Bug#348655: ITP: ipfilter -- Stateful and packet based IP network firewall

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Steve King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: ipfilter Version : 4.1.10 Upstream Author : Darren Reed * URL : http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~avalon/ip_fil4.1.10.tar.gz * License : BSD Description : Stateful and packet

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]: > > Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world > > understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he > > was. > > Again my quest

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:10:25AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Joe Wreschnig writes: > > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:32 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > > You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every >

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different > contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause > different dependencies and bugs. In

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[EMAIL PROTECTED], if you read that: Fix your mail setup, I'm not interested in getting double mails from whatever setup you have there. Thanks] * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >> Do we call RMS a Debian

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives > > rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices > > than Ubuntu. > > H

Re: Mirror split stuff

I am afraid, in such split packages with arch "all" will be duplicated in all architectures. IMHO, there are only two solutions: Move every arch in separate directory/server, and arch "all" too. Or havely use hard links, like in debian-amd64 port. The second solution looked worse, because don't

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > It's also about false statements like "We sync our packages to Debian > > regularly," because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us, > > otherwise all these heat

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

Steve Langasek wrote: > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only* > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no > packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential > is that you don't need to depend on it) is if we make it Essential: yes

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]: > So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yourself to ubuntu, checking what other Debian derivates, Fedora, Open

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we > > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different > > contents. Rebuilding a packag

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we > > > do not end up with two .deb with th

udev naming problems for eth*

Hi all I'm trying to get static naming for my network interfaces with udev, without success. the system is debian sarge based, with udev version 0.076-6 and kernel 2.6.14-7-686-smp on a P4. the network interfaces are a realtek 8139 integrated in the motherboard (eth0) and a 3com pci (eth1)

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * 1 FETCH (BODY[TEXT] {1008} > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when >> Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is >> OK to leave the maintainer field un

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[don't be confused about the To header, this is merly just for testing a propable b0rked setup] * Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-18 10:26]: > Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a > metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedl

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all > I'm trying to get static naming for my network interfaces with udev, > without success. As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the kernel and they've nothing to do with udev. To get a stable naming you should use some pac

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

also sprach Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.18.1254 +0100]: > As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the > kernel and they've nothing to do with udev. > > To get a stable naming you should use some package like ifrename. ifrename is a hack and needed f

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

On Jan 18, Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the system is debian sarge based, with udev version 0.076-6 and kernel Just to be sure, I suggest you upgrade your version of udev. > usually the two interfaces are named the wrong way, but sometimes they > are named fine. IOW, renaming is

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

On Jan 18, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the kernel > and they've nothing to do with udev. Obviously you have no clue about udev (nor about proper quoting). -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital si

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents > > should be implicit. However, regardless of whether it's an accurate > > quote, it's

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: But linked against other libraries. The binary is downloaded from another location(or installed from a different cd set). The program used to do the download may be different. Using this as rule, then all Debian CDD distributions would need to reco

Bug#348683: ITP: libfcgi-procmanager-perl -- Functions for managing FastCGI applications.

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libfcgi-procmanager-perl Version : 0.17 Upstream Author : James Jurach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/J/JU/JURACH/FCGI-ProcMana

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

> beside the fact that I find useful to name eth0 the realtek and eth1 the > other, there is a casuality in the naming process that I cannot remove If you want to avoid racing with the kernel then you should choose stable names from another namespace than the one that the kernel uses. Suggestion

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload shoul

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload shoul

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive > > is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The > > binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which > > can caus different depen

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> In case of CDDs, the only exception is it isn't build against other >> libraries but it is installed by different cd set and downloaded from >> another location in many cases. > > If it is a CDD than it is installed from a Debian mirror and nothing else

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they Well, that's a "temporary" hack until we have implemented solutions which makes this superfluous. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

On Jan 18, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to avoid racing with the kernel then you should choose > stable names from another namespace than the one that the kernel uses. > Suggestion: Use 'eth_0' and 'eth_1' instead of 'eth0' and 'eth1'. > Md: Or is there something in udevd n

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

> In any case I am hoping to see python-minimal included in Debian. I now see that it is already in sid. :) $ apt-cache madison python-minimal python-minimal |2.3.5-5 | http://ftp.nl.debian.org sid/main Packages -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject

(no subject)

please remove me from callwave, [EMAIL PROTECTED]. thank you. sharenknapp. 956 464 3214.

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible > > Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly > > 'normally' entail different Debian packag

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should > > be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other > > derivative, it's a significant operati

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

Md wrote: > SuSE uses some scripts to handle persistent interface names > [...] I had no time yet to investigate the details. I just looked at the "rename_netiface" script in that package. The following comments in the script give an idea of how it handles the race problem. # look for a netw

Re: Need for launchpad

On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might > have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a thing; while I would > love to work more closely with Ubuntu, the lack of personality is what's > holding me back---and

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> > Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number >> > *anyway*

You have been successfully unsubscribed from "Small Cap Reports"

Dear, [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have been successfully unsubscribed from Small Cap Reports. We are sorry to see you go! Visit our Ezine Directory for more newsletters! http://subs.zinester.com Fill in our questionnaire and receive a bonus: no ads in newsletters! To fill in the questionnaire please

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Wednesday, 18 January 2006 11:30, Riku Voipio wrote: > On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]: > > So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around > > Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yours

Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Steffen Joeris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: php-net-imap Version : 1.0.3 Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP * License : php license

unsuscribe

Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2006, 06:02 -0800 schrieb Sergio Talens-Oliag: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Format: 1.7 > Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:38:08 +0100 > Source: gnome-u2ps > Binary: gnome-u2ps > Architecture: source i386 > Version: 0.0.4-4 > Distribution: unstable > Urgenc

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

Le mercredi 18 janvier 2006 à 18:07 +0100, Martin Schulze a écrit : > Andrew Suffield has lost his posting permission to debian-devel-announce > after making a rather sarcastic point that off-topic mails to this list are > unwanted. Sorry to feed again the troll, but I would like to know what is t

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output > of apt-cache shows the fiel

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Sorry to feed again the troll, but I would like to know what is the > rationale behind removing the permissions for Andrew and not for > Raphaël. This has nothing to do with the technical aspects of Debian development (too bad th

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive >> > is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The >> > binary package have been rebuilt in an differ

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output > of apt-cache shows the field 'Orig

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives >> > rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communic

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Raphaël has also harmed the project by implicitly > linking it to Ubuntu. Don't be ridiculous. Ubuntu explicitly acknowledge that they build on Debian - see http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship - and Debian positively en

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote: > The charter for this list says: "Announcements for developers". The charter for -private reads "Private discussions among developers: only for issues that may not be discussed on public lists. Anything sent there should be treated as sensitive and not

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:21 +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only* > > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no > > packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential > > is that

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote: >> > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. >> >> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated >> dialogues I have initiated and participated

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be > interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy. > And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor > with Ubuntu, then you can

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:25:07PM +, Dave Holland wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:44:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Raphaël has also harmed the project by implicitly > > linking it to Ubuntu. > > Don't be ridiculous. Ubuntu explicitly acknowledge that they build on > Debian - see

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

Joerg Jaspert writes: > On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > The charter for this list says: "Announcements for developers". > > The charter for -private reads > "Private discussions among developers: only for issues that may not be > discussed on public lists. Anything sent there sh

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from > > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being > > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arc

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they > > Well, that's a "temporary" hack until we have implemented solutions which > makes this superfluous. But exist! -- O T A V

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

Hello! martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > also sprach Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.18.1254 > +0100]: >> As far as I can tell, network interface names are given by the >> kernel and they've nothing to do with udev. >> >> To get a stable naming you should use

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joerg Jaspert writes: >> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote: >>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/01/msg9.html I >>> may lose posting permissions as well. >> You sho

make-kpkg fails, Bug?

Hi, I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since then, I can't create a kernel-image. gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7) Package: kernel-package Version: 10.032 I just would love to know if we should set a bug on kernel-package (AFAIK, that is the

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 20:23 +0100]: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joerg Jaspert writes: > >> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote: > >>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting > >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-anno

Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol

> * Package name: php-net-imap > Version : 1.0.3 > Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP > * License : php license You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1] your pac

Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol

> You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1] > your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP > License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting that > they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed up by > extensive debian-legal

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

* Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 14:54 -0500]: > This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles > somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK. Sorry sweetie, I'm not a boy and have no pickle to compare. -- off the chain like a rebe

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the > > other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation? > > It is quite similar to what debian calls a binary N

Re: make-kpkg fails, Bug?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote: > Hi, > > I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since > then, I can't create a kernel-image. > gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7) > Package: kernel-package > Version: 10.032 > > I just would love to

Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce

This thread is a huge waste of bandwidth. Can't you boys compare pickles somewhere else? This gets, (what's the expression?) a big ole fat PLONK. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and >> over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on >> otherwise-unmodified source packages is too

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs >> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled

Re: Andrew Suffield

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:03PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > > Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves > > > anything? > > > > > > T

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: Well, that's a "temporary" hack until we have implemented solutions which makes this superfluous. But exist! Sure they exist, but the statement you made about the maintainer field was simply wrong, because it makes no sense to change the maintainer

Re: Andrew Suffield

On 1/18/06, Dallam Wych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:03PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > > > Do you think your constant bitching is funny

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > The full quote is "We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that > > introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest > > packaging

Re: Andrew Suffield

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:57:13PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > You ignore that a lot of them are part of the Debian community. This > project would be better if people like you applied part of the > imagination to contribute (at least) with useful comments. Rather, I think *you* missed my point

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs > > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. > > Actually, binary-only NM

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]: > > I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a > > world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement > > on behalf of the

Re: Andrew Suffield

On 1/18/06, Dallam Wych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:57:13PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > You ignore that a lot of them are part of the Debian community. This > > project would be better if people like you applied part of the > > imagination to contribute (at least) w

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact > > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any > > such tool for modifyi

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only* > > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no > > packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential > > i

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs >> > don't modify the source package, even though the binar

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact >> > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodif

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from > > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being > > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs > > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. > > They obviously do. The

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only* >> > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no >> > packages in the wild that

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:28:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do

Re: Andrew Suffield

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:19:55PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > I'm glad that you contribute to Debian, you're part of the Debian > community as some people that you're pointing that changed sides for a > dollar. I'm sure that you don't know none of them, to say for sure. > Please, stop the troll

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:43:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only > > reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes, > > not to support stripp

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:30:22PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from > > ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful > > for a d-d-a mail so w

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You can't stop that; you can't say "here's the package, but nobody >> should use it". > > Fortunately, no one attempted to do that. What we did do was discuss our > plan with Python upstream and ensure that our treatment of the package > satisfied the

D-I team January meeting MOVES AGAIN: Saturday January 28th 17:00UTC

> The monthly Debian Installer team meeting which was initially > scheduled for January 14th is reported to January 21st, as several D-I > developers will attend the "Extremadura session" about the graphical > installer development > (http://wiki.debian.org/WorkSessionsExtremadura). And, sorry, t

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from >> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs >> > don't modify the source package, even though the bin

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to >> >> change the maintainer field with that. >> > >> > Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that >> > context. >> >> Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do!

Re: make-kpkg fails, Bug?

Adam Heath wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote: Hi, I just did an upgrade on Sid and an upgrade on Linus tree. Since then, I can't create a kernel-image. gcc version 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-7) Package: kernel-package Version: 10.032 I just would

Bug#348775: general: terminal emulators' alternatives settings' priorities annoy users

Package: general Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, The problem at hand is the proposed (and implemented) solution for http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332223 . I'm unconvinced that bumping the priority on the other terminal emulators is an adequa

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then > that Ubuntu does recompile every package. To clarify explicitly: - Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian - Most Ubuntu source packages are iden

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote: udevd uses ioctl(SIOCSIFNAME) to rename the devices. If you drivers are compiled in, the get assigned eth[01] during init, but udev is called much later. Renaming eth0 to eth1 will fail, because there already is an eth1 and vis versa. Consider using another name syste

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

On Jan 19, Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > maybe modifying mkinitramfs script to include udev in the initramfs > could help? udev is already part of the initramfs, but its presence is not relevant. The options are: - use names which cannot be used by the kernel, or - help me cleaning

Re: udev naming problems for eth*

Op do, 19-01-2006 te 00:11 +0100, schreef Davide Natalini: > Marco, this is useful indeed, but the problem remains: in the debian > standard kernel the 8138too and 3c59x drivers are both modules, and both > are present in the initramfs. > If they are loaded and get the kernel name before udev sta

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

mdz writes: > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org > which have not been verified on Debian... I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not the bug is likely to

Re: make-kpkg fails, Bug?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote: > >What does /bin/sh point to? > > > > > > > Could you please explain what is exactly what you need to check? ls -l /bin/sh In other words, what does /bin/sh point to? What shell is /bin/sh? bash? zsh(gods no)? posh? dash? -- To UNSUBS

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the > > > other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?

  1   2   >