On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
> and per-arch patches).
> I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage.
> IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Li Daobing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: bkchem
Version : 0.9.0
Upstream Author : Beda Kosata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bkchem.zirael.org/
* License : GPL & LGPL
Description : Python based free chemic
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:33:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:20:47AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to
> > unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty
> > straightforward
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 05:51:44PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> [Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> mdadm has three udev-related RC bugs (#294404, #273182 and #301560),
> which I seem to have been able to fix using previous work by Steve
> Langasek and Marco d'Itri. Since mdadm is a critical piece of
>
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 05:59:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then the new program should still have a higher version number, to allow
> > people who currently use the non-free program to upgrade to the free
> > program.
>
> That's why there's the
On Thursday 19 May 2005 12:26, Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings! It seems that we are in need of a 'big usermem' kernel
> patch in Debian, so I am considering contributing such a package. It
> appears there are two approaches on the net, both in various
> incarnations of redhat
also sprach Andreas Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.22.1052 +0200]:
> Now I was able to create my RAID without the -auto=yes option.
Good.
> brw-rw 1 root disk 9, 2 May 22 10:31 /dev/md2
> brw-r--r-- 1 root root 9, 20 May 22 10:31 /dev/md20
>
> I'm not sure why some devices are group
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 11:47:07AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Andreas Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.22.1052 +0200]:
> > brw-rw 1 root disk 9, 2 May 22 10:31 /dev/md2
> > brw-r--r-- 1 root root 9, 20 May 22 10:31 /dev/md20
> >
> > I'm not sure why some devices are g
Moin Goswin!
Goswin von Brederlow schrieb am Donnerstag, den 19. Mai 2005:
> IMHO debian-installer in unacceptable as it causes GPL violations.
> Interlocking the debian-installer builds with the exact source
...
> Any ideas? Comments? Solutions?
Relax, there is no problem. (The same was as there
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: schism
Version : 0.2a
Upstream Author : chisel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://rigelseven.com/schism/
* License : GPL
Description : Impulse Tracker clone
Source:
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Package name: schism
> Version : 0.2a
> Upstream Author : chisel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://rigelseven.com/schism/
> * License
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:12:27PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Wow. It reminds me the old days of Demo parties :-)
The old days? Those still exist :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:41:11AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> - rename the unrar-nonfree package back to unrar
> - rename the free unnrar package to unrar-free (it can even be left out
> of sarge (version 0.0.1 that is the one year old latest upstream
> version...))
> - get the non-free pack
Dear
Debian team,
For
several years I used Debian 2.2R5 'potato' and was a happy user. In the meantime
I've tried on that system Xfree 4.2 (download version), but it wasn't an
easy task to get it properly installed. So I went back to my 'good-old' 2.2R5
and decided to wait until Debian
We have revamped the mdadm fix in a much cleaner way, using a patch
by Erik van Konijnenburg to fix the --auto command line option.
Also, some fixes to mdrun (which is deprecated but must still work)
and device node permissions have been committed. Lastly,
a README.udev file is now provided.
If yo
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:26:59PM +0200, Eddy Veenstra wrote:
>
> Dear Debian team,
>
For the future: this question and others like it would be better asked
on debian-user. Debian-devel is essentially a list for Debian developers
and others to discuss the development of Debian - including off-t
* Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-20 09:55]:
> Throw in a link to the full list for RFA/O/RFH too? Apart from that,
> I'd love to see it on d-d-a.
OK, I'll add links. Note sure about d-d-a or d-d yet. Someone also
suggested an RSS feed.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-20 11:48]:
> One could decide to let RM: bugs on ftp.d.o always linger a certain
> amount of time before processing, for complete removals, in any case.
That's someone I wanted to suggest anyway. While I'm happy to see
removals happening much m
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:12:27PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Wow. It reminds me the old days of Demo parties :-)
>
> The old days? Those still exist :-)
Yes, but the original spirit has gone.
--
Jérôme Marant
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 06:36:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> The old days? Those still exist :-)
> Yes, but the original spirit has gone.
Tsk. :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
The package description for binutils-dev says the following:
>Description: The GNU binary utilities (BFD development files) This
> package includes header files and static libraries necessary to build
> programs which use the GNU BFD library, which is part of binutils.
> Note that building Debian
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:24:28PM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote:
> The package description for binutils-dev says the following:
> >Description: The GNU binary utilities (BFD development files) This
> > package includes header files and static libraries necessary to build
> > programs which use the
I'm the (previous) maintainer of unrar. Jose Carlos Medeiros has offered to
adopt it.
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:36:50PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:41:11AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > - rename the unrar-nonfree package back to unrar
> > - rename the free unn
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:40:26AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
> > and per-arch patches).
> > I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:35:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
>
> > The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
> > and per-arch patches).
> > I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dan Korostelev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: nautilus-open-terminal
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Christian Neumair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://manny.cluecoder.org/packages/nautilus-open-terminal/
* License
Can anyone tell me what this means, and who is trying to upload this to
Debian without even sending me a patch first?
- Forwarded message from Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 14:30:38 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROT
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 03:56:35PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what this means, and who is trying to upload this to
> Debian without even sending me a patch first?
This gpg key belongs to Jani Monoses (Cc'ed).
Perhaps he can tell what happened (looks like an accidental upload
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Juergen Salk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libccl0
Version : 0.1.1
Upstream Author : Stephen F. Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sbooth.org/ccl
* License : GPL
Description : Interface to configuration
also sprach Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.22.2305 +0200]:
> Works for me. assembled by the kernel. udev nodes are created correctly.
Thanks. a newer version, -2.3, will make it into sarge. Thanks to
everyone who helped.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list
martin f krafft wrote:
>>You can get mdadm 1.9.0-2.2 for i386 as well as the source package
>>from
Works for me.
$ ls -l /dev/md*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 May 22 22:56 /dev/md0 -> md/0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 May 22 22:56 /dev/md1 -> md/1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 May 22 22:56 /dev/md2
Guys keep it real hard.
http://VOSIeawbXRgqmby.t6i.net/pharm/sevy/rustic.php
Deanna
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:46:09AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> As far as I understood it, the missing infrastructure for
> testing-security was the reason why the release of sarge was delayed by
> more than half a year.
> As far as I have seen, it seems most security updates go either through
>
Much more better than usual, believe me.
http://GVGdfcfTWtwx.mfek.com/ph/sevy/procrustean.htm
Young
Hi
I am subscribed to debian-user, debian-mentors and debian-devel
lists. I am finding that typically debian-devel and debian-mentors is
way more spammed than debian-user. Why is it so? Am I just day dreaming
or is there any reason? Is there anything we forgot to implement on d-d
lists that
Actually she takes much more time to have pleaseure.
http://VWBoasUZrcvo.yi4.net/pharm/sevy/bumptious.html
Fern
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
> Hi
> I am subscribed to debian-user, debian-mentors and debian-devel
> lists. I am finding that typically debian-devel and debian-mentors is
> way more spammed than debian-user. Why is it so? Am I just day dreaming
> or is there any reason? Is
On May 22 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Rogério Brito wrote:
> > In my very humble and uninformed opinion, some maintainers should
> > really give up maintaining their packages or should try to get other
> > people as co-maintainers, if they lack the time to fix their
> > packages. :-(
> >
> >
For some time I've been more or less MIA, but in the past month or so
it became impossible for me to do debian work: the processor in my
desktop, my only Debian machine (the only other machine I own has a
proprietary, non-Linux compatible (Airport Extreme) wifi card)
released its magic smok
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-20 11:48]:
>> One could decide to let RM: bugs on ftp.d.o always linger a certain
>> amount of time before processing, for complete removals, in any case.
>
> That's someone I wanted to suggest anyw
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:55:30AM -0300, Rog?rio Brito wrote:
> > I have seen cases of maintainers that have packages with may bug reports,
> > without any indication of an intent to fix them.
>
> Exactly. It is a frustration to have a bug filed for, say, almost one year
> (Lack of time during on
41 matches
Mail list logo
