[Christoph Berg]
> [0] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $host archive.debian.org
> archive.debian.org has address 208.185.25.38
> [0] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $host 208.185.25.38
> 38.25.185.208.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer raff.debian.org.
google has no trouble finding mirrors for it, though.
Peter
signatu
On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 17:06 +, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Scott James Remnant may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > And a far better solution to the "a package on disk needs dependencies"
> > solution is for a command-line tool that can grab the dependencies a
> > package need
Anthony Towns writes:
> Anyway, this is surely off topic for -devel. Can we go back to talking about
> hot babes or something?
That would be very welcome.
--
ZAK B. ELEP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Registered Linux User #327585
1024D/FA53851D 1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
Could someone please add Root (http://root.cern.ch/) to the list of software
that cannot be packaged, http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
? There have been several attempts at ITPs:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/1999/12/m
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: svn-arch-mirror
Version : 0.2.6
Upstream Author : Eric Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://des.petta-tech.bogomips.org/eric/MusicPD/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/svn-arch-mirror/
* License : GPL v2
Description : o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: lopster2
Version : cvs pre3.9
Upstream Author : Sgopsgop at users.sourceforge.net
* URL : lopster.sf.net
* License : GPL
Description : gtk2 filesharing client that supports many protocols
Gtk2 version o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: opengogear
Version : 0.01
Upstream Author : Stefano Brivio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://opengogear.sarovar.org/
* License : GPL
Description : free tool for Philips GoGear HDD0xx
openGogear is a free su
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: zeiberbude
Version : 2.0.4
Upstream Author : Christian Toepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://zeiberbude.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : A program for administering internet cafes.
The pack
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ltsp-utils
Version : 0.10
Upstream Author : James McQuillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.ltsp.org/
* License : GPL
Description : LTSP administration utilities
Utilities for installing and managin
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There could be if you do so in a way that could be construed as an attempt
> to fraudulently extend the life of the copyright.
At the moment it seems doubtful that any current copyright will
ever expire.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http:/
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas writes:
> > It should be every year that the work was published. (If you publish in
> > year N, then modify and publish the new thing in year M, you should list
> > both years.)
>
> > There is no harm in listing extra years.
>
> There could be if
Thomas writes:
> It should be every year that the work was published. (If you publish in
> year N, then modify and publish the new thing in year M, you should list
> both years.)
> There is no harm in listing extra years.
There could be if you do so in a way that could be construed as an attempt
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:26:52PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:19:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Also of interest is that some 1300 packages would no longer need to
> > declare a Build-Depends: at all with those changes, and another 1200
> > wouldn't need
Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Shouldn't you include a year?
> > >
> > > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
> >
> > The year should be included. Here is a reference:
> > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
>
> If only one year is listed in a source fil
> > > Shouldn't you include a year?
> >
> > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
> The year should be included. Here is a reference:
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
If only one year is listed in a source file / copyright file, should
it be the first year the work st
On Thursday 13 January 2005 11:18 am, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [updating copyright years]
> >
> > > I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically
> > > for you if you like.
>
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The elegance is that dpkg is robust in that it can always install
> everything and can get cleanly from one state to another. However broken
> the packages are you never end in a sitation you cannot fix again.
How would this property be lost if dp
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
> No, you should support unsupporting versions of libraries only when
> it's the right thing, which is exceedingly rarely, but not never, and,
> if I understand Anthony right, pretty much only when you cannot
> sensibly just say "fix the damn applications."
Do you thi
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:27:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Like I care about that stuff. All I could ever want from copyright on
> > a GPLed work is an injunction to stop violating it.
>
> Actually, you can even fail to get that in pra
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Like I care about that stuff. All I could ever want from copyright on
> a GPLed work is an injunction to stop violating it.
Actually, you can even fail to get that in practice. Really, just put
the date; it's not too much trouble.
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:16:19AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > It's not required. And I get bored by updat
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [updating copyright years]
> > I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically
> > for you if you like.
>
> I would like this.
;; When we save a file with a GPL copyright, prompt to
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
> >
> > Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm lost now. As far as I can see, previously you were telling me that
> I was wrong for wanting to "support unsupported versions of libraries".
> Now you're saying that I'm wrong for claiming that nobody cares about
> "supporting unsupported versions
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
> Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year
> every time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned
>
I demand that Scott James Remnant may or may not have written...
[snip]
> And a far better solution to the "a package on disk needs dependencies"
> solution is for a command-line tool that can grab the dependencies a
> package needs, not just bitch about them not existing.
apt* with an install-fr
Hi all,
I am requesting someone to adopt WMakerConf and its friend,
wmakerconf-data (they are separate source packages), and give them some
TLC. I've moved to using Gnome/Metacity instead of WindowMaker on my
laptop, so I no longer have much incentive or energy to maintain the
packages.
Please n
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:26:04AM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Qui, 2005-01-13 às 10:42 +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> escreveu:
> > Better solution:
> > - Have gksu source a /etc/gksu.conf file directly
>
> I can hack gksu to read the file.
I think we now have a winer idea
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
> Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year
> every time there is a new publication in a year n
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
> > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Is anybody advocating that we should try to "support unsupported
> > > > versions of libraries"? I'm certainly not.
> > > Sure! Th
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[updating copyright years]
> I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically
> for you if you like.
I would like this.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
Thomas writes:
> Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year every
> time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned (without
> removing the old years, since the new publication is a derived work).
No notice is required by law at all. However, it is a good
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Is anybody advocating that we should try to "support unsupported
> > > versions of libraries"? I'm certainly not.
>
> > Sure! That's what libc5 is.
>
> I'm not a
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is anybody advocating that we should try to "support unsupported
> > versions of libraries"? I'm certainly not.
> Sure! That's what libc5 is.
I'm not aware of even having mentioned libc5 in this thread (and I
don't
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:26:31PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> It would also break serialisation, as one would need to give a list of
> packages to install to dpkg all at once or in the correct serialisation,
> and no longer (with exception of configure cycles) beeing able to give
> them in wh
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anybody advocating that we should try to "support unsupported
> versions of libraries"? I'm certainly not.
Sure! That's what libc5 is.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year
every time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned
(without removing the old years, since the new publication i
> > Shouldn't you include a year?
>
> It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
The year should be included. Here is a reference:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
An excerpt:
The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the
following three elements:
1.
Em 9/1/2005, "Jeroen van Wolffelaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
>>
>> ...
>>
>
>It seems there are enough people who want to help, but, which are debian
>developers? Could you, or anybody else, maybe try to find out who are
>interested?
>
>As with any project, it's always better if it's a team
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:59:55PM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For a GPLed project, the declaration looks something like this:
> >
> > * Copyright (C) Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Shouldn't you include a year?
It's not required.
Scripsit Stephen Frost
> * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > In summary: Yes, one could probably work around the lack of versions
> > in the -dev packages name, but the result would be (in my view)
> > significantly less elegant than having it there.
> Trying to support unsupported v
Em Qui, 2005-01-13 Ãs 11:53 +0100, Josselin Mouette escreveu:
> However, that's not the key point. If we want to avoid such things to
> lock the session startup, why not register them with a very low
> priority ? There could even be a delay of a few seconds before the
> password window appears, in
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20050113T040729+, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>> Is that sufficient to declare it build-essential?
>
> This issue belongs to debian-policy.
Remember that policy tends to be shaped by current practice. If there's
sufficient technical justif
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:19:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Also of interest is that some 1300 packages would no longer need to
> declare a Build-Depends: at all with those changes, and another 1200
> wouldn't need to declare a Build-Depends-Indep:.
Not even versioned depends?
/* Steinar *
Em Qui, 2005-01-13 Ãs 10:42 +0100, Javier FernÃndez-Sanguino PeÃa
escreveu:
> How about having this be configurable through something like
> /etc/gksu.conf and include a wrapper script to read it?
> That would introduce a way (since gksu does not seem to have an
> alternative) for average users t
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [050113 14:20]:
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >What say you?
> Rename it to "standard-debian-build-environment". :)
It's more a "default-debian-build-environment" :)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85
Scott James Remnant wrote:
The stats:
8,920 source packages in Debian unstable main.
8,254 declare a build-dependency on debhelper
= 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
Is that sufficient to declare it build-essential?
Also of interest is that some 1300 packages would no longer need
to, 2005-01-13 kello 13:35 +0200, Lars Wirzenius kirjoitti:
> I don't think debhelper fits into this category. On the other hand,
> build-essential (version 10.1) already depends on file, html2text,
> debconf-utils, and po-debconf, which I think are also not necessary for
> building a "hello, world
On 20050113T040729+, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The stats:
>
> 8,920 source packages in Debian unstable main.
> 8,254 declare a build-dependency on debhelper
>
> = 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
>
> Is that sufficient to declare it build-essential?
This issue belongs t
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:00:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:20:19PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The change *to* Enter was the thing that broke dselect for those of us
> > who have been using it since woody and earlier. Switching back to the
> > old behaviour unbr
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:00:26AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:54:56AM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> >
> > if the fact of hitting Enter to dismiss the help message confuses the
> > user at the point he instead commits changes, it looks like we need
> > another way t
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Instead of that, I would upload a new version of mozilla-firefox-locale-da
> > which is empty and has a Depends: mozilla-firefox-locale-da-dk, i.e.
> > a dummy package. Put in section oldlibs and then deborphan
> > will tell
Am Donnerstag, 13. Januar 2005 12:49 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > The stats:
> >
> > 8,920 source packages in Debian unstable main.
> > 8,254 declare a build-dependency on debhelper
> >
> > = 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
> >
> >
Le jeudi 13 janvier 2005 à 12:49 +0100, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > The stats:
> >
> > 8,920 source packages in Debian unstable main.
> > 8,254 declare a build-dependency on debhelper
> >
> > = 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The stats:
>
> 8,920 source packages in Debian unstable main.
> 8,254 declare a build-dependency on debhelper
>
> = 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
>
> Is that sufficient to declare it build-essential?
No, it's not by definit
to, 2005-01-13 kello 04:07 +, Scott James Remnant kirjoitti:
> The stats:
>
> 8,920 source packages in Debian unstable main.
> 8,254 declare a build-dependency on debhelper
>
> = 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
>
> Is that sufficient to declare it build-essential?
Hm, I g
* Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050112 22:08]:
> Well, you're also leaving the package in a broken and unconfigured state.
> Doing this in order to save the user a little typing later (adding the
> original package to the second --install line) seems to me like a hack to
> make some use
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:07:29AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The stats:
>
> 8,920 source packages in Debian unstable main.
> 8,254 declare a build-dependency on debhelper
>
> = 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
>
> Is that sufficient to declare it build-essential?
I'd
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:54:56AM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:52:47PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Exactly, I agree *entirely*.
> >
> > dselect has always used space to dismiss help messages and the current
> > stable (woody) version of dselect still uses
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:52:47PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 11:19 +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> >
> > IMHO people confused by dselect should switch to another dpkg/apt
> > frontend and not break it.
> >
> Exactly, I agree *entirely*.
>
> dselect has always use
Le mercredi 12 janvier 2005 à 22:51 -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva a
écrit :
> > Can you make gksu's default behavior to be "gksu --disable-grub" ?
>
> s/grub/grab/, FWIW
>
> After reading your e-mail, I think that sounds like a sensible proposal.
> I'll wait for some input from the involved mainta
8283927310378278959
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===AVGMAIL-41E579455696==="
--===AVGMAIL-41E579455696===
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=
This email i=
s to
inform you that you have been invited by a local
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I request an adopter for the alevt package. I've got rid of the
necessary hardware to use it. (TV is just not worth the tax/toll.)
alevt is very little work, and upstream is responsive.
-
The package description is:
AleVT is an X11 program for brow
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Policy section 4.4 states:
>
>Mistakes in changelogs are usually best rectified by making a new
>changelog entry rather than "rewriting history" by editing old
>changelog entries.
>
> This is the source of my habits on this point. When I rea
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:51:16PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> After reading your e-mail, I think that sounds like a sensible proposal.
> I'll wait for some input from the involved maintainers and do the
> change, if noone has a problem with it.
Quick and dirty hacki:
How about having t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: tpg
Version : 3.0.4
Upstream Author : Christophe Delord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://christophe.delord.free.fr/en/tpg/
* License : GPL
Description : Toy Parser Generator - a parser generator for pytho
Santiago Vila wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
Then this is a release critical bug in the newer package, ..da-dk. You
should file this bug and prevent the buggy version from entering
sarge. It is not sufficient to remove your old package from the archive,
because user will still h
#include
* Joerg Jaspert [Thu, Jan 13 2005, 08:29:19AM]:
> I think it should be b-e, but with a versioned dep thats high enough to
> get all those versioned dependencies away that are already existing.
> As we try sarge, a version-dep >= {sarge-version} is suggested.
>
> (Not that all packages a
GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 13.01.05 02:01:11:
> At Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:27:28 +0100,
> Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > IIRC, alpha does not define any hwcaps.
> >
> > There's a patch for this, which works fine, but wasn't committed ye
69 matches
Mail list logo
