Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org):
> If this were put to the TC, I can't see any way that this would be anything
> more than a poll of the personal preferences of the members of the TC. If
> someone who's in a position to make this decision decides they'd like to
> delegate the decision
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 08:04:07AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Micah Anderson (mi...@debian.org):
> > I think our problem is, how do we go about making this decision?
> If the problem is well summarized (the wiki page you pointed), why not
> make use of our Technical Committee for
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 11:31:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Wouldn't this MBF shake out which packages actually have good reason for
> a strong (i.e. pulled-in-by-default-package-tool-behaviour) dependency
> relationship to their docs from those that do not?
At the expense of the time of maintai
Quoting Micah Anderson (mi...@debian.org):
> I think our problem is, how do we go about making this decision?
If the problem is well summarized (the wiki page you pointed), why not
make use of our Technical Committee for this?
It certainly needs someone committing self to track down the issue
Raphael Geissert writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > So, how do I go from “the URL for the project source is
> > http://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/>”, to a ‘debian/watch’
> > file that will enable ‘uscan’ to discover the current version is
> > ‘coverage-3.0b2’, and its original source tarball is do
Steve Langasek writes:
> Yes, and the MBF proposal *doesn't* take into account packages that
> previously *did* have a hard dep on their doc packages and only
> demoted it to a Recommends: once the default behavior changed.
>
> Cf. swat, samba-doc.
Wouldn't this MBF shake out which packages ac
This discussion has happened before, many times. Some folks spent some
time on a wiki page describing the different MTAs, would be worth
reviewing for some background and comparison:
http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA
Some people clearly want postfix as the default MTA in Debian (I do),
and some
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> 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 NFS.
> Unfort
Josselin Mouette writes:
> 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.
Afaik only when properly patched to do so and including glibc patches.
MfG
Giacomo Catenazzi writes:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>>> Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
A partial list o
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 06:49:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 17:24 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
>> > That might have been a "traditional" reason for a shared /usr.
>> > However, the package manager can't cope with this setup since
>> > you ha
Ben Finney writes:
>> You're arguing that a Reply-To header is "harmful" (not that I am
>> convinced)
>
> That field is very useful. What's harmful is mailing-list software
> munging that field, which is for the author to set and for nothing else
> to fiddle with.
Yup. Reply-To is for the _orig
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
> (not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
>
Neil Williams writes:
> In which case, the MBF could concentrate more on libraries and other
> packages that have -doc packages rather than on
> applications. Libraries that Recommend: libfoo-doc (as mine did and
> which I'll fix in the next upload) could conceivably be bringing in
> the docs not
Giacomo Catenazzi writes:
> Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
>> Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against
>> these packages? I am including a tentative dd-list corresponding to
>> the packages [1] that I found after manually removing some packages
>> [2]. I will modify it
Clint Adams writes:
> 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
2009/5/6 Josselin Mouette :
> 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 won
On Fri, 08 May 2009 22:27:52 +0200
Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Long discussion, please see debian-legal quite some time ago. The
> >> point is that modifications are allowed but the modifyied work
> >> needs to be renamed (like with tex the program) as long as the
> >> status of the packages is "Mai
Hello,
Here is a list of ITPs for various mbrola voices. This completes the set
up to what espeak is able to use, except a few duplicates (there are a
lot of german voices, I only kept a good male and a good female voice).
Samuel
#527758 ITP: mbrola-af1 -- Afrikaans male voice for Mbrola
* Pack
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009 13:10:02 +0200
> Norbert Preining wrote:
>
>> > How did that get into main?
>>
>> Long discussion, please see debian-legal quite some time ago. The point
>> is that modifications are allowed but the modifyied work needs to be
>> renamed (like with tex t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: James Bromberger
* Package name: libdigest-whirlpool-perl
Version : 1.0.6
Upstream Author : Æar ArnfjöBjarmason
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Digest-Whirlpool/Whirlpool.pm
* License : Artistic
Programming Lang:
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200
> Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
>>
>> > The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
>> > should not be installed by the runtime.
>> >
>> > This probably means that packages like perl, python, t
On Thu, 07 May 2009, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> From policy 7.2 Binary Dependencies - Depends, Recommends, Suggests, Enhances,
> Pre-Depends
>
> Recommends
>
> This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
>
> The Recommends field should list packages that would be found toge
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> > While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
> > disagree with this proposal.
> > A software is worth nothing without appropriate documenta
Hi Ben,
Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
>
> So, how do I go from “the URL for the project source is
> http://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/>”, to a ‘debian/watch’ file
> that will enable ‘uscan’ to discover the current version is
> ‘coverage-3.0b2’, and its original source tarball is downloadable from
> h
Hi,
Christian Surchi wrote:
> ssmpt is not able to handle a queue, so I imagine that it needs
> necessarily a permanent connection with a smarthost... am I wrong?
No, you're right.
> I don't like this one for *any* machine.
I wouldn't like this as the default debian setup. Risking losing mail
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag a écrit :
> Debian GNOME Maintainers
>devhelp (U)
False positive. A documentation browser is useless without documentation
to browse.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you i
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
> disagree with this proposal.
>
> A software is worth nothing without appropriate documentation.
No, that's subjective, with the subject being the package
maintaine
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
> aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
> is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
Even if the user marked as non-automatic the involv
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 04:06:47PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Daniel Burrows (07/05/2009):
> > As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
> > aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
> > is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
>
> So that o
Daniel Burrows (07/05/2009):
> As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause
> aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation
> is unnecessary and suggest removing it.
So that one has a chance to notice possibly unneeded doc? Works for me.
Mraw,
KiBi.
On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> It wouldn't be so bad if texlive-base didn't depend (not recommend)
> texlive-doc-base.
But texlive-doc-base is absolutely minimal, are you concerned about the
size of this small package?
> I still want to *not* have to install texlive-doc-base on system
office and home ltd | 2 shorland drive | rotherham | | s60 5up | UK
This email was sent to debian-devel@lists.debian.org, by
f...@office-n-home.co.uk.
To unsubscribe from this list - please use this link:
http://app.simplycast.com/unsubscribe.asp?outgoing_idno=5504948&e=3008852&gId=5503551.
On 08 May 14:35, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
> > > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is require
On Fri, 08 May 2009, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ mkdir foo
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ touch foo/bar
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ sudo mount -o bind,ro foo foo
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ touch foo/baz
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$
>
> bind mounts don't do ro.
I have been told, that starti
On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
> > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
>
> Uhm, no?
>
> mount --bind /usr /
Zitat von Neil Williams :
I rarely write TeX but I write a lot of docbook and expect to be able
to convert that to PDF when necessary - without needing to care about
how that happens or how to write TeX myself.
Well, you might as well use the FO output and use fop to convert to
PDF. This impl
On Fri, 8 May 2009 13:10:02 +0200
Norbert Preining wrote:
> > How did that get into main?
>
> Long discussion, please see debian-legal quite some time ago. The point
> is that modifications are allowed but the modifyied work needs to be
> renamed (like with tex the program) as long as the status
On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, jeffrey.ratcli...@gmail.com wrote:
> And yet on http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/:
>
> "The LaTeX project public license is a free software license"
>
> With "free software" being linked to http://www.debian.org/intro/free
>
> Hmmm...
Argg, google for debian-legal LPPL, tha
Your message dated Fri, 8 May 2009 13:15:18 +0200
with message-id <200905081315.25576.hol...@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#527557: general: should have a help tracker for each
package
has caused the Debian Bug report #527557,
regarding general: should have a help tracker for each packa
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sandro Tosi
* Package name: python-psutil
Version : 0.1.2
Upstream Author : Giampaolo Rodola, Dave Daeschler, Jay Loden
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/psutil/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C, Python
Description
On May 8, 2009 12:58pm, Neil Williams wrote:
> From the LPPL:
> /---
> | 2. You may distribute a complete, unmodified copy of the Work as you
> | received it. Distribution of only part of the Work is considered
> | modification of the Work, and no right to distribute such a Derived
> | Work
Hi Neil,
On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> How did that pass DFSG #3?
[...]
> DFSG 3:
>
> Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
> them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
> original software.
>
> ? Huh ?
>
>
On Fri, 8 May 2009 12:33:15 +0200
Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> > TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write
> > TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support
>
> Come on. That we do NOT install the docs by defa
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, May 07 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >>
> >> > Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> >> >> Those who want a read-only
On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write
> TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support
Come on. That we do NOT install the docs by default is already a
concession. We could stop this discussion and I kill
On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200
Frank Küster wrote:
> Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
>
> > The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
> > should not be installed by the runtime.
> >
> > This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should
> > provide a $fo
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:58:51AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
>> I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
>> Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a "broken" home page
>> for SWAT by default. We could of course pat
Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
> should not be installed by the runtime.
>
> This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should
> provide a $foo, $foo-doc and $foo-runtime (or -bin, or lib$foo, or
> whatever). Othe
On Fri, 8 May 2009 08:58:51 +0200 (CEST)
Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > I bringed the discussion in out maintenance list but dropping
> > Recommends to Suggests is likely to make us provide a "broken" home page
> > for SWAT by default. We could of cours
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 17:55 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
>
> I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
> documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
While I support the effort to reduce disk space usage, I strongly
disagree with this proposal.
A s
On Fri, 08 May 2009 08:12:35 +0300
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2009-05-08 kello 11:43 +0800, Paul Wise kirjoitti:
> > I find the notion of a "default MTA" to be silly. Most desktops or
> > laptops or cellphones proably do not need an MTA.
>
> I'd agree, were it not for cron.
At which point, I
On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:35 +0530
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Currently, when I am using a new package, or if I have queries
> regarding the new package, my friends are upstream and the web.
> Usually, not much authentic information.
$ man package ?
If the manpage is incomplete or not sufficien
53 matches
Mail list logo
