On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, keegan wrote:
> Evil army is attacking your country and tries to steal your oil. Your
> mission is to waste the invaders, protect the oil and save your mother
> land.
>
> Packages will be available soon.
>
Great game but I ran into a few problems you might want to pass on to
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 11:31:21PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Yes; you were. I'm focussing on gcc and perl and such things at the
> > moment, and as of yet no one else is really able to do anything about this
> > stuff while I'm busy; hopefully both those things will c
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:11:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:11:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I CCed you the bugreport where i explain everything, but the packages are :
> > libpgsql-ocaml
> > ocamlsdl
> > These are the source packages.
>
> You missed:
> o
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 00:08, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Of course I can understand that it is possible to destroy
> local changes as I wrote in a former email.
Ok, well, policy is quite clear this isn't allowed.
But let me say first that this is not to belittle your work on tetex;
I'm very glad you
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:45:54AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:47:38PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 April 2003 02:32, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 20:21, Chris Hanson wrote:
> > > > > I'd rather
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-04-18
Severity: wishlist
Package name: twisted-web
Version: 0.23
Upstream Author: Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL: http://twistedmatrix.com/users/moshez/apt/
License: LGPL
Description: Twisted Web Server
The necessary configuration files and harness t
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 11:50:27PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> On the gripping hand, there's gcj. Now if the day only had more weeks in it...
Or the hour had more days on it...
mooch
--
Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
> be asked whether to replace it or not everytime at upgrading.
Does this file really change so often that this is a probl
> Evil army is attacking your country and tries to steal your oil. Your
> mission is to waste the invaders, protect the oil and save your mother
> land.
I'm not quite sure if you these joke games of current interest really deserve
to go in the repository.. They usually have no playability nor any
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-18
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: starvoyager
Version : 0.4.4
Upstream Author : Richard Thrippleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ret28
* License : BSD with fractions of LGPL code
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 22:03, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Mark Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> > version 0.7 of debbuggtk is now in the Debian repository. This is a
> > set of tools (bugwatcher, bugviewer and buglister) to help manage Debian
> > bug reports. This is useful because:
>
>
From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:14:40 +0100
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>
> > Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> > conffile so if one changed (manua
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 08:39, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Is it possible:
> 1) to depend to j2sdk1.3 | j2sdk:1.4 (I do not have the 1.4 on my ppc)
I've not tested with 1.3, so depended on 1.4. I can't think of any
problems, so will make the change. Hopefully we will change to a free
jvm soon.
> 2) to h
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:50:08 -0700 (PDT),
>> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This email is following up to a Debian bug report about flex
>> http://bugs.debian.org/189332>, which reports that flex test
>> http://bugs.debian.org/189332>version
> 2.5.31 breaks Bison 1.875.
>> From:
>> On 18 Apr 2003 03:23:44 -0400,
>> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 00:08, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>> Of course I can understand that it is possible to destroy local
>> changes as I wrote in a former email.
> Ok, well, policy is quite clear this isn't allowed.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > > Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> > > conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
> > > be
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [POSIX] also says that it is unspecified whether the functions or
> macros appear in the C code output of lex, or are accessible only
> through the -l l operand of the c compiler.
Yes. This means that if Bison were trying to be portable to all l
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 07:56:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Maybe Stefano could upload a version to testing-proposed-updates that
> drops the these two libraries. It should be ok, since meta-ocaml is an
> arch: all package, and don't needs the autobuilders.
Done: meta-ocaml 3.06.1testing
--
S
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Does this file really change so often that this is a problem? Users
> > will only be prompted if the distributed version of a conffile has
> > changed.
> It is not problem how often languag
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-18
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: tuxmathscrable
Version : 2.1
Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.asymptopia.com/
* License : GPL
Description : Tux Math Scrab*le is math v
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
> be asked whether to replace it or not everytime at upgrading.
IMHO it should only ask if the file has changed upstream. I
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 04:28:40PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
> [snip]
> > For instance, what are some good replacements for magicfilter?
>
> apsfilter seems to work well.
Not For Me. Every time I've tried it it's been utter crap.
Magicfilter, OTOH, Just Works.
Just in case anyone out there was
On 16-Apr-03, 19:23 (CDT), Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 07:51:59PM -0300, Andre Luis Lopes wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show rhdb-admin
> > Package: rhdb-admin
>
> What is wrong here?
>
> > rhdb-admin
> > echo $?
> 1
>
>
On 16-Apr-03, 18:08 (CDT), Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debconf is NOT a license to overwrite user's configurations!
You've correctly identified the problem.
> I propose a different solution to this problem, which conforms much more
> with policy, while still allowing debconf to
From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:09:38 +0100
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Does this file really change so often that
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
> >> I have an impression that such Policy understanding prevents sane
> >> advance of packages.
>
> I am sorry, I do think that not preserving
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:06:07 +0900
GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
> > 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!?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > - /var/l
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 21:56, Colin Walters wrote:
> Debian has a long, hard-earned reputation for doing things "right". We
> shouldn't toss that out the window in a mass of "manage /etc/foo.conf?"
> with debconf prompts.
Perhaps I've been overly strong with the rhetoric. Let me give two
realist
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 09:28:07AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 16-Apr-03, 18:08 (CDT), Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debconf is NOT a license to overwrite user's configurations!
> You've correctly identified the problem.
> > I propose a different solution to this problem,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 03:23:44AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > It breaks Policy to some extent but follows it to some
> > extent, IMHO.
> > Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> > conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
> > be asked whether to replace it or not
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 10:28, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I propose a different solution to this problem, which conforms much more
> > with policy, while still allowing debconf to be used as much as
> > possible.
>
> But that's not the solution.
Yep, I agree completely. So let's talk about soluti
Your mail was a bit misleading, so a clarification will be needed:
> * The source packages should build-depend on libpng-dev or libpng12-dev,
> but those build-depending on libpng3-dev will still work.
A source package should never build-depend on libpng-dev,
especially if the source package bu
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:07:28 +0900 (JST),
>> Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Does this file really change so often that this is a problem?
>> Users will only be prompted if the distributed version of a
>> conffile has changed.
> It is not problem how often language.dat changes
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:09:38 +0100,
>> Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current handling of texmf.cnf looks
> reasonably sane to me - it's now not too dissimilar to how
> /etc/modules.conf is handled. What I was trying to say was that in
> the past there
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 00:20:04 +0900 (JST),
>> Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18
> Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
>> >> I have an impression that such Policy understa
>> On 18 Apr 2003 11:15:50 -0400,
>> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> There's other use cases too, but if we're not supporting the two
> big ones above, we have completely failed. I hope this makes
> things clearer. There *is* a problem, and we need to fix it.
I think more
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:28:57 -0500,
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If the package maintainers are correctly using the debconf
> priorities, and the admin has chosen a debconf priority that
> accurately reflects their preferences, why do you care? By
> definition, any prompt
>> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400,
>> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So, opinions? Yeah, it's kind of gross. But the way things are
> now is far worse.
As long as /etc/conffiles/managed, /etc/conffiles/unmanaged,
and /etc/conffiles/default are never themselves unmanaged, t
Colin Walters writes:
> One might be to create a third class of configuration files; let's call
> them "managed configuration files".
Is the choice to be up to the maintainer? If so, I'm afraid that over time
almost all configfiles would become managed, as that would be the easy way
for maintaine
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:20:04AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
>
> > >> I have an impression that such Policy understanding prevents sane
> > >>
On Fri Apr 18, 11:15am -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Perhaps I've been overly strong with the rhetoric. Let me give two
> realistic scenarios where this "manage foo with debconf?" fails.
I like your two real-world examples, and I'd like to present a third.
3) Impatient but advanced user
Someb
Apologies for starting a new thread, I accidentally replied to Colin
privately, and instead of re-writing the email, I simply forwarded it.
Bad clal :)
pgpLvG6UUTUOa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:04:25 -0500,
>> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Colin Walters writes:
>> One might be to create a third class of configuration files; let's
>> call them "managed configuration files".
> Is the choice to be up to the maintainer? If so, I'm afraid that
> ove
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 15:04, John Hasler wrote:
> Colin Walters writes:
> > One might be to create a third class of configuration files; let's call
> > them "managed configuration files".
>
> Is the choice to be up to the maintainer? If so, I'm afraid that over time
> almost all configfiles would
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 13:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400,
> >> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > So, opinions? Yeah, it's kind of gross. But the way things are
> > now is far worse.
>
> As long as /etc/conffiles/managed, /etc/conffiles/unmanag
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 15:16, David B Harris wrote:
> On Fri Apr 18, 11:15am -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > Perhaps I've been overly strong with the rhetoric. Let me give two
> > realistic scenarios where this "manage foo with debconf?" fails.
>
> I like your two real-world examples, and I'd like
Would it already be time for a long term solution that no doubt has been
discussed sometimes in the past:
looking at configuration files in /etc and ~/.*, most of them are actually
very simple. Instead of treating them as flat files with arbitrary content
and *generating* the managed ones from
> 3) Impatient but advanced user
>Somebody who dislikes being asked repeatedly whether or not a
>conffile can be overwritten. This user has tested xserver-xfree86's
>debconf interface, and has taken the time to understand how
>xserver-xfree86's postinst generates the configuration f
Enough already.
Folks, if you don't stop abusing debconf with useless notes that belong
in README.Debian and config file overwriting, I will stop maintaining
it.
Stop slapping incorrect uses of debconf in everywhere. Feel free to run
any package using debconf by me before you upload it, or take
On Fri Apr 18, 12:54pm -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400,
> >> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > So, opinions? Yeah, it's kind of gross. But the way things are
> > now is far worse.
>
> As long as /etc/conffiles/managed, /etc/conffiles/unmana
On Fri Apr 18, 05:28pm -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > 1) Package has a configuration file which can (optionally) be
> > managed
> >debconf/postinst
>
> This is already the way things are now; a package doesn't have to do
> anything special to create configuration files in its postinst.
Yeah,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 05:06:15PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 13:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > If we standardize on a easy to interpret format for these
> > files, I'll add the logic to ucf to handle these directives. (how
> > about a configuration file path per lin
On Fri Apr 18, 07:06pm -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> I'm thinking in the "may I upgrade your configuration file?" question,
> have the options I mentioned before ("no", "yes", "always-no").
>
> How's that sound? It's unobtrusive, only adding a third option. We
> ensure that /etc/conffiles/* is *e
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:36:01 -0500 (CDT),
>> J Brown (Ender/Amigo) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 3) Impatient but advanced user
>> Somebody who dislikes being asked repeatedly whether or not a
>> conffile can be overwritten. This user has tested
>> xserver-xfree86's debconf interface, and h
On Fri Apr 18, 06:37pm -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If you use ucf like mechanisms, and you acpet the first
> debconf generated file, then you will never be asked to over write
> your file -- since the md5sum of the installed file shall match the
> previous maintainer version. Bingo, w
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 09:33:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Package: amavisd-new
> Version: 20021227p2-5
> Severity: grave
Grave would seem to be a bit of an overkill? amavisd-new still works OK
for the majority of users...
> when
>- amavis-ng is installed (I used version 0.1.6.2-1)
Hello,
I'd like to solicit opinions about what to do with
imlib-linked-against-libpng3.
Until August 2002, the Debian imlib packages were linked with libpng2.
Even after libpng3 was released in early 2002, imlib remained linked
with the older libpng2. This was done to retain the ABI of imlib,
es
On Sat Apr 19, 10:22am +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Any ideas?
Share an initscript between them, if that's possible?
pgp2vmAEIdmO0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:03:04 -0400,
>> David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri Apr 18, 06:37pm -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> If you use ucf like mechanisms, and you acpet the first debconf
>> generated file, then you will never be asked to over write your
>> file -- since the
Hi Steve,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:43:45PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> I no longer believe that upstream will release any new versions of
> imlib and I plan to ask that imlib2 be removed from the archive. I
> don't want to change the current imlib1 linkage since imlib is pretty
> much dor
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:30:34 -0400,
>> David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Gar. We'd still need always-yes to deal with the case I
> raised. Don't like it, but ...
I think that the /etc/conffiles/* files preclude any need for
these quad questions.
manoj
--
(null co
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:06:34 -0400,
>> David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> if [[ "$always_yes" = "true" ]]; then
> grep -v '^/etc/foo/bar$' /etc/conffiles/managed > "$tempfile"
> && cp "$tempfile" /etc/conffiles/managed if ! grep
> '^/etc/foo/bar$' /etc/conffiles/unmanag
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-04-19
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: python-crack
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.nongnu.org/python-crack
* License : GPL
Description : Python bindings f
On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 15:19, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Unfortunately you seem to be wrong, at least with regard to
> bind version 1:8.3.4-4.
Ah. That'd explain it. I'm using bind9.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:28:57AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If the package maintainers are correctly using the debconf priorities,
> and the admin has chosen a debconf priority that accurately reflects
> their preferences, why do you care? By definition, any prompts at
> priority medium or l
Why not simply make a imlib1p that conflicts with old imlib1 and rebuild
the remaining 11 sources that still use imlib1 with old libpng2? There
are fewer that would cause trouble in that batch, afaict only: chameleon,
ebview, endeavour, pixelize, vertex.
chameleon - dead upstream. (no website anym
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 15:18, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Years ago, NeXT modified GCC and the rest of the GNU tools to allow
> them to produce multi-architecture binaries, so that a single binary
> executable could run on both 68k and i386 platforms.
I don't think that was with ELF. Was it Mach-O?
By the way RedHat does it is as follows:
imlib-1.9.13-12.i386.rpm
/usr/lib
libgdk_imlib.so.1
libgdk_imlib.so.1.9.13
libimlib-bmp.so
libimlib-gif.so
libimlib-jpeg.so
libimlib-png.so
libimlib-ppm.so
libimlib-ps.so
libImlib.so.11
libImlib.so.11.0.0
libimlib-tiff.so
libimlib-xpm.so
ldd libI
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:43:45PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Imlib is more-or-less dormant upstream. However, in late August, I
> was under the impression that upstream imlib was going to release a
> new version (with new SONAME) that would be linked with libpng3. In
I forgot to comment o
trying to fix my desktop setting on my computer
Is it just me, or would this fix the problem simply:
1) If a postinst generates a configuration file with debconf, it
must place the md5sum of the generated configuration file in
/var
2) A package should try and parse the current configuration file
back into debconf before
71 matches
Mail list logo
