Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 06, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn???t
>> use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it
>> is not something like nullmailer or ssmtp.
> Because it's expected from a UNIX sy
Luk Claes wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:06:26PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>>> also sprach Carsten Hey [2009.05.05.1645 +0200]:
>
>>> FWIW, Ubuntu did what I consider the right thing:
>>> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/21235281/mdadm_2.6.7.1-1ubuntu4_2.6.7.1-1ubun
> Aurelien Jarno writes:
> Michael Prokop a écrit :
>> * Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
>>
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor o
John Goerzen wrote:
> Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> John Goerzen wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I, for one, have heard just about enough of "Hey developers, we're doing
>>> $FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up" from people.
>>> I'd like a little bit more along the lines of "Hey developers
Quoting John Goerzen (jgoer...@complete.org):
> So I think the problem here is not that you made a technically bad
> decision. It sounds like you made a good decision. It's how it was
> communicated.
I guess that, in some way, the glibc maintainers wanted to save us
from a probably very long an
Quoting Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org):
> Where do we draw the line for “most situations”? If you want to do
> serious email work, you’ll have to spend some time configuring your
> exim/postfix and install extra components to run with it. If you don’t,
> a trivial configuration will do the tri
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 03:24:13AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 06, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn???t
> > use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it
> > is not something like nullmailer or s
On May 06, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn???t
> use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it
> is not something like nullmailer or ssmtp.
Because it's expected from a UNIX system to be able to deliver mai
Peter Samuelson writes:
> Also, this procedure would be much more reliable if we said, in
> Policy, that maintainer scripts are not allowed to fail if /usr is not
> writable. (mount -o ro, SELinux, chattr +i, NFS root_squash,
> whatever.)
>
> Would you support that policy? I suspect ldconfig wou
Janos Guljas wrote:
> Please package this very handy application.
Do you intend to package it, or do you want somebody else to package it? If the
latter, this should be an RFP and not an ITP:
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
Cheers,
Emilio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 12:14:42AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joerg Jaspert [2009.05.07.0002 +0200]:
> > As much as i like postfix and hate exim: no. If we change, please
> > go to something like nullmailer|ssmtp|whateversimple.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those do
On Mon, 04 May 2009 19:07:18 +0200, Raphael Hertzog
wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Jiří Paleček wrote:
should
almost never happen (except diversion) and the result when it happens
is
Should I read it as "the only legal situation where it returns multiple
packages are diversions (the rest ar
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Janos Guljas
* Package name: python-django-squeeze
Version : 0+git20090142
Upstream Author : Artiom Diomin
* URL : http://github.com/kron4eg/django-squeeze/tree
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Descriptio
On Thu, 07 May 2009, martin f krafft wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those do not do queueing,
> which will break the default assumption that I've seen almost
> everywhere, which is that when sendmail returns, your email is
> getting delivered, or you'll get a DSN.
Nullmailer does.
On Thu May 07 00:38, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > What about the (many) arguments made here about the *other* reasons to
> > have /usr a separate filesystem?
>
> I've nothing against them, I was countering only this precise
> argument. FWIW, I haven't seen that many, though the one about
> read-
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> > - We decide that if you want to mount /usr remotely you are on your
> > own.
> >
> > If we do so, we should stop using "mount /usr remotely" as an
> > argument for keeping /usr as a single filesystem.
> What about the (many) arg
also sprach Joerg Jaspert [2009.05.07.0002 +0200]:
> As much as i like postfix and hate exim: no. If we change, please
> go to something like nullmailer|ssmtp|whateversimple.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those do not do queueing,
which will break the default assumption that I've seen alm
+ Thorsten Alteholz (Wed, 06 May 2009 13:22:53 +0200):
> Hi Adeodato,
Hello, Thorsten (hope it's okay I'm quoting you in public).
> could you please tell me the reason for blocking libtool's transition
> from unstable to testing? I have a few packages that depend on libtool
> but don't want to
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 00:01 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit :
> The default MTA if the one that should work easily for most situations IMHO.
Where do we draw the line for “most situations”? If you want to do
serious email work, you’ll have to spend some time configuring your
exim/postfix and install ext
On 11742 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
> Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix?
As much as i like postfix and hate exim: no. If we change, please go to
something like nullmailer|ssmtp|whateversimple.
--
bye, Joerg
joshk: okay. I've manned a Debian booth before. I n
also sprach Marco d'Itri [2009.05.06.2338 +0200]:
> > Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix?
> Agreed, it's about time.
http://doodle.com/exre35q7ckruyxpx
--
.''`. martin f. krafft Related projects:
: :' : proud Debian developer http://debia
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 23:29 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit :
>> Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix?
>
> Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn’t
> use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 23:38 +0200, Frank Lin PIAT a écrit :
> Interesting. I thought 386 wasn't supported anymore (?)
AFAIK the kernel is able to emulate a 486 when running on a 386.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- fu
Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:21:05 -0500
> John Goerzen wrote:
>
>> I for one would have appreciated it if, before the upload, you had
>> laid out why you're planning to do it here on debian-devel. I don't
>> think you would have met any opposition.
>
> I wouldn't assume th
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 23:29 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit :
> Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix?
Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn’t
use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it
is not something like nul
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I, for one, have heard just about enough of "Hey developers, we're doing
>> $FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up" from people.
>> I'd like a little bit more along the lines of "Hey developers, we
>> really think $FOO i
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 18:14 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> It did strike me as unusual when working from a basis of autotools and
> C/C++ packages. If the -dbg package is more than just debugging
> symbols, should those other parts be in the -dev and leave the
> debugging symbols alone? Is th
I will get in touch with David Watson.
Thank you.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:29 PM, James Vega wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:53:33PM +0200, Janos Guljas wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Janos Guljas
* Package name : python-django-south
An ITP for this was already filed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:21:05 -0500
John Goerzen wrote:
> I for one would have appreciated it if, before the upload, you had
> laid out why you're planning to do it here on debian-devel. I don't
> think you would have met any opposition.
I wouldn't
On May 06, Luk Claes wrote:
> Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix?
Agreed, it's about time.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:53:33PM +0200, Janos Guljas wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Janos Guljas
>
> * Package name: python-django-south
An ITP for this was already filed[0] by David Watson (CCed) a few days
ago. Maybe the two of you could work together on the packag
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:06:26PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Carsten Hey [2009.05.05.1645 +0200]:
>> FWIW, Ubuntu did what I consider the right thing:
>
>> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/21235281/mdadm_2.6.7.1-1ubuntu4_2.6.7.1-1ubuntu5.diff.gz
>
> Well,
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:06:26PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Carsten Hey [2009.05.05.1645 +0200]:
> > Depending on default-mta | mta in a upload to s-p-u does not fix
> > anything since there is no default-mta in stable. This would possibly
> > even break pinning in unexpected w
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Janos Guljas
* Package name: python-django-south
Version : svn
Upstream Author : Andrew Godwin
* URL : http://south.aeracode.org
* License : Apache
Programming Lang: Python
Description : intelligent schema migrat
On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:57:19 +0200 Julien BLACHE
wrote:
> How does "hey developers, we're sick and tired of having to put up
> with Uli, how about you find some new people to maintain glibc in
> Debian" sound like?
It sounds unnecessarily confrontational---it's daring people to disagree
with you
Dear developers,
There is an increased usage of triggers in squeeze and I would like to issue a
word of warning concerning lenny to squeeze upgrade:
Before removing the maintainer script code that that is replaced by the
activation of a trigger, you have to make sure that a suitable version
of th
Hi all,
It is new to me that we should announce changes in packages on
debian-devel. I haven't seen that before for other (key) packages, while
it is very usual to see such announcements on planet.debian.org.
I have decided to add a blog entry after many people asking me on IRC
"What is this thin
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-05-06, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think it's pretty unlikely that *most* Debian machines are done
>> that way. There are a lot better tools for keeping large numbers of
>> systems in sync these days than simple cloning from golden images,
>> and a lot of drawbacks t
On Wed, May 06, 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> (See python-gtk2 for one example. python-all-dbg is small but
> python-numpy-dbg is 15Mb!)
pythonx.y-dbg is ABI incompatible with pythonx.y and we need to bdep on
pythonx.y-dbg to build a -dbg for a python extension -- these are *not*
detached debugg
John Goerzen wrote:
Hi,
> I, for one, have heard just about enough of "Hey developers, we're doing
> $FOO, and it's already been decided, so put up or shut up" from people.
> I'd like a little bit more along the lines of "Hey developers, we
> really think $FOO is a good idea. Here's why. What
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Michael Prokop a écrit :
>> | Debian is switching to EGLIBC
>> |
>> | I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
>> | currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
>> | C Library (GLIBC).
>> | [...]
>>
>> -- http://blog.aure
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:56:20PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
> that everybody is using ad hoc solutions to implement what some people
> are pretending to be properly supported by Debian. I found it not
> defendable, maybe
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 06:11:18PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> Thoughts?
I am going to assume from the lack of responses to this that no one
but the bug submitters care.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:10:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But moving the 32-bit libs to /usr/lib32 does not make us
> standards-conformant on amd64, because the FHS (yuckily) standardized on
> storing the *32-bit* libs in /usr/lib on this architecture, with 64-bit libs
> in /usr/lib64.
Tha
Le 6 mai 09 à 00:30, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a
standalone
/usr?
There had been lots of responses to that.
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via N
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michael Biebl
* Package name: libatasmart
Version : 0.13
Upstream Author : Lennart Poettering
* URL : http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/being-smart.html
* License : LGPLv2+
Programming Lang: C
Description : ATA S.
On Wed, 06 May 2009 18:39:32 +0200
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 17:35 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > Should source packages need to build-depend on debug packages?
>
> When it is needed.
>
> > (See python-gtk2 for one example. python-all-dbg is small but
> > python-nu
* Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Michael Prokop a écrit :
>> * Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Michael Prokop wrote:
> No. Though I think that for essential packages like libc it could be
> worth a public discussion.
In this case there wouldn't be any point of discussing it, I predict
the discussion would simply be "yes", "AOL", "+1", "do it already",
"why
Michael Prokop a écrit :
> * Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
>
>>> Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
>>> I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
>
>> Do all mai
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 17:35 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> Should source packages need to build-depend on debug packages?
When it is needed.
> (See python-gtk2 for one example. python-all-dbg is small but
> python-numpy-dbg is 15Mb!)
python-all-dbg brings python2.[45]-dbg, which makes 48 M
Should source packages need to build-depend on debug packages?
(See python-gtk2 for one example. python-all-dbg is small but
python-numpy-dbg is 15Mb!)
Just curious - is it only python packages that do this?
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp
* Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 =C3=A0 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a =C3=A9crit :
>> Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
>> I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
> Do all maintainers need your approval before
Michael Prokop a écrit :
> | Debian is switching to EGLIBC
> |
> | I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
> | currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
> | C Library (GLIBC).
> | [...]
>
> -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=47
>
> Where did th
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 18:18 +0200, Michael Prokop a écrit :
> Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) took place?
> I can't find anything neither on debian-devel nor on debian-devel-glibc.
Do all maintainers need your approval before switching to another branch
for packages the
| Debian is switching to EGLIBC
|
| I have just uploaded Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) into the archive (it is
| currently waiting in the NEW queue), which will soon replace the GNU
| C Library (GLIBC).
| [...]
-- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=47
Where did this decission (and the discussion around it) t
On Tue, 05 May 2009, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
> forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
I wonder what these are, and I hope you will start a separate thread with
that information.
> So, does anybody still see reasons
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 08:57 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> Also, this procedure would be much more reliable if we said, in Policy,
> that maintainer scripts are not allowed to fail if /usr is not writable.
> (mount -o ro, SELinux, chattr +i, NFS root_squash, whatever.)
>
> Would you suppor
Okay, again; waldi told me there are missing information,
and that debian-de...@lists.d.o has to be Cc’d.
Package name: php-perl (Binary: php5-perl)
Version:1.0.0
Upstream Author:Dmitry Stogov
Licence:PHP 3.0 (upstream), GPL (packaging)
Language:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:31:23PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Anyhow, *you* don't understand the problem and you are probably the
> only one thinking I'm selling vapor. From other people's replies I
> conclude that the problem is quite clear and my vapor was so concrete
> that others hinte
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mathieu Parent
* Package name: ansel1
Version : 1.0
Upstream Authors: Chuck Hagenbuch
Michael J. Rubinsky
* URL : http://horde.org/ansel/
* License : GPL2
Programming Lang: PHP
Description :
Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> are there any plans to adopt
> https://code.launchpad.net/vmbuilder
> for Debian?
> Being able to create ec2, vmware or similar images easily would be nice to
> have
> for Debian, too.
Hi Bernd,
There is this:
"On-demand Cloud Computing with Amazon EC2 and Euc
Hi,
are there any plans to adopt
https://code.launchpad.net/vmbuilder
for Debian?
Being able to create ec2, vmware or similar images easily would be nice to have
for Debian, too.
Cheers,
Bernd
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EA
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
But system administration is per definition ad hoc solution.
This is our power. Why we give sources? Also to allow us
to tweak debian.
This is a utterly poor argument.
I can easily twist it against
[Stefano Zacchiroli]
> The trick of fiddling the dpkg database on the client machine and
> then run "dpkg --configure -a" there is indeed nice. But again,
> requesting our users to do that, potentially messing up with the
> dpkg database, is IMO not something we can call being properly
>
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
A few side notes:
* everybody overlooked the subtle theoretical problem that our
maintainer scripts can potentially do *everything* on the file
system and *everywhere*, and that they are written in a Turing
complete language (shell script). This means that you can
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> But system administration is per definition ad hoc solution.
> This is our power. Why we give sources? Also to allow us
> to tweak debian.
This is a utterly poor argument.
I can easily twist it against you by saying "why we gi
On Wed, 06 May 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Of the two one:
>
> - We decide that mounting /usr remotely is a Debian goal.
>
> If we do so, the mechanisms to make it work should not be as ad hoc
> as this thread as hinted. We should provide a package explicitly
> made to make this work
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:38:39AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Simple.
Sure, that's precisely what I'd call being properly supported in
Debian.
In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
that everybody is using ad hoc solutions to implement
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:38:39AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Simple.
Sure, that's precisely what I'd call being properly supported in
Debian.
In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
that everybody is using ad hoc solutions to implement what some people
are pretend
On May 05, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This is false for Ubuntu. Not only is it supported, but significant effort
> was put into *fixing* a /usr-as-separate-mount bug in Ubuntu 9.04 as
> pertains to wpasupplicant.
You may want to discuss this with Keybuk then, because he still
disagrees.
--
ciao,
Em Qua, 2009-05-06 às 00:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli escreveu:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
> > > /usr?
> > There had been lots of responses to that.
> Yes, the most repeated argument h
Twas brillig at 17:09:45 06.05.2009 UTC+05 when r...@researchut.com did gyre
and gimble:
RRS> Given the pytagsfs upstream maintainer's announcement email [1], I
RRS> believe python-inotify is not going to be maintained further.
RRS> But this whole discussion started with python-inotify in
R
On Wednesday 06 May 2009 13:45:19 Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Description : Simple Python binding to the Linux inotify file
> > system event monitoring API
> >
> > inotifyx is a Python extension providing access to the Linux inotify
> > file system event notification API. It is primarily written
On 2009-05-06, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Giacomo Catenazzi writes:
>> - On large parallel systems, people use something more than a base debian
>> console installation.
>> Usually on net you have a complete copy for root, var etc
>> (in case of compromised computers. Very handy instead of reins
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will re
+ Ritesh Raj Sarraf (Wed, 06 May 2009 12:23:06 +0530):
Hello!, and thanks for your interest in packaging new software for
Debian.
> * Package name: inotifyx
> Version : 0.1.0
> Upstream Author : Forest Bond
> * URL : http://www.alittletooquiet.net/software/inotifyx/
>
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 23:15 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> I think it's pretty unlikely that *most* Debian machines are done that
> way. There are a lot better tools for keeping large numbers of systems
> in sync these days than simple cloning from golden images, and a lot of
> drawbacks to the
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 16:25 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> It's not particularly difficult. You update the system master and push
> that update into NFS, synchronizing any non-/usr data as you need to
> across all the systems mounting that NFS partition.
Sure, but what is the point of doing tha
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:30:14AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Of course the problem is that if you update on the NFS server, then
> related /etc and /var files [1] will not get updated on the NFS client
> machines and you need to propagate changes there.
One thing to remember is when you
80 matches
Mail list logo
