Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> Daniel Pittman writes:
>> Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
>>> [Goswin von Brederlow]
[... waiting for enough devices to show up ...]
>>> The only known solution today is to add a long delay during boot to try to
>>> increase the chance of having all devices available
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Abhishek Dasgupta
* Package name: flashbake
Version : 0.26.2
Upstream Author : Thomas Gideon
* URL : http://bitbucketlabs.net/flashbake/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Python
Description : automated version
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >> With bindv6only=0, a v6 socket bound to :: will not accept v4
> >> connections, full stop. With bindv6only=0, connecting a v6 socket to
> >> a v4-mapped address will not work, full stop.
>
> That's obviously a typo -- I meant bindv6only=1.
Then
>> With bindv6only=0, a v6 socket bound to :: will not accept v4
>> connections, full stop. With bindv6only=0, connecting a v6 socket to
>> a v4-mapped address will not work, full stop.
That's obviously a typo -- I meant bindv6only=1.
Juliusz
pgpEstR4god
(cc's dropped, sorry, I was in "kernel" ML netiquete mode).
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> > one probably has to mess with /etc/gai.conf
> [...]
> > On a dual stack box and any application that does NOT work in ipv6only=1
> > mode, you likely have t
Why is it that suddenly everyone is an expert in double-stack programming?
Brian May:
>> For me, bindv6only=0 seems like an ugly hack designed to make existing
>> applications work without change.
Bindv6only=0 is a way to allow servers to be written to listen to just
one socket, which allows mak
Alexander Wirt wrote:
> I'm strongly against that. I want packages properly tested and in your own
> interest you should wait for testing migration of your packages. (of course
> there can be exception, but not in general).
>
> I want well tested packages in bpo (which means tested by users, not
postinst
Description: Binary data
Re: Bernd Zeimetz 2010-06-30 <4c2b6f9b.8030...@bzed.de>
> > I have another question: backports-user is quite high traffic, but to upload
> > backports it is required to be subscribed. Will this change for
> > backports.debian.org? Will the users be invited to use the BTS?
>
> 80 messages in a mont
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Brian May wrote:
> On 14 June 2010 16:35, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> > leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> > is unwilling to fix.
>
> Is there software that still requires
Holger Levsen schrieb am Wednesday, den 30. June 2010:
> backports.org is (currently) not available for all debian archs.
same as experimental.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
backports.org is (currently) not available for all debian archs.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 06/30/2010 02:53 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> I have another question: backports-user is quite high traffic, but to upload
> backports it is required to be subscribed. Will this change for
> backports.debian.org? Will the users be invited to use the BTS?
80 messages in a month
Michael Gilbert wrote:
> No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
Have you discussed this proposal with other members of the security
team? And/or the relase team?
Ignoring the fact whether this is something possible or not currently,
just think of the rdepends. Serio
Le mercredi 30 juin 2010 à 12:47 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:47:45 -0300
> Mauro Lizaur wrote:
> > Python-twitter doesn't seem to be on shape to be released, since the last
> > commit is
> > from 06/13 and there isn't a single line regarding oauth.
> > Also t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Yaroslav Halchenko
Owner: Yaroslav Halchenko
* Package name: mipav
Version : 4.1.1
Upstream Author : Matthew McAuliffe
* URL : http://mipav.cit.nih.gov
* License : non-free: closed-source, package is just a
downloader
Daniel Pittman writes:
> Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
>> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>>
>>> There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically for
>>> raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing devices but
>>> the boot should really wait for all device to be present.
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>> There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically
>> for raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing
>> devices but the boot should really wait for all device to be
>> present.
>
> This problem is not speci
Hi,
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:47:45 -0300
Mauro Lizaur wrote:
> Python-twitter doesn't seem to be on shape to be released, since the last
> commit is
> from 06/13 and there isn't a single line regarding oauth.
> Also the author from oauth-python-twitter (which can be integrated in some
> way with
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically
> for raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing
> devices but the boot should really wait for all device to be
> present.
This problem is not specific for event based startup. It also e
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>
>> There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically for
>> raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing devices but
>> the boot should really wait for all device to be present.
>
> This problem is not specifi
Charles Plessy schrieb am Wednesday, den 30. June 2010:
> Hello again,
>
> I have another question: backports-user is quite high traffic, but to upload
> backports it is required to be subscribed. Will this change for
> backports.debian.org? Will the users be invited to use the BTS?
Not, currentl
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:27:43AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 01:18 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> > On 06/30/2010 06:15 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> >> I just noticed that the chromium-browser package releases in Debian
> >> GNU/Linux unstable are synced version-for-version with the
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> [Christoph Anton Mitterer]
>> Hi folks.
>>
>> IIRC, Jonas already put some of these issues up here some time ago.
>> I was recently investigating, and thanks to the help of many people
>> found out how deep the problems actually are.
>
> I suspect this problem is one
Hello again,
I have another question: backports-user is quite high traffic, but to upload
backports it is required to be subscribed. Will this change for
backports.debian.org? Will the users be invited to use the BTS?
Cheers,
--
Charles
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le samedi 26 juin 2010 à 22:30 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:20:46 +0200, Josselin Mouette
>> wrote:
>> >Furthermore, Iâd be interested to know how to fix such a âshortcomingâ
>> >in our software. If both A and B depend on each other, A.
On Mi, 30 iun 10, 06:27:43, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
> Well, when you put it that way. :) Honestly, I don't think of Sid as a
> collection of stable packages. That's what I think about Lenny. I think
> of Sid as "the latest and greatest", regardless of version, and that's
> why I thought the nightli
Michael Tsang writes:
> I have a recommendation for 32-bit libraries on 64-bit systems:
>
> Now, some libraries are available on 64-bit systems as lib32* but these are
> very few. To improve this situation, I think that we can organise the library
> packages as follows:
>
> For a library with s
Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 01:18 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
>> Should we use the Chromium nightly builds ? Really? :)
>
> Well, when you put it that way. :) Honestly, I don't think of Sid as a
> collection of stable packages. That's what I think about Lenny. I think
> of Sid as "the l
On 06/30/2010 01:18 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 06:15 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>> I just noticed that the chromium-browser package releases in Debian
>> GNU/Linux unstable are synced version-for-version with the google-chrome
>> beta package provided by the 3rd party Google Linux r
* Andrei Popescu [2010-06-30 13:10:20 CEST]:
> On Mi, 30 iun 10, 12:58:25, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > I'm strongly against that. I want packages properly tested and in your own
> > interest you should wait for testing migration of your packages. (of course
> > there can be exception, but not in gen
On Mi, 30 iun 10, 13:18:59, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the backports upload queue could automatically put the package on
> > hold until the unstable package has migrated to testing.
> Send patches :)
Sorry, should have mentioned it's just an ideea of mine and I posted it
for the benef
Andrei Popescu schrieb am Wednesday, den 30. June 2010:
> On Mi, 30 iun 10, 12:58:25, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > Charles Plessy schrieb am Wednesday, den 30. June 2010:
> > >
> > > When I asked about relaxing the rules, I was in particular thinking about
> > > upload of backports prepared by the o
On Mi, 30 iun 10, 12:58:25, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Charles Plessy schrieb am Wednesday, den 30. June 2010:
> >
> > When I asked about relaxing the rules, I was in particular thinking about
> > upload of backports prepared by the original maintainer, before testing
> > migration. For instance in s
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 19:47:52 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> When I asked about relaxing the rules, I was in particular thinking about
> upload of backports prepared by the original maintainer, before testing
> migration.
I, for one, certainly hope this one won't be relaxed.
Cheers,
Julien
Charles Plessy schrieb am Wednesday, den 30. June 2010:
Hi,
*snip*
> Thanks for the fast answer!
>
> First of all, I would like to make clear that I am not trying to bikeshed
> xulrunner: I am more self-centered than this and was only thinking on how to
> use backports.debian.org for the Debia
> > The current upload policy is well adapted to the fact that a backport can be
> > maintained by a different person from the official package maintainers. But
> > when backports are prepared by the same team as the main package, can the
> > rules
> > be relaxed ?
> I don't understand this questi
Hi!
I'd like to excuse for the style of my initial response, it was pretty
terse and just pointed out the misinterpretations without offering
corrections to them. I'd like to address them now.
* Michael Gilbert [2010-06-29 21:50:31 CEST]:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:58:28AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Am 30.06.2010 02:31, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
>
> > Advantages of switching to backports:
> > - very simple for the maintainers to keep up to date with respect to
> > security updates (a matter of just recompil
Hi!
Am 30.06.2010 02:31, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
> Advantages of switching to backports:
> - very simple for the maintainers to keep up to date with respect to
> security updates (a matter of just recompiling the unstable/testing
> package for stable)
As current maintainer of the iceweasel
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:15:11PM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> I just noticed that the chromium-browser package releases in Debian
> GNU/Linux unstable are synced version-for-version with the google-chrome
> beta package provided by the 3rd party Google Linux repository. Is this
> intentional? Wh
On 06/30/2010 06:15 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> I just noticed that the chromium-browser package releases in Debian
> GNU/Linux unstable are synced version-for-version with the google-chrome
> beta package provided by the 3rd party Google Linux repository. Is this
> intentional?
No, we follow the s
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:31:25PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:07:27 -0400 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Hopefully restating clearly this time: my proposal is to no longer
> > distribute mozilla packages in the main stable repository; instead they
> > can be maintained in ba
43 matches
Mail list logo
