[Brian May]
> > See bug #87371. The title is wrong. devfs is not the issue,
> > /dev/pts is (I think). I don't think there is any intention to fix
> > the bug. Over 4 years old. Perhaps this is grounds to drop the
> > package from Debian.
[Miles Bader]
> I'd say so. Or fix the bug.
Kind of qu
Scribit Alex Ross dies 08/11/2005 hora 11:36:
> Overnight we actually did remove the downloads.
I'm downloading the LiveCD image right now from a link in the download
page[1]. Do I have to understand that you corrected the GPL violation
problem and that I can find all the sources the GPL gives me
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> See bug #87371. The title is wrong. devfs is not the issue, /dev/pts
> is (I think). I don't think there is any intention to fix the
> bug. Over 4 years old. Perhaps this is grounds to drop the package
> from Debian.
I'd say so. Or fix the bug.
-miles
--
[replying to a message that was directed to debian-devel only, but
readding debian-legal in Cc:]
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:38:07 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-08 00:28:07]:
> > "The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license" means
> > that th
> "Miles" == Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Miles> In any case, does anyone else know if there are really such old
Miles> applications still around?
snoopy:/etc/postfix# apt-cache show ttysnoop
Package: ttysnoop
Priority: optional
Section: admin
Installed-Size: 52
Maintainer:
Hi,
> Maybe this is to avoid somebody from changing SystemAuth or other values.
> (e.g. can you check if the CVSROOT/config files still contains
> UseNewInfoFmtStrings=yes) (The real CVSROOT/config file, not the one
> source controlled you can get with a checkout).
>
> Can anybody confirm.
>
> M
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bob Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-formencode
Version : 0.2.2
Upstream Author : Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://formencode.sf.net
* License : PSF
Description : FormEncode is a valid
Em Qua, 2005-11-09 às 13:12 -0800, Christopher Crammond escreveu:
> I was wondering if someone could provide me with some additional
> information related to Debian packaging. Specifically, I would like to
> know if there is a way to determine which version of Debian that a
> package belongs to?
Le mercredi 09 novembre 2005 à 13:12 -0800, Christopher Crammond a
écrit :
> Hello:
>
> I was wondering if someone could provide me with some additional
> information related to Debian packaging. Specifically, I would like to
> know if there is a way to determine which version of Debian that a
>
Christopher Crammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was wondering if someone could provide me with some additional
> information related to Debian packaging. Specifically, I would like to
> know if there is a way to determine which version of Debian that a
> package belongs to?
Any version of D
Hello:
I was wondering if someone could provide me with some additional
information related to Debian packaging. Specifically, I would like to
know if there is a way to determine which version of Debian that a
package belongs to?
For instance, the control file of the dpkg_1.10.28_i386.deb file l
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic,
> > and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about.
>
> Speaking of antagonistic...
On Thursday 03 November 2005 22:26, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian"
> > thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what
> > you're asking for. You're
> To be fair, I must admit that I'm not a DD and I don't hold copyright to
> any of Erast's software. But I believe strongly in the way Debian does
> things, and I use a *lot* of Debian software in my work. So I justify
> my participation in this thread based on my interest in protecting
> D
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries
>> next
>> to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust>) in your
>> "open
>> source" project ?
>
> George, I don't think there's much point in repeating objectio
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries next
> to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust>) in your "open
> source" project ?
George, I don't think there's much point in repeating objections that
have
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:26, Erast Benson wrote:
>> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
>> >> find
>> >> debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it
>> is
>> >> not committed yet and w
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:26, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
> >> find
> >> debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is
> >> not committed yet and we are test
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:09, Erast Benson wrote:
> David,
>
> this is the place were source code lives:
>
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu
>
> or
>
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
>
> If you do not see something specific, or
On Thursday 03 November 2005 18:45, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on "main" CD, and the rest of
> > > GPL-filtered software, will go on "Companion" CD, or throug
On Thursday 03 November 2005 21:25, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > > If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly
> > > suggest to take the concerns of Debian developer
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "A. Bram Neijt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: ccbuild
Version : 1.5.0
Upstream Author : A. Bram Neijt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : https://sourceforge.net/projects/ccbuild
* License : GPL-2
Description : A C++
Frank Küster wrote:
> Sorry for still being dumb. When it's reconfigure, I have just learned
> that the config script is run only once, so I need not handle this case
> specially. But when its an upgrade, it is run twice, and I need to
> discriminate between the first pass (check existing permiss
"=?UTF-8?B?Q2FuIEthdmFrbMSxb8SfbHU=?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
> Some time ago I searched for a tool to convert my already downloaded and
> mounted stable Debian CDs into a mirror structure. However I failed (the
> ways was able to find didn't seem feasible or couldn't find the actual
Hi!
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:30:38PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for a 'loginfo' file configuration that works
> for alioth.
> I thought I have found a solution few days ago, but when
> I came back, it no longer seems to work correctly:
I think there is a cron job that
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steinar mentioned problems with pure virtual build-deps. Those should
> work too. In the past bugs have been filed about those, but I think
> those are a problem because of bugs in the auto-build tools, rather than
> being an intrinsic problems with the
Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 8<
> Read data.tar.gz. Target 34.1% complete.
> used 1056768 local, fetched 938415
> 8<
> The size of the data.tar.gz is 1210514.
So your simple test shows 34% savin
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 09:48:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Zsync checksum files are, depending on block size, about 3% of the
>> file size. For the full archive that means under 10G more data. As
>> comparison adding amd64 needs ~30G. After the scc split ther
Scribit Pierre THIERRY dies 08/11/2005 hora 01:04:
> * Package name: markdown
Sorry for that invalid ITP (markdown *is* packaged). It seems reportbug
check the archive when doing a RFP, but not an ITP.
Maybe on the supposition that when you do an ITP, you know more what
you're doing and follo
Hi,
I'm looking for a 'loginfo' file configuration that works
for alioth.
I thought I have found a solution few days ago, but when
I came back, it no longer seems to work correctly:
CVSROOT/loginfo contains:
DEFAULT /usr/bin/cvs-mailcommit --mailto [EMAIL PROTECTED] --from [EMAIL
PROTECTED] -
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 21:49 +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> it would be convenient if 'vmlinux' is included
> somewhere like /usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/`uname -r`/vmlinux
> (which seems to be the case with RedHat[2]).
in a separate linux-image-dbg package?
$ du -h vmlinux arch/i386/boot/bzImage
Hi,
> A new version of kernel-package is imminent, it is undergoing
> boot camp out in experimental.
Congratulations; nice to see some hot action :)
I've been pondering on using kernel-package to generate
debug 'vmlinux' images which are used in tools like
kernel crash dump analysis
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> I found no way to cleanly solve the problem of
>>
>> - writing the current state into the debconf database, so that
>> noninteractive installs don't change anything
>>
>> - actually reflect changed answers in the system.
>
> The co
33 matches
Mail list logo
