Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libnews-article-perl
Version : 1.27
Upstream Author : Andrew Gierth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.erlenstar.demon.co.uk/perl/
* License : GPL or Artistic
Descrip
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adrian Bunk]
> > The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
>
> Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
>
> Feel free to include the script to generate the list when you generate
> dy
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libpgp-sign-perl
Version : 0.19
Upstream Author : Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/pgp-sign/
* License : GPL or Artistic
Desc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:09:41 +1000
> Source: xrender
> Binary: libxrender1-dbg libxrender-dev libxrender1
> Architecture: source i386
> Version: 0.9.0-1
> Distribution: unstable
> Urgency: low
> Maintainer: Daniel
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Joshua Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: ytnef
Version : 1.5
Upstream Author : Russell Hand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ytnef.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : improved decoder for applicat
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Joshua Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libytnef
Version : 2.6
Upstream Author : Russell Hand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ytnef.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : improved decoder for appli
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> problems for /boot.
Why is that?
> - a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
> broken system more often
And two file systems have even more chance. One read on
Hi Enrico,
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:06:28PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Now, the ABI, and to a lesser extent the API of the libraries is still
> not stabilised, so I was planning to package libtagcoll1 and libdebtags1
> only as -dev packages. That way, packages would be statically linked to
>
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:02:32AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Kevin Mark]
> > that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
> > past unilaterilly.
>
> Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
> drudgery and so little recognition that the *lea
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Seconded! The only RC-bug in openswan is for a newer version of the
> kernel which will not ship with Sarge.
Doesn't #291274 also affect the 2.6.8 kernel? Also, what of the mail in
that bug report stating that even once it's patched to build, it doesn't
really work?
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Batist, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of the "any later
> > version" copyright license... the terms are precisely '' This program is
> > free software
On 09-May-2005, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ] [Sebastian Kuzminsky]
> ] > the shell libraries are moved to /usr/lib/cogito.
> ] Correct, except that it should be /usr/share/cogito/.
>
> The FHS describes /usr/share as "architecture-independent data", a
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Adam M. wrote:
> Kevin Mark wrote:
>
> >Hi DD folks,
> >Sarge is now approaching zero kelvin and folks are scrambing to get the
> >last few bugs squashed. I was recently thinking about why the non-clued
> >folks bash Debian with incomplete or inaccurate fa
I haven't replied in detail to Batist yet because I am still digesting
the hash that Babelfish makes out of his Dutch article. And I don't
entirely agree that the GPL is horribly drafted, by comparison with
the kind of dog's breakfast that is the typical license contract. In
the past, I have trie
Just a couple of quick notes: the process in general was fairly smooth,
though I wouldn't want to have to do it for more than a couple of
machines at a time.
Hardware: Home build, Celeron 1200, 640M of memory, 40G disk, ATI Radeon video
with 128M memory, 3Com 3C905, cheap CMP soundcard, genuine M
On May 8, 2005, at 08:36, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
Hi everybody!
Although I guess there's no chance for it to make it in,
Openswan is the one on my personal wishlist.
Seconded! The only RC-bug in openswan is for a newer version of the
kernel which will not ship with Sarge.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
>>> then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
>>
>> But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
>
> Why, exactly?
Hi all,
I am looking at ways to distribute batch jobs on various hosts.
Essentially, i have N different command lines, and M different
hosts to run them on:
foo -i file1.data -p 0.1
foo -i file2.data -p 0.1
foo -i file3.data -p 0.1
...
foo -i file1.data -p
Try your luck with our new brand cas1no. +30% for every diposit.
One hour payout, never fast before. Try play for free.
When my horse is running good, I don't stop to give him sugar.
http://www.wehiuhef.com/ We all have ability. The difference is how we use it.
Said will be a little ahead, but do
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
>> then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
>
> But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people think it's obvious, but the lack of
stated r
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
>>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
>>> semanti
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
>>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
>>> semanti
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
] [Sebastian Kuzminsky]
] > Before 0.10, the upstream installed both the binaries (actually shell
] > scripts) and the shell libraries in /usr/bin. Starting with 0.10,
] > the shell libraries are moved to /usr/lib/cogito.
]
] Correct, except that it shou
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
> that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under
> copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a work
> containing...", which is NOT a re-statement of a "deriv
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which doesn't? Minix maybe. Even ext2/3 has hashes for dir if you
> format it that way.
Is this the Debian default for installation?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
>> -lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
>> might look into some other directories as well, and it
ma, 2005-05-09 kello 14:56 -0700, Steve Langasek kirjoitti:
> There is no log; there is only the daily output of britney, telling which
> packages have been accepted in.
There is, however, qa.debian.org, that lets you see at a glance the
versions in stable, testing, and unstable. It requires polli
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
>> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
>
>
Thomas, please read
http://www.nl.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-resources.en.html#s-mailing-lists-rules
about not sending Cc's unless people explicitly ask to be copied.
(Mail-Followup-To is non-standard and badly supported, and also
unnecessary. Any decent mail user agent can deal with
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a semantic difference between /bin and /u
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:48:03AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> hey all,
> (this is a general, non-release related question)
> i was talking with another member of my local LUG, and he asked
> if there was a way to tell when a package was uploaded into the
> testing distribution. currently, the p
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
> -lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
> might look into some other directories as well, and it might fill in foo
> into some other patterns than "lib%
ma, 2005-05-09 kello 14:39 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG kirjoitti:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
> > not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
> > with the size of the directory.
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
> not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
> with the size of the directory. That's the question I answered.
How does ld determine that -latoheun will
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:33:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > The number of directory entries in /usr/li
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
>> > difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesyst
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
> > difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
> > you have thousands or millions of them
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
> difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
> you have thousands or millions of them.
Why? Is there magic now?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:38:02AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
> It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
well, /usr/lib is not _that_ crowded.
Any sane filesystem should handle that many fi
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Xfce Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: exo
Version : 0.3.0
Upstream Author : Benedikt Meurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://libexo.os-cillation.com/
* License : GPL
Description : Library wit
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: waste
Version : 1.5b3
Upstream Author : Waste Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://waste.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : Software product and prot
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
>>> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
>>> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that /usr/
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:39:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
> >> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
> >> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
> >>
> >>
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adrian Bunk]
> > The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
>
> Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
>
> Feel free to include the script to generate the list when you generate
> dy
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 15:34:06 +0300, Shaul Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >adduser(8) states that
> >
> >With the --disabled-login option, the account will be created but
> >will be disabled until a password is set. The --disabled-password
On Mon, 09 May 2005 15:34:06 +0300, Shaul Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>adduser(8) states that
>
>With the --disabled-login option, the account will be created but
>will be disabled until a password is set. The --disabled-password
>option will not set a password, but login are still
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>
> It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
> the sam
* Stephen Quinney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050509 17:20]:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:45:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Christian Hammers wrote:
> > > I could package the whole libsnmp source code into the Quagga file, and
> > > simply compile it with --without-openssl and then link it statical
On Monday 09 May 2005 17:17, Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In principle, there could be files which can be used as both a shared
> library and an internal binary. Where would you put such files?
Anything that's a shared object has to be in a directory that ldconfig knows
about. The
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
>> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
>> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>>
>> It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
>
> I disagree.
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No need. I already have an ITA on it.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=306670
On 5/8/05, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:02:51AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:38:39PM +0200 , Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > >
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:45:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Christian Hammers wrote:
> > I could package the whole libsnmp source code into the Quagga file, and
> > simply compile it with --without-openssl and then link it statically
> > or something similar brute force and ugly.
>
> FWIW:
Christian Hammers wrote:
> I could package the whole libsnmp source code into the Quagga file, and
> simply compile it with --without-openssl and then link it statically
> or something similar brute force and ugly.
FWIW: Please don't. This would mean creating a security-support nightmare.
Regar
[Adrian Bunk]
> The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
Feel free to include the script to generate the list when you generate
dynamic list of packages like this. It would make it easier for all
of us to re-gene
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 21:03 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> being held out of sarge[1].
...
> eglade
There are no open bugs. Can it be put back in?
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of
su, 2005-05-08 kello 22:15 -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky kirjoitti:
> The only lintian/linda complaints are from missing manpages. Some
> upstream folks are working on translating the existing docs from .txt
> to manpages (actually asciidoc), so it'll hopefully get cleaner soon
> without me lifting a
On Monday 09 May 2005 15:48, sean finney wrote:
> hey all,
hello,
> (this is a general, non-release related question)
>
> i was talking with another member of my local LUG, and he asked
> if there was a way to tell when a package was uploaded into the
> testing distribution. currently, the packa
Batist Paklons wrote:
This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
Hello,
I'm trying to package the new version of debtags, with perl and python
bindings, and I'm facing some tricky issues.
Source packages:
libtagcoll1
Functions used to manipulate tagged collections
libdebtags1
Debian package tags library (also builds perl and python bindings)
No
Raul Miller wrote:
>On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define "work based on the
>>Program" in terms of "derivative work under copyright law", and
>>then, after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what
>>is a "derivative wo
adduser(8) states that
With the --disabled-login option, the account will be created but
will be disabled until a password is set. The --disabled-password
option will not set a password, but login are still possible for
example through SSH RSA keys.
I wonder what is the differenc
hey all,
(this is a general, non-release related question)
i was talking with another member of my local LUG, and he asked
if there was a way to tell when a package was uploaded into the
testing distribution. currently, the package qa pages say when
a package is uploaded into unstable, and they
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: kdebluetooth
Version : 1.0beta1
Upstream Author : Mattia Merzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fred Schaettgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://kde-bluetooth.sourceforg
* Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050509 03:07]:
> Well, the reason */libexec exists is to avoid overloading the meaning
> of */lib to include things other than libraries. Just as /sbin was
> invented (way back in the day) to stop overloading /etc with things
> other than config files.
I th
Get the Finest Rolex Watch Replica !
We only sell premium watches. There's no battery in these replicas just like
the real ones since they charge themselves as you move. The second hand moves
JUST like the real ones, too. These original watches sell in stores for
thousands of dollars. We sell t
hi,
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:16:48PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> quoting from Policy 11.5.3:
>
> Web Applications should try to avoid storing files in the Web Document
> Root. Instead they should use the /usr/share/doc/package directory for
> documents and register the Web Applicatio
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: z80asm
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/z80asm/
* License : GPL
Description : assembler for the
Re: Marc Haber in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Am I missing something or is this part of policy widely ignored?
I had my own problems with that paragraph and would appreciate to have
it clarified.
There's a new mailing list for webapps since last week, shouldn't the
discussion go there?
http://lists.de
Hi,
quoting from Policy 11.5.3:
Web Applications should try to avoid storing files in the Web Document
Root. Instead they should use the /usr/share/doc/package directory for
documents and register the Web Application via the menu package
I have two issues with that:
(1) I think that
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 11:26:34PM -0400, Bruno Barrera C. wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 00:24 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> >
> > Your latest comment in #259581 is completely different from this --
> > please keep the relevant wnpp bug in the loop for stuff like this!
> >
> > Specifical
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know if there's an argument for it other than clarity and
> warm fuzzies.
Not that there is anything wrong with warm fuzzies. I prefer that to
a file hierarchy layout that gives me the chills.
> [I personally think that if a good idea is "agains
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
Debian strives to follow the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs), and
this standard does not include /usr/libexec.
See also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=146023,
which mentions the use of
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:02:32AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Kevin Mark]
> > that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
> > past unilaterilly.
> Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
> drudgery and so little recognition that the *least*
[Martin Waitz]
> The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it
> exists.
Well, the reason */libexec exists is to avoid overloading the meaning
of */lib to include things other than libraries. Just as /sbin was
invented (way back in the day) to stop overloading /etc with things
[Kevin Mark]
> that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
> past unilaterilly.
Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
drudgery and so little recognition that the *least* we can do is let
the release manager decide on codenames and version number
[Sebastian Kuzminsky]
> Before 0.10, the upstream installed both the binaries (actually shell
> scripts) and the shell libraries in /usr/bin. Starting with 0.10,
> the shell libraries are moved to /usr/lib/cogito.
Correct, except that it should be /usr/share/cogito/.
Thanks for packaging this.
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
>
> well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
>
> The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
GNU project stuff also uses libexec (by default; I don't know if that
location ge
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>
> It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
> the sam
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>
> It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
I disagree. Why is i
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:45:32PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
--
Martin Waitz
signature.asc
Description: Digital sign
81 matches
Mail list logo
