Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The choices are: don't ship them, ship them in contrib, or ship them > in project/experimental. I still don't understand why they don't fit in Extra. Packages designed the 2.1.* frozen kernels seem to exactly fit the policy for Extra. Did you post a mess

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Joel Klecker wrote: > I find it odd that the GNU ftp site and mirrors thereof are not considered > "wide distribution" by gettext's author. > > That is a very very old release (from december

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

At 01:07 -0500 1998-04-17, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >Hi, >>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Marcus> Is gettext so unstable? I doubt it. > > Dpes not matter. We should be respecting the upstream authors > wishes. Already Debian has the reputation of not forwarding bugs

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 01:07:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Marcus> Is gettext so unstable? I doubt it. > > Dpes not matter. We should be respecting the upstream authors > wishes. Already Debian has the reputation

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Hi, >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Marcus> On Thu, Apr 16, 1998 at 07:37:20PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: >> If a package being in "experimental" does not implicitly mean "not >> to be distributed in CDs", then we would need definitely another >> different "experimenta

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Thu, Apr 16, 1998 at 07:37:20PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > If a package being in "experimental" does not implicitly mean "not to be > > > distributed in CDs", then we would need definitely another different > > > "experimental" for gettext. > > > > I'm not sure whether or not "experim

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Brian White: > Project/experimental is not searched by dselect & friends apt does search in experimental, as far as I know. > > If a package being in "experimental" does not implicitly mean "not to be > > distributed in CDs", then we would need definitely anoth

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > Why don't we include selected directories from there on the official > > CD (I think of gettext (ouch, don't beat me), 2.1.x software, ...)? > > gettext is in experimental so that it will *not* be included in CDs... > > If we start putting experimental things in CDs, then we should create > a

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > From a logical point of view, I think project/experimental is the best > > choice. Why don't we include selected directories from there on the official > > CD (I think of gettext (ouch, don't beat me), 2.1.x software, ...)? > > Project/experimental is not part of hamm. Yes. That's exactly my

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> Marcus, I was just clarifying (once more) the status of gettext in Debian. > > It is in experimental because the author asked me not to distribute it > "widely". This means that even if it is not accesable by dselect, we > should not put it on CDs yet. Ah. I had forgotten that. > If a packag

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 13.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It is in experimental because the author asked me not to distribute it > > "widely". This means that even if it is not accesable by dselect, we > > should not put it on CDs yet. Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 13.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Marcus, I was just clarifying (once more) the status of gettext in Debian. > > It is in experimental because the author asked me not to distribute it > "widely". This means that even if it is not accesable by dselect, w

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 04:50:05PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hi. > > Marcus, I was just clarifying (once more) the status of gettext in Debian. > > It is in experimental because the author asked me not to distribute it > "widely". This means that even i

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi. Marcus, I was just clarifying (once more) the status of gettext in Debian. It is in experimental because the author asked me not to distribute it "widely". This means that even if it is not accesable by dselect, we should not put it on CDs yet. If a packag

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 12:19:03PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > Why don't we include selected directories from there on the official > > CD (I think of gettext (ouch, don't beat me), 2.1.x software, ...)? >

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we start putting experimental things in CDs, then we should create > another distribution "really-experimental", since experimental > seems not to be "safe" enough... Or create an "expirmental" priority. The policy manual says: extra Thi

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Why don't we include selected directories from there on the official > CD (I think of gettext (ouch, don't beat me), 2.1.x software, ...)? gettext is in experimental so that it will *not* be included in CDs... If

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 09:10:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From a logical point of view, I think project/experimental is the best > > choice. Why don't we include selected directories from there on the official > > CD (I think of gettext (ouch, do

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Brian White wrote: > I was thinking "project/experimental" would be better, but I don't think > that goes out on many CDs. > It would if that directory were inside the main distribution tree, and it would be obvious what it contained. I think it would be a good solution. Wai

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From a logical point of view, I think project/experimental is the best > choice. Why don't we include selected directories from there on the official > CD (I think of gettext (ouch, don't beat me), 2.1.x software, ...)? Project/experimental is not part

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 03:18:46PM -0400, Brian White wrote: > > I was thinking "project/experimental" would be better, but I don't think > that goes out on many CDs. >From a logical point of view, I think project/experimental is the best choice. Why don't we include selected directories from the

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > 2.1 kernel-requiring stuff (and a current 2.1 kernel?) can be included > > under "contrib". This keeps it out of "main" and puts it into the realm > > of "user-beware". (Note: This is not to insinuate that everything in > > contrib is dangerous or anything, but just that you should think at

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 01:16:19PM -0400, Brian White wrote: > > > > Also, how likely are the current versions of these programs > > > > to work with future versions of the unstable 2.1 kernel and the 2.2 > > > > kernel that will eventually come from it? > > > > True enough. But a Debian 2.1.x pac

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > > Also, how likely are the current versions of these programs > > > to work with future versions of the unstable 2.1 kernel and the 2.2 > > > kernel that will eventually come from it? > > True enough. But a Debian 2.1.x package and packages that works with it > could be good for seeing and try

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Hi, Well, my problems with diald happen to be greater than that. This is from log files on my machine. manoj -- Apr 10 00:50:56 tiamat syslogd 1.3-3#25: restart. Apr 10 00:51:02 tiamat diald[152]: Diald is dying

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 09:54:57PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 01:09:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The subject in question is whether to include these packages in "stable". > > > "unstable" will include them for sure. >

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Add diald to the list of packages having a problem with 2.1.X > kernels. I have downloaded the patch from the diald list archives, > but even that failed for 2.1.94. Diald works with 2.1.92, but it has a defect when connecting to other machines

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Hi, Add diald to the list of packages having a problem with 2.1.X kernels. I have downloaded the patch from the diald list archives, but even that failed for 2.1.94. manoj -- "Please refrain from making me puke on my workstation." Alan Weiss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]> Manoj Srivasta

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Thursday, April 9, 1998, Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think that if somebody can get the 2.2 kernel source off of CD, build > the kernel (hopefully as a debian package) and install it, they have the > knowledge and the ability to download packages from the network using > one of the many

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 05:27:14PM -0400, Brian White wrote: > > Brian, here in Germany, every Megabyte you have to download is costing real > > money. A lot of money. Please put as much on the CD as possible. Declare it > > extra, put it in an unstable dir, put warnings all over the place, but > >

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> Brian, here in Germany, every Megabyte you have to download is costing real > money. A lot of money. Please put as much on the CD as possible. Declare it > extra, put it in an unstable dir, put warnings all over the place, but > please include it. > > We already exclude non-free comlpetely for g

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 01:09:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The subject in question is whether to include these packages in "stable". > > "unstable" will include them for sure. > > I think they are appropriate for "stable" provided they are classifed >

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The subject in question is whether to include these packages in "stable". > "unstable" will include them for sure. I think they are appropriate for "stable" provided they are classifed as "Extra". That is what the "Extra" priority is for, after all. -- R

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > > In this case, if somebody has the knowledge to build their own 2.1 kernel > > > (since one didn't come on the CD), then they have the knowledge necessary > > > to get packages from "unstable". > > > > It's very unpleasant to have to download things whn you have just bought a > > CD. And man

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > > How many of these people had problems from properly built packages? > > > > All of them. It was that the packages didn't work in certain situations. > > Were these "Extra" packages? One was X. I don't recall off hand what the other problems were. > > > What about people who need such su

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How many of these people had problems from properly built packages? > > All of them. It was that the packages didn't work in certain situations. Were these "Extra" packages? > > What about people who need such support now (before the cd is released). >

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > I understand this and it is a good point. My concern is with people > > who are trying to install Debian and the difficulties they encounter. > > There have been several posts lately from experienced people who tried > > to install Debian and had it blow up in their faces. Such happenings > > c

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand this and it is a good point. My concern is with people > who are trying to install Debian and the difficulties they encounter. > There have been several posts lately from experienced people who tried > to install Debian and had it blow up in the

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > > What if THEY GOT IT OFF A CD, NOT THE NET? Yes, there are people that are > > > going to buy CD distributions that include kernel sources, and these > > > distributions will include 2.1.x and 2.2 when it's released. WHAT DO WE > > > LOSE by putting support for them in hamm? > > > > I think

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Brian White wrote: > > What if THEY GOT IT OFF A CD, NOT THE NET? Yes, there are people that are > > going to buy CD distributions that include kernel sources, and these > > distributions will include 2.1.x and 2.2 when it's released. WHAT DO WE > > LOSE by putting support fo

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > > They work if you're using a 2.1.x kernel. Since plenty of people can be > > > expected to get Debian on multi-CD sets which include kernel sources, I > > > still believe we should ship them. > > > > > > Also, what happens when Linus finally puts out the 2.2.0 kernel? I don't > > > think we'

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Brian White wrote: > > They work if you're using a 2.1.x kernel. Since plenty of people can be > > expected to get Debian on multi-CD sets which include kernel sources, I > > still believe we should ship them. > > > > Also, what happens when Linus finally puts out the 2.2.0 k

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> They work if you're using a 2.1.x kernel. Since plenty of people can be > expected to get Debian on multi-CD sets which include kernel sources, I > still believe we should ship them. > > Also, what happens when Linus finally puts out the 2.2.0 kernel? I don't > think we're going to be making a

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Brian White wrote: > > > In this case, if somebody has the knowledge to build their own 2.1 kernel > > > (since one didn't come on the CD), then they have the knowledge necessary > > > to get packages from "unstable". > > > > It's very unpleasant to have to download things wh

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> > In this case, if somebody has the knowledge to build their own 2.1 kernel > > (since one didn't come on the CD), then they have the knowledge necessary > > to get packages from "unstable". > > It's very unpleasant to have to download things whn you have just bought a > CD. And many users are

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> In this case, if somebody has the knowledge to build their own 2.1 kernel > (since one didn't come on the CD), then they have the knowledge necessary > to get packages from "unstable". It's very unpleasant to have to download things whn you have just bought a CD. And many users are forced to us