Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: no{thing} build profiles"):
>> Minimal installation size is *not* the only goal here. Ease of use and
>> lack of surprise is important to. Personally, I'd much rather have
>> numerous unused packages installed than to have something break in an
>>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > To be clear, the ongoing cost to the cloud team of dealing with jessie
> > on AWS (where this issue originally came up) has been exactly zero,
> > afaict. That is, we haven't actually updated anything in >18 months.
> > Users who
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:15 AM Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> On Tue 23 Oct 2018 at 05:06PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> >
> > In short: Make it very clear if you want to provide long-term support
> > for your project. Talk to the LTS team in case you need help. Nobody is
> > forced to do anything.
>
On Oct 23, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > I have sympathy with that position, but in which case PGP should be
> > disabled by default in the /etc/Muttrc files too.
> Wouldn't it make more sense for mutt to just go «oh, no GPG installed,
> let's note that there are signatures here, but they can't be v
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steffen Moeller
* Package name: gramalign
Version : 3.0
* URL : http://bioinfo.unl.edu/gramalign.php
* License : academic non-free
Description : alignment of multiple biological sequences
About to appear on salsa.deb
Le mardi 23 octobre 2018 à 14:12 +, Mo Zhou a écrit :
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:55:10PM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > > For BLAS/LAPACK implementations implemented in C, like OpenBLAS, they
> > > will be compiled using
Le mardi 23 octobre 2018 à 14:17 +, Mo Zhou a écrit :
> Two in the audience are object to the "-ilp64" naming convention.
> Then how about this?
>
> src:openblas
> bin:libblas-base (...)
> bin:libblas-dev(...)
> bin:libblas64-base (filename=libblas64.so.3, SONAME=libblas64.so.3,
>
Hello Markus,
On Tue 23 Oct 2018 at 05:06PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I believe LTS is not a black and white issue as it is depicted in this
> thread so far.
Yes, that is fair enough.
> This is the first time that someone expresses concern how LTS affects
> other subprojects but I don't t
]] Noah Meyerhans
> To be clear, the ongoing cost to the cloud team of dealing with jessie
> on AWS (where this issue originally came up) has been exactly zero,
> afaict. That is, we haven't actually updated anything in >18 months.
> Users who launch a jessie image there get 8.7, with 106 pending
]] Jonathan Dowland
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 02:11:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >PGP-signed mail is an highly advanced feature, so I do not think that it
> >is unreasonable to expect from users who want to use it to also install
> >gnupg.
> …
> >No: it is also TOTALLY POINTLESS to even just
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:03:39AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> TL;DR: Why not just delegate image management to the LTS team once
> oldstable because LTS just like we do with security? Zobel also provided
> a good template for the images life cycle which could clarify this on
> debian-cloud@, w
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:12:57PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:22:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[…]
>>> I think the prerequisite for making a change like this would be for
>>> the library to be able to surface this transiti
On 2018-10-23 17:01:04 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:12:57PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > That would be a bad idea -- we don't want gratuitous dependencies
> > all around. Just because I use xfce doesn't mean I want a daemon
> > for some old kinds of iApple iJunk
>
On 2018-10-23 16:55:00 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:13:27PM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > * Sune Vuorela [181021 06:05]:
> > > On 2018-10-21, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > I disagree that libgpgme11 should depend/recommend/suggest gnupg at
> > > > all:
> > > >
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: no{thing} build profiles"):
> Minimal installation size is *not* the only goal here. Ease of use and
> lack of surprise is important to. Personally, I'd much rather have
> numerous unused packages installed than to have something break in an
> opaque way when I try to us
Hi Steve!
On 2018-10-23 04:26:18, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So I'm worried that those of us who have *not* volunteered to support
> LTS are being pressured into spending our time on it anyway. What can
> we do to fix that? How/where do we clarify for our users (and
> developers!) what LTS means, and
On 2018-10-23 22:17, Mo Zhou wrote:
Hi Sebastien,
Two in the audience are object to the "-ilp64" naming convention.
Then how about this?
src:openblas
bin:libblas-base (...)
bin:libblas-dev(...)
bin:libblas64-base (filename=libblas64.so.3, SONAME=libblas64.so.3,
pro
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 05:01:04PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > That would be a bad idea -- we don't want gratuitous dependencies all
> > around. Just because I use xfce doesn't mean I want a daemon for some old
> > kinds of iApple iJunk
>
> Why not? What does it cost you, other than a few b
On 2018-10-22 10:47:05 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:00:43PM +, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> > It can be argued that libgpgme11 does not “provide a significant
> > amount of functionality” (7.2) without gnupg.
>
> It won't function at all without gnupg.
That's pointless
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 04:55:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:13:27PM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > * Sune Vuorela [181021 06:05]:
> > > On 2018-10-21, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > I disagree that libgpgme11 should depend/recommend/suggest gnupg at
> > > > al
[I am trimming the CC list a little. Steve is subscribed to debian-lts.
Our leader is subscribed to debian-lts and debian-devel and drowns in
emails anyway. I hope you agree.]
Am 23.10.18 um 15:47 schrieb Sean Whitton:
[...]
> The more LTS is integrated with the regular project, the more that team
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:12:57PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:22:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Adam Borowski writes:
> >
> > > Thus, I'd re-propose a Policy change that was mentioned in multiple
> > > threads in the past:
> >
> > > "A runtime library should no
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 08:22:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:30 PM Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>
> > As long as people choose to strip of dependencies to libsystemd from
> > packages like util-linux, avoiding a fork would not work with how Debian
> > and Debian based distri
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:13:27PM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> * Sune Vuorela [181021 06:05]:
> > On 2018-10-21, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > I disagree that libgpgme11 should depend/recommend/suggest gnupg at all:
> > > As a library it cannot possibly declare how tight a relationship to
> >
Package: wnpp
Owner: Axel Beckert
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libmojo-sqlite-perl
Version : 3.001
Upstream Author : Dan Book
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Mojo-SQLite
* License : Artistic-2.0
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : tiny Mojo
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 02:12:16PM +, Mo Zhou wrote:
> (1) bin:libblas3 from src:lapack
> (2) bin:libatlas3-base from src:atlas
> (3) bin:libopenblas-base from src:openblas
> (4) bin:libblis1 from src:blis [WIP]
> (5) bin:libmkl-rt from src:intel-mkl [non-free]
> (6) bin:libnvblas9.
Hi Sebastien,
Two in the audience are object to the "-ilp64" naming convention.
Then how about this?
src:openblas
bin:libblas-base (...)
bin:libblas-dev(...)
bin:libblas64-base (filename=libblas64.so.3, SONAME=libblas64.so.3,
provides=libblas64.so.3-x86_64-linux-gnu)
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:55:10PM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > For BLAS/LAPACK implementations implemented in C, like OpenBLAS, they
> > will be compiled using LP64, and not ILP64. Only integers exposed
> > through the interf
Hello Raphael,
On Tue 23 Oct 2018 at 09:52AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Instead we are rather aiming to integrate LTS more and more everywhere.
> However, when LTS is becoming a burden on other teams, we should
> definitely look how the LTS team can help to alleviate that burden.
> Because a
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:57:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Proposal:
> >
> > * The "-ilp64" postfix should be appended to the SONAME of all the new
> > shared objects that provide ILP64 interface. For example:
> >
> > libblas.so.3 (LP64) -> libblas-ilp64.so.3 (ILP64)
> >
> >
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ilias Tsitsimpis
* Package name: haskell-shelly
Version : 1.8.1
Upstream Author : Greg Weber
* URL : https://hackage.haskell.org/package/shelly
* License : BSD-3-clause
Programming Lang: Haskell
Description : she
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 02:11:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
PGP-signed mail is an highly advanced feature, so I do not think that it
is unreasonable to expect from users who want to use it to also install
gnupg.
…
No: it is also TOTALLY POINTLESS to even just automatically verify
received ema
[I'm subscribed; please do not CC me.]
* Matthias Klumpp [181022 14:18]:
> Because having a real dependency eliminates another source of bugs.
> The library will throw weird (for unexperienced end-users) errors and
> they have to hunt down a solution for why something isn't working as
> they expe
On Oct 23, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Both of Depends and Recommends in this case have drawbacks. It's a
> matter of weighing them up and considering their likelyhoods on a case
> by case basis. In this case, the maintainer must weigh the experience of
> users who may install mutt without gnupg an
Quoting Jonathan Dowland (2018-10-23 11:06:15)
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:32:21AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> >I'm going to use the neomutt → libgpgme → gnupg as an example, but
> >this applies as well to any other case where someone has a legitimate
> >use for installing one package without
* Russ Allbery [181022 16:23]:
> Minimal installation size is *not* the only goal here. Ease of use and
> lack of surprise is important to.
Then don't disable Recommends in apt preferences.
> Personally, I think people in this thread are too worried about trying to
> remove as many packages fro
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:22:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Personally, I think people in this thread are too worried about trying to
> remove as many packages from their system as possible and not worried
> enough about a straightforward user experience.
yep.
--
cheers,
Holger
---
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:32:21AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
This keeps getting repeated in this thread in spite of the fact that
multiple people have stated that having libgpgme installed without gnupg
is useful in a very reasonable scenario.
The scenario you describe, where the utility of t
On 10/22/18 12:36 PM, Damir Porobic wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> I was not sure to which Mailing list my question belongs so I'm writing
> here, if I should use a different list, let me know.
>
>
> Currently I'm trying to create a .deb package for my Application and I'm
> kind of stuck with packaging
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So I'm worried that those of us who have *not* volunteered to support
> LTS are being pressured into spending our time on it anyway. What can
> we do to fix that? How/where do we clarify for our users (and
> developers!) what LTS means, and wh
40 matches
Mail list logo
