On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Developer assiociated: Manoj Srivastava (Perhaps also Russell Coker,
> but I have not discussed this with him)
I will be involved in this, but I find it difficult to get enough free time.
> Issues to be solved:
>(a) G
Le Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:44:08PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES a écrit :
>
> I was trying to check why a package was in contrib (jabref), and I could not
> find a means to do that automatically.
>
> Could we add an automatic mechanism based on package description, for getting
> the reason, like f
On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to set up a selinux related release goal for
>> Squeeze.
>>
>> Developer assiociated: Manoj Srivastava (Perhaps also Russell Coker,
>>
Hi!
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 09:56:19AM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Ryan Niebur ha scritto:
> > It doesn't work with midori apparently...
>
> Right, I prepared a patch to build with 0.1.7, but I noticed new
> upstream version (0.1.8) builds correctly. If you plan to upgrade to the
> new version
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 373 (new: 8)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 125 (new: 1)
Total number of packages request
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:21:44PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> reassign 506481 general
> thanks
>
> [Matthias Klose]
> >> Right. This seem to be a problem that need to be solved by the
> >> compiler, and not by initscripts. Reassigning to gcc.
> >
> > this has nothing to do with the comp
Adrian Perez writes:
> What I'm actually saying is that I'm willing to do anything to get
> this quickly in unstable.
Perhaps contact the maintainer — or, in the case of Emacs, the
‘debian-emacsen’ forum — and ask directly what you can do to help.
> I'll file the wishbug. Thanks for everything.
Adrian Perez writes:
> I'd like to see this in unstable ASAP.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-emacsen/2009/07/msg4.html
--
Romain Francoise
http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:58:14PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Aurelien Jarno schrieb:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> The following goals for Squeeze have been identified up to now:
> [ some stuff ]
>
> > And according to the press releas
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Architectures
> =
> As some of you might have noticed, we added the architectures
> kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 to testing. [...]
> However, two architectures also have issues we need to bring to your
> attention: We sent
]] Gabor Gombas
| Later pkg-config should be extended to have an "--arch" command-line
| option (or env. variable) that is substituted into the default search
| path at run time rather than at build time, but that can wait.
This has been considered before, and I'm not yet convinced it's a better
]]
| > My first thought was "Err. Won't moving all the shared libs into a
| > different location kinda screw things up?" And then I looked, and found
| >
| > | ==> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf <==
|
| Yes, but however pkg-config won't yet find things in
| /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-
Hi!
Aurelien Jarno schrieb:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> The following goals for Squeeze have been identified up to now:
[ some stuff ]
> And according to the press release:
[ some more stuff ]
The press release not only mentions release goals but also
"infras
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to set up a selinux related release goal for
> Squeeze.
>
> Developer assiociated: Manoj Srivastava (Perhaps also Russell Coker,
> but I have not discussed this with him)
> Issues to
Hi,
I would like to set up a selinux related release goal for
Squeeze.
Developer assiociated: Manoj Srivastava (Perhaps also Russell Coker,
but I have not discussed this with him)
Issues to be solved:
(a) Get all Debian patches to the reference security pol
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> I would guess that one might expect a reason in changelog, first upload
> to contrib, and copyright file.
Also check http://nonfree.alioth.debian.org/
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org
`-
signature.asc
Descr
Cyril Brulebois, le Thu 30 Jul 2009 19:41:42 +0200, a écrit :
> > Architectures
> > =
> >
> > As some of you might have noticed, we added the architectures
> > kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 to testing. This is not a promise
> > that they will be part of Squeeze, but we consider it r
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> sorry for sending out this mail so late. It should have gone out a bit
> earlier, but the delay allowed us to update our views on the timeline
> based on the feedback we received by the community - see below for
> details.
Was it re
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> time-based freezes
> ==
>
> For the squeeze release (and future releases), we are considering a
> time-based freeze, meaning that the freeze will happen at a predictable
> and predetermined time with the release happening
Bastien ROUCARIES (30/07/2009):
> I was trying to check why a package was in contrib (jabref), and I
> could not find a means to do that automatically.
>
> Could we add an automatic mechanism based on package description, for
> getting the reason, like for instance, why-contrib: reason
>
> It w
Hi,
> The following goals for Squeeze have been identified up to now:
> * multiarch
> * boot performance
> * high quality packages (piuparts clean and other QA subgoals)
> * prepare for the new package formats
> * remove obsolete libraries
> * add kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
> * full I
Hi,
I was trying to check why a package was in contrib (jabref), and I could not
find a means to do that automatically.
Could we add an automatic mechanism based on package description, for getting
the reason, like for instance, why-contrib: reason
It will ease the move to main in case of for
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> The following goals for Squeeze have been identified up to now:
> * multiarch
> * boot performance
> * high quality packages (piuparts clean and other QA subgoals)
> * prepare for the new package formats
> * remove obsolete libraries
(Torn between replying to -project for the former, -devel for the
latter.)
Luk Claes (30/07/2009):
> Adam D. Barratt (adsb), Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) and Jurij
> Smakov (jurij) joined us as release assistants. Let's welcome them in
> our team.
Welcome!
> Architectures
> =
>
Package: lintian
Version: 2.2.13
Severity: wishlist
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 06:56:30PM +0200, Mario Lang wrote:
> I will probably try to automate this process somewhat and file a lot
> more bugs soon, but before I start this effort I'd like to remind
> individual package maintainers to look at the
Hi.
A comment from Martin F. Krafft in his talk today at DebConf9
reminded me that many of our binary packages do actually not include
the example files which are included in the source package.
I've been anoyed by this several times in the past already, and
wheenever I stumble across a binary pa
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 06:58:45PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Except saying "apt sucks", I currently do not have more idea. Someone
> > else maybe?
> >
> /me suggests to try cupt and hides
>
We have the constraints that we should support upgrades from Lenny, so
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:20:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> You raise an interesting point there with -dbg packages. Esspecially
> considering the Google SoC project that wants to automatically build
> -dbg packages for everything in debian. Those .ddeb packages. Too me
> it seems that
Sorry about the tone, you misunderstood me.
What I'm actually saying is that I'm willing to do anything to get this
quickly in unstable. I'll file the wishbug. Thanks for everything.
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 00:39 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Adrian Perez writes:
>
> > I'd like to see this in unstab
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Except saying "apt sucks", I currently do not have more idea. Someone
> else maybe?
>
/me suggests to try cupt and hides
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digi
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Would it be possible to make Origin optional if Bug is present? I feel that
> when
> Description and Bug are present, Origin shouldn't really be required.
The bug entry is not the same as the patch URL.
It's true that in many cases you will fi
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 02:00:18PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-07-29 22:12 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:10:27PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> In short it looks like a Pre-Depends is overkill, and that a Depends is
> >> enough. I'll upload a new versio
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> one more turn for this DEP, after all. Recent changes are not numerous
> but there are some.
>
> Current version: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
Would it be possible to make Origin optional if Bug is present? I feel that when
Description and Bug are present,
Hello,
I updated the wiki page listing the status of this project:
http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0
During debconf I used part of my time to push this project forward.
1/ Lucas did again a rebuild of the archive to discover problems that will
appear if all packages are converted to 3.0
Adrian Perez writes:
> I'd like to see this in unstable ASAP.
A message to this list isn't going to do anything to help that happen.
Rather, you should consider whether the maintainer of the Debian package
might be unaware of the new version, and if in your estimation they
might have overlooked
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 506481 general
Bug #506481 [initscripts] initscripts: Fix to allow falsified cpu information
in /proc/cpuinfo
Bug reassigned from package 'initscripts' to 'general'.
Bug #506481 [general] initscripts: Fix to allow falsified cpu informati
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> do the work yourself and send it to the
> maintainer. :-)
File a `wishlist' bug against package with reportbug --kudos is good :)
--
Cheers,
Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Blogs: {ftbfs, kartikm}.word
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 05:10:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> You're correct of course. If we want to go this way there should be two
>> questions: one for the system shell to use and one for the default user
>> shell, each with per-arch defaults.
>
> Do you really think th
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:38:12AM -0400, Adrian Perez wrote:
>
> Sure, but emacs is a complex package, and I'm working in something else
> by now, if I understood you right. If you mean you're going to work on
> it that's great. I've been using emacs-snapshot for a long time by now,
> I'm pretty
Sure, but emacs is a complex package, and I'm working in something else
by now, if I understood you right. If you mean you're going to work on
it that's great. I've been using emacs-snapshot for a long time by now,
I'm pretty excited about this release.
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:31 +0200, Cyril Br
Adrian Perez (30/07/2009):
> I'd like to see this in unstable ASAP.
Get to work?
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I'd like to see this in unstable ASAP.
Forwarded Message
> From: Chong Yidong
> To: emacs-de...@gnu.org
> Subject: Emacs 23.1 released
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:01:22 -0400
>
> GNU Emacs 23.1 has been released. It is available on the GNU ftp site
> at ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
>
>> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
> 2) Tagging package relationships instead of packages means extending
> the syntax of package relationsships, trusting the binary packages to
> get the depe
On 2009-07-29 22:12 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:10:27PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> In short it looks like a Pre-Depends is overkill, and that a Depends is
>> enough. I'll upload a new version soon to experimental to fix that.
>>
>
> eglibc version 2.9-23+multia
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:04:46AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > >Yes, but however pkg-config won't yet find things in
> > >/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkgconfig, so take care of putting .pc files
> > >in /usr/lib/pkgconfig.
$ pkg-config --list-all --debug
[...]
Cannot open directory '/usr/loca
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 03:57:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>>
>> I got some good feedback from my previous Introduction to multiarch
>> post and some good questions. I'm singling out Manoj Srivastava here
>> because he was the most recent to ask this on ir
On 2009-07-29, Michael S. Gilbert wrote:
> it is a bug in the sense that stable's behavior is being unduly
> influenced by unstable's "essential packages" list. i would suggest
> submitting a report to the bts so the problem can be tracked and
> eliminated in future releases.
That's somewhat by
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 07:38:22PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> We have mostly settled the /usr/share/locale question, and apparently
>> /usr/share/doc is a special exception anyway
>
> No, it is not. The ubiquity of /usr/share/doc provides the *rationale* for
>
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
2) Tagging package relationships instead of packages means extending
the syntax of package relationsships, trusting the binary packages to
get the depends right
>>> You'll have to do it so
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > However, you *can* share the same .mo files on each platform, since the
> > gettext code copes with endianness issues at runtime if need be.
>
> So we would have to define a default endianness for creating such
> files. A patch to gettext to cr
Hendrik Sattler, le Thu 30 Jul 2009 10:35:38 +0200, a écrit :
> Zitat von sthiba...@debian.org:
>
> >>My first thought was "Err. Won't moving all the shared libs into a
> >>different location kinda screw things up?" And then I looked, and found
> >>
> >> | ==> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-g
Zitat von sthiba...@debian.org:
My first thought was "Err. Won't moving all the shared libs into a
different location kinda screw things up?" And then I looked, and found
| ==> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf <==
Yes, but however pkg-config won't yet find things in
/usr/lib/
Charles Plessy, le Thu 30 Jul 2009 13:13:59 +0900, a écrit :
> 1) What is the advantage of adding a new field over simply using something
> like
>‘Arch: multi’?
Err, I believe it makes sense to mark an i386/amd64-only library as
multiarch-capable.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" writes:
>>> 2) Tagging package relationships instead of packages means extending
>>> the syntax of package relationsships, trusting the binary packages to
>>> get the depends right
>> You'll have to do it sooner or later. At least for already men
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 02:18:49PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I've written down the details in the wiki [2], and I'll appreciate
> it if you could give some feeback. I don't want to trash this
> completely though, so no drastic changes preferred :)
I wonder how C-specific is your propo
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:01:12PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> I've packaged libdomainkeys for internal use and am considering adding a
> package that depends on it to Debian/Unstable. Is the domainkeys license
> suitable for inclusion in Debian?
seems to meet all the critera, doesn't it? th
Russell Coker (30/07/2009):
> http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/license/softwarelicense1-1.html
>
> I've packaged libdomainkeys for internal use and am considering adding a
> package that depends on it to Debian/Unstable. Is the domainkeys license
> suitable for inclusion in Debian?
Hint, try
Charles Plessy (30/07/2009):
> I have three questions about Multi-arch:
>
> 1) […]
>
> 2) […]
3) Where is the third question? :)
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Goswin von Brederlow (29/07/2009):
> Thoughts from the maintainer?
You may want to read #468209, which is kind of related.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/license/softwarelicense1-1.html
I've packaged libdomainkeys for internal use and am considering adding a
package that depends on it to Debian/Unstable. Is the domainkeys license
suitable for inclusion in Debian?
--
russ...@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.a
60 matches
Mail list logo
