Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Sam Hocevar (Debian packages)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: sdl.net
Version : 4.0.4
Upstream Author : David "jendave" Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others
* URL : http://cs-sdl.sourceforge.net/index.php/Main_Page
* Licen
I'm one of the small minority of people who have a very negative
opinion about gmail. I realise I'm a bit of a kook on this subject
and I'd ideally I'd like to avoid having an enormous flamewar about
it.
However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
appears to be reading debian
Brian M. Carlson writes ("Re: Mass bug filing: failure to use invoke-rc.d when
required"):
> But seriously, if violating Debian Policy has no consequences, then it
> probably won't be followed. As it stands now, Policy is useless because
> the worst that can happen is an important bug, which can
[Cross-posted to debian-devel in hopes of getting this discussion out of
-private; please follow up there.]
Tapio Lehtonen wrote:
> What about encouraging maintainers to appoint a substitute maintainer?
> This does not apply to group maintained packages and I am open to
> suggestions what to call
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: pubtal
Version : 3.2.0
Upstream Author : Colin Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.owlfish.com/software/PubTal/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang:
Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> But it seems clear that Gmail's processing isn't compatible with
> debian-private.
>
> A Debian developer should cause debian-private to be processed only as
> is necessary for providing developers with good and convenient access
> to the mailing list. They should no
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:52:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Actually, from personal experience, bugs are not fixed because the
> > maintainer is against all NMUs, even those that follow the steps
> > described in the sysklogd's source 'debian/NMU-Disclaimer'. The
> > current maintainer's
Hello Gabor,
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 01:58:14AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
>> Thus, it's bash's start-up which is the slow part, in the terms of
>> actual speed, bash is not that far behind.
>
> It would be interesting to compare something more complex
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 07:59:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Why that? It would only affect packages that (correctly or wrongly) also
> > depend on libdb4.2. (And libdb4.2 unfortunatly doesn't have versioning,
> > otherwise, it wouldn't be any issue; lidb4.3 and libdb4.4 are better in
> > t
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:46:17AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Are you sure that this isn't done? I had the impression that fixes for
> RC bugs that only are soname changes or something were processed a
> couple of days ago...
Indeed, Jörg found time immediately after Debconf and before traval
> On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:44:50 -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
>> because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
>> FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
>> their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
>> communities will only grow over t
Hi,
this dependend bugs are also available via usertags:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-4.1;[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR
Scripsit "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
> debian-private should, for each subscriber to the list, be encrypted
> individually to the public key
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña quoted:
> " These rules always apply. They even apply if somebody declares NMUs
> as ok and reduces regular NMU rules to a delay of zero days. Unless
> I'm on vacation or on a show I am reachable via mail, so there is
> hardly a reason not to contact me. "
Hmm, thi
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
> debian-private should, for each subscriber to the list, be encrypted
> individually to the public key on file for her/him.
>
>
Francesco P. Lovergine writes ("Re: use of "invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || exit
$?" in prerm scripts"):
> Unfortunately sometimes the daemon does not stop for an error in the
> maintainer script and that prevents upgrading for ever, even when
> the package has been corrected. [...]
If the old pack
On 24 May 2006, Andreas Barth stated:
> * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]:
>> So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to,
>> but I know that my own ongoing notion of "best practices" comes
>> from stuff I learned long ago plus new ideas discussed on this
>>
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:42:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 23 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow stated:
> > To me it sounds like you are. You provide a shared object file in a
> > public place so other people can link their binaries against
> > it. What else is a shared library? Does it ma
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Explanation? What we have here is an act of bad faith, in the
> guise of demonstrating a weakness. In my experience, one act of bad
> faith often leads to others.
pffft. This is taking it to an extreme. He wasn't trying to fake who
he wa
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost verbalised:
> > > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >> Explanation? What we have here is an act of bad faith, in the guise
> > >> of demonstrating a weakness.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: bootsplash-theme-debian
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.bootsplash.de
* License : GPL
Description : The boots
Kevin B. McCarty writes ("Re: sending debian-private postings to gmail"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> [snip]
> > distributed to computers whose owners and operators cannot be expected
> > to refrain from processing the content in other ways.
> ^
>
>
On May 24, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
We already do.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Martin Samuelsson wrote:
Erik Steffl @ 2006-05-24 (Wednesday), 09:28 (-0700)
Christoph Berg wrote:
No, please have a look at http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/drupal.html.
what exactly I would be looking for? I know that drupal has a formal
maintainer. However no work has been done on drupal
On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:41:04 -0500, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 12:10:43AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
>> Sure we could just have disclosed the license to -legal beforehand, but
>> then Sun probably would never talk to us about doing things like this
>> one again and just t
Wouter Verhelst writes ("alternatives and priorities"):
> Fixing this wasn't very hard, but it made me consider why we let a
> maintainer decide what the alternative priority of an editor would be.
I have a suggestion: how about we make it a rule that to provide a new
alternative with a greater pr
* Ian Jackson:
> Francesco P. Lovergine writes ("Re: use of "invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || exit
> $?" in prerm scripts"):
>> Unfortunately sometimes the daemon does not stop for an error in the
>> maintainer script and that prevents upgrading for ever, even when
>> the package has been corrected.
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:13:38AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> > sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
> > debian-private should, for
On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost spake thusly:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost spake thusly:
>>> I wasn't making any claim as to the general validity of IDs which
>>> are purchased and I'm rather annoyed that you attempted to
>>> extrapolate it out to
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:16:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The KSP was cracked, People signed a key without ever looking
> at proper, official ID. You can try and save face by calling it
> whatever you want, but that does not change the reality.
Manoj, how
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My memory is horrible, but IIRC James Troup (ie, our keymaster..) did
> some similar study at the DebConf5 KSP and ended up with a list of
> people whose GPG signtures he didn't trust anymore because of whatever
> trick they fell for.
Err, for the record, n
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:46:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But a number of people were taken in by this social
> engineering crack and failed to ask for the real ID.
How is it a 'crack' if the information on the ID was all accurate?
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost spake thusly:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost verbalised:
>>> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Explanation? What we have here is an act of bad faith, in the
guise of demonstrating a weakness. In m
[Michael Meskes]
> So why is Java su much more important than all other packages in NEW?
One metric could be the popularity-contest score. Looking at
http://popcon.debian.org/unknown/by_vote> to see what packages
are in common use by our packages while being missing in the debian
archive show ja
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libdevel-cycle-perl
Version : 1.07
Upstream Author : Lincoln Stein, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://mirrors.kernel.org/cpan/modules/by-module/Devel/Devel-Cycle-
On 25 May 2006, Luca Capello uttered the following:
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 15:39:44 +0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
>>> unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device a
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> (2) all mail passing through debian-private should, for each
> subscriber to the list, be encrypted individually to the public key
> on file for her/him.
>
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this
> to be done transparently
On 25 May 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh outgrape:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
>> unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
> [...]
>
> Should you not have *signed* a message of this sort? I cer
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060525 06:01]:
> Unfortunately, neither the FAQ nor emails from Sun are actually legally
> binding
I'm not sure why mails shouldn't be legally binding (of course,
depending on their content - I didn't see any mails up to now).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.ar
On 25 May 2006, Mike Bird verbalised:
> On Wednesday 24 May 2006 22:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 24 May 2006, MJ Ray outgrape:
>>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Anthony Towns already mentioned: 'both James and Jeroen had
>>> extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clause
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost verbalised:
> > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Explanation? What we have here is an act of bad faith, in the guise
> >> of demonstrating a weakness. In my experience, one act of bad faith
> >> often le
On 5/24/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Tue, May 23 2006, 08:52:10PM]:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?
What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
only needs to walk trough the dir
Hi,
It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
signing party recently. This was apparently to belabour the obvious
point that large KSP's are events where it is hard to reasonably
check. in a large internatio
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:07PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> (2) all mail passing through debian-private should, for each
> subscriber to the list, be encrypted individually to the public key
> on file for her/him.
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this
> to
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 05:30:23PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> FYI, Martin's explanation is at [1], which passed on Planet Debian.
>
> Thx, bye,
> Gismo / Luca
>
> [1] http://blog.madduck.net/geek/2006.05.24-tr-id-at-keysigning
FWIW, I noted down those keys I would *not* sign and didn't tell th
Ganesan Rajagopal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I am not sure the sections need clarification, inasmuch as
>> they do not really apply to setools. I might clarify that 8.2 is
>> meant for packages that provide shared libraries for g
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: bootsplash
Version : 3.1
Upstream Author : Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.bootsplash.org
* License : GPL
Description : Enables a graphical b
On May 24, Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> > script?
> What would happen to people who don't use the Debian kernel packages? In
"make install" already runs depmod.
> my ideal world, there would still be the
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
> unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
[...]
Should you not have *signed* a message of this sort? I certainly won't do
anything until I know for sure it came
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 24, Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> > > script?
> > What would happen to people who don't use the Debian kernel packages? In
> "make install" already runs d
Hello!
On Thu, 25 May 2006 15:39:44 +0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
>> unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
> [...]
>
> Should you not have *signe
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:36:37AM -0500]:
> Hi,
>
> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
> unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
> signing party recently. This was apparently to belabour the obvious
> point that large KS
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 20:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
>> script?
>
> Please go ahead. Anything relying on it is buggy anyway.
> --
> .''`. Josselin Mouette
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
Is there any reason to revoke my signature I have put on
Martin's key after he showed me his passport?
IMHO this mail is
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the library is only internal then this falls under 10.2 I think,
> which is only a SHOULD diretive.
You're right. This falls under 10.2 and as I mentioned before, moving the
library to a subdirectory of /usr/lib is a pain.
> The bug tho
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24 May 2006, Andreas Barth stated:
>
>> * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]:
>>> So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to,
>>> but I know that my own ongoing notion of "best practices" comes
>>> from stuff I l
I think two related, but seperate, issues are being conflated in this
discussion.
The first is the identity of the person you are talking to at a key
signing event. This is, and always has been, the weakest point of the
affair. It is reasonably trivial to forge reasonable looking government
docu
On 25 May 2006, Adam Borowski told this:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:42:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 23 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow stated:
>>> To me it sounds like you are. You provide a shared object file in
>>> a public place so other people can link their binaries against
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
To debian-devel:
Roberto is asking for HP12c User Manual. I'm telling him
what -devel is about. :)
On 05/24/2006 09:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Gostaria de receber o manual com as funções da HP 12 c gratis
Roberto, acho que ho
I am out of the office until Tues May 30, I will respond to your message as
soon as possible.
Carl Lira
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 24 May 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña verbalised:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:52:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Actually, from personal experience, bugs are not fixed because the
>>> maintainer is against all NMUs, even those that follow the steps
>>> described in the sysklogd's
Michal Politowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:38:08 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> [...]
> > 3. Make sh an alternative
>
> dash already optionally diverts it. Isn't it good enough?
Both of these are a really bad idea. If anything goes wrong at the
wrong moment, /bin/sh wo
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:42:07AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> As for Madduck: I hold as a proof of his identity his book, which has
> a photo of him, and I have since Debconf6. It's possible, but still
> very hard, to go through all the work to write a book and put your
> photo in it just to impe
On 5/24/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
appears to be reading debian-private at their gmail account.
doh! i have been caught :)
it's nice to have your personal gobal & searchable mailing list
archive, where you can re
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:07PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this to
> be done transparently? Mailing list admins, any comments?
this has been discussed before a few times. iirc each time the
final result was the mail admins s
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060525 08:15]:
> On 24 May 2006, Andreas Barth stated:
>
> > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]:
> >> So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to,
> >> but I know that my own ongoing notion of "best practices" comes
> >>
On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost verbalised:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Explanation? What we have here is an act of bad faith, in the guise
>> of demonstrating a weakness. In my experience, one act of bad faith
>> often leads to others.
>
> pffft. This is taking it to an extr
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Selon Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Debian policy says:
>>
>> | 8.2 Run-time support programs
>> |
>> | If your package has some run-time support programs which use the
>> | shared library you must not put them in the shared library
>> | p
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 06:58:08PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> > > myself examined the l
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 06:27:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]:
> > So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know
> > that my own ongoing notion of "best practices" comes from stuff I learned
> > long ago plus new
On 25 May 2006, Gunnar Wolf said:
> Manoj Srivastava dijo [Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:36:37AM -0500]:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an unofficial,
>> and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key signing party
>> recently. This was apparently to belabour the
71 matches
Mail list logo
