Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > maybe a compromise would be to leave the packages in slink, make sure
> > the Description: field highlights their alpha status, and automatically
> > close all non-packaging bugs (and forward them up
Hi,
>>"Michael" == Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> I don't know. I thought: 1) Manoj took over the package with my
Michael> blessings, and 2) he did so with the specific intention of fixing the
Michael> bug.
And I did. I uploaded a package, and closed all bug
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> gnus 25609 Gnus: prerm script failure make it impossible to
> upgrade/pruge [64] (Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> We should not ship without although it's technically not essential.
> We'd better find somebody to fix this bug.
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> gnus 25609 Gnus: prerm script failure make it
>>impossible to upgrade/pruge [64]
>>(Michael Alan Dorman
>><[EMAIL PR
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> maybe a compromise would be to leave the packages in slink, make sure
> the Description: field highlights their alpha status, and automatically
> close all non-packaging bugs (and forward them upstream if it makes
> sense to do so).
>
I hope this is
thread...
==
It's alpha software, but it's free and doesn't break your system. Let's
ship it.
If we are going to remove all packages which are buggy, we have to
ship an empty CD ROM. Bug free software doesn't seem to exist per
definition
Let's look a bit further at those bugreports..
> balsa 27726 balsa cannot be run [0] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ole J.
> Tetlie))
> balsa 27894 balsa is linked against ancient version of gtk [0]
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ole J. Tetlie))
A new balsa has already been uploaded (0
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:46:58PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> While you're all on this thread, what about mozilla?
Please keep it in, too. This one's another major visibility package for free
software.
> I was going to ask Brian for an extension for mozilla as I won't make
> 00:00 Saturday GM
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 02:24:53PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> IMHO it is not appropriate to ship beta software under the guise of
> release software. If it is really desirable to ship gnome, it sould
> be categorized as ALPHA and installed only when a user explicitly
> requests it.
I wonder wh
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 05:29:11PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Whether or not a program sucks or is alpha has never been a criteria for
> inclusion or noninclusion in Debian, as far as I know. Debian evaluates
> only the quality and policy conformance of the *package*, not the
> *packaged prog
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:46:58PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> While you're all on this thread, what about mozilla?
The current Debian package doesn't work with the current libc (#27181,
severity: grave).
> I was going to ask Brian for an extension for mozilla as I won't make
> 00:00 Saturday
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:02:41PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> That is ridiculous, there is no reason to remove gnome before the freeze, if
> you
> dont like it dont use it. There are several programs that wont run without it,
> including GtkICQ which is about the only usuable icq replacement
Hi,
Doesn't the version number convey the alpha nature to people?
Like, it isn't even version 1.0?
Anyway, seeing that it is the maintainer who is asking for the
removal, and the fact that I am not that much of a GNOME user (I fail
to see the point, so far), I withdraw my obje
On 16 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If we are going to staret removing packages because of the quality of
> the software, wonderful. I move to remove all traces of the travesty
> of editors, vi, from Debian, since obviously as editors they are less
> than alpha quality software.
and we shou
Hi,
>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not sure if it's a good idea to release them as a part of a
>> "stable" distribution, as they really aren't. There aren't any
>> guarantees that the stuff that runs today is going to run tomorrow.
Brian> I would agree with you.
Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
> I vote for "leave them in". I feel much in favour of presenting
> them to the world. Basically they work.
Please remove gnome, esp. gnome-freecell and gnome-mahjong.
My productivity has severly dropped since I discovered them. They
are just too darned good and
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
meskes>On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
meskes>> libmagick4-dev19332 libmagick:
ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb LI#67 [217] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K.
Ellis))
meskes>
meskes>I wish I would understand a message li
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Stephen Crowley wrote:
crow>That is ridiculous, there is no reason to remove gnome before the freeze,
if you
FWIW, one of the slashdot commenters on the slink-freeze, commends
slink for including gnome ( he did install the packages, too) .
John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTE
> "David" == David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Well, what happens when lots of people try it, see that it
David> is broken, and associate Gnome with being broken and
David> unstable? That said, I don't think that will happen if it
David> is loudly declared to be *
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> I think that keeping it on the CD is spurious because the CD
> represents what we know works. Packages that don't work can be
> downloaded from the FTP servers by the people who want to fuss with
> them. Gnome is high profile because it has fancy scre
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:24:23PM -0700, David Welton wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 12:18:21AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Marc Singer wrote:
> > > I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd
> > > say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 12:18:21AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Marc Singer wrote:
> > I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd
> > say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a
> > fine demonstration, but it doesn't add value to Debian until it
Marc Singer wrote:
> I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd
> say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a
> fine demonstration, but it doesn't add value to Debian until it can be
> used either a) to hack against, or b) to provide a workable des
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 October 1998, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Brian White
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The following are packages I feel we can remove:
> ...
> > netatalk 25598 netalk: several problems (and the solution) [64]
> > (Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PR
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > > The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> > > current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
> > > things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0
> > > release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:02:41PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:32:02AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > > What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
> > >
> > > The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> > > current packages in Slink
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:32:02AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
> >
> > The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> > current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
> > things don't work. It sounds l
> "Michael" == Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White
Michael> wrote:
Brian> libmagick4-dev 19332 libmagick:
Brian> ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb LI#67 [217]
Brian> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K. Ellis
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> libmagick4-dev19332 libmagick: ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb
> LI#67 [217] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K. Ellis))
I wish I would understand a message like that. :-)
> libpgjava 27753 libpgjava: depends on jdk1.1-r
Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote:
> This is my fault, I should have had more time to fix this (move it
> into non-free) with a new upload, but I don't know how to do this? File a
> bug against ftp.debian.org?
Just upload the package with section non-free/whatever, and it will be
taken care of
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> vrwave23436 vrwave should maybe go in contrib? [124] (Javier
> Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> xswallow 25932 Xswallow should be in contrib [55] (Javier
> Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROT
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:26:21PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I'm still amazed by the development of strace.. basically it's a nightmare
> to work on. Upstream version are _extremely_ rare and there are literaly
> dozens of patches floating around, but nobody collects them. I think
> Debian
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
> > and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
> > release-critical (i.e. critical, grave,
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
> >
> > The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> > current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
> > things don't work. It sounds like there will pro
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
> What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
Keep it in!
> The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
> things don't work. It sounds lik
> On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51]
> > (Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and
> found no explanation.
Darn. I downgra
Jim Pick wrote:
>
> Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
> > and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
> > release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time.
>
> What
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:26:21PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> It was important because Raul Miller made it that. He needed strace to
> debug a problem with one of his packages and found that bug. Since he
> hasn't responded to my failure to reproduce the problem I was going to
> downgrade
On Wednesday 14 October 1998, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Brian White
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following are packages I feel we can remove:
...
> netatalk 25598 netalk: several problems (and the solution) [64]
> (Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
As a new developer, I just wa
> smb2www 27641 perl 5.005-02 breaks smb2www [0] (Craig Small
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> This one also refers to the version of perl which has been
> removed. (It broke every module, so there are several such bug reports)
I knew about it, but not which bugs it affected. I'll
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
> Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
> > and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
> > release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51]
> > (Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug re
> What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
>
> The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
> things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0
> release coming up in a few months th
On Thu 15 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51]
> > (Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report a
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
> and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
> release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time.
What do you think we should do with
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:52:33PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have to take a look at bug #27395 because pcmcia-modules works for
> me.
The report says not that they don't work, but that some things are not
so good. They seem to be valid concerns although I'm not sure they
are release-crit
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51] (Wichert
> Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and
found no explanation.
I think strace is t
Brian White wrote:
> mount 27421 mount: fails to parse existing /etc/fstab [10]
> (Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
I've just fixed this in a non-maintainer upload with prior negotiation
with the official maintainer.
--
Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about it's f
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following are packages I feel we can remove:
>
> pcmcia-modules-2 27395 pcmcia-modules are totally broken out of the box
> [11] (Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> pcmcia-source 26657 pcmcia-source: Needs this patch to work on 2.1.118+
> kerne
Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
> | After the first crash it run but wasn't able to display the icons.
>
> Hehe. I complained to the author about the same thing. He told me that
> I was lucky because the current pixmaps were so ugly. Then I got
> suspicious and did:
>
> my_favourite_image_viewer /usr/share/
*-Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
| > *-Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > |
| > | yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in
/bin and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton))
| > |
| > | Davide isn't maintaining this package anym
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Brian White wrote:
> htdig 25412 htdig: htdig ignores config file stuff/absolute
> pathnames compiled in [70] (Gergely Madarasz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Fixed last week, remembered to close it today :)
--
Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAI
Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
> *-Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |
> | yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin
> and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton))
> |
> | Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking
> | care of this one, t
smb2www 27641 perl 5.005-02 breaks smb2www [0] (Craig Small
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
This one also refers to the version of perl which has been
removed. (It broke every module, so there are several such bug reports)
John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tucson,AZ http://www.phy
*-Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin
and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton))
|
| Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking
| care of this one, too?
Yelp! This bug is now closed,
*-Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin
and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton))
|
| Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking
| care of this one, too?
Already uploaded. Closing bugs
> > perl 27604 Perl @INC needs /usr/lib/perl5 [7] (Darren
> > Stalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > perl 27738 perl: @INC does not contain /usr/lib/perl5 [0]
> > (Darren Stalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> This doesn't affect the current perl version but the version to be
>
Hi!
> perl 27604 Perl @INC needs /usr/lib/perl5 [7] (Darren Stalder
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> perl 27738 perl: @INC does not contain /usr/lib/perl5 [0]
> (Darren Stalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
This doesn't affect the current perl version but the version to be
used in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Brian> ada-rm 27918 ada-rm: This large package should be architecture:
Brian> all [0] ()
This is fixed and the bug has been closed.
Sam
- --
Samuel Tardieu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: lat
Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs
and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have
release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time.
The following bugs are for packages I don't think we can ship 2.1 without:
apache-c
60 matches
Mail list logo
