Re: IPW3945

Hi, On 11/11/06, Jurij Smakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have just updated http://www.wooyd.org/debian/ipw3945-daemon/ with the new version of the package, which I consider to be uploadable quality. If you have a chance, please test it. Unless some major issue will pop up, I'm going to uploa

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMPROVE QA - THE LINTIAN PROGRAM > All discussion about "policy has problems" is really due to lack of > quality assurance work that prevents non-sh-compliant scripts to enter > into the packaging in the first place. If people are sloppy or don't > know ho

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > policy, really -- policy could just take the approach /bin/sh == > bash [...] > > Why don't we do that? Because people wanted to have a > different shell that can serve as /bin/sh. What purpose does it > serve to allow that? We can't, in all hon

Re: BTS Question

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Brian May wrote: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=maint&data=bam%40debian.org&archive=no&version=&dist=unstable > > The first bug listed in the "Outstanding section" is bug > #347813. However, this bug has been closed. > > I suspect that this is because it

BTS Question

Hello, If I go to: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=maint&data=bam%40debian.org&archive=no&version=&dist=unstable The first bug listed in the "Outstanding section" is bug #347813. However, this bug has been closed. I suspect that this is because it was marked as "fixed" in ver

Re: Status of IPW3945 (Was: IPW3945)

On 11/12/06, Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > I think we should wait until the next firmware version is out; > that way we'll avoid the binary only regulatory daemon. Yes, but that could be released too late for inclusion in etch - if it's not too late already :-) I agree comple

Re: Status of IPW3945 (Was: IPW3945)

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:42:17AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: [..] > - daemon is also available publicly from Joachim Reichel's site; Jurij >Smakov ITPed the daemon, and started separate packaging efforts which >he offered for comments as well recently; I've tested the packages of >Juri

Re: Bug#397939: Proposal: Packages must have a working clean target

I demand that Sune Vuorela may or may not have written... > ["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general.] This is a mailing list, not a newsgroup (though it's mirrored as one). Followups should therefore be directed to the list address, not at the newsgroup mirror, particularly

Re: XS-Vcs-field

Hi, in bug #391023, this description of this field is given: +XS-Vcs-* + + (where Vcs is the acronym for Version Control System, + and * stands for one of the Vcs supported by the package + tracking system: bzr, cvs, darcs, + git, hg, svn, tla) + tla is

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 03:50:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Some other thing it does now is that if I file a bug against a > > package before the bts knows about it, it shows up as "in other > > versions" or something. > > You should be hard pressed to be able to actually install packages >

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Nov 12, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One thing I see happening is that replacing bash as /bin/sh > might make script startup ties a bit faster, at the expense of soe > of the built in facilities and extensions present in bash. It will make almost every script run fas

Re: ITP: vala -- Compiler for the GObject type system

Hi Mike,It's my first debian packet submission and I will be looking for help /a mentor. Are you willing to help me?So far, I still get one error with lintian: http://www.paldo.org/pipermail/vala/2006-October/93.htmlI understand that I need to make a multi binary package but I did not find docu

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:15:21PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > http://bugs.debian.org/397925). So the only thing within my ability > > is to change the devscripts bts command so that it behaves in the way > > it used to before the BTS c

Re: ITP: vala -- Compiler for the GObject type system

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:15:42PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > It's my first debian packet submission and I will be looking for help /a > mentor. Are you willing to help me? > So far, I still get one error with lintian: > > http://www.paldo.org/pipermail/va

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Julian Gilbey wrote: > http://bugs.debian.org/397925). So the only thing within my ability > is to change the devscripts bts command so that it behaves in the way > it used to before the BTS change. Could you make it configurable? I like the "show unstable bugs" behaviour fa

Re: Status of IPW3945 (Was: IPW3945)

I demand that David Weinehall may or may not have written... [snip] > I think we should wait until the next firmware version is out; > that way we'll avoid the binary only regulatory daemon. Yes, but that could be released too late for inclusion in etch - if it's not too late already :-) -- | D

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 12:19:30PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:02:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Hi all! > > > > Thinking of changing the default behaviour of the devscripts "bts show" > > (aka "bts bugs") command, and want to ask for opinions before I do so. > [..

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:51:18PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 11:10:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > It is my opinion that we would be better off dumping this > > whole shell specification thing in policy, standardizing on bash, and > > let it go. >

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 11:10:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > It would, at one fell swoop, solve the problem Thomas hinted > at before, about our specification allowing shell to randomly shadow > other commands on the system. (I missed this part in my previous mail) Using /bin/ba

Re: Status of IPW3945 (Was: IPW3945)

On Sunday 12 November 2006 23:15, Evgeni Golov wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:42:17 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote: > > - public packages for the driver may be found on personal web sites > > of various people, I've found Joachim Reichel, Russel Stuart, and > > Stefan Lippers-Hollmann to be providing su

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 11:10:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Why don't we do that? Because people wanted to have a > different shell that can serve as /bin/sh. What purpose does it > serve to allow that? We can't, in all honesty, say that any disk > space is conserved, since bas

Re: Status of IPW3945 (Was: IPW3945)

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:42:17 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote: > - public packages for the driver may be found on personal web sites > of various people, I've found Joachim Reichel, Russel Stuart, and > Stefan Lippers-Hollmann to be providing such packages; I could update > the more recent version based o

Re: Status of IPW3945 (Was: IPW3945)

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:42:17AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: > Hi, > > Here's a short status of IPW3945 in Debian: > IPW3945 needs three things: firmware (binary blob), driver, and daemon > (non-free): > - firmware is in firmware-ipw3945, up-to-date with upstream >(

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 11:10:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [snip] > > It is my opinion that we would be better off dumping this > whole shell specification thing in policy, standardizing on bash, and > let it go. You know, people base embedded systems on Debian. And as long as

Bug#398198: ITP: vala -- Compiler for the GObject type system

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Marc-Andre Lureau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: vala Version : 0.0.5 Upstream Author : Jürg Billeter and Raffaele Sandrini * URL : http://vala.paldo.org * License : LGPL 2.1 Programming Lang: C, Vala Descrip

Re: ITP: vala -- Compiler for the GObject type system

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:09:48PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: wnpp > Owner: "Marc-Andre Lureau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name: vala > Version : 0.0.5 > Upstream Author : Jürg Billeter and Raffaele Sandrini > sa at g

ITP: vala -- Compiler for the GObject type system

Package: wnppOwner: "Marc-Andre Lureau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Severity: wishlist* Package name    : vala  Version : 0.0.5   Upstream Author : Jürg Billeter and Raffaele Sandrini sa at gmx dot ch>* URL : http://vala.paldo.org* License : LGPL 2.1  Programming Lang: C, Vala 

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > When using "bts show package" or going to > "http://bugs.debian.org/package"; we get that behaviour, and I find > both of them annoying. I switched the default to appending dist=untable because it actually tells you which bugs affect unstable; it's far mor

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:02:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Hi all! > > Thinking of changing the default behaviour of the devscripts "bts show" > (aka "bts bugs") command, and want to ask for opinions before I do so. [...] > It now resolves to: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cg

Re: Bug#397939: Proposal: Packages must have a working clean target

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 09:50:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >>> We frown on autogenerated debian/control's for similar >>> reasons, right? >> Yes, but we don't frown upon autogenerated .o files. > Uh... we don't? No, we even ship this huge "gcc" thing whose primary goal is to autogenerate .o

Status of IPW3945 (Was: IPW3945)

Hi, Here's a short status of IPW3945 in Debian: IPW3945 needs three things: firmware (binary blob), driver, and daemon (non-free): - firmware is in firmware-ipw3945, up-to-date with upstream () at version 1.13 in etch/testing; maintained by the Kernel

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Thinking of changing the default behaviour of the devscripts "bts show" > (aka "bts bugs") command, and want to ask for opinions before I do so. Perhaps you can use versions instead? http://bugs.debian.org/foo;version=x.y resolves to pkgreport with p

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Sat November 11 2006 22:10, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > So why not just specify all maintainer scripts just use > /bin/bash? I am not sure. Perhaps because allowing scripts to > specify /bin/sh would allow then to be sped up a trifle when /bin/sh > is a nimbler shell? Is this worth the co

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Why don't we do that? Because people wanted to have a > different shell that can serve as /bin/sh. What purpose does it > serve to allow that? We can't, in all honesty, say that any disk > space is conserved, since bash is essential, it is

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 11:10:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So why not just specify all maintainer scripts just use > /bin/bash? I am not sure. Perhaps because allowing scripts to specify > /bin/sh would allow then to be sped up a trifle when /bin/sh is a > n