Hi,
(Please Cc: me.)
I'd like to upload these two Perl modules. Though I wrote these modules
myself to be used by debconf, I will upload these modules to CPAN and
these packages won't be debian-specific package.
See a thread of discussion in debian-i18n list starting from:
http://lists.debian.o
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-20
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: streamtuner
Version : 0.9.1
Upstream Author : Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.nongnu.org/streamtuner
* Licen
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:53:34AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
>> As for the support people, I don't think that necessarily makes it
>> impossible.
>> If you started up a company to produce a commercial distribution based on
>> Debian for running Ora
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> > Also P MMX seems meaningless to me. MMX was, I think, introduced in
> > Pentium Pro (which is still a i586 according to uname)
>
> Really? Seems wrong to me.
Indeed. MMX and PPro are orthogonal features.
--
Sam.
Le ven 20/06/2003 à 15:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
> Skipping 386 for 486 seems acceptable because nowadays, a distro
> requires more HD space and RAM than it's possible to add with usual
> 386 motherboards, but dropping all Pentiums until Pentium II
> generation seems completely foolish. I hope I mi
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 23:40:13 +0200, Cyrille Chepelov wrote:
>> I'd drop the sub-pentiums (i.e. 386 and 486) entirely. Not that my vote
>> would count...
>
> Hmmm. Until all of glibc, the kernel and gcc deprecate and discard
> support for 386 and 486,
One of them is enough to be a showstopper.
>
We run lot of P100 and P233 with hostap to provide internet access to
our customers with 2.4Ghz wi-fi. And some customers have P200,233MMX as
firewalls/mail servers/proxy.
I think 386 boxes are really slow ... and the admins of that boxes
have faster boxes to build specific packages.. but maybe
n
Cyrille Chepelov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Le Fri, Jun 20, 2003, à 07:15:45PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer a écrit:
>
> > > but dropping all Pentiums until Pentium II generation
> > > seems completely foolish. I hope I misunderstood your message.
> >
> > I'd drop the sub-pentiums (i.e. 386 and
Javier FernÃndez-Sanguino PeÃa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages
> who fail to produce a proper description?
>
> I would probably first do so for the packages whose short description =
> long description or who do not have
Le Fri, Jun 20, 2003, à 07:15:45PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer a écrit:
> > but dropping all Pentiums until Pentium II generation
> > seems completely foolish. I hope I misunderstood your message.
>
> I'd drop the sub-pentiums (i.e. 386 and 486) entirely. Not that my vote
> would count...
Hmmm. Un
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 13:15, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> I'd drop the sub-pentiums (i.e. 386 and 486) entirely. Not that my vote
> would count...
Making the cut at the Pentium as opposed to i486 would have some
benefits; the Pentium introduced some new instructions such as cmpxchg8b
that are actual
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 01:58:08PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > They will if they want security updates for their firewall.
>
> You mean debian provided security updates. Users can always upgrade and
> compile software themselves.
Judging by the volu
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:26:08PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> > >1918space and are masqueraded to the outside internet by a firewall/gateway
> > >running Debian on a 486 or low end pentium. I believe this to be a fairly
> > >significant pro
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages
> who fail to produce a proper description?
Yes, please!
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 04:59:00PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:36:49AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
> > i am very sure, I did never have touched this file, so why is dpkg always
> > asking me if i want to overwrite it? IS this a dpkg problem, is it a
> > packaging
Have you tried "dpkg --remove apt-listchanges" or
"dpkg --purge apt-listchanges"?
Daniel
--
/ Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\
| "You see, I've already stolen the spork of wisdom |
|and the spork of courage.. t
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:20:13 +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> If so, are you kidding? The Pentium classic (i586) was still available
> in 1997.
It is still available even today. Not sure where to get a mainboard for
this beast, but just a week ago I saw it on a price list.
> I know a lot of person wh
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:26:08PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> >1918space and are masqueraded to the outside internet by a firewall/gateway
> >running Debian on a 486 or low end pentium. I believe this to be a fairly
> >significant proportion of our userbase and I'd oppose any move to
>
* Stephen Stafford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030620 15:35]:
> Judging from my random contacts with users, it's a fairly usual setup to see
> a network of higher (500Mhz+) end hardware machines which sit on a LAN in
> 1918space and are masqueraded to the outside internet by a firewall/gateway
> running D
"David A. Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> guarantee it will work because it seems as though apt thinks
> apt-listchanges is still installed.
This is a matter of configuration files; try purging apt-listchanges,
and if that doesn't work remove /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20listchanges
yourself.
--
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0400, David A. Greene wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
> >debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
> >bugs.debian.org/python-apt has the answer three times over.
> >
> >http://bugs
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:53:34AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> As for the support people, I don't think that necessarily makes it
> impossible.
> If you started up a company to produce a commercial distribution based on
> Debian for running Oracle then having your people answer the phones at
Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
However I've found a number of packages which use a long description which
is more or less the _same_ as the short
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:36:49AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
> > i am very sure, I did never have touched this file, so why is dpkg always
> > asking me if i want to overwrite it? IS this a dpkg problem, is it a
> > packaging problem, or is is a s
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
bugs.debian.org/python-apt has the answer three times over.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=193566
That's not particularly helpful. Consider
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:33:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine
> wrote:
>
> >And surely Debian DOES NOT support
> >non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
>
> No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See cl
Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not fully convinced that moving up to full 686 optimisation has that
> many benefits under all but the highest loads anyway (in userspace at least,
> we already have processor specific kernels). Do you have a link to
> a URL with studies/analysis
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:25:52PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> As i686 is already like ten(?) years old,
I was intrigued by this statement and went to look it up.
CPU:Released:
-
80386 1985
80486 1989
Pentium 1993
Pentium Pro 1
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > In any case we need to make clear if we allow 486 optimisation that
> > are not i386 compatible or not.
> What about perusing the INT 6 idea, and going all the way up to i686?
> As i686 is already like ten(?) years old, I would say 99.9% [1] machine
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:28:02PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:25:52PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > What about perusing the INT 6 idea, and going all the way up to i686?
> > While I support the removal of 386 support
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:25:52PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> I would say 99.9% [1] machines that run sarge are 686 and higher --
Please provide real data that backs this assertion up.
> moving to i686-specific optimizations would be good for the vast
> majority of users
Please provide
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Luberda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I intend to package an unstable (beta) version of upx.
>> This version supports compresing of the Linux kernel and thus
>> can be used by our boot floppies team.
>
> Isn't the kernel already compressed?
I
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:26:08PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> Stephen Stafford wrote:
>
> >While I support the removal of 386 support, I absolutely and strenuously
> >object to going to 686. 686 isn't all that old at all (1997 IIRC), and I
> >use a nunber of 4/586 machines still (I h
On Friday 20 June 2003 13:25, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > - drop the i386 support
> >
> > What we have not yet decided is whether we drop i386 support for C++
> > packages or for all pack
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:25:52PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > What about perusing the INT 6 idea, and going all the way up to i686?
> While I support the removal of 386 support, I absolutely and strenuously
> object to going to 686. 686 isn't all
Stephen Stafford wrote:
While I support the removal of 386 support, I absolutely and strenuously
object to going to 686. 686 isn't all that old at all (1997 IIRC), and I
use a nunber of 4/586 machines still (I have one 486 which I use for
embedded development and 3 P100 boxen which are used for va
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:25:52PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > In any case we need to make clear if we allow 486 optimisation that
> > are not i386 compatible or not.
> What about perusing the INT 6 idea, and going all the way up to i686?
> As i686 is already like ten(?) years old, I would say
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > - drop the i386 support
> What we have not yet decided is whether we drop i386 support for C++
> packages or for all packages. If we choose the former, the mini-i386
> will just need to
Content rejected.
Based on an automated review of the content in a message you sent,
the message appears to be unsolicited commercial e-mail or to contain
content that we deem inappropriate for our business environment. The
message has been blocked from delivery. If you feel you received
this mes
Robert Luberda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I intend to package an unstable (beta) version of upx.
> This version supports compresing of the Linux kernel and thus
> can be used by our boot floppies team.
Isn't the kernel already compressed?
--
Peter Makholm |One thing you do is p
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-20
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
I intend to package an unstable (beta) version of upx.
This version supports compresing of the Linux kernel and thus
can be used by our boot floppies team.
* Package name: upx-ucl-beta
Version : 1.91
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:39:30AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > Well, except that it doesn't actually describe the package well. Maybe
> > > > insert "FIFO controlled" before "audio player."
> > >
> > > Or better, "FIFO-controlled", so it doesn't read like a past-tense
> > > sentence fra
Le ven 20/06/2003 à 10:58, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> What we have not yet decided is whether we drop i386 support for C++
> packages or for all packages. If we choose the former, the mini-i386
> will just need to contain the important C++ packages. If we choose
> the later, developers can start to
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sarge, sid
>
> [please don't reassign to any gcc/libstdc++ package]
>
> The solution I would favour would be:
>
> - drop the i386 support
>
> - keep the i386 architecture name
>
> - l
>> Doing apt-get update just seems to start downloading the Packages.gz
>> even though we just rsynced Packages.
Tim> It could easily be a bug.
Radim> It writes HIT! message there and skip this file, because it is
Radim> up-to-date by rsync.
Next time I will try with http_proxy unset, because I rec
Package: general
Severity: serious
Tags: sarge, sid
[please don't reassign to any gcc/libstdc++ package]
Nathanel's summary:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg02112.html
A list of proposals what to do:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/m
Le ven 20/06/2003 à 00:15, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> * Package name: gtk-industrial-engine
> Version : 0.2.26
> Upstream Author : Owen Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Christopher Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:50:46 +1000
Anthony Towns wrote:
> No, you don't. We've done the maths, incremental --ed style diffs are
> the way to do this: they make for by far the smallest download, and
> minimal archive bloat.
ed style diffs can be a problem in that the same diff can be applied
mult
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
> work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
>
Also woody...
--
Francesco P. Lovergi
Le ven 20/06/2003 à 08:30, Tobias Wolter a écrit :
> On 2003-06-20T00:15:48+0200 (Friday), Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Package: wnpp
> > Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-19
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > * Package name: gtk-industrial-engine
>
> "gtk-engines" is the common prefix for
Hello.
I am running several systems that are a mix of stable, testing and sid, with
apt preferences set up such that stable is the highest priority, testing
lower than stable, sid lower that testing.
When something from e.g. sid is needed for some reason, I run
apt-get -t unstable install xxx
T
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:35:18PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> As long as these doc's exist someone will make money by providing the
> means of reading them, if OOo does not.
That someone is Microsoft.
> IMHO, the problem has been resolved.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 01:41:10PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> > So, i think if there .diff's exist, maybe apt-get can patch the
> > Changes into the files on the client, or a small wrapper arround
> > apt-get can do this..
> Goodness, you are the second person to ask for this in a month. Diff
On 2003-06-20T00:15:48+0200 (Friday), Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-19
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: gtk-industrial-engine
"gtk-engines" is the common prefix for GTK engine packages, so you
should use gtk-engines-industrial, IMHO.
AFAICT debian-user would have been a more appropriate place for this.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 16:25:54 -0400, John F Davis wrote:
> I am trying to read the docs in the Documentation/DocBook directory of a
> linux kernel.
>
> I do this: make pdfdocs and I get an error about need to install docbook
At Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:06:14 +1000, Angus Lees wrote:
> [vote]
i am teh l4mer
--
- Gus
56 matches
Mail list logo
