Joey Hess wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
If we can agree that it's not needed anymore (i.e. mandate by policy
that packages need to run depmod on their own) then I will be happy to
remove it from the m-i-t init script.
A while back Debian would only run depmod on boot if it
Hi AJ,
On Monday, 22 May 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Right, but again, why bringing the package with a bad license into the
> > archive first?
>
> Because non-fr
Erik Steffl @ 2006-05-24 (Wednesday), 09:28 (-0700)
> Christoph Berg wrote:
> >No, please have a look at http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/drupal.html.
>
> what exactly I would be looking for? I know that drupal has a formal
> maintainer. However no work has been done on drupal for a long time
>
On Wednesday 24 May 2006 22:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 24 May 2006, MJ Ray outgrape:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Anthony Towns already mentioned: 'both James and Jeroen had
> > extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were
> > actually okay' so surely there
On 24 May 2006, MJ Ray outgrape:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [...] I refer to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've
>> read the devref since I went through the NM queue. [...]
>
> Then, as you know, Policy contains the instruction: 'When in doubt
> about a copyright, send m
Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Erik Steffl 2006-05-21 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
is drupal debian package effectively orphaned? It is already two
major upgrades (more than a year) behind upstream (and upstream
recommends to upgrade from one version to next so the upgrades to
current might get complicat
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]:
> So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know
> that my own ongoing notion of "best practices" comes from stuff I learned
> long ago plus new ideas discussed on this mailing list, not from the devref.
Well, would
On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:00:34 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
What would happen to people who don't use the Debian kernel packages? In
my ideal world, there would still be the option of running depmod at boot;
at the v
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: network-manager-openvpn
Version : 0.7
Upstream Author : Tim Niemueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.gnome.org/projects/NetworkManager/
* License : GPL
Programmi
On 5/22/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
The questions asked weren't "Is this okay for non-free?" it's "Did you
mean or when you wrote ?". The answers to those latter
questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring
it just wastes everyone's time.
If the FAQ weren't
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> > > myself examined the license before a
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: umview
Version : 0.3
Upstream Author : View-OS team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/view-os
* License : GPL
Description : A user space
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 12:10:43AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Sure we could just have disclosed the license to -legal beforehand,
> but then Sun probably would never talk to us about doing things like
> this one again and just tend to OpenSUSE or some other community
> distributino next time
BDY.RTF
Description: RTF file
Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 20:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
Please go ahead. Anything relying on it is buggy anyway.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Tue, May 23 2006, 08:52:10PM]:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
only needs to walk trough the directories and stat the files without
reading them.
Ed
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:21:53AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> There is nothing preferable about it. Stop targets *are* to exit with
> status 0 if the service is already stopped.
>
> The fact that Debian policy still has this as a "should" clause is just
> cruft that needs to be a
Selon Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Debian policy says:
>
> | 8.2 Run-time support programs
> |
> | If your package has some run-time support programs which use the
> | shared library you must not put them in the shared library
> | package. If you do that then you won't be able to ins
Dalton,
P2P Sports Betting Software May Change Casino Sports Betting
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA - UBA Technology Inc. (UBTA), has entered
into initial negotiations to install its proprietary betting exchange
software in traditional land-based casinos.
Read the whole story: http://br.geocitie
> "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure the sections need clarification, inasmuch as
> they do not really apply to setools. I might clarify that 8.2 is
> meant for packages that provide shared libraries for general use by
> other package developers, and it im
> * Andreas Barth:
> > Why that? It would only affect packages that (correctly or wrongly)
> > also depend on libdb4.2. (And libdb4.2 unfortunatly doesn't have
> > versioning, otherwise, it wouldn't be any issue; lidb4.3 and libdb4.4
> > are better in that regard.)
>
> Berkeley DB 4.2 was compiled
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:44:50 -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
> FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
> their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
> communities will only grow over time. I
* Andreas Barth:
> Why that? It would only affect packages that (correctly or wrongly) also
> depend on libdb4.2. (And libdb4.2 unfortunatly doesn't have versioning,
> otherwise, it wouldn't be any issue; lidb4.3 and libdb4.4 are better in
> that regard.)
Berkeley DB 4.2 was compiled such that ev
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:39:36AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> Debconf is over now, so I fully expect the NEW queue to be handled again
>> as good as it used to be in a few weeks. Which would hopefully mean that
>> emile, a package that I uploaded and which is stuck in N
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] I refer
> to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've read the devref since I
> went through the NM queue. [...]
Then, as you know, Policy contains the instruction:
'When in doubt about a copyright, send mail to debian-legal@lists.debian.org'
a
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 16:52, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> I don't think the chance of "nutcase sueing Sun for Bad Applet" is any
>> more relevant or likely than the chance of "nutcase sueing Debian for
>> bad browser". I really don't see how it makes the licens
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is
> > three times the
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'd really rather stick with the upstream name,
> Why not ask upstream WHY they are misnaming the library?
> libxml-security-c++ is a perfectly ok and valid name...
I'll ask, but again, this is
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd really rather stick with the upstream name, particularly since this is
Why not ask upstream WHY they are misnaming the library? libxml-security-c++
is a perfectly ok and valid name...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:54:13PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the
> > upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't...
> The Debian developer refer
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the
> upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't...
The Debian developer reference states in section 5.1. "New packages"
the process to add new packag
Hi,
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:27:10AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:58:18PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Oh, and the impression that pushing non-free packages in after several
> > > hours has a high priority, while (license-wise) simple packages linger
> > > for
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:39:36AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Debconf is over now, so I fully expect the NEW queue to be handled again
> as good as it used to be in a few weeks. Which would hopefully mean that
> emile, a package that I uploaded and which is stuck in NEW as well, will
> be acce
On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:13:47 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Thie simplest solution in this case would be if Sun simply attached
> > the FAQ as an addendum to the licence rather than stating it's not
> > legally binding.
>
> Yeah. Not disa
Hello My Name is Gerard McGovern
I have seen your
webpagehttp://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2006/debian-wnpp-200601/threads.html
and I understand that you have been involved with MLM are you still
involved10/03/1999
I see that you still have1601 web pages linked to yours
were those people in
Hello My Name is Gerard McGovern
I have seen your
webpagehttp://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2006/01/msg00312.html and I
understand that you have been involved with MLM are you still
involved10/03/1999
I see that you still have1601 web pages linked to yours
were those people in your network
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Michael Prokop wrote:
> Yes, for sure. But IMO it's the initscript which should make sure
> that the daemon is stopped when running the stop-rule.
Most try, to the point of doing a kill -9 if the daemon doesn't go away
easily. But if it doesn't die even with a kill -9 (say, k
Michael Prokop wrote:
> But /etc/init.d/$PACKAGE is executed only, if "[ -x "`which
> invoke-rc.d 2>/dev/null`" ]" fails. And I still don't see what's the
Ah, I entirely misunderstood your intention. I thought you want to get rid
of this if condition and execute the commands one after the other.
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20060523 21:59]:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > way of life, I'd just like to make sure that removing packages
> > always works.
> If you are going to ignore a failing initscript in order to remove a
> package, and that leaves a
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Michael Prokop wrote:
> way of life, I'd just like to make sure that removing packages
> always works.
If you are going to ignore a failing initscript in order to remove a
package, and that leaves a daemon running, then expect to get a very nasty
bug report...
--
"One disk
40 matches
Mail list logo
