Re: [PROPOSAL] virtual package 'lha' -- a suitable /usr/bin/lha

At Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:28:55 +0800, Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote: > LZH is an archive format which is generated by the lha utility (1). > This format is still popular in Japan, but the lha utility is not a free > software. However, some free softwares which use LZH as their > data format (2) and s

Re: timezone data packaged separately and in volatile?

At Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:30:01 +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:42:31PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just realised that the timezone data in glibc is taken from an > > upstream database (namely ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/). This data > > sometimes changes

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

At Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:58:24 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > - must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the > architecture Does this part mean "developer-accessible machine is always usable for all debian developers"? Does such machine have dchroot for old-stable/stable/unstable ?

kernel build version dependency and NPTL support

I sent this mail to debian-glibc and debian-release lists; but I think it's general issue - so I also send to debian-devel. Sorry for my cross posting and duplicated messages. I found NPTL/buildd kernel mismatch problem today when I saw the s390 build log failure at http://buildd.debian.org/~jer

Re: Bug#271428: mapping unknown timezones

At Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:39:08 +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > also sprach Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.04.16.1552 +0200]: > >> Therefore, any actual behavior (including the existing one as well > >> as the suggested alternatives) would be

glibc 2.3.2.ds1-21 into sarge (Re: arm seems OK: release status?)

At Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:10:18 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > That, and still waiting for the glibc upload to roll in, and for > testing-security to be 100% on-line. I duploaded glibc 2.3.2.ds1-21. Please consider to put this version into testing. It resolves 2 RC bugs, timezone updates, and addit

Re: Release update: kde3.3, upload targets, kernels, infrastructure

At Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:30:57 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:19:36PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > I upgraded a Woody box last week to Sarge's glibc/apt/dpkg/ > > openoffice.org/perl last week. The result was that Woody's mysql does > > not work with Sarge's glibc. It c

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

At Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:09:49 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > >> BTW: I wonder why hwcap decisions are not cached in the ld.so.cache? > > > > Why don't you check /etc/ld.so.cache? Hint: > > "strings /etc/ld.so.cache | grep /lib/tls" on i686. > > I know

Re: NPTL support in 2.4 kernel series?

At Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:51:22 +0100, Martin Kittel wrote: > Recently upstream has converted the database kernel from > linuxthread-style threading to NPTL. While -at least for i386- > linuxthreads is still supported in MaxDB at this time, it will go away > in one of the next releases. > As far as

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

At Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:38:59 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:16:12AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > Looking at the rate of hardware changes, we will ideally be wanting > > to add a new hwcap entry just about every year; > > which results roughly in x10 time penalty ever

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

At Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:09:03 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:52:04PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > > > > Yes, and if ev67 is instruction upper compatible with ev56 (I > > > > > guess so), I thin

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

At Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:55:28 +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote: > Marcelo E. Magallon writes: > > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:14:15PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > > > > occurs when you have for example an ev56 library in lib/ev56, and a > > > > ev67 CPU.

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

At Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:05:43 +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote: > > If other libraries > > like mesa and libssl want to use /usr/lib/ev67 and so on, we may > > consider to add HWCAP_IMPORTANT. > > This should not be needed, since the library loader also looks in a directory > corresponding to the archit

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

At Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:03:44 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that MMX will be removed from the next glibc 2.3.4 upload. It > > will provide only SSE2 (and CMOV, debian-specific for only VIA C3 > > processor). > > Well, there's hand-crafted MMX code, so it's runt

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

At Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:27:28 +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote: > > Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mesa upstream uses -mcpu=ev5 -mieee on alpha. Is that ok? Where does > >> this belong into? /usr/lib/ev5? > > > > IIRC, alpha does not define any hwcaps. > > There's a patch for thi

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

At Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:59:41 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since the optimized i386 library does use MMX (it does perform runtime > checking) and is compiled with -mcpu=i686 [0] (gcc doesn't seem to be > emitting CMOVs though) I think the proper place is > /usr/lib/i68

Re: Brazil Summer Time

At Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:50:44 -0300, Rosilene Oliveira wrote: > I'd like to know if there is a version to convert the time of > application Debian 3.0 to Brazil summer time. > We use the version 3.0, its time has changed to summer time, but here, > in Brazil, we haven't changed the time yet. It wi

Re: Xsession doesn't use umask setting from /etc/login.defs

At Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:14:58 +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote: > > /etc/login.defs explicitly indicates that it is "Configuration > > control definitions for the login package", and many of its > > parameters are inapplicable to display managers, or already > > implemented in parallel (e.g., how long do wa

Re: Is declaring correct deps/conflicts for versions not in stable really no longer needed?

At Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:03:00 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The bug _was_ in glibc, and not in php. It is not the job of php to > > force you to have a non-buggy glibc installed. > > This depends on point of view. > If a library < X.Y does not provide a feature needed

Re: udev and /sys mounting [was: mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?]

At Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:11:18 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > On 2003-12-15 10:04 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > >From the view point of libc6 maintainer, it's no problem to merge /sys > > mount for /etc/init.d/devpts.sh. The name of devpts.sh should be > > renamed to s

Re: udev and /sys mounting [was: mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?]

At Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:01:42 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > [1 ] > On Dec 14, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> udev (and given time many other programs) needs sysfs mounted, so we > >> should decide if it will be handled by devpts.sh or by a similar script > >> in a different packag

Re: mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?

At Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:00:05 + (UTC), Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >- I sometimes switch to my old 2.4 for testing purposes. Then of > > course mounting /sys will fail and the user will get an error > > message

Re: mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?

At Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:42:45 +, Roger Leigh wrote: > > Tmpfs in Linux kernel 2.4, is formally known as shmfs (posix shared > > memory filesystem). It's useful for memory-based filesystem like > > Solaris tmpfs. However, if we support new Posix IPC like shm_open(3), > > shm_unlink(3), to make

mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?

Hi, Tmpfs in Linux kernel 2.4, is formally known as shmfs (posix shared memory filesystem). It's useful for memory-based filesystem like Solaris tmpfs. However, if we support new Posix IPC like shm_open(3), shm_unlink(3), to make debian posix compliant (and like other distros), it should be moun

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

At Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:08:24 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing > > problems with these fonts. > > > > The official reply from Hitachi on this question, as posted at > >

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

At Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:22:37 +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote: > And this package is must be removed from only Woody (already fixed in > Sarge/Sid): > > xfonts-intl-japanese-big (Bug#215371) I think it's good idea to update this package to the latest, instead of removing from woody. Milan, do you think

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:26:25 +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote: > At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:59:24 +0100, > Martin Schulze wrote: > > Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 > > = > > > > An up-to-date version is at . > > > > I am prepar

Re: rename linux-kernel-headers to system-headers

At Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:20:36 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath wrote: > Sorry, users will still ask. They always ask. Users still think that > updating /usr/include/linux to point to /usr/src/linux/include/linux is the > right thing to do. And then, which package does provide /usr/src/linux directory? Reg

Re: Sarge+1: ideas for Experimental V1.2 (or is that 0.2?)

At Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:24:15 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Really? The latest glibc in sarge is from 2003-03-22, and there are > currently 1103 packages waiting for glibc. I may need to explain the status glibc: 2003-03-22 glibc is 2.3.1-17. The next version of glibc is 2.3.2-2, which was upload

Re: Bits from the RM

At Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:01:14 -0500 (CDT), Adam Heath wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > It was reported by joshk on IRC, but I'm not still clear where this > > problem come from. Example: > > > > ultra30:~> dpkg -s libc6 |

Re: Bits from the RM

At 21 Aug 2003 17:29:16 +0100, Philip Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:52, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > My concern is (1) hppa build. If we can't get hppa glibc, we may need > > to drop it finally... > > I don't think the hppa glibc is as inscrutable as all

Re: Bits from the RM

At Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:09:29 -0500 (CDT), Adam Heath wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:52:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > AFAIK, the unresolved difficult bugs are: (1) hppa build (2) dpkg > > > (setjmp/long

Re: Bits from the RM

At Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:17:27 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > [1 ] > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:49:33AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:49:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Also make sure to include some leg room if you depend on packages that > > > have a tendency to

Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas

At Thu, 7 Aug 2003 18:25:27 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > However, not having enough time to chase down important bugs is no > excuse for not reviewing simple patches to fix simple bugs, which > doesn't take an awful lot of time at all. (It is a good excuse for not > reviewing complicated or

Re: Bug#203820: Incorrect expanding [] glob

At Sat, 2 Aug 2003 03:23:35 +0200, Micha-B³ Politowski wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 00:44:16 +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > > When LC_COLLATE is set to pl_PL [] glob does not work correctly: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/bash-test$ echo $LC_COLLATE > > pl_PL > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/bash-tes

Re: Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore

At Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:32:17 -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:47:55PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > At 21 Jun 2003 00:27:18 +0200, > > Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > RedHat provide glibc for i386, i586 and i686. Why doesn't Debian >

Re: Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore

At 21 Jun 2003 00:27:18 +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > RedHat provide glibc for i386, i586 and i686. Why doesn't Debian > provide several packages for i*86 when the package can be optimized a > lot depending on the CPU type? We're planning. i686 optimized binary does not work on my machine, so it's

Re: Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore

At Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:11:36 +0200, Erwan MAS wrote: > Please keep , a i386 or i586 architecture , for the via C3 processor . > i686 architecture is not compatible with C3 . > > This processor is very used in the Via EPIA motherboard : > > See : > http://www.viavpsd.com/product/epia_mini_itx_spe

Re: Debian for x86-64 (AMD Opteron)

At Sat, 26 Apr 2003 03:01:58 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 25 April 2003 19:36, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > You know this will probably require modifications in *thousands* of > > packages ? > > Yes, I fully understand the impact. I've done it for half the packages > in something simi

Re: libc6 (security) update does not restart system-services?

At Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:52:51 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > > [1 ] > Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > or use tools like "lsof" or my package of "memstat" to find loaded > > and deleeted libraries. > > I believe this process to be much to complicated to be used > successfully in the general case. You woul

Re: libc6 (security) update does not restart system-services?

At Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:55:11 +0200, Markus Amersdorfer wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:04:01 +0200 > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:05:49AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > So everytime we have to restart

Re: libc6 (security) update does not restart system-services?

At Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:24:17 +0200, Markus Amersdorfer wrote: > On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:06:07 +0900 > GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.postinst checks for "$1" == > > > "configure" > > >

Re: libc6 (security) update does not restart system-services?

At Thu, 17 Apr 2003 23:28:02 +0200, Markus Amersdorfer wrote: > I've recently upgraded my Woody-Servers according to the latest > libc6 security update (DSA-282), and it seems that services were _not_ > reloaded by the post-install-script!? > > More detailed information: > > When investigating th

Re: How to get rid of non-free packers?

At Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:06:58 +0900 (JST), Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote: > On August 27, 2002 at 2:28AM -0700, > Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > LHa 0.01-1.00: Masaru Oki (LHa original author, 1991-1992) > > Suse.com list e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > He is one of the NetBSD d

Re: How to get rid of non-free packers?

At Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:23:30 -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:33:40AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > At Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:01:15 +0300, > > Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: > > >It's free to distribute on the network, but if you distribute for &

Re: How to get rid of non-free packers?

At Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:01:15 +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: >It's free to distribute on the network, but if you distribute for >the people who cannot access the network (by magazine or CD-ROM), >please send E-Mail (Inter-Net address) to the author before the >distribution. That's

Re: isync vs mailsync

At 05 Sep 2001 09:43:09 +1000, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Colin> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> In my search for a "perfect" offline IMAP client(TM) I have > >> looked at isync vs mailsync. > > Colin> What's wrong with Gnus? Perhaps with the Agent? I admit

Bug#111274: ITA: doc-linux-ja -- Linux HOWTOs in Japanese

ect) keeps activity to maintain these documentation, so almost docs becomes old. To keep these docs so old is harmful for user and newbies (other doc-linux-* seems old, too). -- GOTO Masanori

ITP: ttf-kochi

f font includes xfonts-naga10 hinting information. xfonts-naga10's bdf fonts are non-free, so I remove all non-free part of ttf data. I contacted with upstream author, he said that if these non-free part were removed, this font became apparently public domain font). Regards, -- GOTO Masanori

Re: How to block spam (Re: SPAM:come on dream world..)

ing) we cannot send any mails... > A problem exists: > MS Outlook Express looks attach iso-2022-jp everytime even if the > mail hasn't any Japanese words. That's bad. :-X Regards, -- GOTO Masanori

Re: libdb3.so and libdb-3.so

of `libdb-3'. Yes, there is no problem in binary's soname compatibility, but db-3 is not appropriate name, the reason is said above by Ben. Regards, -- GOTO Masanori

Re: libdb3.so and libdb-3.so

s some such `-ldb-3' fields. If the soname of `libdb-3' is decided for only gnome, should it be all changed to `libdb3'... ? I cannot find out why `libdb-3' is used and spreaded over the gnome packages. Naming soname is sensitive issue, IMHO. Regards, -- GOTO Masanori

libdb3.so and libdb-3.so

of (libdb3, libdb-3) leads some future confusion. We should unite their name into `libdb3', and remove `libdb-3.so'...? Regards, -- GOTO Masanori

Re: need POSIX Shared memory and message queues on Linux ?

But, they are very under depelopment stage, so you should use SYSV IPC instead of POSIX IPC functions. IMHO, porting from POSIX IPC to SYSV IPC may be complicate, but SYSV IPC already exists, and they are very stable, tested on Linux for a long time. Regards, -- GOTO Masanori

Re: WHEN do you upload to grep and sed with multi-byte extension?

regretted that these current m17n circumstance, status, situation have continued. In addition, I think that a software's `i18n/m17n' does not mean to deal with *only* Unicode. Regards, -- GOTO Masanori Department of Computational Intelligence and Systems Science, Tokyo Institue of Technology.