > > I am running libreadline4 4.2a-3 and bash 2.05a-3. > > ok. Please let me know if there's any other diagnostic info I can send. > > b.g. I've duplicated your inputrc, your complete, and your options. Nothing... However, I just saw this appear on debian-devel: -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:05:53 -0800 From: Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Double tabs in X Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:06:38 -0500 (EST) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org Michael P wrote: > For some reason when I hit in X, two tab characters are sent. > This > doesn't happen on the console, though. > > This just started in the last few days. Does anyone know where I > could > start looking? My xkb configuration in XF86Config-4? I think this is connected with the recent upgrade of libreadline4. There is some discussion of it today on debian-devel. Craig -- This leads me to suspect that you might have the same problem. Can you test to see if it works in the console or not? As well, can you test to see if you've been getting double tabs in your terminal? (Which terminal are you using? xterm?) If you just type at an empty prompt, and you get "Display all 1 possibilities? (y or n)" then your terminal is passing tabs twice. Simon
Re: Bug#126567: libreadline4 no longer respects directory separators in tab-completion
I just got this message from debian-devel: If you are running gnome-terminal, then can we merge the two bugs together and call it fixed? Simon -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:54:59 -0800 (PST) From: Michael P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Double tabs in gnome-terminal Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:55:17 -0500 (EST) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Craig Dickson wrote: > On second thought -- Michael, what X terminal do you use? I use > gnome-terminal, which shows the tab problem, but I see that xterm does > NOT. So it may be that this has more to do with gnome-terminal, or > some > gnome library, than with libreadline4. Sure enough, it was a bug in libzvt2 and is fixed as of the latest release (which is avaliable as of a few minutes ago... yay!) http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no\&bug=126546 Thanks!
