Re: libc6-i686 only for 2.6 kernels? was: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:29, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:08:16AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100,

ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

Hi, since more than a few months, I am maintainer of the linux-atm package. I have used that package for my work until june, when I changed jobs. I have put up the package for adoption, but continue to maintain it until someone else offers to take it. I don't think that I am doing too bad a job of

Kernel 2.4.22-k7-1: initrd cannot mount proc from cramfs image

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [Found the thread about init/cramfs, this seems a different issue.] I installed the kernel-image-2.4.22-1-k7 package on an Asus L3355M laptop, but it won't boot, giving the same kernel panic with both lilo and grub. Relevant parameters for lilo: b

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:18:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Even if this is not a personal issue of Mr. Troup towards me, having > ftpmaster behave like A today and like B tomorrow is a bad thing. If I There's more than one person behind ftpmaster. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into i

Latest version of fvwm packaged

Hi, The development branch of fvwm is nearing a stable release, and has had a huge number of new features. The maintainer has been very reluctant to package this branch, even in a people.debian.org repository, so I decided to package FVWM 2.5.8 for myself; and I have decided to share t

Re: Latest version of fvwm packaged

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-11 09:58]: > > Hi, > > The development branch of fvwm is nearing a stable release, > and has had a huge number of new features. The maintainer has been > very reluctant to package this branch, even in a people.debian.org > repository, so I de

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

Eike Sauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Suffield schrieb: [...] >> - this packages adds nothing, and would occupy a fair chunk of space >>in the archive. > I don't know how short Debian is of space. > How large would Robert's packages be? ~30MB for linux_2.4.22.orig.tar.gz and a sing

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:21:53PM -0500, Chad Miller wrote: > [cc debian-devel] > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:07:41PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: > > [...] Who withdrew [radiusd-freeradius] or caused it's > > withdrewal, then? Curious minds want to know, and also, it's a bit > > mis

Re: Latest version of fvwm packaged

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:39:15AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The development branch of fvwm is nearing a stable release, > and has had a huge number of new features. The maintainer has been > very reluctant to package this branch, even in a people.debian.org > repository, so I decid

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:16:23AM +, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:18:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > > Even if this is not a personal issue of Mr. Troup towards me, having > > ftpmaster behave like A today and like B tomorrow is a bad thing. If I > > There's more than one

Re: [SSI-devel] development direction...

Hello all, I'm Cc:-ing debian-devel The original thread is at http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=6473235 The question is whether there are any processes within the Debian project that could eliminate the obstacles Aneesh pointed out to us. Regs, Csan (I'm not subscribed to

Re: Bug#219163: ITP: synaptic-touchpad -- Synaptics TouchPad driver for XFree86

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:53:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 03:12:19PM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > * Package name: xfree86-driver-synaptics > > > > > Please be sure to mention in the package description that this is a > > > driver module *for* the XFree86 X

RE: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:18:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > Even if this is not a personal issue of Mr. Troup towards me, having > > ftpmaster behave like A today and like B tomorrow is a bad thing. If I > > There's more than one person behind ftpmaster. Obviously, he know

Re: create new Debian-Kernel project (was: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:11:45PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > > 'linux' is a perfect name for the package. The tarballs contain that very > > name. > > Note that the name is choosen not only to attract the user, but also to > catch that who blindly use "apt-get source linux". The user woul

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:08:48PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > Of course, I'm far from a compiler and chip design expert (or even > novice); this is what I remember from my classes last year. :) But it > shows how complicated optimizing compilers can get, and why you can't > say any optimization

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I had to wait almost three weeks to have the package REJECTED by > ftpmaster 20031023144719~jennifer~Moving to new~linux-atm_2.4.1-10_i386.changes 20031103144602~lisa~rejected~linux-atm_2.4.1-10_i386.changes Hmm, that doesn't even look like 2 weeks to me.

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

On Monday 10 Nov 2003 19:54, Andrew Suffield wrote: > We refuse to accept it blindly because it's wrong. There have been > cases when architecture-specific optimisations have made programs run > slower (recently the instruction ordering for that via i686 chip > comes to mind); GCC gets it wrong fr

Re: Kernel 2.4.22-k7-1: initrd cannot mount proc from cramfs image

Nicola Larosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > RAMDISK: cramfs filesystem found at block 0 > RAMDISK: Loading 3532 blocks [1 disk] into ram disk... done. > Freeing initrd memory: 3532k freed > VFS: mounted root (cramfs filesystem). > mount: Usage: mount [-t filesystemtype] [-o options,...] device mo

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Troup. He was unusually polite, but the mail exchange ended with > him announcing that "Well, sorry, but I'm personally not > prepared to add (overrides for) a package to unstable with nothing but > an 8k b

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:33:33 +, James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In the series of mails that followed the initial REJECT, I said (in ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>): > >| If you disagree with that, you can either try your luck with another >| ftp-master or get rough consensus on debian-devel that

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:35:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > >I'm so scared. wchan won't be displayable! > > What were you saying about sarcasm? The fact remains that it's a bug, You're going outside the scope of the question. Someone argued the way System.map is upgraded is a dessign p

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > If Robert is such an incompetent developer as some people say and the > > package does not build on the 11 different architectures, then the > > package will not propagate to testing and the world will be safe

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:23:52PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:03:38PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it for > > > wchan to be displayable

Re: libc6-i686 only for 2.6 kernels? was: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:28, Isaac To wrote: > Unless one patch the kernel to support all the things like . files in > /proc, futex, O(1) scheduler, ...  (i.e., as in the "2.4" kernel of > Redhat). I have been seriously considering a kernel-patch-2.4-redhat package which contains a patch with every

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:54:26AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:33:33 +, James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >In the series of mails that followed the initial REJECT, I said (in > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>): > >| If you disagree with that, you can either try your luck wit

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:50:54PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:58:46AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > > 1) You said before you were concerned about my package occupiing the > > > > package > > > > n

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 04:34:16PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > Thanks for addressing this. Well, it is in > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - instead of answering what > actually justifies that name, there is only another subset of {look in > the first proposal|look at Herbert agreeing (vague)|there are ot

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:57:12AM -0800, A.J. Rossini wrote: > > > > Why does the lack of response from Herbert prove that this package is a bad > > idea? I'm saddened that you have to revert to intimidation in place of a > > technical argument. > > Herbert did respond with a single message, som

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 10:54, Marc Haber wrote: > >| If you disagree with that, you can either try your luck with another > >| ftp-master or get rough consensus on debian-devel that I'm wrong. > You are the "secret" Boss of the project. You control who gets > accounts, has her key in the key ring,

Bug#220199: ITP: mecab -- a Japanese Morphological Analysis System

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: mecab Version : 0.76 Upstream Author : Taku Kudo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL or Web page : http://cl.aist-nara.ac.jp/~taku-ku/software/mecab/ * License : LGPL Description : a Japanese Morphological Analysis System Mecab

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:24:35PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:08:48PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > Of course, I'm far from a compiler and chip design expert (or even > > novice); this is what I remember from my classes last year. :) But it > > shows how complicated

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:19:58AM +, Will Newton wrote: > On Monday 10 Nov 2003 19:54, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > We refuse to accept it blindly because it's wrong. There have been > > cases when architecture-specific optimisations have made programs run > > slower (recently the instruction

Re: using freedesktop.org libs

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > I found this idea very interesting. I think that the debian project > > > should > > > take more advantage of the freedesktop.org libs. > > > > Glancing briefly at the packages in sid, we've been using the ones > > they have re

Re: create new Debian-Kernel project (was: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)

This one time, at band camp, Eduard Bloch wrote: >#include >* Jamie Wilkinson [Mon, Nov 10 2003, 06:54:22PM]: > >> >The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within >> >other arguments against your "linux" package. IIRC you prefered not to >> >answer to it but refered to an URL

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

This one time, at band camp, A.J. Rossini wrote: >Jamie Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> This one time, at band camp, Eduard Bloch wrote: >>>You repeat this again and again and got answers from me and others to >>>such an ultimate argument. But did you ask yourself why Herbert does not >>

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

This one time, at band camp, Andrew Suffield wrote: >On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:58:46AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: >> > > 1) You said before you were concerned about my package occupiing the >> > > package >> > > namespace in the ar

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:32:11AM -0500, Lukas Geyer wrote: > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > apt-get source kernel-image-* doesn't bring me the real source. Instead, if > > I want the real source I must be root and install a binary package. Do you > > deny that this is confusing?

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:31:39AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > But you haven't responded to any of the *legitimate* arguments, except > to say they're bogus, and that you "solve" them by ignoring them. That implies all my responses merely claim "they're bogus". It's very easy to pretend tha

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:25:41PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:17:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > - I'm not trying to make a package, the package is already made and it > > works > >fine. I'm using it right now. > > Okay, please don't write software or mai

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett wrote: >Robert Millan wrote: >>On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it for >>> wchan to be displayable. >> >>I'm so scared. wchan won't be displayable! > >What w

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan wrote: > Place the package files in /usr/lib, and copy them conditionaly (debconf) > into /boot. The debconf question would properly explain that if per chooses > to update it, then the system must be rebooted promptly. > >Another option: > > Place the

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:24:35PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:08:48PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > > Of course, I'm far from a compiler and chip design expert (or even > > > novice); this is what I remember from my cl

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett wrote: >Jamie Wilkinson wrote: > >>I do not expect Robert's package to make any more of an attempt to convince >>you a reboot is required than any of the other kernel packages. > >The current kernel packages include the version number in the package >nam

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

This one time, at band camp, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > How do the current kernel packages guarantee this? > > > > Why would Robert's package need to behave any differently? > > The current kernel packages don't make the old stuff just dissappear, > so it's less of an issue in that case. In f

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Robert Millan writes: > > > And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't > > claim it doesn't have any disadvantages. > > Please explain why the putative advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I don't h

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:41:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > In what way is updating between releases worse than updating within the > > same release? > > It is worse because a lot more code changes. I am sure that you have > enough packaging (and Debian user) experience to recognize that.

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan wrote: >> being presented with. > >I'd really LOVE to. But this is my discussion. If I don't take part in it, >who will respond to all these bogus arguments some people enjoy sending in? > >Rather, this is you and the other trolls who are wasting my time.

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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 preparing the second revision

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

Glenn McGrath wrote: A program that is CPU bound will benefit from compiler optimisations. Define "compiler optimisations". The teoretical "compiler optimisations" would "run" your programs faster, but... too much people spoke about optimisation without knowing what it means. Do you think -O3 wo

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

Andreas Metzler schrieb: > Eike Sauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There already are several packages with complete >> kernel sources which take as much place as his package >> would, right? > Robert does not propose to remove the existing kernel-source packages Even he was a bit vague about that

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

Robert Millan schrieb: > I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for this > trivial bug. You are implying the other DDs are your ressource for finding what you are calling "trivial bugs". They are not. It's your duty to think of most of it beforehand. If you didn't want to

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

#include * Robert Millan [Tue, Nov 11 2003, 12:21:32PM]: > > (This is exactly the same question as Matthew asked, of course; but it > > is an important question relative to this ITP and I want to see it > > answered.) > > I don't like turning this ITP into a technical discussion to prove either

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:26:43AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > > > apt-get source kernel-image-* doesn't bring me the real source. > > Instead, if I want the real source I must be root and install a > > binary package. Do you deny that this is confusing? > > Non-intuitive? Yes, I

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:34:23PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:57:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > But the real results are shown through Popularity Contest [1] when my > > package > > reaches unstable. So keep your arguments on this for later. > > That is possi

Re: Kernel 2.4.22-k7-1: initrd cannot mount proc from cramfs image

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for the attention, Herbert. > If you're using busybox then try regenerating the initrd image with > BUSYBOX=no. I did not generate the image, i'm using a stock kernel-image-2.4.22-1-k7 package, no trace of busybox in the initrd image, and it'

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:29:48PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:57:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:47:37PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > > Look, if you want to waste time, waste _yours_. OTOH, if you want to > > > take part in th

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

On Monday 10 November 2003 23:56, Darren Salt wrote: > Converting some multiplies to shifts (or shift plus some other arithmetic), > or arranging that one of the source registers normally contains the lower > value, can also help. (At least, on ARM...) Gcc already does do this when appropriate (mu

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote: > Hello! Hi Eike, > The discussion doesn't seem to be very productive any more. > Time to come to a compromise? Sounds nice. > What about letting Robert build and upload (if ftp-masters agree) > his package, *if* he puts it in experime

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

Jamie Wilkinson wrote: >Kernels install /boot/System.map-$version. There's a symlink from >/boot/System.map to the current version. And Robert's proposal currently results in the System.map-$version for my current kernel vanishing, along with my modules. >You are told you need to reboot after in

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Nov 11, Daniel Silverstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >When linux-atm gets to the point that the br2684ctl program is >sufficiently stable to be included in the main package, I invite you to >file a bug requesting that the br2684ctl source package be removed, >having been obsoleted by the l

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:30:54PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > - this packages adds nothing, and would occupy a fair chunk of space >in the archive. The "advantages" cited were rapidly debunked and no >more were given. I haven't seen any of them being debunked. The only exception is t

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

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:59:24AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: I'm confused. On the one hand, you say: > The regulations for stable are quite conservative. The requirements > for packages to get into stable are: > 1. The package fixes a security problem. An advisory by our own > Security

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:36:30AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > Robert does not propose to remove the existing kernel-source packages > therefore the calculation is simple - more than 100MB required space Approximately. It depends on how many architectures can be supported. > in exchange fo

Re: create new Debian-Kernel project (was: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)

#include * Jamie Wilkinson [Tue, Nov 11 2003, 11:28:43PM]: > >Note that the name is choosen not only to attract the user, but also to > >catch that who blindly use "apt-get source linux". The user wouldn't get > >the well-known and good kernel-source packages but something which is > >under contr

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:59:32PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan wrote: > > Place the package files in /usr/lib, and copy them conditionaly (debconf) > > into /boot. The debconf question would properly explain that if per chooses > > to update it, the

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

#include * Jamie Wilkinson [Tue, Nov 11 2003, 11:40:11PM]: > There are already several forks of the Linux kernel in Debian anyway. > Robert wishes to attempt to unify them, does that not grant him use of the > name 'linux'? Bug nobody was bold enough to take exactly this (as said very generic) n

Re: Tutor in Torino: cercasi

Il mar, 2003-11-11 alle 13:27, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ha scritto: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > > > almeno due di sicuro ;P > > forza GRANATA! :P il mio colore preferito e` blu cobalto. -- Federico Di Gregorio Debian GNU/Linux Developer[EM

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:13:22AM +0100, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:21:53PM -0500, Chad Miller wrote: > > [cc debian-devel] > > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:07:41PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: > > > [...] Who withdrew [radiusd-freeradius] or

Re: create new Debian-Kernel project (was: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)

Jamie Wilkinson writes: > However, this is the word 'linux'. What else do you think it could > possibly refer to? Most people seem to think that 'Linux' is the name for the whole kit and kaboodle: kernel, userland, and everything. They are wrong, but they still will be confused by a package name

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: >> Robert Millan writes: >> >> > And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't >> > claim it doesn't have any disadvantages. >> >> Please explain why the putativ

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote: > Robert Millan schrieb: > > I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for this > > trivial bug. > > You are implying the other DDs are your ressource for finding > what you are calling "trivial bugs". They are not.

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:13:42AM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: > > I've had another thought, which was spurred by the System.map discussion; > and some people are probably going to hate it because it duplicates some of > the effort of having a package management system in the first place. > > T

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...] >> 5) How will you handle architectures where the current upstream kernel >> is not based on the same version as your package? The main suggestion >> I see is that they'd have to use the

Bug#220212: ITP: zope-zstylesheet -- Simple product designed to allow easy style sheets

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: zope-zstylesheet Version : 4.2.5 Upstream Author : Adrian 'Haqa' Hungate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://zope.org/Members/haqa/ZStyleSheet * License : "OpenSource" Description : Simple product designed t

Bug#220216: ITP: zope-lockablefolder -- variant of the standard Folder that can restrict access to its contents

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: zope-lockablefolder Version : 0.1.0 Upstream Author : Butch Landingin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.zope.org/Members/butchland/LockableFolder * License : BSD ? Description : variant of the standard

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:19:33AM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: > > What I'd really like to see is some packages uploaded to your home on gluck, > because this thread isn't advancing *anyones* arguments. I did that a few days before sending the ITP: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/d

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:29:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > > I don't like turning this ITP into a technical discussion to prove either > > my dessign is consistent or I'm capable as a maintainer. However I'll > > respond > > to your question this time: > > Why could you not just wait fo

Re: using freedesktop.org libs

On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 13:11, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > > I found this idea very interesting. I think that the debian project > > > > should > > > > take more advantage of the freedesktop.org libs. > > > > > > Glancing briefly at

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

What is so damn hard about respecting a "Mail-Followup-To:" header? On 11-Nov-03, 06:24 (CST), Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't claim all of them are trolling. But a few of them are. Also IIRC I > haven't put in question their experience as developers. Your reply to Marcello:

Bug#220219: ITP: vbtp -- VisioBraille's Transfer Protocol

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: vbtp Version : 1.0 Upstream Authors : Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sébastien Hinderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/samuel.thibault/vbtp-1.0.tar.gz * License : GPL, version 2 or hi

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:05:50PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote: > Andreas Metzler schrieb: > > Eike Sauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> There already are several packages with complete > >> kernel sources which take as much place as his package > >> would, right? > > Robert does not propose to remove

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:21:32PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > or who pretend the dessign of my package is broken in a way that I > can't solve such trivial bugs. Look, you see whatever you want to see, but you are still missing the forest for the trees. When I mentioned System.map this wa

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:21:32PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:23:52PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > As a prospective maintainer of an important package, it ill behooves > > you to make fun of legitimate bug reports. > > No, you're confused. I don't blame you because

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:54:38 +1100, Jamie Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Robert Millan wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it >>>

Re: Latest version of fvwm packaged

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:02:49 +0100, Lukas Ruf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-11 09:58]: >> >> Hi, >> >> The development branch of fvwm is nearing a stable release, and has >> had a huge number of new features. The maintainer has been very >> reluctant t

半夜坐出租最怕听到 bbs.51cy.net发送

本站出售★庄家★的内部资料，请来财源超市选购。 http://cs.51cy.net 半夜坐出租最怕听到 1、你们好，请问两位去什么地方？ 2、你看，你看，我终于领到驾照了耶！ 3、上帝保佑啊，今天车子不要再刹车失灵了！ 4、先生，你喜欢跳舞吗？我生前最喜欢跳舞了！ 5、先生，你买人寿保险了吗？ 6、我隐形眼镜掉哪去了……算了，不找了，天亮了再找吧，先生，你去什么地方？ 7、帮……帮我找找……我眼珠掉哪去了…… 8、请出示你的冥界身份证。谢谢。 9、你怎么才来！货带来了吗？ 10、快点！再迟点，那家伙跑了，就完不成任务了！对了，子弹带够了吗？ 11、咳咳……咳咳咳…………咳咳

Re: RFC: Moving libraries to /lib?

> Okay, since discussion on -devel has died, here is what I do: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:54:00AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > > I got a bug report on libldap2 which requests to move the libraries to=20 > > /lib, as /usr can not be unmounted when using PAM/NSS and LDAP (#159771). > >=20

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: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:40:11PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: > There are already several forks of the Linux kernel in Debian anyway. > Robert wishes to attempt to unify them, does that not grant him use of the > name 'linux'? No he doesn't. He wants to create a new arbitrary patch set, in a co

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:21:32PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > How do you propose to do that without changing the package name, and > > without leaving old System.map junk around for eternity? I don't see how > > it can be possible. > > > > (This is exactly the same question as Matthew asked,

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:45:31PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:25:41PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:17:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > > - I'm not trying to make a package, the package is already made and it > > > works > > >fi

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:47:14PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > However, > for the matter of finding out wether there will be much people in that > userbase, there's the Popularity Contest. Some people just never learn. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.de

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:10:14PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > The question was: How do you provide 2.4.x for architecture blah and > 2.4.y for architecture foo, which are two versions of the same > "upstream branch". just to give you a better idea of what we are talking about here, these

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Santiago Vila wrote: > You are right. I missed that little detail. But anyway you can submit > a serious FTBFS bug if that happens to be the case. Do the testing scripts > ignore serious bugs? A FTBFS bug is only supposed to be considered serious if the package previously bui

Re: using freedesktop.org libs

Michel, As happy as I'd be for people to start using the FD.o libraries, there are a couple things left to do before I'd recommend doing this. o the X locales stuff is broken, and needs fixing. This means one more library needs to be autofoo'ed and tested. o we need to vet the patches since

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

Robert Millan schrieb: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote: >> Robert Millan schrieb: >> > I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for >> > this trivial bug. [...] > I didn't want to imply that. I was referring to general packaging > resources like p

Re: Problem with libc6 and 'chgrp / chown' remains ...

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:49:42PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:18:46PM -0600, Jesse Yurkovich wrote: > > > With the recent libc6 bugs closed, I tried upgrading both a testing and > > an unstable machine to the latest deb. > > You failed to specify which version

Re: libc6-i686 only for 2.6 kernels? was: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:21:57PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:29, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:08:16AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > > > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13P

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

#include * Robert Millan [Tue, Nov 11 2003, 02:47:14PM]: > > > apt-get source kernel-image-* doesn't bring me the real source. > > > Instead, if I want the real source I must be root and install a > > > binary package. Do you deny that this is confusing? > > > > Non-intuitive? Yes, I grant

Re: Problem with libc6 and 'chgrp / chown' remains ...

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:09:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:49:42PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:18:46PM -0600, Jesse Yurkovich wrote: > > > > > With the recent libc6 bugs closed, I tried upgrading both a testing > > > and an

  1   2   >