On 18 Nov 2003 12:27:55 +0100
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Busybox or busybox-cvs?
The patch was against the head of busybox's cvs a couple of months ago,
which equates aproximately to busybox-cvs-1.0-pre3.
> If the busybox-cvs maintainer isn't responsive contact upstream.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:38:53 +
Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The inclusion of mdadm would at least enable people to go into a shell
> and setup their MD devices. Then all you'd need to do is make sure
> some basic MD options are on in the kernel.
I put together a raid patch for b
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:39:00 +
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:44:20PM +, Anthraxz __ wrote:
> ^^^
>
> If you don't have a proper From line, everybody will think you're a
> dickhead.
Andrew, i think
A program that is CPU bound will benefit from compiler optimisations.
Compiler optimisation wont make any noticable improvment on largely IO
bound applications.
I was deliberatly speaking generally because it is a grey area, there
are very few practical programs that are completely CPU bound or
c
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 01:32:44 +0800
Cameron Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, Glenn didn't really put many words around his output from timing
> bzip2, so any claims about what he was trying to prove are
> speculative.
The point i was trying to make is that architecture specific
optimisat
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:39:24 +
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently you entirely fail to understand then, because that's not
> what I said. Please refrain from commenting on issues in a language
> which you cannot comprehend.
Yes your majesty.
There are none so blind as tho
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 01:13:09 +0100
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What does that mean? Gentoo uses a heavily patched kernel which goes
> far beyound of what we dicuss
I was in a debian chroot under a gentoo system hence both tests used the
same kernel.
Its irrelevent, but the kernel i
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:33:15 +
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're all very interested in *real* evidence here, because there
> hasn't been any in the past. If you don't have any evidence, you can
> expect people to call bullshit on this.
Gentoo
# time bzip2 -9k linux-2.6.0-tes
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:33:15 +
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please provide carefully documented evidence of the performance gains
> that you are claiming, not handwaving. Evidence of a difference is not
> the same thing; anybody who has any experience with low-level
> programmin
Some comments
Source code is more important than binaries, that we should all agree
on.
Fixing bugs that such a project uncovers makes Free software more
robusts and is good for the community.
Source based distro's are more bandwidth friendly as the source can be
reused to produce new revisi
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:38:12 +0200 (CEST)
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> > The following is a list of packages whose names are inconsistent
> > with accepted behaviour (plz correct me if im wrong)
>
&
The following is a list of packages whose names are inconsistent with
accepted behaviour (plz correct me if im wrong)
To my knowledge if a package is provided by multiple sources, then a
virtual package should be used.
Some packages only conflict on one architecture, im not sure if thats
acceptab
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:58:10 +0200
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SPAM doesn't get better if done for a "good thing".
>
> (That doesn't stop me of writing letters to Members of European
> Parliament e.g., but your mail is absolutly misdirected at d-d.)
Software patents do restrict wh
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:03:43 -0600
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the goal? To indicate that the e-mail signed came from
> someone in possession of person X's private key. X's public key can
> be put up on existing public key servers. There are already numerous
> public
> Then go and read Henrique's excellent
> /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz
I added the following to my rules file from his README and all is well.
# FOR AUTOCONF 2.52 AND NEWER ONLY
ifeq ($(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE), $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE))
confflags += --build $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
else
c
Im having problems compiling libextractor on at least ia64 and m68k
On those arch's dpkg-buildpackage fails with
libtool: compile: unable to infer tagged configuration
libtool: compile: specify a tag with `--tag'
In debian rules i am specifying host and build, so on ia64 configure is
called with
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:33:24 +0100
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 04:21:42AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > Membership is not about resources, its about community.
>
> Bullshit. Our "community" consists of heckling each other
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:21:48 +0100
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think you're going to get it, either. It's basically the same
> question as "Why do people write free software?", and if you come up
> with "altruism", "politics", or "respect" then you're barking up the
> wrong
Debians greatest strength is in its community, that includes dd's and
non dd's.
If we are organised in such a way that we are alienating non dd's the we
are operating in a diminished state.
Debian is but a shadow of what it could be.
Glenn
Is there a list of developer accessible machines anywhere ?
A mirror of http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi would have been handy
Glenn
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:50:46 +1000
Anthony Towns wrote:
> No, you don't. We've done the maths, incremental --ed style diffs are
> the way to do this: they make for by far the smallest download, and
> minimal archive bloat.
ed style diffs can be a problem in that the same diff can be applied
mult
If we put the Packages file under some sort of version control (e.g.
cvs), bandwidth requirments would be minimised as cvs automatically
takes care of diff's and patching, and i assume the CPU load from cvs
server is a lot better than rsync.
Glenn
On Thu, 22 May 2003 12:20:39 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me clue all of you in: anyone who takes a stand and tries
> to hurt the US economy, I see as a taking action inimical to me, and
> my loved ones, and I do *NOT* see that as friendly action.
What you say
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:28:51 +0900
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My wild guess is that the build script is setting prefix rather
> than DESTDIR ?
You are correct, i should know better than to make such basic mistakes.
Thanks
Glenn
Im preparing a package of GNUnet (#147380), one of its current problems
is that it generates a heap of lintian rpath warnings, e.g.
W: gnunet-gtk: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath ./usr/bin/gnunet-gtk
/home/bug1/0.5.3/gnunet-0.5.3/debian/tmp/usr/lib
./configure and the Makefile.in's mention -rpath,
What if the full statment was shown once on installation, but not every
time the program is used, would that be an acceptable compromise to you ?
Glenn
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 23:13:59 +0200
Anders Widman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow.. what an reaction :). Hans's original message was that the
> credits were not included with the distributed files, nothing else.
> Or am I completely mistaken?
I interpret his original message as saying
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:07:03 +0400
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
> clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
> time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL
> out the d
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:16:20 +0100
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do we have a library in Debian that provides reliable stream based
> communication over UDP?
>
> I want to be able to deal with asymetric links and end-points that
> change IP address so TCP won't work. Surely someone
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:03:58 +0100
Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Your idea here.
>
Trinity, re the Matrix
Glenn
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, it was written:
>
> > Hello world,
> >
> > In a couple of days uncompressed Packages files for unstable will
> > cease to be generated, and bzip2'ed Packages files will be generated
> > in their
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:45:35 -0400
"Matt Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 11:06:44AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > release is coming soon ... and we need a bit of feedback about
> > a new feature we plan to use on CD1 of Debian woody
On 06 Apr 2002 19:45:29 -0500
"Colin Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 06:37, Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> > An idea that i havent heard mentioned here is to create a
> > client/server application for specifically handling our metadata
(picked up from http://www.debianplanet.org/article.php?sid=633)
The scalability problems of the Packages file is a recognised problem that
has been discused many times on this list, i think the following idea
could go a long way to solving it.
The current method of checking for updates is to ret
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 22:19:13 -0800
"Yves Arrouye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > e.g. The definition of the age field in -version-info
> > current:revision:age
> >
> > age
> > The difference between the newest and oldest interfaces that this
> > library implements. In other words, the library
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 00:15:02 -0600
"Adam Majer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, if upstream is using libtool, then they should use the
> libtool's specification for shared libraries. Then you just have
> libtar and libtar-dev packages.
>
No, unstream isnt using libtool, upstream only produces st
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 01:39:52 +0900
"Junichi Uekawa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it called libtar1 when it provides libtar.so-1.2 ?
>
> Also you only have -release 1.2 as the LDFLAGS option.
> There is no soname ? How about specifying -version-info ?
>
> I would drop the -release, and use
The ITP is in the BTS as #128042
libtar is available from http://www-dev.cso.uiuc.edu/libtar/ its under
the original 4 clause BSD license
My understanding is that it is DFSG free and conforms to Brandons
proposed policy changes as outlined
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-20
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 18:00:47 +0100
"Erich Schubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i reworked my proposal and ask for comments again.
>
> In Woody, this separation was mostly removed with the package pool.
The seperation you are refering to here has to do with directory layout,
which is a totall
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:38:44 +0100
"Nicolas Chauvat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyhow, my pet project for tonight was to write such a graph checker.
I (and others i know of) have thought about this problem, it is an
intersting problem, i dont think anybody has come up with a good
solution yet.
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:18:35 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
> I'm a student at Kent University Canterbury UK I will be
starting
> my final year project some time next
> year and I am looking to find a project that involves linux development
> ideally kernel / module based or a port
>
On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:56:23 -0400
"Alan Shutko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I hate CVS, i thought everyone else did as well and people only used
it
> > because of a lack of alternatives.
>
> http:/
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:21:30 -0500
"Vince Mulhollon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 09/07/2001 11:20:42 AM Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 10:13:50AM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> >> > Integrating CVS into Debian (as a core component, not just a
package)
> would
> >> >
Hi, there are a few .dsc files that dont have a Format: field, the few
that i found all had a Standards-Version: 3.0.1, but some packages of that
same Standards-Version do have a Format: field in the .dsc file, i tried
to find more details of theis field.
man dpkg-source refers to it being describ
> 3: What's a better name? "deblicator" and "apt-share" have been
>suggested so far.
>
I like deblicator due to its originality, and its not really a part of apt
is it ?
Glenn
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> Since the LSB is mainly useful for binary-only distributors, we need not get
> annoyed over their choice of rpm. After all, it makes more sense, since most
> distributors already have staff that knows how to build rpms anyway.
>
So the LSB is just about con
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 08:22:52AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
>
> > Yes, that was kind of my point.
> >
> > An analogy would be that we don't need dpkg because most of its
> > functionality could be done by a mixture of tar, gzip, and perl (and maybe
> > make to handl
Joey Hess wrote:
>
>
> They will be written in C, or perhaps, in POSIX shell script (without
> any external commands except ar, tar, gunzip, though..).
>
If C, would it be ok if it was specific to busybox or would it have to
be independent?
If its writen specifically for busybox it could acces
Chris Rutter wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:14:24 Ben Armstrong wrote:
>
> > For the most part, I think there is enough flexibility within Debian to
> > pick and choose the smallest tools that will do the job from among the
> > binary packages. Where Debian currently falls short, we can creat
Ben Collins wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 04:16:08PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > Im trying to understand a few things relating to packaging... take the
> > kernel for example
> >
> > I cant find any details on the virtual package kernel-image except its
Im trying to understand a few things relating to packaging... take the
kernel for example
I just did a fresh install of potato, and then installed my own kernel
image built by kernel-package, dselect lists my custom kernel as being
the only kernel-image installed, i cant see any reference to the
o
51 matches
Mail list logo
