On Mon August 27 2007 05:33:05 pm Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 00:17:40 Bruce Sass, vous avez écrit :
> > On Mon August 27 2007 04:05:24 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > And
> > > it's no way we will accept the statically linked version in
> > > Debian.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
>
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 23:54 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting "Roberto C. Sánchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> > What professional software engineering experience do you have on large
> > software projects that qualifies you to determine what software "is
> > likely to need little testing
Packaging for Debian != testing for bugs with Debian. They are two
independent activities.
Then it appears I have a flawed assumption about the amount of
effort a software company would place into testing the software they
have packaged for a Linux version. Thank you for the enlightment. :)
Quoting "Roberto C. Sánchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
releases.
What professional software engineering experience do you have on large
software projects that qualifies you to determine what software "is
likely to need little testing"?
In addition I never said that I should be the person to make
Quoting "Roberto C. Sánchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
What professional software engineering experience do you have on large
software projects that qualifies you to determine what software "is
likely to need little testing"?
Good point. The answer is not much,
Additionally, what insight do you h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> To reiterate what I just said in a reply, as it is somewhat important. I
> believe some bugs are being missed in the less used packages. I have
> found several already since I began working on my Deb-Ice project. I
> assume that since the packages are not getting as muc
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:12:33PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting "Roberto C. Sánchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >The same
> >exact thing could be said of Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and any of a
> >number of other packages which received tremendous testing upstream.
> >None of them have
To reiterate what I just said in a reply, as it is somewhat
important. I believe some bugs are being missed in the less used
packages. I have found several already since I began working on my
Deb-Ice project. I assume that since the packages are not getting as
much testing these are slippi
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:17:38PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ok. In the event of a piece of software which is likely to need little
> testing and be updated upstream several times between releases (such
> as Opera) how would this best be handled? Should one wait until a few
> month
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/27/07 22:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> That is, all software that makes it to into testing should be
>> stable and release quality and ready for testing with *the rest of the
>> packages slated for the next release*.
>
> Ok. In the event of a
That is, all software that makes it to into testing should be
stable and release quality and ready for testing with *the rest of the
packages slated for the next release*.
Ok. In the event of a piece of software which is likely to need little
testing and be updated upstream several times betwe
Quoting "Roberto C. Sánchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The same
exact thing could be said of Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and any of a
number of other packages which received tremendous testing upstream.
None of them have empty pages on bugs.d.o.
Are these packages which have been packaged upstream f
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:45:12PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> >Then you *still* don't understand what "Testing" means in the Debian.
> >
> Ok, sorry. I did not realize Debian had assigned a new meaning to
> the word testing ;)
> So then
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:15:48PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >Please learn what the 'testing' branch of Debian is for.
> >
> >http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives#s-testing>
> >
> Let me clarify a little bit. I can understand the ne
Quoting Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Then you *still* don't understand what "Testing" means in the Debian.
Ok, sorry. I did not realize Debian had assigned a new meaning to
the word testing ;)
So then does it need to spend time in unstable, as it is not
unstable, or should it go dir
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/27/07 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> I do not see the need to do anything other than sign the package and
>>> drop it into the repository, as it is already completely functional
>>> for Debian.
>>
>> I encourage you to try it then. You'l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/27/07 21:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> Please learn what the 'testing' branch of Debian is for.
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives#s-testing>
>>
> Let me clarify a little bit. I
Quoting Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Please learn what the 'testing' branch of Debian is for.
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives#s-testing>
Let me clarify a little bit. I can understand the need for a
evaluation before a piece of software such as this goes into Debian.
Do
I do not see the need to do anything other than sign the package and
drop it into the repository, as it is already completely functional
for Debian.
I encourage you to try it then. You'll learn a great deal about just
what *is* required to get a package working properly with the tens of
thous
Quoting Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Please learn what the 'testing' branch of Debian is for.
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives#s-testing>
Yes I understand what it is "for". It does however seem that in at
least a few - not all - but a few instances it could be pointless.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I do not see the need to do anything other than sign the package and
> drop it into the repository, as it is already completely functional
> for Debian.
I encourage you to try it then. You'll learn a great deal about just
what *is* required to get a package working pr
* Pierre Habouzit
* Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:22:05 +0200
>
[]
>> Yes, that sounds like a good idea. It might also be interesting to not
>> put those into the control.tar.gz, but directly into the deb, so that it
>> can easily be extracted.
>
> OTOH that sucks because it would mean that we have t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hmm, seems odd that it should need testing, runs great on my machine
> and thousands of others. Perhaps we are a little overzealous, no?
Please don't top post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting>
Please learn what the 'testing' branch of Debian is for.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:57:07AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> It is not free software. I had a quick peek at the license in the .deb
> available from Opera's website, and it would not seem that they allow
> other parties to distribute the software, therefore Debian cannot do so.
That shouldn't
ma, 2007-08-27 kello 13:57 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] kirjoitti:
> Why is the Opera browser not included in Debian?
>
> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
> Albert Einstein
It is not free software. I had a quick peek at the license in the .deb
available from Opera's
Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 00:17:40 Bruce Sass, vous avez écrit :
> On Mon August 27 2007 04:05:24 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > And
> > it's no way we will accept the statically linked version in Debian.
>
> Why is that?
Quoting [1]:
External libraries
Many programs make use of external libraries
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:14:35PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of debian
> patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would one need to
> patch it with all of the included debian patches when building a custom
> k
On Mon August 27 2007 04:05:24 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> And
> it's no way we will accept the statically linked version in Debian.
Why is that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:17:06PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> Ok. Sow how are security updates done in Debian? Do you just patch
> >>the old software or do you test and release a new version. At least no
> >>one has found the new bugs yet, a few days delay could be big trouble.
> >
> >
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kees Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libpoe-component-sslify-perl
Version : 0.08
Upstream Author : Apocalypse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~apocal/POE-Component-SSLify-0.08/
* License : Artis
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Oleksandr Moskalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: labelnation
Version : 1.170
Upstream Author : Karl Fogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.red-bean.com/labelnation/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Pytho
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> So why waste all the mirror space and bandwith for something rather
> useless?
Naïve approximation follows:
Repacking my local apt cache (227 packages, although some are different
versions of the same one) without md5sums files yields a gain of 980102
bytes = 957.13
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antonio Terceiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libferret-ruby
Version : 0.11.4
Upstream Author : David Balmain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://rubyforge.org/projects/ferret/
* License : MIT/X
Programming Lang: R
Ok. Sow how are security updates done in Debian? Do you just patch
the old software or do you test and release a new version. At least no
one has found the new bugs yet, a few days delay could be big trouble.
http://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion
Quote: Q: How is security handled f
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:35:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Quoting Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:19:14PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I am wondering if you have anything to elaborate with or if that was
> >>just a vague unsubstantiated st
Quoting Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:19:14PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am wondering if you have anything to elaborate with or if that was
just a vague unsubstantiated statement. As Opera frequently releases
security updates packaged for the latest ve
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:19:14PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am wondering if you have anything to elaborate with or if that was
> just a vague unsubstantiated statement. As Opera frequently releases
> security updates packaged for the latest version of Debian I do not see
> what poten
I am wondering if you have anything to elaborate with or if that was
just a vague unsubstantiated statement. As Opera frequently releases
security updates packaged for the latest version of Debian I do not
see what potential problems coud result other than needing to roll out
a new version
I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of
debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would
one need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when
building a custom kernel?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Quoting Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Another problem that would have to be resolved is security support
>> over the lifetime of a Debian stable release. I can see creating a new
>> Debian package if some Debian developer wants to put in the work to
>> better in
Quoting Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Another problem that would have to be resolved is security support
over the >lifetime of a Debian stable release. I can see
creating a new Debian package if some Debian developer wants to put in the
work to better integrate the software into Debian,
Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For non-free software, the sources are not (always) necessary.
> Permission to redistribute is usually sufficient, as Russ has already
> pointed out in this thread.
It's probably also worth noting that this is a necessary but not
sufficient conditi
AAh.
Distribute Opera
Sign up to distribute multiple copies of Opera to your school,
university, company, organization, or on a CD, USB stick etc. Simply
register, agree to the terms in the multiple distribution agreement,
and you are ready to distribute Opera.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
I could give contacting them a shot and see what they say, but
Debian carries more weight then I as an individual do. I suppose it is
not a lot of trouble to download and install, but to say that about
everything creates a lot to download and install.
Quoting "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:32:58PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:44:09PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Yes, it seems that it would belong in non-free. I see nothing about
> >> redistribution mentioned in gthe Opera license. The opera
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 03:21:38PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perhaps Debian could contact Opera about the license, assuming for the
> sake of argument that they have not already done so?
Why don't you do it yourself? Debian as an organization in general doesn't do
much non-free software.
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:44:09PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Yes, it seems that it would belong in non-free. I see nothing about
>> redistribution mentioned in gthe Opera license. The opera EULA states:
>> You are free to use this software on ALL computers.
Unfortunately for general usage of much of the internet one requires
Javascript.
Well, to begin with, FF/IW is not the only browser in Debian. Oddly
enough, I frequently use w3m and elinks and never have trouble with
things like keyboard focus getting screwed up.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Robe
Correct, I am not a Debian developer. I have considered it several
times but have been put off by the amount of documentation. I have to
be able to jump in and do something or I lose interest.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:59:52AM +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>
> Twas brillig at 14:52:05 27.08.2007 UTC-04 when Roberto C. Sánchez did gyre
> and gimble:
>
> RCS> Please indicate how Opera is more free or better than the web browsers
> RCS> already included in Debian.
>
>
> Opera's inte
Perhaps Debian could contact Opera about the license, assuming for
the sake of argument that they have not already done so?
"Use" does not mean "redistribute." If there is not explicit permission
granted to redistribute the Debian packages, Debian cannot do so.
"Everything should be made
Please indicate how Opera is more free or better than the web browsers
already included in Debian.
I did not specify Opera as an example. Opera does perform much
better on older hardware than Iceweasel.
You are also free to properly package it yourself and find a sponsor to
upload it for y
I see. That explains that.
Quoting Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, it seems that it would belong in non-free. I see nothing about
redistribution mentioned in gthe Opera license. The opera EULA states:
You are free to use this software on ALL computers.
"Use"
Twas brillig at 14:52:05 27.08.2007 UTC-04 when Roberto C. Sánchez did gyre and
gimble:
RCS> Please indicate how Opera is more free or better than the web browsers
RCS> already included in Debian.
Opera's interface does not suck from the usability standpoint (hotkeys, properly
working keyboa
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:44:09PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, it seems that it would belong in non-free. I see nothing about
> redistribution mentioned in gthe Opera license. The opera EULA states:
> You are free to use this software on ALL computers.
You are also free to properly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yes, it seems that it would belong in non-free. I see nothing about
> redistribution mentioned in gthe Opera license. The opera EULA states:
> You are free to use this software on ALL computers.
"Use" does not mean "redistribute." If there is not explicit permission
g
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:46:30PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmm, seems odd that it should need testing, runs great on my machine
> and thousands of others. Perhaps we are a little overzealous, no?
>
Ummm, why do you troll like this?
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://peo
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 06:33:18PM +, Jakubo wrote:
>
> $cat /etc/apt/sources.list
>
> deb http://security.debian.org/ testing/updates main contrib
> deb-src http://security.debian.org/ testing/updates main contrib
>
>
> deb ftp://ftp.is.debian.org/debian/ testing main contrib non-free
> de
Hmm, seems odd that it should need testing, runs great on my machine
and thousands of others. Perhaps we are a little overzealous, no?
Quoting Jakubo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:09:17PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Why is the Opera browser not
Yes, it seems that it would belong in non-free. I see nothing about
redistribution mentioned in gthe Opera license. The opera EULA states:
You are free to use this software on ALL computers.
I'll probably get flamed on this but..
I love open-source software but I don't hesitate to use commer
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:09:17PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Why is the Opera browser not included in Debian?
For the very simple reason that Opera is not open source software.
(I do not know why it's not in non-free, but such cases are usually because
the licens
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, I also encountered a strange "bug" : sometimes the md5sums file
> contains MD5 of files that are not shipped. This is printed as a warning
> in my server. If MD5 will become a release goal, this should be
> corrected as well : in case, I will send bug r
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:09:17PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> Why is the Opera browser not included in Debian?
> For the very simple reason that Opera is not open source software.
They do, however, have .debs in their own apt repository.
(I do not know why it's not in non-free, but such case
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Why is the Opera browser not included in Debian?
For the very simple reason that Opera is not open source software.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer
Why is the Opera browser not included in Debian?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Albert Einstein
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thanasis Kinias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: sanduhr
Version : 1.93
Upstream Author : Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://seehuhn.de/pages/sanduhr
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description :
As I report on debian-dpkg in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm proposing to deploy a new dpkg status file parser.
It would be bad if someone installed the new dpkg but then the new
dpkg rejected their status file. I think I've captured the complete
historical syntax as accepted generated by existing dpkg
Felipe Sateler wrote:
> But oldstable has 2.86.ds1-1. I thought that only direct upgrades were
> supported. I guess the conditional is indeed redundant.
It may be, but keeping backwards compatibility in this case can't hurt
much. Although I'd like to hear other opinions on this.
--
·''`.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: g15tools and g15daemon
Version : latest
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://g15tools.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Programming La
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Goswin von Brederlow ha scritto:
> So why waste all the mirror space and bandwith for something rather
> useless?
I did not do statistics; but, knowing how compression works, I would
estimate that the cost of shipping md5sums is ~ 20 bytes for each fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Samuelson ha scritto:
> [Lars Wirzenius]
>> It strikes me that if we want to make it policy, having dpkg generate
>> the checksums upon creating the .deb would be the simplest and best
>> way to do it.
>
> I'd opt for dpkg generating the checksu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefano Zacchiroli ha scritto:
> In an attempt to prevent drift to a well-known counter argument:
> DEBIAN/md5sums (used by debsums) are *not* intended as a mean to counter
> security attacks, since they can be easily altered.
If md5sums become part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Wirzenius ha scritto:
> It strikes me that if we want to make it policy, having dpkg generate
> the checksums upon creating the .deb would be the simplest and best way
> to do it. This way we wouldn't have to change packages to do it, and if
> we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ha scritto:
> Yes, that sounds like a good idea. It might also be interesting to not
> put those into the control.tar.gz, but directly into the deb, so that it
> can easily be extracted.
I do not agree, for two reasons:
1) it i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi
just for the record : "debdelta" uses md5sums (when available) as a way
to speed up delta creation, to rapidly detect if there are any identical
files in the archives. So , yes, I (*) would be happy if md5sums where
always available.
BTW, I also
also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.27.0336 +0200]:
> The only thing Debian-specific here is that DSA is better informed
> than most hosting providers about the horrors of PHP and also less
> likely to support it on project machines than a random hosting
> provider would be.
Th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: jahshaka
Version : 2.0rc4
Upstream Authors: Jah Shaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.jahshaka.org/
* License : GNU GPL 2
Description : Video editing and effects system
This is hardware accelerated
77 matches
Mail list logo
