-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Serafeim.
>>
>> > archivemail
>
> Anibal, funny as it may sound, would you mind letting archivemail to me? You
> can still have the rest :) (or else just ignore this email)
Ok, go ahead.
archivemail is written on Python. I'm expert on C/C++.
I
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
That already has a problem: How to define "large"? One way, which we
chose for now, is simply "everything > 50MB".
Random thought: some architecture-dependent -dbg packages are also > 50 MB in
size. Shouldn't they get some special treatment, too?
--
Alexander E. Patrako
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/25/08 15:54, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: daptup
> Version : 0.2
> Upstream Author : Eugene V. Lyubimkin <[EMAIL PROTECT
Le Mon, May 26, 2008 at 02:02:52AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> On 11397 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > I have a question about the sources: for big datasets, would it be
> > acceptable that the source package does not contain the data itself but
> > only a script to download it? Sinc
On 11397 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I have a question about the sources: for big datasets, would it be
> acceptable that the source package does not contain the data itself but
> only a script to download it? Since the source packages are not to be
> autobuilt and the binary packages only
On 11396 March 1977, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> What about going the 'b.)' way but define it as a RG (or even RC) with some
> other changes to policy (like requiring big data package's source packages
> to be arch-indep and not build anything else but the data packages).
No, as already written in
Le Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:18:01PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> Basic Problem: "What to do with large data packages?"
>
> That already has a problem: How to define "large"? One way, which we
> chose for now, is simply "everything > 50MB".
(...)
> - It is an own archive, so it needs full sou
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> What about going the 'b.)' way but define it as a RG (or even RC) with some
>> other changes to policy (like requiring big data package's source packages
>> to be arch-indep and not build anything else but the data p
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm getting into a crazy situation with this lintian warning:
>
> patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff
>
> I've removed one diversion from libgpewidget but I still need to use one
> and this requires a patch to configure.ac using dpatch. This then
> r
severity 482921 important
thanks
Hi,
* Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080526 00:06]:
> Aurelien Jarno writes:
> > Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > > Package: glibc
> > > Version: 2.7-11
> > > Severity: important
> > >
> > > Please build libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages; there is no
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 482921 important
Bug#482921: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
Severity set to `important' from `serious'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system adminis
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> clone 482902 -1
Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
Bug 482902 cloned as bug 482921.
> reassign -1 general
Bug#482921: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
Bug reassigned from package `glibc' to `g
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>> Are you sure that the current sync scripts make that possible and won't
>> sync everything unless explicitely stated differently and will keep
>> working without intervention for the time being? Because otherwise it's
>> like Joerg said not an option IM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luk Claes wrote:
>
> Are you sure that the current sync scripts make that possible and won't
> sync everything unless explicitely stated differently and will keep
> working without intervention for the time being? Because otherwise it's
> like Joerg s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: daptup
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Eugene V. Lyubimkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sf.net/projects/daptup
* License : GPLv3
Programming Lang: Bash
D
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What about going the 'b.)' way but define it as a RG (or even RC) with some
> other changes to policy (like requiring big data package's source packages
> to be arch-indep and not build anything else but the data packages).
>
> That way the transition could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
What about going the 'b.)' way but define it as a RG (or even RC) with some
other changes to policy (like requiring big data package's source packages
to be arch-indep and not build anything else but the data packages).
That way the transiti
Joerg Jaspert skrev:
- Packages in main need to be installable and not cause their (indirect)
reverse build-depends to FTBFS in the absence of data.debian.org.
If the data is necessary for the package to work and there is a small
dataset (like 5 to 10 MB) that can be reasonably substitu
On Sun, 25 May 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:07:56PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > So I am running the relevant autotools at build time but I still get the
> > warning.
>
> If you run autotools at build time you should also ensure that the
> changes which autotools make
Hi,
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:18:01PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> So assume we go for solution c. (which is what happens unless someone
> has a *very* strong reason not to, which I currently can't imagine) we
> will setup a seperate archive for this. This will work the same way as
> our main a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/25/08 13:03, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> What's an extra few MB plus parsing overhead when "everyone" has
>> 250GB HDDs, multi-core 64-bit CPUs and 2+GB RAM?
>>
>
> Huh?. Why commit "g
Hi,
one important question lately has been "What should we do with large
packages containing data", like game data, huge icon/wallpaper sets,
some science data sets, etc. Naturally, this is a decision ftpmaster has
to take, so here are our thoughts on it to facilitate discussion and see
if we miss
David Watson wrote:
> I'll take rss2email if no one else wants to.
Ok, you have it. Good luck!
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> What's an extra few MB plus parsing overhead when "everyone" has
> 250GB HDDs, multi-core 64-bit CPUs and 2+GB RAM?
>
Huh?. Why commit "good" machines to the landfill?
--
Chris.
==
"One, with God, is always a majority, but many
First of all, I did not get it in my first reply that you spoke from a
translaters point of view. I just have a very limited view on
translation work, so my arguments may not be correct.
Am Sonntag, den 25.05.2008, 16:05 +0200 schrieb Fernando Cerezal:
> How can a program know if
>
> * A descrip
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 13:19 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> If you run autotools at build time you should also ensure that the
>> changes which autotools makes are reverted in the clean target. This
>> means that your diff doesn't get cluttered with automat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/25/08 08:34, David Paleino wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:29:56 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> What's an extra few MB plus parsing overhead when "everyone" has
>> 250GB HDDs, multi-core 64-bit CPUs and 2+GB RAM?
>
> Well, and what about !i386,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: arora
Version : 0.2~git-of-the-day
Upstream Author : Benjamin Meyer
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/arora
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C++ / Qt
Description :
2008/5/25 Manuel Prinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am Sonntag, den 25.05.2008, 14:40 +0200 schrieb Fernando Cerezal:
>> I'm thinking about advantages and disadvantages of write the
>> description of the packages using XML.
>
> I like XML but it's a huge pain to write by hand. The current format is
> eas
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:46:22AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 02:40:07PM +0200, Fernando Cerezal wrote:
> > I'm thinking about advantages and disadvantages of write the
> > description of the packages using XML.
>
> Personally, I would hate this. I've written too ma
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 08:29 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > 13 x 10 x 20,000 = bloat.
>
> It would probably be more like one paragraph per .
Still far too much.
> > Now that really is out of the question - please remember that the
> > packages descriptions go into the dpkg database which is alread
On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:29:56 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> What's an extra few MB plus parsing overhead when "everyone" has
> 250GB HDDs, multi-core 64-bit CPUs and 2+GB RAM?
Well, and what about !i386, !amd64 and !powerpc ? ;)
--
. ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/25/08 08:17, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 15:07 +0200, Fernando Cerezal wrote:
[snip]
>
>> A description with lines
>
> Is an extra 13 characters per line, per description, per package.
>
> 13 x 10 x 20,000 = bloat.
It would p
Am Sonntag, den 25.05.2008, 14:40 +0200 schrieb Fernando Cerezal:
> I'm thinking about advantages and disadvantages of write the
> description of the packages using XML.
I like XML but it's a huge pain to write by hand. The current format is
easy to read, easy to write and easy to parse. This is i
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 15:07 +0200, Fernando Cerezal wrote:
> 2008/5/25 Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 02:40:07PM +0200, Fernando Cerezal wrote:
> Yes, you are right. However, currently the translations of the Debian
> website are being done by hand, so there is
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 14:01 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 13:19 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:07:56PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> > > So I am running the relevant autotools at build time but I still get the
> > > warning.
> >
> > If you run au
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 08:46 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 02:40:07PM +0200, Fernando Cerezal wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm thinking about advantages and disadvantages of write the
> > description of the packages using XML.
>
> Personally, I would hate this. I've written t
2008/5/25 Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 02:40:07PM +0200, Fernando Cerezal wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm thinking about advantages and disadvantages of write the
>> description of the packages using XML.
>
> Personally, I would hate this. I've written too many ant bui
Twas brillig at 14:40:07 25.05.2008 UTC+02 when Fernando Cerezal did gyre and
gimble:
FC> I think using XML the descriptions can be rendered in different
FC> form for text and graphical tools.
Same for current format. Just use perl/python/whatever instead of XSLT.
FC> The URL of the descript
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 13:19 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:07:56PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > So I am running the relevant autotools at build time but I still get the
> > warning.
>
> If you run autotools at build time you should also ensure that the
> changes which
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 02:40:07PM +0200, Fernando Cerezal wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm thinking about advantages and disadvantages of write the
> description of the packages using XML.
Personally, I would hate this. I've written too many ant build.xml
scripts to think that writing XML by hand is even a
Hello,
I'm thinking about advantages and disadvantages of write the
description of the packages using XML.
I think using XML the descriptions can be rendered in different form
for text and graphical tools. The URL of the descriptions can be real
links and, even and the project thinks it is appropia
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:07:56PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> So I am running the relevant autotools at build time but I still get the
> warning.
If you run autotools at build time you should also ensure that the
changes which autotools makes are reverted in the clean target. This
means that
I'm getting into a crazy situation with this lintian warning:
patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff
I've removed one diversion from libgpewidget but I still need to use one
and this requires a patch to configure.ac using dpatch. This then
regenerates configure and aclocal.m4.
I think patch-sys
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 06:44:39PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 06:03:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > So, basically, I welcome your proposal, but IMO its simplest and most
> > effective implementation would be: ``packages scoring high in popcon
> > have to
47 matches
Mail list logo
