On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> * [a show stopper] it requires Nvidia's CG Toolkit -- non-free
> non-distributable. The upstream is in love in that piece of crock, and
> declares it is and should be mandatory.
Looks like that is no longer required since November 2010:
Le Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:33:05AM +0100, Tanguy Ortolo a écrit :
>
> Le mercredi 02 février 2011, andr...@an3as.eu a écrit :
> > Description : multiple sequence alignment using partition function
> > posterior probabilities
>
> Is that about DNA sequences? I think this should be explicite
Hi,
Arnout Engelen (05/02/2011):
> Package name: xscope
> Version: 1.3
> Upstream Author: James Peterson, MCC, Keith Packard
> URL: http://xorg.freedesktop.org/archive/individual/app/
> License: X
might not deserve its own package. I guess it could be shipped in one
of the x11-* bundles.
KiBi.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
Package name: xscope
Version: 1.3
Upstream Author: James Peterson, MCC, Keith Packard
URL: http://xorg.freedesktop.org/archive/individual/app/
License: X
Description: Monitor X1
[Simon Chopin]
> But I believe what Stanislas mean is to unpack while downloading the
> rest of the packages. I often wondered why it wasn't the case, but
> I've assumed so far that there was probably a reason I just could not
> think of :)
I think it is because, in the general case, it is not a
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Simon Chopin
wrote:
[...]
>> > As Julian Taylor mentioned, there is also another side of the same
>> > problem: aptitude itself can be improved so that it is able to
>> > download and unpack in parallel. If it were doing this then the lock
>> > would be justified.
>
Hi !
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 09:47:21AM -0200, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
[...]
> > As Julian Taylor mentioned, there is also another side of the same
> > problem: aptitude itself can be improved so that it is able to
> > download and unpack in para
]] Yaroslav Halchenko
| please do not slap me too hard (only so that I feel your warm carrying
| touch):
|
| is there a rationale for: on amd64 Debian systems having
|
| /lib64 -> /lib
Yes, it's required by the ABI, unfortunately.
| /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib
Not really, apart from some broken s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Olivier Berger
* Package name: phpunit-selenium
Version : 1.0.2
Upstream Author : Sebastian Bergmann
* URL : http://www.phpunit.de/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: PHP
Description : Selenium RC integration for
On 2011-02-04 07:27, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-02-03, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > * Leaf packages. that is, the possibility of having small packages in
> > the archive, without bloating the packages files as a "full package"
> > would. Somehow, less information stored for them. Like only "Pac
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 09:47:21AM -0200, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
> wrote:
> [...]
> >> If you want to have that level of control, why don't you just check it
> >> manually? Use --download-only with apt-get (no dpkg locking this way)
> >> and whe
Hello all!
It's the time of the year again and we have to prepare a list of project
ideas to submit our application.
It's simple: what project would you want to get done and how can you help?
Cheers
Arthur
PS.: This is only about project ideas. If you are interested in providing
feedback about
I guess then it might be sensible to get /usr/local/lib64 ->
/usr/local/lib .
ok -- lets see what libc6 maintainers think about that
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=612000
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > aren't we diverging from FHS:
> > If directories /li
On Friday 04 February 2011 12.47:21 Fernando Lemos wrote:
> do, say, an "apt-get upgrade", apt prepares an upgrade "plan" that
> uses a given set of packages. If apt wouldn't lock [...]
> new plan would have to be created, the user would
> have to be asked for confirmation again. Doesn't sound that
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Fernando Lemos wrote:
>> This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any
>> case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill
>> and this can be relaxed.
>
> As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), when
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 01:10, Stanislav Maslovski
wrote:
> For example, I am running an update on a slow connection and want to
> uninstall or install with dpkg a few packages while the others are
> being downloaded. Should not this be possible? I understand that there
> can be a situation that a
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
wrote:
[...]
>> If you want to have that level of control, why don't you just check it
>> manually? Use --download-only with apt-get (no dpkg locking this way)
>> and when it's done, use apt-get without it to install the packages after
>> making
Hi Tanguy,
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:33:05AM +0100, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> Le mercredi 02 février 2011, andr...@an3as.eu a écrit :
> > Description : multiple sequence alignment using partition function
> > posterior probabilities
>
> Is that about DNA sequences? I think this should be exp
Hello.
Le mercredi 02 février 2011, andr...@an3as.eu a écrit :
> Description : multiple sequence alignment using partition function
> posterior probabilities
Is that about DNA sequences? I think this should be explicited in the
description, with something like:
detect multiple sequence
Yaroslav Halchenko writes:
> please do not slap me too hard (only so that I feel your warm carrying
> touch):
>
> is there a rationale for: on amd64 Debian systems having
>
> /lib64 -> /lib
> /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib
>
> but no similar one for /usr/local/lib64, so that directory
> /usr/local/lib64
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2011-02-03, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> * Leaf packages. that is, the possibility of having small packages in
>> the archive, without bloating the packages files as a "full package"
>> would. Somehow, less information stored for them. Like only "Package",
>> "Installe
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:00:40AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
> wrote:
> > This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any
> > case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill
> > and this can be
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:13:55PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> > http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRelease
>> > (which has not been edited since 2009)
>> If you start linking to the wiki, take the right page:
>> http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseTimetable
>
> Can the other pa
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:00:40AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
> wrote:
> > This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any
> > case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill
> > and this can be
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 03:29:14AM +0100, Julian Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 03:10 +0300, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> > For example, I am running an update on a slow connection and want to
> > uninstall or install with dpkg a few packages while the others are
> > being downloaded. Should
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
wrote:
> This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any
> case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill
> and this can be relaxed.
What if you would launch two download-only ops at the same time?
I
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 01:21:07AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Stanislav Maslovski [Fri, Feb 04 2011, 03:10:54AM]:
> > Hi debian-devel,
> >
> > I wanted to ask this for quite a long time: Does aptitude (I think
> > apt-get does the same) really have to lock "the status database area
27 matches
Mail list logo
