On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 18:50 -0500, Carlos C Soto wrote:
> Gcolor2 is a simple GTK2 color selector to provide a quick and easy
> way to find colors for whatever task is at hand.
> Colors can be saved and deleted as well.
>
> This is a very useful tool for every one who work with colours and
> desig
Quoting sebastien mazzucco ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> bonjour
>
> connaissant debian depuis peu je souhaiterai contribuer à ce projet
> grace à des traductions d'anglais vers le francais et tout
> particulierement en ce quiconcerne la desription des paquets ;
> malheureusement les FAQ semblent obsele
Resume in english: Sebastien Mazzucco want to contribute to the
traduction of some debian thing to french, And I tell him he should go
and ask on debian-devel-french or debian-l10n-french
sebastien mazzucco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bonjour
Bonjour,
En premier lieux, je voulais te signaler
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 09:56 am, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> We can also extend the description format in backwards-compatible ways.
> So, while a proper markup language would be nice, that doesn't preclude
> fixing the bullet problem, albeit in a slightly hacky way, NOW. What about
> this:
On 4/20/05, Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam M wrote:
>
> >>? I guess I don't understand enough about how the build process works
> >>for the packages in debian but that sounds funny to me. Or I just don't
> >>understand what you mean.
> >
> >
> > To build security patches, you need the
Jurij Smakov wrote:
Since it is becoming more and more a kernel topic, you might also want
to move discussion to debian-kernel.
Could someone give us a simple rundown of how we would submit a patch to
the debian kernel sources to add spca5xx support? The spca5xx driver
adds support for a large n
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 04:23:02PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> >Let me ask some questions:
> >- How many thousand people can't continue working if the server isn't
> > available?
> >- How many million dollar does the customer lose every day the server is
> > not available?
>
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
If almost everyone you know is a desktop user,
Most everyone I know is an engineer :)
then I can see your
point. But no-one sane running production server systems is going
to run sid.
Well, I'd say no-one sane is running an unqualified/untested
distribution. It doesn
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Carlos C Soto wrote:
Jeff Carr wrote:
[skipped]
I agree, the better is to put it as a kernel-patch.
Unfortunetly I have zero experience hacking the kernel or modules, just
compiling and using it.
If it just compiles separate modules, there is really no need to include
it as a
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You say you've deployed Debian sarge and sid in server environments
> (even sarge, although months old security fixes might be missing???).
Sure. Frankly, sarge has better security support than we ever got from
Sun for commercial versions of Solaris. D
Jeff Carr wrote:
I
agree. I just built it again today against 2.6.11-1-686-smp (after
using it for several months against 2.6.10-1-686-smp).
I do not use the debian kernel, i always use the tarball from
kernel.org, just because i like this way.
I
talked to the developer about getting it in
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Let me ask some questions:
- How many thousand people can't continue working if the server isn't
available?
- How many million dollar does the customer lose every day the server is
not available?
- How many days without this server does it take until the company is
bankrupt
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why not let people choose what they want to use "woody" "sarge" or "sid"
>and never change the names again. I think lots of people are happy with
>how things work now. No need to ever do a release again. Just remove the
>old/
Adam M wrote:
? I guess I don't understand enough about how the build process works
for the packages in debian but that sounds funny to me. Or I just don't
understand what you mean.
To build security patches, you need the same libraries, compilers,
etc... for the release so the built package has t
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:18:52PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> >Debian stable is comparable to the enterprise products of e.g. RedHat or
> >SuSE.
> >
> >These distributions are usually installed on servers that are installed
> >and intensively tested once. Security fixes a
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 10:46, David Härdeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> o Especially on laptops, it might be interesting to also encrypt all of
> /home and/or other parts of the harddrive to make the data unusuable
> without the USB key. But how to integrate this with the other
> requirem
> Isn't the process:
>
> 1) make a patch
> 2) give it to the apache developers
> 3) new packaged apache versions have the patch
> 4) patch makes it upstream
> 5) patch no longer needed in debian package
You know, there are security updates for stable releases. You have to
patch those. If there ar
Steve Langasek wrote:
4) the package itself is not the right name
4) is an approximation, but not actually a correct description (it's the
same incorrect approximation used by Policy itself). The problem is that
the package name is not being changed when the library soname changes, which
means tha
bonjour
connaissant debian depuis peu je souhaiterai contribuer à ce projet
grace à des traductions d'anglais vers le francais et tout
particulierement en ce quiconcerne la desription des paquets ;
malheureusement les FAQ semblent obseletes
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/01/msg02162.ht
Adrian Bunk wrote:
There are at least three different comparisons:
Debian sid is comparable to e.g. RedHat Fedora or Gentoo (which of these
three is best is a different discussion).
Debian sid is for experienced computer users who always want the latest
software and who can live with a bug here
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:06:12PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Adam M wrote:
>
> >Why? Why is there RHEL 2.0, 3.0.. Why not just RHEL 2005-01-01,
> >2005-01-02, etc..?
>
> Because redhat makes money selling releases.
>
> > The releases are there to provide interface stability. Everyone does
> th
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And now you say it's *still* going on?
Yes. For various reasons, I'm more hopeful now than I have been
previously.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:40:14PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Robert McQueen wrote:
> >Tamas SZERB wrote:
> >>once upon a time, I closed this bug. then the submitter reopened it,
> >>so currently I don't give it a f*ck. Our opinion are different, so if
> >>you feel any ambition to get the both side
Senhores
O que é necessário para fazer o
curso?
Há como me enviar uma
apostila?
LINEAR CONST. E SERV. LTDAAdm. Cezario Ramos
da Rocha(92) 656 8002 / 9128 5250
Adam M wrote:
Why? Why is there RHEL 2.0, 3.0.. Why not just RHEL 2005-01-01,
2005-01-02, etc..?
Because redhat makes money selling releases.
> The releases are there to provide interface stability. Everyone does
this.
Everyone being other distributions? I disagree. How many Fortune 500
custome
Robert McQueen wrote:
Tamas SZERB wrote:
once upon a time, I closed this bug. then the submitter reopened it,
so currently I don't give it a f*ck. Our opinion are different, so if
you feel any ambition to get the both sides together, feel free to
volunteer. :)
This package's violation of Debian po
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: pilotqof
Version : 0.0.3
Upstream Author : Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/pilot-qof/
* License : GPL
Description : query P
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > It would be great, if you package pystatgrab
> > (http://www.i-scream.org/pystatgrab/) as well.
>
> I'm packaging libstatgrab only because pystatgrab needs it ;)
If someone is interested in new packages they're availabl
Carlos C Soto wrote:
Great!
I use this module and wold be great to have it on debian.
I was thinking on put a RFP bug for it.
-- Carlos C Soto :: eclipxe
I agree. I just built it again today against 2.6.11-1-686-smp (after
using it for several months against 2.6.10-1-686-smp).
I talked to the dev
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> D defeated by a 2.3:1 majority are option F (do nothing at all) and
>> Further Discussion, which all the voters had been told would result in
>> a further delay of the Sarge release.
> A 2
On 20-Apr-05, 09:34 (CDT), Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And Debian has tried to work on reducing the impact, by trying
> > to convince the FSF to fix their license. Not only have they
> > not done so, they've completely stonewalled, ref
Wow, a civil discussion. I'll see if I can keep it up.
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:10 am, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Could anyone give a definitive answer to the following questions:
> - Did -003 contain real changes [1] or didn't it change anything?
That basically depends on who you ask and on
Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 à 16:10 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> Could anyone give a definitive answer to the following questions:
> - Did -003 contain real changes [1] or didn't it change anything?
It didn't change anything.
> - How is it possible to happen that only a small amount of the Debian
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And Debian has tried to work on reducing the impact, by trying
> to convince the FSF to fix their license. Not only have they
> not done so, they've completely stonewalled, refusing to discuss
> the issue at all. Debian has done more than its part in tr
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm going through the list of packages I'm maintainer for, and found
> several that I no longer use. Some I've tried to give away long ago,
> but for whatever reason, never were picked up. I've submitted orphaned
> versions of all of these and
Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 à 05:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> I've heard three different stories describing this GR:
> 1. it contained only Editorial amendments and didn't change anything
> 2. the Debian developers decided in this GR that documentation has to
>fulfill the full DFSG guideline
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:24:51 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> ... (GR2004-004 didn't make any sense at all, nor does it make any
>> sense that Sarge can ship with non-free documentation, and at the
>> time I found th
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> Adrian,
>
> I believe that you are misrepresenting the outcome of -004. The proposal
> to
> postpone the changes till after the release, then reinstate them, defeated
> option D (rescind -003) by a 2:1 majority. The onl
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 12:24 am, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> In GR2004-004, Proposal D to revert GR2004-003 did get a 2.3:1 majority
> by the developers over the proposal to keep the changes of GR2004-003.
> That's a pretty clear statement.
Adrian,
I believe that you are misrepresenting the outc
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:22:06AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:24:51AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The nice thing about 3:1 majorities is, that once you've tricked
> > something as "Editorial amendments" into it, a 25% minority is enough to
> > block reverting it...
Hi Tollef,
Sorry for the high response latency.
* Tollef Fog Heen wrote on Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:45:03PM CEST:
> * Ralf Wildenhues
>
> | I would be much happier if someone with time would just help to put
> | this into libtool properly as an option (and possible adjust pkg-config,
> | FWIW).
41 matches
Mail list logo
