> :D Sorry, it never occurred to me that this was an ambiguous statement.
No worries.
> Anyway, the issue you encountered was highly likely bug #797138 which is
> already fixed in case you have PackageKit 1.0.8 installed.
> So, this problem is resolved now and was a bug, not intended behavior.
R
> It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit for
> updates.
> The default policy is to not schedule any downloads when running on
> battery or on a modem connection.
Which is not enough IMO. (W)LAN connections cannot be expected to not
carry a penalty for download volume.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Giovani Augusto Ferreira
* Package name: pompem
Version : 0.0+git20150424.622449
Upstream Author : Rafael Francischini
Bruno Fraga
* URL : https://github.com/rfunix/Pompem
* License : GPL-2+
Progra
]] Vincent Bernat
> 1. package the whole Grunt ecosystem (and maintain it),
> 2. cripple their package by substituting some components by a non-working
> version in Debian or,
> 3. ship a pre-compiled/minified version of the library with sources.
>
> I know this sucks, but if I have to pi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015, ആഗസ്റ്റ് 30 4:27:00 AM IST, Anthony Towns wrote:
>Also, having a hardware database that you could query before purchasing
>a new computer would be even better, no?
We already have one h-node.org
Praveen
- --
Sent from my Android device
Chris Bannister (2015-08-30):
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:42:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> > > Besides, what causes the system to make those package downloads before?
> > > I may be behind a slow or expensive line and don't
Steve Langasek writes:
> […] Nevertheless, for packages that *are* in Debian, we should expect
> that the source package contains the *full* corresponding source code
> for any minified javascript files. If we can't rebuild it then we
> don't actually have the source, and that's a practical as we
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:42:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> > Besides, what causes the system to make those package downloads before?
> > I may be behind a slow or expensive line and don't want any downloads
> > performed at al
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 07:42:42AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> >> The main effect of this religious and overzealous application of our
> >> guidelines is that people just stay away of JS stuff in Debian and
> >> packaging any web-related app is becoming more complex as anyone needs
> >> to deal
On Aug 29, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> My rationale for this is as follows. First, Debian official installation
> image are conceptually part of what we call "Debian", i.e., main. I see
> no other possible logical interpretation of where those images reside
> w.r.t. the archive categories present
On Aug 28, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Our users are finding problems with current common hardware - much of
> it depends on loadable firmware. Much (most?) of that firmware is
> non-free; we distribute what we can here in the non-free component of
> the Debian archive.
>
> This now means that more
Hi,
Quoting Bas Wijnen (2015-08-29 16:36:03)
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > non-free/docs
> > > non-free/firmware
> > > non-free/drivers
> > > non-free/web
> > > non-free/comm
> > > non-free/for
[ trimming CC a little bit ]
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 07:11:32PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 01:07:15AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > It was not really "my" package or "my" work. Before your ITP, my plan
> > was to file a RFP with Víctor as the owner. He asked me in D
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 01:45:32AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I'm confused now.
>
> Please note that I said "with Víctor as the owner".
>
> Do you mean that the "owner" of a bug report is not a "mutex",
> much like the person filing the ITP?
Owning a RFP basically means nothing. It might be w
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 03:28:44PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> Santiago, it is disappointing that you'd jump to the (wholly incorrect)
> conclusion that I had somehow hijacked "your" package or your work. Its
> just a coincidence that we both happened to package this on the same day
> (but I fol
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 01:07:15AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 03:28:44PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> > Santiago, it is disappointing that you'd jump to the (wholly incorrect)
> > conclusion that I had somehow hijacked "your" package or your work. Its
> > just a coincid
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:33:04PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This now means that more and more users end up enabling non-free just
> to be able to get at this firmware, which is a problem for many
> reasons.
> 1. Split up non-free?
> -
> Yes - need to work out details.
(a
Your message dated Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:51:48 +0200
with message-id <20150829225148.ga9...@bongo.bofh.it>
and subject line Re: Bug#797355: general: packages missing in reportbug list
has caused the Debian Bug report #797355,
regarding general: packages missing in reportbug list
to be marked as done.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Víctor Cuadrado Juan"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: universal-ctags
Version : 0~20150830
Upstream Author : https://github.com/universal-ctags/ctags/graphs/contributors
* URL : https://ctags.io/
On 14048 March 1977, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Was there a previous ITP bug?
> Everything boils down to an ITP bug?
For new packages? Yes, definitely.
> I think this clearly shows my intent to package it:
> https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/wip/
Nope, that is irrelevant, completly. "I've put some
Hi Santiago-
Santiago Vila wrote:
> I can't believe this is just a "coincidence"
> What kind of strange package hijacking is this?
Wow, that is quite a coincidence! (But that's all it is...)
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 04:46:05PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Was there a previous ITP bug?
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 11:24:12 PM Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 04:46:05PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Was there a previous ITP bug?
>
> Everything boils down to an ITP bug?
Yes. This one of the reasons we have them.
>
> I think this clearly shows my intent to pack
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Víctor Cuadrado Juan"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: pagetools
Version : 3.9.6
Upstream Author : kale4, yet @ http://sourceforge.net/projects/pagetools/
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/p
On 2015-08-23 17:01, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> Currently, all Debian libraries (is required to) have a call ldconfig in
> postrm and postinst. I would like to replace that with a declarative
> method somehow. There are a couple of reasons for this:
>
> * Packages without postinst scrip
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:24:12PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Everything boils down to an ITP bug?
In the case of a dispite, well, yeah, that's clearly why they exist.
> I think this clearly shows my intent to package it:
Sure, *your* intent, but that's not you getting the global mutex. If I
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 04:46:05PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Was there a previous ITP bug?
Everything boils down to an ITP bug?
I think this clearly shows my intent to package it:
https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/wip/
(not touched it in several days)
And it is "too much coincidence".
Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> Besides, what causes the system to make those package downloads before?
> I may be behind a slow or expensive line and don't want any downloads
> performed at all.
It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit fo
On August 29, 2015 4:13:28 PM EDT, Santiago Vila wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 04:42:02PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
>> Package: wnpp
>> Severity: wishlist
>> Owner: Kamal Mostafa
>>
>> * Package name: midicsv
>> Version : 1.1
>> Upstream Author : John Walker @ http://www.fo
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 04:42:02PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Kamal Mostafa
>
> * Package name: midicsv
> Version : 1.1
> Upstream Author : John Walker @ http://www.fourmilab.ch/
> * URL : http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Med Packaging Team
* Package name: daligner
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Eugene W. Myers, Jr.
* URL : http://github.com/thegenemyers/DALIGNER
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C
Description : local alig
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015, at 11:04, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> I see how non-free firmware is needed, espacially if the installation
> can't proceed due to missing network connectivity. But after it's done,
> after the user (possibly completely oblivious of what they did) clicked
> said button to proceed
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On the other hand that state went on for years and we should be able
>> to form our own opinion about freeness and how to abide to our
>> commitment to users and free software.
>
> We have formed our own opinion. Repeatedly, over many ye
]] Joachim Breitner
> Practically, I expect the intersection of those who want to use this
> package, and who need to have a different layout in /srv to be empty.
> So if I make the path configurable, it is adding complexity purely for
> policy compliance, and hence it is low priority for me.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
First of all, thanks for having this discussion. I think it is a serious
problem. Debian is currently hard to install on many machines, and I very much
dislike the idea of telling people to enable all of non-free because of some
hardware. Installing
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:33:04PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As promised, here's a quick summary of what was discussed at the
> Firmware discussion session in Heidelberg. This was not recorded on
> video, so I can't provide a link for that.
Thank you for this summary which I fi
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> > 1. Split up non-free?
> > -
>
> I think this needs to be additional subsets of non-free rather than
> splitting up non-free, for backwards compatibility an
Tapani Palviainen writes:
i want to get off this list!
Visit the "Subscribe / Unsubscribe" section of
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/.
Alexis.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:32:35PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:26:13 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
> wrote:
> >1) This feature is not enabled by default. It only gets triggered if a
> >frontend tool makes use of it, and will not be activated automatically. So,
> >you will only see i
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 07:27:25AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 05:19 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> >
> >> Strange - then the install-updates mode should not have been entered in
> >> the first place.
> > Let me guess, the file was re-created by some software.
> As administrator o
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> I think this needs to be additional subsets of non-free rather than
> splitting up non-free, for backwards compatibility and other reasons.
> This is why I prefer non-free/firmware over non-free-firmware for
> naming these.
Agreed. It w
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> freeness are distinct for the CPU and auxiliary PUs.
I get the feeling that the practical consequences of non-free software
running on auxiliary PUs can be worse than CPUs:
May include signature checks to prevent new code from running. For
C
Paul Wise, le Sat 29 Aug 2015 13:15:21 +0200, a écrit :
> > But: what's a good level of split?
>
> One per use-case probably? I can think of at least these possibilities
> based on a couple of my old blog posts:
>
> non-free/docs
> non-free/firmware
> non-free/drivers
> non-free/web
> non-free/co
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 1. Split up non-free?
> -
I think this needs to be additional subsets of non-free rather than
splitting up non-free, for backwards compatibility and other reasons.
This is why I prefer non-free/firmware over non-free-fir
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:34:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > To me having the non-free firmware in the official image is not a problem
> > as long as we don't allow them to be loaded without an explicit
> > confirmation of the
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:34:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> To me having the non-free firmware in the official image is not a problem
> as long as we don't allow them to be loaded without an explicit
> confirmation of the user.
FWIW, I could totally live with that. I shall note that this wo
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Having been a bit late I didn't fit into the room. I'm still in favor to
> have a vote on this. I'm personally unconvinced by the argument that it's
> "ok" for the hardware to use firmware blobs as long as you don't load them
> from within Debian. (Or, as
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 3. Advertise the "unofficial" firmware-included media better?
> -
>
> Yes.
>
> It was generally agreed that this would be a good thing. Alongside the
> links to normal media in va
On 2015-08-28 17:33, Steve McIntyre wrote:
2. Include non-free-firmware on official media?
---
NO.
(I proposed this as a devil's advocate question.)
The answer is a clear *NO!* Even if it's not enabled or shown to users
by default, as a project we ha
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Balasankar C
* Package name: ruby-http-form-data
Version : 1.0.1
Upstream Author : Aleksey V Zapparov
* URL : https://github.com/httprb/form_data.rb
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : utility-
49 matches
Mail list logo
