Re: Bug#1072521: fakeroot hangs on some commands with faked-sysv using 100% CPU

On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 04:32:57PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > Do you have the bandwidth to drive this as a stable-update sometime > soon? Probably not within the next two weeks. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fakeroot/+bug/2068702 might be relevant as well if any very old kerne

Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 05:32:04PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > I must admit that I have no idea why replacing such a longstanding > utility is deemed necessary. Maybe this riddle will help. Imagine that you are the product manager for Debian `which`. According to the hatemail in my inbox, this is th

Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:59:08PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > Please do. Make such take over possible. > It is what > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debianutils/-/merge_requests/6#note_242172 > is asking for. Okay, you have it in debianutils 5.1-2.

Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:48:29PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > Which alternatives would that be? I meant update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/which which /usr/bin/which.debianutils 0 in postinst and so on so that FreeBSD which and GNU which and friends could take over.

Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 08:50:04PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > 3BSD first implemented 'which': > > (1979). This was csh-specific and I think it later became built-into > csh. > > FreeBSD 2.1 introduced a new non-built-in

Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:15:24PM -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote: > Besides, will the new "which" tool be installed in Debian by default? Since > debianutils is Essential:yes, not providing "which" tool by default could > probably break some existing packages. My personal opinion is that no one should

Re: The "which -s" flag

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:55:41AM -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote: > In theory any Debian Developers may merge, but the debianutils package is > maintained by clint@ and srivasta@ so they are responsible for this package. I > am adding them to the email receiver list explicitly. Now that `command -v` is

Re: concerns about Salsa

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:54:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Salsa is hardly the first Debian production service to not be running > the packaged version of its primary application, and it won't be the > last. ftp.debian.org isn't running the packaged version of dak. No, this has been happening

Re: Comma in Maintainer field

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 05:37:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > Let's also not store this in debian/control, but in something like the > package tracker. We can have the archive software put in a Maintainer > field with current syntax, if we want to, at least for a transition > period. Seconded.

Re: Lucas Kanashiro and Athos Ribeiro hijack my package

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 08:28:08AM +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote: > They might want to argue that gjots2 was poorly maintained and hasn't > seen an upload to unstable for years.  That still would not give them > reason to do what they did.  In fact, I have always taken my > responsibilities seriously.

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not, > actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons > privately when emails to

Re: Bug#852451: ITP: rname -- invoke a program under a different name

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:24:37PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > (The shell needs to be bash, mksh, zsh or similar to work; dash and > others don't support -a for exec.) In zsh you can just use the built-in functionality, f.ex. ARGV0=arp busybox

Re: Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:02:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > I am not an expert on permitted ways of quoting UTF-8 in mail headers, > but the base64 method does not seem entirely inconceivable for some RFC > to support that (especially not considering you can encode the body with > base64). Yo

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 01:57:52PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > I do not think that anybody has been considering GnuTLS as a credible > replacement for a very long time. That's very silly.

Re: NRSS has been deprecated [#696302]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:28:41AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > A maintainer would then file "ITR: dasher" and wait for responses before > requesting RM. Why wouldn't you orphan first?

Re: Neomutt packages available

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:41:38AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > You seem to be either suggesting that the mutt people should be prevented from > their pre-existing plan to move to neomutt, or we should have two neomutt > packages in Debian at the same time. I am suggesting that I remember what

Re: Neomutt packages available

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:24:27AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Rather than work with the existing team Elimar has persisted with > efforts to package neomutt separately and has even suggested a *different* > team is set up to maintain neomutt, versus pkg-mutt. Good. > A fork by any other nam

Re: Packaging of static libraries

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:13:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > We should change policy and packaging tools such that static linking > are not enabled by default and only enabled when there is a good > reason to do so; when requested by users or when there is some other No, we should not.

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:58:55AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > From where I'm sitting it all pretty much looks like a self-inflicted > problem. Upstream does not believe in releasing source tarballs (so > each user has to generate them from git-archive, which should be > considered inherently non

Re: Fwd: bash without importing shell functions from the environment

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 06:49:32PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote: > Perhaps making all those scripts either depend on bash or transition > to /bin/sh would be a good idea. This could be done through a lintian > warning I think. Then people interested in working on fully > transitioning to /bin/sh cou

Re: MATE 1.8 has now fully arrived in Debian

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 01:53:06AM +0100, Wookey wrote: > But OK. I get it - this is still too contentious to have any room for > this sort of foolishness and if it's to exist at all it'll have to be > called something boring. That's a little sad, but we'll all > survive. This isn't supposed to be

Re: New project goal: Get rid of Berkeley DB (post jessie)

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 01:36:35PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > For (1), the AGPL is nowhere near as widely used as the GPL, and we > don't have community norms for how to interpret it and how to comply > with it. I don't intend my deployment of ikiwiki-hosting for myself, > friends and family to

Re: Future of Developer's Reference

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:08:29PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > Does 'bullshit' mean that the content is of low quality, or are there > other issues? I'm not sure how to answer this without violating the CoC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subje

Re: Future of Developer's Reference

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:08:59PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > Somewhere in another universe, someone proposed moving Developer's > Reference to the wiki. One of the arguments was that it would let > you make changes _quickly_. I'm shamelessly :-P disclosing a message > in this thread: Since the en

Re: Redefining critical bug severity (was: how to deal with a missed so bump already uploaded ?)

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:39:39PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Or simply add a footnote stating that two packages are NOT unrelated > if one depends on the other. Could someone explain why this is a useful distinction? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with

Re: systemd-fsck?

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:42:32PM +0100, David Goodenough wrote: > The big shame with service is that tab completion does not work properly. > If I use /etc/init.d/ then tab tells me what is there and spells it right. Sounds like maybe you need a better shell. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia

mailman3 in Debian [was Re: Alioth tracker]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:02:35AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > I don't have time to work on Alioth, but JFTR, we (the GNU Mailman development > team) recently announced the first full-suite beta release for Mailman 3. > It's possible that even with the usual beta-quality issues, that MM3 would > m

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > AGPL Ghostscript is now in experimental. How to proceed? Upload to unstable since there's no actual problem? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact l

Re: Bug#745872: ITP: profanity -- a console based XMPP client

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:15:32PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > Please use a wording that also grants permission to link to forks of > OpenSSL such as LibreSSL, in case LibreSSL or another fork is > preferred over OpenSSL in the future. You can take wget as an example: No, please use a more secu

Re: Conflicting package names

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:15:17AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > I suggest not to spend any time on this. Mostly since the old > conquest's upstream[0] isn't dead, unlike stated in #591487. This just > might have changed in the meantime. But now, if ever anyone brings the > old "conquest" back in

Re: when will we finally throw away binary uploads (Re: Please upgrade your build environment when you are affected by transition

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:42:16AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > Which keyring does it use to validate? Can DMs send logs? Does it > validate at all, or can some script kiddies use it as a pastebin > service? :) The logs aren't signed, so it only validates the Subject line. This has been un-abu

Re: Proposal: SystemD.pushers/forcers be physically beaten as revenge.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:00:56AM +0400, Сергей Красников wrote: > After ***forcing*** users to use libav instead of ffmpeg in debian > therefore making it to stuck with outdated fork istead of rapidly > developing original it's too late to talk about freedom.. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug

Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]

On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 05:07:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > This goes for GPLvX "or later", but also for other "or later" licenses, > where they exist. > > I'm convinced that the GPLv2 is a free license, but I'm so far undecided > on the GPLv3 (mainly because I've not read the license text

Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]

On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that > I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1. So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and adds GPLv2-only code to it, do you feel similarly betrayed because you

Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise, > I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to > protect, not anyone's combination of it with hardware), nor do I care > about compatibility with

GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to > license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not > consider the GPL v3 to have what attracted me to use the GPL v2 in the > first place. T

Re: GnuTLS in Debian

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:24:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Which crypto library has a non-awful API? Many of the native Haskell crypto libraries do. I am aware that that is a somewhat unhelpful answer. > I think you've managed to invert my point here, actually, which was that > when someo

Re: GnuTLS in Debian

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:54:49AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > There is no way to change the OpenSSL license. The project doesn't use > copyright assignment and the number of contributors is far too large to be > able to track them all down and get their permission. I do not believe that either

Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:14:06AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > The difference of course is that with the CLA, you continue "to own the > copyright in the contribution, with full rights to re-use, re-distribute, and > continue modifying the contributed code", but it allows Canonical to use your > c

Bug#719526: ITP: attic -- deduplicating backup program

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Clint Adams * Package name: attic Version : 0.7 Upstream Author : Jonas Borgström * URL : https://pythonhosted.org/Attic/ * License : BSD-3-clause Programming Lang: Python Description : deduplicating backup

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your arguments > (e.g. explain why I might be mistaken) instead of presenting just the ad > hominem arguments. Thanks. I am not a lawyer, though I work for lawyers. It wo

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:36:57PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > apt-get is licensed GPLv2 and thus incompatible with AGPLv3. No, apt is GPL-2+. > cyrus-{imapd,sasl} has BSD-style license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3. > OpenLDAP has BSD-style (OpenLDAP) license and thus incompatible with AGPLv

Re: Reporting 1.2K crashes

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 08:06:54PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > It is, however, closely related to all of those things and you end up > usually satisfying all of those requirements at the same time for quite a > few packages, as has been discussed many times in the past. People seem I see some va

Re: Reporting 1.2K crashes

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 07:35:51PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Upstream-Contact was put into DEP-5 because it was already required > contents in debian/copyright according to Policy, which says: > > Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright > information and di

Re: 7.0-> 7.1: any reasons for switching from {4,5,6}.0.x scheme?

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 06:51:30PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > I'm really not sure what it buys us to change the scheme twice in the span > of four releases. For now I see churn in packages and confusion with our > users. It buys us a non-stupid versioning scheme for once. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

Re: Epoch usage conventions (was Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:00:52AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > But once an epoch has been added, there is (arguably?) no problems with > increasing it further. You're not really increasing ugliness in that case, but you are still screwing with any extant versioned relationships. -- To UN

Re: NEW processing during freezes (Was: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:44:48PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > The NEW queue is not just for double-checking licenses. But it should be. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Re: Bug#690839: run-parts: By default the umask is set to 022

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Stefan Klinger wrote: > Yes, I'm aware of that. On the other hand: The current behavior seems > insane to me, unless there would be a good reason for by default > changing the umask to a less secure setting, but then that should be > documented. > > I agr

Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Silence is not assent. That thread blew up because you proposed a *broken* No, silence is an indication that you don't deserve any decision-making power. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a s

Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 11:06:17PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > >> 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, > > > > I think a lot more people know which of those they have. > > Do they, I wonder? Anyway, while it seems a nice idea to try and No, they do not. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: About the media types text/x-php and text/x-php-source

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 03:44:37PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: > Java and Haskell are compiled, but not interpreted languages. Haskell is sometimes interpreted. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.

Re: adopting a recently removed package

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:42:52AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > With much more pro-active removals happening these days we tend to get > a lot of folks wanting to reintroduce removed packages, perhaps we > need a comprehensive section in devref about this. I will file a bug > about it. Or perhaps we

Re: Change default PATH for Jessie / wheezy+1

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:48:48AM +0200, Ulrich Dangel wrote: > So ignore the sudo part as it should be no problem. The bash completion even > changes PATH to contain the sbin directories for sudo but zsh seems to honor > PATH > and doesn't extend to check for programs. Perhaps you have changed

Re: scim and assorted packages

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:06:31PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > PS: What do you find missing in ibus? Not being able to use Multi_key/Compose sequences is a showstopper for me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact li

Re: Is Debian affected by the recent MySQL sql/password.c flow?

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 02:23:47AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: > sure whether it's relevant to Debian. People at Security Team are not > only responsible for fixing things when it breaks out, but also make > sure sensitive information is being disclosed in a correct form at a > correct time. In the end,

Re: problems with quilt and 3.0 (quilt) format again

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:59:38AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > can anyone explain the following: > # in a debian pacakge unpacked: > > $ quilt push -a > Applying patch 01-desktop.patch > patching file poedit.desktop > Hunk #1 succeeded at 15 with fuzz 2 (offset 12 lines). dpkg-source is more

Re: directory under /usr/bin -- Ok or not?

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 04:25:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > What is the use case? The use case is to have a place for executables that are treated similarly to libraries by other executables. For example, tcpd gets run by inetd but not by humans, so it would be silly to have it on root's

Re: directory under /usr/bin -- Ok or not?

On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 04:51:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > 1. There is still no good reason for libexec. Of course there is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.

Re: directory under /usr/bin -- Ok or not?

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:46:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > I don’t think Debian requests FHS to document something before we can > use it. The real problem with the bizarre GNU invention that > is /usr/libexec is that nobody knows what it is here for. Allegedly it was going to be in the F

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:26:12AM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > standard, we should also not ship nfs-common, rpcbind, or libtirpc since > NFS is used even less often than an MTA and the same rationale for not > installing it applies. Those seem like reasonable things to drop, though I don't t

Re: Pythony packages that want a new maintainer

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:05:30AM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > if its not yet taken I would take up chromaprint and paprass. Please do. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: htt

Pythony packages that want a new maintainer

Does anyone want to take chromaprint django-authority django-notification django-pagination paprass ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110924033046.

Re: RFC: Adding "Pre-Depends: libtinfo5" to libncurses5

On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 07:17:05PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > To rule out this possibility, I would like to add an unversioned > "Pre-Depends: libtinfo5" to libncurses5. In my tests, apt did install > libtinfo5 before unpacking the replacement libncurses5 anyway, so this > is mostly meant as a s

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:38:43PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > insecure for other reasons) didn't start by default. Maybe everyone would be happy if there were a central place to set the administrator's preferred poli

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:16:15PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote: > Editing /etc/runlevel.conf is easy as well. But I still prefer the > good old „exit 0” version. And talking with other people, this seems > to be far easier to remember if they want to revert the change. The problem with this is that

Re: Suspend/Hibernate Resume in debian

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 03:09:56PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > Hibernate is completely covered by the kernel; there is not much that Is it supposed to work with swap on an LVM volume on top of dm-crypt? This only works for me with uswsusp. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@list

Bug#626967: RFP: django-profile -- pluggable user profile zone for Django

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: django-profile Version : 0.6 Upstream Author : David Rubert * URL : http://code.google.com/p/django-profile/ * License : MIT Programming Lang: Python Description : pluggable user profile zone for Django

Re: Crypto consolidation in debian ?

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:37:37AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > So, could we document we different pitfall of crypto library on the > debian wiki ? You could use http://curl.haxx.se/docs/ssl-compared.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_TLS_Implementations as starting points.

Re: Openstack Compute nova, Cactus release, Squeeze built available in our private repo

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:29:07PM +0200, Soren Hansen wrote: > This, even more than your constant lecturing on Debian policy, frankly > pisses me off. > > If you have something to say, at the very least have the guts to say > it in public, otherwise this collaboration ends right here. I find it

Re: Moving bash from essential/required to important?

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > What do others think of moving bash to important (required and important > are part of the base system)? I think that this is a great idea. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscri

Re: The number of popcon.debian.org-submissions is falling

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:41:49PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Anyone got any idea how to can get more machines to report to > popcon.debian.org? Or can there be some other problem causing the > fall in the number of submissions? Everyone I have spoken with regarding this who does not rep

Re: Parallellizing the boot in Debian Squeeze - ready for wider testing

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:57:56PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > Was this request ever actually made to the kfreebsd porters? I'm not sure > > that it was, in which case it's rather unfair to say that they've had enough > > time when they were never informed this was a pressing issue. > >

Re: bindv6only again

On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:16:10AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > What if it is just installed from the tarball? Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

Re: bindv6only again

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 05:35:45PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > You could still change it, right? So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software, just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically make Hudson less broken. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel

Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: > 1. browser-plugin-* > 2. browserplugin-* > 3. *-browserplugin > 4. *-browser-plugin > > Opinions? I like #3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". T

Re: bindv6only again

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still > the one that people don't want. It's the one that I want. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscrib

Re: About new source formats for packages without patches

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:19:41PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote: > Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create > such packages? This does not truly answer your question, but since my theory would be unpleasant to the members of core teams, I offer you this instead: http:

Re: Invite to join the Release Team

[Adding and M-F-T-ing -project] On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:04:58AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > I want to point out that Luk's mail was not in any way discussed in the > release team. I think it is horrible. > > I welcome everyone to critize the release team. I would prefer help, of > c

Re: Invite to join the Release Team

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:18:37PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > You seem to send the message that you can judge from the sideline how > things should be run, so I hereby invite you to join the Release Team > and do a proper job. > > If you don't take the challenge I'll interpret that as you being a >

Re: Proposed removal of arch-perl (libarch-perl)

On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 01:06:13PM -0500, Jonathan Yu wrote: > Recently I've been working on adopting the arch-perl package under the > Debian Perl Group's umbrella. However, there are now some test > failures (which didn't surface before because tests were simply > disabled). So, long story short,

Re: ITA: dict-gcide

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 05:24:48PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > The copyright file lists that the copy of GCIDE is archived. I am not very > sure > who the current upstream is and if this database is still actively maintained. It is not. Upstream abandoned GCIDE on the grounds that WordNet

Re: Debian as open project

On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real > constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these > issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or > private mail. The final resu

Re: Bits from the FTPMaster meeting

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > I don't think it's good to waste buildd time on failing to build packages. > I also don't think anyone is stopped from setting up a service that > allows source-only uploads as a go-between. Do you mean set up an unofficial upload queue

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:29:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Also, note that the ftp team are at least project delegates, whereas the > Lintian maintainers are "just" package maintainers. If we have a > governance problem with the ftp team making this decision, it would be > even worse if the L

shells and posix compliance [was Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash without dash essential]

[not replying off-list because that seems counterproductive and arrogant] On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:49:15PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > Actually, if it's invoked as /bin/sh, it is supposed to be > Bourne-compatible. That's my experience with the current version: Not much effort is put into

Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash (part two)

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:43:47PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > Patches will be considered. The second hunk isn't relevant to bash, but it seems a waste to call ls and head for no reason. --- debian/libpam0g.postinst.orig 2009-07-24 08:59:07.0 -0500 +++ debian/libpam0g.postinst

Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash (part two)

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:18:07PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Why? Because: On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:38:01AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > If the goal is to make *bash* removable, then I can understand why that > would be helpful to some people since it's the heavier shell by far. None >

Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash (part two)

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 06:14:27AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Except that every package in Debian that explicitly uses bash has no > declared dependency on bash because it's essential. I think attempting to > go through and add all those dependencies and test would be a huge waste > of time and

Re: Bug#531221: okular: Arbitrarily enforces DRM

On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Sjors Gielen wrote: > May I ask why this is seen as a poor design decision? (Assuming that zsh > only asks this if the shell is interactive) Because it gives a false sense of security, trains people to be less careful, and doesn't handle all similar use ca

Re: Bug#531221: okular: Arbitrarily enforces DRM

On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 06:59:03AM -0300, David Bremner wrote: > Like the following, you mean? > > dulcinea:~/tmp % rm * > zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in /home/bremner/tmp [yn]? Just for the record, this is widely regarded as having been a poor design decision, and is onl

Re: Bug#531221: okular: Arbitrarily enforces DRM

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > presumably the same reasons. evince either never had it, or it is > patched out in Debian. I would be happy with us patching okular to http://bugs.debian.org/413953 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or

Re: Notes from keyring-maint; end of the world not predicted

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 08:50:09PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > Hmm, would that mean gpg --enable-dsa2 --cert-digest-algo SHA256 or > something? > Also, does gpg have an option to make it output the hash algorithms of key > (ID) signatures? I can't seem to find one. Feed a key to gpg --list-

Re: Making timezone configuration more modular

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 06:11:18PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > Thoughts? I am going to assume from the lack of responses to this that no one but the bug submitters care. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co

Re: Breaking /emul/ia32-linux for squeeze

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:10:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > But moving the 32-bit libs to /usr/lib32 does not make us > standards-conformant on amd64, because the FHS (yuckily) standardized on > storing the *32-bit* libs in /usr/lib on this architecture, with 64-bit libs > in /usr/lib64. Tha

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: > Definitely not the only one which mandates this. Please list others so I can mock them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Proposed hook to tag bugs as pending

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:12:29PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Right, but my proposed script should cater for both workflows (letting > the tools write your debian/changelog, or writing it by hand), since the > bug closure will *always* be in debian/changelog. That is not true; for those of us w

Re: NEW processing

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:04:05AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > I think removing a package from a distribution should need more reasons > than a REJECT of that package. Why? In both cases, the package is undistributable. How does it make more sense to keep an undistributable version in the a

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Mike O'Connor wrote: > I cannot. I can say that I opened RC bugs and made sure others from the > FTP team and from Release and Stable Release were aware of exactly what > was happening. The uploader was upstream, so upstream was being made > aware as well

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:44:19AM -0400, Mike O'Connor wrote: > yes, usually it should. It doesn't always. I have tried to file bugs > when I find them in the archive. The citadel related packages are a > recent example of this. Unfortunately they don't always get filed. In > my mind it would

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > For ten years, the "common practice" was that dpkg-buildpackage did not set > any variable. > > We cannot standardize on the "env variable proposal" because such proposal has > never be made. Instead dpkg-buildpackage was broken in

  1   2   3   >