Re: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-(

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:08:01AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > The license of the GNUTLS OpenSSL shim is GPL, causing possible license > > problems in the other direction with GPL-incompatible apps. It's also not a > > very

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:56:14AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2005 01:34:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > >> I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture initscripts' > >> standard outpu

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Wed, 4 May 2005 09:45:14 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:56:14AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> Additionally, it is bad that on systems which neither have a serial >> console nor a monitor attached init script output is inaccessible. > >False. See /etc/

Re: Upcoming removals

Hello François, * François-Denis Gonthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-04 10:08]: > On May 3, 2005 09:54 am, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > #297426: O: langband -- The langband Common lisp game > > Reported by: "Kevin M. Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 63 days old. > > > > #297427: O: langband-dat

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

Marc Haber wrote: > The bootlogd docs strongly suggest not using it. Out of curiosity, where? I checked /usr/share/doc/sysvinit, /usr/share/doc/initscripts, and bootlogd(8). The only thing I found was a warning about parsing the kernel's command line in the manpage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

Am 2005-05-04 13:31:48, schrieb Devrim GUNDUZ: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Hi, > > On Wed, 4 May 2005, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > >does anyone know, whether there is a > >Debian Package for Rekall or not ? > > There seems so: > > $ apt-cache search rekall > rekall

GGI maintainer seen recently? (Martin Albert)

Hi all, Has anyone had any contact with Martin Albert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) recently? A new GGI release was made some time ago, but as far as I'm aware no-one involved in the GGI project has been able to contact him, and I may be interested in investigating doing this if MA does not intend to. I

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:40:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >... > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:27:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded > > it, it would be nice if you would: > > - Cc me > > - send a better explanation than

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:24:34AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You seem to confuse this with bug closing. It's common practice to > > adjust the severity of a bug to a RC one if a RC issue was mistakenly > > reported as non-RC, and neither yo

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2005 13.08 schrieb Michelle Konzack: Morning > > On Wed, 4 May 2005, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > >does anyone know, whether there is a > > >Debian Package for Rekall or not ? > > > > There seems so: > > > > $ apt-cache search rekall > > rekall - graphical database front-end

Re: Bug#307570: please provide releasenotes (Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:23:25AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > > This might be related to the fact the they're somewhat hidden, at least > to ./google "sarge releasenotes" - > http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/releasenotes isn't helpful atm either. Why not? Isn't http://www.debian.org/r

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

Am 2005-05-04 13:27:38, schrieb Mario Fux: > Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2005 13.08 schrieb Michelle Konzack: > > Morning > > > > On Wed, 4 May 2005, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > apt-cache showsrc knoda recall kexi > See that recall and rekall aren't the same thing. Oops, I mean "rekall" But Sourc

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> rekall - graphical database front-end > Strange, I was searching with >apt-cache showsrc knoda recall kexi ---^ Greetings Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C

Re: Bug#307570: please provide releasenotes (Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts)

Hi Javier, On Wednesday 04 May 2005 13:49, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > This might be related to the fact the they're somewhat hidden, at least > > to ./google "sarge releasenotes" - > > http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/releasenotes isn't helpful atm > > either. > Why not? Isn't

RE: [GENERAL] Rekall for Debian ?

Didi you notice rekall<>recall? :-) :-) What is the correct name anyway? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michelle Konzack Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 1:08 PM To: pgsql-general Cc: debian-devel Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Rekall for Debian ? A

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Tue, 03 May 2005, Russ Allbery wrote: > One concern I'd have is that using the LSB functions is (at least > somewhat) lintian-testable, whereas the standard for stdout/stderr usage > would be much more difficult to test in a lintian/linda sort of way. > > Making widespread changes happen that a

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

On Wednesday 04 May 2005 07:56 am, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2005-05-04 13:27:38, schrieb Mario Fux: > > Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2005 13.08 schrieb Michelle Konzack: > > > > Morning > > > > > > On Wed, 4 May 2005, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > > > > > apt-cache showsrc knoda recall kexi > > > > Se

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Wed, 04 May 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture initscripts' > > standard output (and exit status) and formatted it in such a way that > > bootup messages were prettier. > > That sounds like an ugly and error-prone hack to me. Not something w

bootlogd (was: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 06:25:14 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Marc Haber wrote: >> The bootlogd docs strongly suggest not using it. > >Out of curiosity, where? I didn't find that information, so I'll have to retract my statement. However, bug #217582 suggests that there still

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

> "Michelle" == Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But Sources.gz and Packages.gz from SARGE and SID do not contain the > "rekall" package which I have manualy verified for some minutes. It is _not_ in sid/sarge. It's been uploaded only to experimental. Ganesan -- Ganesan Raja

Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:46:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >... > 30 May 2005 > Release > > And if everything goes well, we'll be ready to release at the end of the > month. >... Setting goals is the easy part of release management. Ensuring that the goals are met is the hard part of th

Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts

Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you tell about the possible risks that may affect your release plan > and what you have done to ensure that they will not delay your release > plan? Why is this a worthwhile use of a release manager's time? How about we analyse the release /after/ we

APT 0.6 migration -- second status report

A test suite for package validation is now available: Please refer to the README file in this directory for instructions how to use the test suite. The archives in the test suite are automatically generated by a collection of Python scripts. These scripts are

Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Can you tell about the possible risks that may affect your release plan > and what you have done to ensure that they will not delay your release > plan? Can you tell me about the usefulness of whining[1] about release policy for year

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:33:52PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I didn't know a bug can have more than one submitter. > What's the syntax for the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for adding a second > submitter? Not entirely the answer you're looking for, but submit a duplicate bug and merge it. --

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

* Mark Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050504 16:00]: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:33:52PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I didn't know a bug can have more than one submitter. > > > What's the syntax for the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for adding a second > > submitter? > Not entirely the answer you

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

Am 2005-05-04 08:15:29, schrieb Josh Metzler: > On Wednesday 04 May 2005 07:56 am, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > But Sources.gz and Packages.gz from SARGE and SID do not contain the > > "rekall" package which I have manualy verified for some minutes. > > rekall is only in experimental. Oh, I was t

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

Question again: I have gotten "rekall" from the journal "Linux User" in version 2.2.1 and it does NOT require KDE! Now I see, that I need kdelibs to use it. Thats crazy !!! - Who has does this ? Last year I have seen someone on the "Linuxtag 2004" in Karlsruhe who was NOT working with KDE. K

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:01:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Mark Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050504 16:00]: > > Not entirely the answer you're looking for, but submit a duplicate bug > > and merge it. > No, don't do that. It's ugly as hell and may well annoy the maintainer by creating nois

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 01:54:46PM -0500, Adam M. wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >grave <-> serious isn't worth a discussion since there's not a big > >difference between them (both are RC) > > You are 100% wrong here. Why do we have bug severities then? Severities > are there to inform the dev

Re: Upcoming removals

On May 4, 2005 04:38 am, Nico Golde wrote: > Hello François, > > * François-Denis Gonthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-04 10:08]: > > On May 3, 2005 09:54 am, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > #297426: O: langband -- The langband Common lisp game > > > Reported by: "Kevin M. Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: Upcoming removals

* François-Denis Gonthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-04 11:05]: > Both are gone of http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/rfa_bypackage, I > guess that means I'm too late? No, they are listed at http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned "rfa_bypackage" is for packages which are RFA: Request For Adopt

Re: Outrageous Maintainer

On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:38:41AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:45:26PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have users with it installed since it was

Re: Upcoming removals

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:29:37PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Fran?ois-Denis Gonthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-04 11:05]: > > Both are gone of http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/rfa_bypackage, I > > guess that means I'm too late? > > No, they are listed at http://www.debian.org/devel/wnp

Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts

Quoting Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Can you tell about the possible risks that may affect your release plan > > and what you have done to ensure that they will not delay your release > > plan? > > Why is this a worthwhile use of a release

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

On 5/4/05, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 01:54:46PM -0500, Adam M. wrote: > > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > >grave <-> serious isn't worth a discussion since there's not a big > > >difference between them (both are RC) > > > > You are 100% wrong here. Why do we have

Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report

* Florian Weimer wrote: [...] By the way... what about updating apt 0.6 in experimental? Matt, any plans? Ubuntu ships apt 0.6.35, but Debian still has 0.6.25. Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you do immediately lower the severity of a bug I raised the severity > of again, could you please at least put my in the Cc header of the > message you send to the BTS? No, that's not a requirement. If you want to receive notifications, you should a

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What's the syntax for the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for adding a second > submitter? I believe submitter [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] works just fine. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl

Re: ITP: spca5xx -- Device driver for USB webcams based on the spca5xx chips

Carlos C Soto([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-04-19 14:55: > Great! > > I use this module and wold be great to have it on debian. > I was thinking on put a RFP bug for it. The package is not going to be ready in time for sarge though :-( Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subj

Re: Orphaning recover and makeztxt

Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Hi, > > About makeztxt, it is a nice program to convert text files into ztxt > files, apt for reading in a Palm with the (GPLed) Weasel reader. It > has a simple regex engine used to create the TOCs, and works just > fine. The problem is, I no longer own a Palm, so I cannot do

Re: Orphaning recover and makeztxt

John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > About makeztxt, it is a nice program to convert text files into ztxt > > files, apt for reading in a Palm with the (GPLed) Weasel reader. It > > has a simple regex engine used to create the TOCs, and works just > > fine. The problem

Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:05:24PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Can you tell about the possible risks that may affect your release plan > > and what you have done to ensure that they will not delay your release > > plan? >

Re: Outrageous Maintainer

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote: > On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does make > >it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another package > >that completely breaks mine (rather

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:25:31AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Wed, 04 May 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture initscripts' > > > standard output (and exit status) and formatted it in such a way that > > > bootup messages wer

Re: Bug#307570: please provide releasenotes (Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts)

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why not? Isn't > http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#s-upgradingpackages > sufficient? the document suggests: , | aptitude -f --with-suggests --with-recommends dist-upgrade ` but

apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:41:18PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > By the way... what about updating apt 0.6 in experimental? Matt, any > plans? Ubuntu ships apt 0.6.35, but Debian still has 0.6.25. I have tried in the past to keep an updated apt in experimental, but it's non-trivial because o

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

hi, On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > One way around this would be for all of the maintainers of packages > depending on apt to agree to a significant version number increment when > moving to apt 0.6; then such versions could remain in experimental without > being

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:10:47PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2005-05-04 08:15:29, schrieb Josh Metzler: > > On Wednesday 04 May 2005 07:56 am, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > > > But Sources.gz and Packages.gz from SARGE and SID do not contain the > > > "rekall" package which I have manualy

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:28:08PM -0400, sean finney wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > One way around this would be for all of the maintainers of packages > > depending on apt to agree to a significant version number increment when > > moving to apt 0.6;

Re: Bug#307570: please provide releasenotes (Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts)

Holger Levsen wrote: >btw, google has no (good) hits for "sarge releasenotes", but for "sarge >release notes" they have... maybe this helps. > > Try "sarge release notes" - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:10:53PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:28:08PM -0400, sean finney wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > One way around this would be for all of the maintainers of packages > > > depending on apt to agre

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:41:18PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > >> By the way... what about updating apt 0.6 in experimental? Matt, any >> plans? Ubuntu ships apt 0.6.35, but Debian still has 0.6.25. > > I have tried in the past to keep an updated

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:01:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I have tried in the past to keep an updated apt in experimental, but it's > > non-trivial because of the dependent packages. > > So how is the key updating solved now if I may as

Re: Release update: editorial changes to the testing propagation scripts

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:05:24PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Can you tell about the possible risks that may affect your release plan > > and what you have done to ensure that they will not delay your release > > plan? >

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

Thomas Hood dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200]: > I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel > that they are a bad idea. It will be a hard time converting to them, but in the end I think it will be a net gain. > * Converting to lsb init function requires modi

Some packages up for adoption

Brent Fulgham has decided to give some packages away (mostly Erlang and Dylan related packages but also some others); the following mail is forwarded with permission from debian-private: * Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-30 09:44]: > I find that after seven years of working on Debian (a

Re: Orphaning recover and makeztxt

John H. Robinson, IV dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:21:37AM -0700]: > John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > About makeztxt, it is a nice program to convert text files into ztxt > > > files, apt for reading in a Palm with the (GPLed) Weasel reader. It > > > has a s

Re: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-(

On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 20:15 -0400, David Mandelberg wrote: > On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 19:40 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > GNU version of OpenSSL (I don't recall how > > it is called). > > GnuTLS I think. Stupid mail misconfiguration, I sent this before I got Christian Hammer's reply

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:01:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I have tried in the past to keep an updated apt in experimental, but it's >> > non-trivial because of the dependent packages. >>

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wednesday 04 May 2005 03:05 pm, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > That is, I would upload apt to experimental, along with > python-apt+aptitude+synaptic+libapt-pkg-perl+etc.  (versioned as NMUs). > Then, new versions of these packages would be uploaded to unstable, which > would supersede the versions I u

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:54:53PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Wednesday 04 May 2005 03:05 pm, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > That is, I would upload apt to experimental, along with > > python-apt+aptitude+synaptic+libapt-pkg-perl+etc.  (versioned as NMUs). > > Then, new versions of these package

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In mainline, there is a facility for adding new keys to the keyring by > > updating the apt package. > > Which can't be done (savely) if the key is compromised or expires > befor

Re: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-(

hi I happen to mantain 'snmpkit' ; you may give it a look a. Christian Hammers wrote: > Hello > > [regarding #306840 and with more info in #243870] > > One of my packages, Quagga, is licenced under the GPL but is supposed to > get linked against NetSNMP. That now is problematic, as NetSNMP de

Re: Some packages up for adoption

On May 4, 2005 05:29 pm, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > 2. Erlang -- Concurrent programming language > > 3. erlang-doc-html -- HTML documentation for Erlang. > > 4. erlang-manpages -- Manpages for Erlang. Oh Oh! I want those. I'm not a DD (yet) though are they much work to maintain? -- To UNS

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:08:42PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Which can't be done (savely) if the key is compromised or expires > > before the update (like it does every year). > > If the key is compromised, we lose, no matter what we do. > > I recommend that we create keys which will not e

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 06:26:30PM -0400, sean finney wrote: > istr discussing (or at least thinking to myself) a method of "rolling" > keys, where one key was used to sign another key, which would then > ideally be kept somewhere Safe for the case of unexpected expiration. > this second key could

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:33:37PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > If you have some code which implements this, I will take a look, but this > sort of thing is very awkward to do with gpg, and I don't think that there > is much justification for this level of complexity. The existing scheme is > si

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > In mainline, there is a facility for adding new keys to the keyring by >> > updating the apt package. >> >> Which can't be done (

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Wednesday 04 May 2005 23:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Thomas Hood dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200]: > > I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel > > that they are a bad idea. > > It will be a hard time converting to them, but in the end I think it > will be

debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?

hi everybody now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion on the number to associate to Sarge release. According to http://www.nl.debian.org/releases/sarge/index.en.html Sarge may be released as "Debian 3.1" In 2003, Scott James Remnant proposed in http://lists.debian.org/debian

Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?

On Thursday 05 May 2005 01:17, Andrea Mennucc wrote: [ ... ] > Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us > ~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important > components changed completely; and we did a lot of work > in Sarge, that I do not want to see numerically > represe

Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?

Andrea Mennucc wrote: > now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion > on the number to associate to Sarge release. Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the version number 3.1. I've probably

Re: Orphaning Crossfire

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:51:28AM +0300, Jaakko Niemi wrote: > Hello, > > crossfire-* is available for grabs. Upstream is active and helpful. > No big issues, just needs some basic work. Any takers? I can take this. I'm not a DD (yet), so I'll need a sponsor too. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: Ubuntu and its "appropriation" of Debian maintainers

> Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the > same (to retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary > package maintainer during the build (to reflect that it is a > different build, and also display a more appropriate name in > "apt-cache show" etc.). > > What do

www.debian.org and users information

Hi DD folks, Sarge is now approaching zero kelvin and folks are scrambing to get the last few bugs squashed. I was recently thinking about why the non-clued folks bash Debian with incomplete or inaccurate facts and a way to address that. I think there should be a section on the main page that conta

Re: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-(

[Paul TBBle Hampson] > This of course assumes the phrase "derived work" is legalese for > "code dependancy" or something. I'm sure the GPL actually defines > what _they_ mean by it... One false assumption and one false premise. "Derived work" is legalese for "this work is based, at least in part

Re: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-(

[This part of the thread belongs on -legal] On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Paul TBBle Hampson] > > This of course assumes the phrase "derived work" is legalese for > > "code dependancy" or something. I'm sure the GPL actually defines > > what _they_ mean by

Re: Rekall for Debian ?

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:31:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:10:47PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > Oh, I was thinking it is in SARGE and SID > > because two different versions of it. > > The name is sarge, not SARGE. Please don't shout at our releases. Well,