Hi,
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:46:11 +0200
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Agreed, that would be nice. While this is something to consider for
> > squeeze release goals, how do we solve the problem for lenny?
>
> I see no proper fix, except using an /etc/default file, which is ugly.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you see a particular problem with requiring that?
>
> Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the
> same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can not be
> built with the software contained in main.
De
"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I fully agree with you in principle. The 'restricted' idea is basically
>> a convenience service for our users and distributors.
>
> Such convenience services already exist (debian-multimedia.org,
> debian-unofficial.org), Debian doesn't need to start one
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fully agree with you in principle. The 'restricted' idea is basically
> a convenience service for our users and distributors.
Such convenience services already exist (debian-multimedia.org,
debian-unofficial.org), Deb
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:30:12PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Matthew, and out of personal curiosity (as I will probably continue to
> use this, at least until something better comes along): What does the
> danger amount to? Say, a random lock-up? Or will it lead to hardware
> malfunction (or sho
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps instead of trying to come with a hierarchical classification,
> we should simply expose what we know about patents and any other
> distribution issue in a machine readable way.
>
> What a bout a debian/distribution or debian/copyright2 file whi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the
> same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can
> not be built with the software contained in main.
s/can not be built/can not be built and installed/
It's nece
On Tue, Oct 07 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Didier Raboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
>>
>> This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
>
> This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and
Le mardi 07 octobre 2008 à 17:13 -0400, Felipe Sateler a écrit :
> Wasn't dpkg supposed to use max(shlibs, build-depends)? The rationale, IIRC,
> is
> because a particular program might rely on a specific bugfix in a given
> version
> of the library. Since bugfixes don't cause shlibs bumps, this
Matthew Garrett dijo [Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 02:35:11AM +0100]:
> Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Keeps the fan from spinning constantly in the noisy Acer Aspire
> > One. Provides also tools to query several machine-specific EC
> > registers
>
> Be careful with this - it can't perfo
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:02:11 +0100
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > britney only considers installability, not buildability.
>>
>> Maybe it should - after all, in the phase prior to a release, the
>> ability to build the entire release from source *is* impo
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm assuming there are records of unblocks beyond the mailing list
> archive?
The release team's hint files are available:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/
In this case:
testing/hints/luk:unblock gossip/1:0.31-1
We move hints that were done
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:02:11 +0100
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > britney only considers installability, not buildability.
>
> Maybe it should - after all, in the phase prior to a release, the
> ability to build the entire release from source *is* important. To me,
> this is precisel
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:42:07 +0100
"Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 20:21 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > $ rmadison libloudmouth1-0
> >
> > libloudmouth1-0 |1.4.0-1 | testing | alpha, amd64, arm,
> > armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> - introduce a new section 'patented'
> - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
> - source packages in 'main' may produce binaries in 'patented'
> - binary packages in 'main' must not depend on packages in 'patented'
> -
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 20:21 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> $ rmadison libloudmouth1-0
>
> libloudmouth1-0 |1.4.0-1 | testing | alpha, amd64, arm,
> armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
> libloudmouth1-0 |1.4.2-1 | unstable | alpha, amd64, arm,
> armel,
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:25:12 +0200
Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From #501423: FTBFS in lenny: Unsatisfiable build-dependency:
libloudmouth1-dev(inst 1.4.0-1 ! >= wanted 1.4.1)
> Am Dienstag, den 07.10.2008, 18:57 +0100 schrieb Neil Williams:
> > Migration to testing happens auto
Michael Banck dijo [Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 06:14:23PM +0200]:
> > Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160 juristrictions
> > on
> > this planet (to apply for this category)?
>
> "How do you tell if a piece of software violates a patent? Run wc -l on
> the source; if the numbe
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
>
> I dont think we should support the obsolete, useless & wrong patent
> system by doing this.
I fully agree with you in pr
Didier Raboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you see a particular problem with requiring that?
> Yes...
>
> If I am in a country where the usage of the "patented" repo is forbidden for
> whatever reason, I could (legally) not rebuild the whole "main" myself.
"Usage" is generally not the problem
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Didier Raboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
>>
>> This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
>
> This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and 'patented' to
> the
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Debian GNOME Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>libgda3 (U)
>
> libgda3 has been fixed in unstable with high urgency. Needs unblocking.
unblocked
>> Debian Python Modules Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>matplotlib
>
> Seems to be fixed in t-p-u, but hasn't mig
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:54:22PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
>
> Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160 juristrictions
> on
> this
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impaired software
> such as libdvdcss.
Presumably they couldn't be distributed from ftp-master (which is in the USA)?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/Pau
Hi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
I dont think we should support the obsolete, useless & wrong patent system by
doing this.
Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160 juristrictio
Didier Raboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
>
> This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and 'patented' to
their sources.list, right.
Do you see a
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific "patented"
>>> section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in
>>> countries where it is not a problem.
>>
>> While we are at it, would be nice
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific "patented"
>> section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in
>> countries where it is not a problem.
>
> While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impair
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 03:44:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> It has been already suggested to resurrect the non-us archive for such
> cases, but this is not even necessary, since it is not a problem for us
> to distribute such software from the US.
>
> At the very least, we could distrib
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 09:03, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Unclaimed patents are precisely the reason we don't have any MPEG encoders
> > in Debian (see http://techliberation.com/2006/05/11/mpeg-patent-thicket/).
>
> Wrong.
Le mercredi 08 octobre 2008 à 00:07 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
> >
> > a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisation
> > b) debian does not sell hardware
>
> Many recipients of
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daigo Moriwaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libeventmachine-ruby
Version : 0.12.2
Upstream Author : Francis Cianfrocca
* URL : http://rubyeventmachine.com/
* License : GPL, Ruby's License
Programming Lang: Ruby
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 21:28:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>xorg (U)
#500228 and #500231 (which want to be merged, I think) shouldn't be RC,
I'll downgrade.
>xorg-server (U)
>xserver-xorg-video-glint (U)
>
#488669 and #500358 are the same, kernel changes in the sparc64 pci code
b
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The best reference for patent enforcments I have is
>> http://www.mpegla.com/news.cfm.
>>
>> However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
>>
>> a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisat
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The best reference for patent enforcments I have is
> http://www.mpegla.com/news.cfm.
>
> However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
>
> a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisation
> b) debian does not sell hardware
Many rec
Am Montag, den 06.10.2008, 21:28 +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> On 06/10/08 at 18:44 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
[..]
> Debian XML/SGML Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>sgml-base
http://bugs.debian.org/477751 - Some time ago I already asked to tag
this bug `lenny-ignore' but did not ge
Hi Reinhard,
* Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-07 13:09]:
> Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >xine-lib (#498243)
>
> Needs help. That report is a security report from ocert. The full report
> can be seen here: http://www.oce
Hi Reinhard,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 12:11, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Can you please backup that claim?
Well, no and yes ;-)
You confirm it yourself, but then say its not comparible. I only said that
those patents are being enforced, which they are. (I didnt mention whether
thats comparible
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 12:11:49PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >>acpid (U)
> >
> > AFAICT acpid in Lenny is RC-bug free. But maybe the list was created before
> > the package migrated.
>
> Hm? It was you who upgraded the severity of #487815 to serious just six
> days ago. Which was correct
Sorry, your email containing an attachment can not be distributed through
Internet.Com discussion lists.
The only acceptable format for posting to isp-australia is ASCII
Text, with NO attachments.
Please, re-send your post to continue your discussion on
isp-australia.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 09:03, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Unclaimed patents are precisely the reason we don't have any MPEG encoders
>> in Debian (see http://techliberation.com/2006/05/11/mpeg-patent-thicket/).
>
> Wrong. We dont have mpeg encoders in De
On 2008-10-07 11:26 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>acpid (U)
>
> AFAICT acpid in Lenny is RC-bug free. But maybe the list was created before
> the package migrated.
Hm? It was you who upg
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>acpid (U)
AFAICT acpid in Lenny is RC-bug free. But maybe the list was created before the
package migrated.
>citadel (U)
Unstable version is fine but waiting for migration.
Michael
--
Thomas Viehmann schreef:
> Hi,
>
> Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>>> Next try: http://194.39.182.225/debian/xen/try4.
>> Hmm.. these packages are not available anymore?
>> URL changed?
> Your local Debian sid mirror, e.g. package
> xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64.
Strange, I don't see the packages
> win32-loader
Waiting for loadlin, waiting for yasm, for which a patch just got
commited upstream.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
Luk Claes schrieb:
>>> Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>gem
>> This was fixed by an NMU, but can't transition to testing due to dependency
>> on
>> libquicktime 2:1.0.3+debian-2. What to do in cases like this?
>
> Contact the release team to see if it's possible to unbl
Hi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 09:03, Robert Millan wrote:
> Unclaimed patents are precisely the reason we don't have any MPEG encoders
> in Debian (see http://techliberation.com/2006/05/11/mpeg-patent-thicket/).
Wrong. We dont have mpeg encoders in Debian because those patents are being
enforce
> Debian GNOME Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>libgda3 (U)
libgda3 has been fixed in unstable with high urgency. Needs unblocking.
> Debian Python Modules Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>matplotlib
Seems to be fixed in t-p-u, but hasn't migrated to testing yet. [1] says
"Unblock request by lu
Le lundi 06 octobre 2008 à 21:28 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>linux-2.6 (U)
There are old talks about a possible solution, but none of the
maintainers is answering.
> Dave Beckett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cairo
Fix is ready, but needs d-i team appr
* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-06 21:28]:
> Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>octave-vrml
Fixed in version 1.0.6-3, which was uploaded to unstable and unblocked by
luk. Should be in testing in three days from now.
--
Rafael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 18:10 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 06:02:17PM +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> > The page could have an "Expert" subpage (or let's name it kamikaze, so
> > people don't get impressed by the name ;)
>
> Frankly, I'm not sure why to have distributions in
On 07/10/08 at 06:34 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 05:56 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 06/10/08 at 18:36 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >firmware-nonfree (U)
> > > >mklibs (U)
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:08:38PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote:
>
> You're absolutely right, it's a clone, albeit one officially endorsed by
> those being cloned. My package description is sourced from a
> debian-multimedia package, I'll post a replacement to the ITP shortly.
Thanks.
> However, one
53 matches
Mail list logo
