Re: (no subject)

Ryan Schultz wrote: The question: > For -devel... does anyone know why this list receives so many questions about > Callwave? A sample: ... and ... > I mean, a -devel post is the first answer for a Google search for 'howto > uninstall callwave'... the answer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [

Re: Packages descriptions review

Clément Stenac wrote: > As explained on the wiki page, a web interface has been created to > centralize all reviews. It is now working (though it still needs > improvement and reporting capabilities) and available at > http://zorglub.diwi.org/pkg-descriptions > Please play with it and report any

Re: Packages descriptions review

I've started reviewing the news section, and I'm noticing that I'm running across descriptions which are OK as-is, but could be better. So far, Iv'e put in a comment saying how I think it could be approved, but am clicking "OK". Is that right? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a

Re: Packages descriptions review

One more question: Was the question, should short descriptions be capitalized? ever decided? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#320623: ITP: monouml -- computer-aided software engineering (CASE) friendly tool

David Moreno Garza wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > * Package name: monouml > Version : 0.1a > Upstream Author : Mario Carrión <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and others. > * URL : http://monouml.sf.net/ > * License

Re: Bug#320637: ITP: lltag -- Massive and magic command-line mp3/ogg file tagger

Brice Goglin wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Brice Goglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > * Package name: lltag > Version : 0.6.1-1 > Upstream Author : Brice Goglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://bgoglin.free.fr/lltag/ > * License : GPL >

Re: Packages descriptions review

OK, I've summarized all (I think) of Policy's requirements on packages in the wiki page, together with a cite to the section it came from. Also, I've completed "news", and would appreciate any feedback. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta

Re: Bug#320672: ITP: leo -- English-German dictionary using dict.leo.org

Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > leo is a program for the command line which translates German words leo is a command-line program that translates... > into their English counterpart and vice versa using dict.leo.org. Suggestion: "Equivalent" instead of "counterpart." > This packages needs libnet-d

Re: Packages descriptions review

Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:30:51PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > They shouldn't be, as they're not supposed to be complete sentences > either (think of it as "package -- short description", as in "foo -- a > program to do som

Re: Packages descriptions review

Clément Stenac wrote: > When several packages have more or less the same goal (in the news case, > there are many news grabers and local servers), should their > descriptions include a comparison to the other ones ? I'd say yes: This information will be /very/ useful to the user. > > I don't th

Re: Packages descriptions review

A random observation: Every day, a few ITP's come in to -devel, and often their descriptions need work. If we can't even keep up with the new packages entering the archive, we don't stand much chance of catching up with the over 10,000 description backlog already in the archive. And, I suspect it

Re: RFC: allow new upstream into stable when it's the only way tofix security issues.

Joe Smith wrote: > How about if it meets the folowing critieria: > > 1. it has been in testing for 10 days (been in sid at least 20 days) This means the security hole was disclosed at least 20 days ago, probably more. > 2. Iff it fixes a critical security problem, uploaded to security (This > re

Re: Bruce Perens hosts party at OSCON Wednesday night

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > It was an advertisement for a recruiting party. That's commercial by > any definition. Which is wholy irrelevant, because Debian's mailing list policy prohibits UBE, not UCE. See: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#ads "The sending of any kind of unsolicited *bu

Re: not starting daemons at boot: ln -s disabled

Dan Jacobson wrote: > One way of having some daemons not start at boot (e.g., if we only use > our printer once a year) is to remove certain /etc/rc?.d/ links. Hmmm, does init respect policy-rc.d? If so, it'd be fairly easy to do it that way... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: Asking Debconf questions about database data

Henning Makholm wrote: > It is at least conceivable for the postinst to actively store the > reply in an appropriate file in /etc which the postrm later reads. > > Not that I think this would make much sense UI-wise anyhow. Please, please don't do this! Consider what happens when the user instal

Re: Asking Debconf questions about database data

Russ Allbery wrote: > When one does that, people file bugs complaining that the package doesn't > remove all of the data it generates on installation. :) > > [...] It's not a great solution, and I'm happy to change > if someone else has a better idea. Well, I think the real answer is that just

Re: runlevels remodeled

Hamish Moffatt wrote: > You get that behaviour if you boot "emergency" mode instead of single > user. If by "emergency mode" you mean init=/bin/sh, then doing: exec /sbin/init will continue the boot, I'm pretty sure. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "uns

Re: README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless

W. Borgert wrote: > - "Readme file for ." > > Really? Can be useful on printouts. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:06:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > (I mean, how does my proposal to drop the 'has users' requirement in favor > > of 'do we have developers' ignore the resource usage. I certainly do not > > dispute that a port uses resources.) > Ok, then perhaps it doesn't ignor

Re: Version tracking in the BTS

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:50:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > Also I don't think that "Patched" as a description for tag 'patch' is > correct. The bug has not been patched, there just is a _proposed_ patch > available. There is no certainty that the patch is either correct or will > be accepted b

Re: Version tracking in the BTS

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Would it be possible to include such information in the bug-specific > page as well, or at least a link to obtain it? Well, anything's possible. The versioning checks are somewhat slow and cumbersome at the moment; so they're only d

Re: Version tracking in the BTS

On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:45:47AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Having those bugs classified as "patched" IMO gives the wrong impression > > to casual readers (read non-developers) as it indicates that the problem > > has already been fixed. > > I personall

Re: Version tracking in the BTS

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:28:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > This isn't great for the "maintainer view" of the bugs. As maintainer, > I can't do anything about bugs in stable, so I don't want to see them on > the bug list. They'd appear as a resolved bug in the default view, so shouldn'

Re: To Linux or not to Linux

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > The "Linux" trademark, which used to be owned by Linus personally, has > apparently been transferred to "the Linux Mark Institute" It's still owned by Linus personally; he palms of management of it to the LMI, and has done pretty m

Re: To Linux or not to Linux

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 06:47:57PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > cites "Super Dooper Linux" as an > example of a name that requres payment of money. If there's any > difference in principle between using "Debian" as a first part and > using "Super Dooper", I

Re: bugs.d.o: usertags and user categories

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 02:52:53AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > The second way is to use a tag to select interesting bugs -- there's not > really much use knowing that an lsb-core bug is lsb related, but being > able to list all the lsb-compliance bugs no matter which package, well

Re: Bug#327081: ITP: rpmstrap -- bootstrap a basic RPM-based system

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:08:04PM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote: > * Package name: rpmstrap > Version : 0.5 > * URL : http://hackers.progeny.com/~sam/rpmstrap/ > * License : GPL > Description : bootstrap a basic RPM-based system > > rpmstrap is a tool for

Re: better init.d/* : who carres ?

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > No. They are not even "supposed" to be scripts at all, it is pretty ok to > use binary initscripts (but most people don't, and it really helps for stuff > like that to be easy to debug, and binary is anything but). Ummm, not it's not. In particular, you'd be

Re: Bug#327081: ITP: rpmstrap -- bootstrap a basic RPM-based system

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 12:12:31PM -0500, Sam Hart wrote: > To be completely honest with you, I've not looked much at the > debootstrap code before now. I have tried to mimic debootstrap's > interface without a doubt, but have only done so by *using* debootstrap > rather than snooping in its code.

Re: Bug#327081: ITP: rpmstrap -- bootstrap a basic RPM-based system

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:41:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Looking at rpmstrap-0.1, we see the following code for handling options: Also copied was debootstrap's --arch and --include handling; even duplicating the bug where you have to say "--arch i386" (with a space) and

/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults/ --- Why ­­/etc ?

I just got a new machine, and due to the fact its a different architecture I couldn't just copy the old install over. So, instead, I re-installed. After finishing installing, copying $HOME, etc. I did decided to do a diff between the old /etc and the new /etc to see what I might need to configure a

Re: /etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults/ --- Why ­­/etc ?

Josselin Mouette wrote: > They actually *are* configuration files. You can edit them with > gconftool or gconf-editor. Perhaps I'm missing something (please fill me in if I am), but there does not seem to be anything to edit in: > > > schema="/schemas/apps/aisleriot/statistics"/> >

Re: Debian GNU/Darwin

Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Mac OSX's open source version, Darwin, Does it qualify under DFSG ? Not if its under the ASPL. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a place for a package directory in root

Joerg Sommer wrote: > But I've a question on it: How can I use it? How can I set up /run before > init runs the init script that is responsible for it? I'd assume you'd make the mounting of /run be the first script init runs. So, it'd be /etc/rcS.d/S00mountrun (under SysV-style init, of course).

Re: time seen at top of /var/log/boot

Dan Jacobson wrote: > No its not my BIOS time. It appears to be a timezone 4 timezones east > of New Zealand, GMT+16, i.e., out of this world. How about on your machine? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:anthony$ perl -nwe 'next unless /Setting the System Clock/../System Clock set/; s/: S.*//;prin

Re: Packages that need to be rebuilt agaisnt libssl0.9.8

Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Upgrading to SHA-1 is still a good idea, of course, Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been collision attacks on SHA-1, too? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Finding out in postinst whether some other package is configured

Frank Küster wrote: > In the particular case, the reason is something else: If the recommended > package B (tetex-bin) is there, it makes sense to run one of its > executables (mktexlsr, updmap) to register the files of package A (any TeX > font package). This is a time-consuming process. Howeve

Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 03:35:19PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > This property of metapackages has always irked me. If I install gnome > and then remove gnome-games, I won't automatically benefit in the next > release from any other goodies the gnome maintainers have added to > "gnome" package. T

Re: Finding out in postinst whether some other package is configured

Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > In the past people have suggested adding something to dpkg that allows > one to schedule a script to be run _once_ at the end of a dpkg > session. E.g. every tex font package would call: > > dpkg-run-once /usr/share/tetex-bin/update-fonts It'd have to be once, befor

Re: pbuilder help (bug 334877)

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Ok, so lilypond is failing. But dammitall, I can't get it to fail > ever else. If I run this command myself after the failure, it works > fine. Likewise if I invoke make, or if I clean the directory and go > up and do "debian/rules build". > > Clearly something a

Re: pbuilder help (bug 334877)

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Good golly, Miss Molly, that's it. It does indeed blow chunks if the > input is /dev/null (whether within a chroot or just a normal native > build). Heh. Glad that helped. Took a wild guess from your previous message about hooks not getting stdin. Now, you just ge

Re: changing default ping (was Re: what to do with iputils (ping, etc)

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:33:47AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > > > Making one of the portable versions the default ping for Debian seems > > > > > like the > > > > > right thing to do. > > > > Please explain why. > > > Consistancy. > > Losing important features to be consistent with unrel

Re: changing default ping

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:51:15PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > Going too far on the "consistency" side of things makes working on > > alternative OSes pointless: if Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd do > > the exact same thing, w

Re: apt 0.6 in experimental

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > An old issue that resurfaced, now that APT 0.6 entered Testing: > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800, mdz wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 23:38, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > Oh. Also, you're

Re: Packages file missing from unstable archive

On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 09:48:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Zsync checksum files are, depending on block size, about 3% of the > file size. For the full archive that means under 10G more data. As > comparison adding amd64 needs ~30G. After the scc split there might be > enough space on

Re: Transition time: KDE, JACK, arts, sablotron, unixodbc, net-snmp, php, ...

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS > whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is removed from, testing? I won't so nobody'd object; but it's one of the things we agreed we wanted at the Vancouve

Re: Transition time: KDE, JACK, arts, sablotron, unixodbc, net-snmp, php, ...

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:00:46AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > No it's not. > >RC bug, still in testing -> fixing this is very important, because >it may hold up the testing migration of other packages. > >RC bug, not in testing -> fixing this only affects this one >pa

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

Frank Küster wrote: > Because one of the changes in the new version was crucial for the > function of the program, the postinst script fails to initialize it, and > the whole installation process fails. I agree this is the right thing to happen. A package which has been configured is expected to

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 03:39:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > They began distributing binaries to a large audience *after* they were > notified of the problems. This gives the impression that they don't > care about GPL compliance, and want to gain publicity *now*, > exploiting the "GNU" and "

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:29:31PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: > I think that in this instant case, the "hostility" is the allegation > that a Debian-based "GNU/Solaris" system as described by Erast isn't > possible. Of course it's possible. Trivially: you do it by buying a majority of shares i

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:23:30AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major > > contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major > > OS/kernels for PCs/work

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > You'll note that even in the initial part of the thread when Debian > folks were (generally) being polite, From the very first response: ] > and openness. ] You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it

Re: Packages file missing from unstable archive

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:26:59PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 09:48:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Zsync checksum files are, depending on block size, about 3% of the > >> file size. For the full a

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > FYI, a possible response might be: "we care about freeness, but we pick > our battle, and our battle is Debian main". I care about starving children, > but I don't donate the majority of every check to feed them: there are lots > of

Re: Packages file missing from unstable archive

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:54:09AM -0500, Michael Vogt wrote: > My next test was to use only the data.tar.gz of the two > archives. Zsync will extract the gzip file then and use the tar as the > base. With that I got: > 8< > Read data.tar.gz. Target 34.1%

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this > > case, anyway. > I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the contained > Debian tools in more ways than "mere" dynamic linking. That do

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: > >And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people > >remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here? > No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft of Free software. Big > difference. F

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:40:27PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > > many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, >

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 11:43:23AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > Bill Gatliff writes: > > > Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft. > > Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner > > is not be

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

ed? Or, for that matter, having the flexibility to accept that sometimes the right thing changes depending on the situation? > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Of course, "DFSG-free" isn't all the dc6 organisers are insisting > > on, but the right to MIT/X11

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:00:55AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why > > force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why

Re: testing migration: wtf?

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:58:35PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > What is happening with testing migration of my package, sork-passwd? sork-passwd |2.2.2-2 | testing | source, all sork-passwd |2.2.2-2 | unstable | source, all It migrated already... Cheers, aj signature.

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Because sometimes one feels the need to fight for what is > right? Even if people feel far more comfortable with just sweeping > stuff under the carpet, and not brought out in the open? You know, I was going to say somet

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out > > copyright _transfer_. However, in pr

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns > > said: > > > I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui) > &

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:24:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's > >> distributable. > > Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free > > stuff from the free stuff. > I am coming to the conclusion thst we

Re: Proposition: 'NMU' upload of wxwidgets 2.8

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 04:30:09PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote: > > Currently, the packages that are asking for wx2.8 are almost all available > > and releasable in earlier versions, built against wx2.6. Uploading wx2.8 to > > unstable implies that it's suitable for apps to build against, which b

Re: Meaning of the "Altering package upload rules"

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:45:45AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Hence I think we should push for source upload. Stop pushing and start programming. A technical approach to this would be implementing something along the lines of http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00544.html

Re: dpkg-buildpackage now reorganizing debian/control Depends field??

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:23:28PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > Would it be possible to only re-order elements that were introduced by > a variable substitution? That would make the list deterministic without > changing what the maintainer wrote. At best you could: (a) sort substvar

Re: Google Summer of Code 2008

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:53:17PM +, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 09:42:17AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum > wrote: > > (1) Forbid DDs and people in the NM process waiting for > > FD/DAM to apply as students. > What if we do this, and still do not get many new people > applying? How ab

Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)

that Guillem is no longer a maintainer. > > For the record, Ian has been removed from the "dpkg" group on Alioth and > > we asked for an UNACCEPT of his upload, but I'm not sure it will be done > > on time as none of the ftpmasters responded yet to my queries on IRC. >

Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)

On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 10:38:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 09-Mar-08, 19:30 (CDT), Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was going to ask on which grounds exactly you were judging the dpkg > > team's competence (and that of iwj's: have you reviewed the branch > > yourself? can y

Re: What CDs and DVDs should we produce for lenny?

On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:59:52PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > 2 small CDs per arch (business card, netinst) > ~30 CDs per arch for a full CD set > ~4 DVDs per arch for a full DVD set > (total 353 CDs, 51 DVDs, 426 GB) Bluray image? Apparently there's been a winner in the format wars, and w

Re: Blueray software, was: What CDs and DVDs should we produce for lenny?

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:16:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 03/17/08 04:47, Philip Charles wrote: > [snip] > > worrying about. Even then bluray disc(s) will take up about the same > > space as a CD set. > 21GB on CD is 21GB on Bluray. Physical space isn't an issue for us. Cheers, aj

Re: What CDs and DVDs should we produce for lenny?

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 01:39:40PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > [ /me sets the Reply-To: to debian-cd again... ] But not Mail-Followup-To:... > >At a bare minimum: - installer - downloadable (business card) - installer+base - downloadable (netinst) > > - CD - disk 1 dow

Re: Adding lzma to dpkg's Pre-Depends

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 08:05:06AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: > As per policy 3.5 I'm bringing this up here. I'd like to add lzma to > dpkg's Pre-Depends, so that we can use lzma compressed packages after > lenny w/o having to add an lzma Pre-Depends on each .deb package > compressed that way. Hr

Re: Bits from the release team and request for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Architectures > = > As some of you might have noticed, we added the architectures > kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 to testing. [...] > However, two architectures also have issues we need to bring to your > attention: We sent

Re: Bits from the release team and request for discussion

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:39:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > So, http://release.debian.org/squeeze/arch_qualify.html lists kfreebsd-* > and m68k as not release candidates, and arm, ia64, mips and powerpc as > "at risk" in addition to alpha and hppa. Only m68k is listed as h

Re: Bits from the release team and request for discussion

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 01:09:14PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > I'm grateful for those suggestions, Anthony. That page is just a pain > to maintain though. Not everything on it is up-to-date yet but I updated > quite some chunks. So make it easy to maintain... Attached is an exam

Re: Bits from the release team and request for discussion

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:39:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > About freeze timing we think that DebConf should definitely not fall > > into a freeze > > We noticed that releases in the first quarter of the year

Re : Re: Preparing lecture about Debian. Help needed.

Unidentified subject!

sync installer-i386

Re: Archive signing key for 2007?

On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:51:21PM +0100, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > I thought that the 2007 key was (based on [1]) supposed to be available > early in January and available in the debian-archive-keyring package. Which > doesn't seem to be the case. The key we'll be using (and indeed

Re: Mirror of archive maintenance scripts

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:57:51AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Is their a developer-accessible mirror (on a non-restricted host) of > the archive maintenance which are in production, including (most of) > the configuration? > There used to be a mirror on merkel.debian.org, but it's no longer > c

Re: buildd stuff

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:04:12AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > wb-i386: ajt, rmurray, troup, vorlon > wb-mips: ajt, rmurray, vorlon > There is no wb-amd64 nor wb-mipsel. I don't know why. amd64 is included in wb-i386; mipsel is included in wb-mips. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digit

Re: Mirror of archive maintenance scripts

On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 03:28:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > It is now; the katie -> dak rename broke it. > Uhm, it seems that it's still lacking James' recent changes. Are you > sure the mirror is working? They're there and it is. Grep for "Binary-Upload-Restrictions". Cheers, aj signa

Re: co-mentor for a GSoC proposal wanted: debbugs web submission

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:23:09PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On to, 2007-03-15 at 15:06 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I (continue to) object to the notion of web-based submission of bugs to > > Debian. Do you really think that someone who can't maneuver reportbug is > > capable of submitti

Re: How to bet back to a sane version number?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:22:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > It's also a good idea to check against APT's implementation when > playing with strange version numbers (because it's not the same). Hrm? They used to be significantly different (apt wouldn't cope with numbers greater than ~0ul or

Re: Liability protection project - call for participants

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:51:40PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: > A long time ago we planned for SPI to protect Debian developers from > liability connected with their development of Free Software. [...] (By and large, Bruce is speaking for himself here, and possibly some of the other founders of S

Re: etch-proposed-updates amd64 Release file fails checksum [Was: possible problem with ftp.us.debian.org]

On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 04:57:46PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > More than a month ago I filed a bug report > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=418956 Sorry about that, fixed now. (The daily regeneration of the Release files wasn't working because the dak script wasn't noticin

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:53:43PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On ti, 2007-05-22 at 13:30 +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: > > 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from > > -legal and despite its concerns with the strategies developed in some > > sections, Debian does con

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the CDDL > have never been accepted in main.[1] star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...] star | 1.5a67-1 | stable | source, alpha, amd64, [...] http://packa

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

debian-devel re-added. On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under t

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > >> I do *not* agree that the CDDL meets the DFSG, especially when a choice > >> of venue is in place. > &

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

excluding yourself from being in a position to define Debian's interpretation of "free software". (And it doesn't matter what the outcome of that vote had been -- including if it had been "the GFDL is a free license even with invariant section") For reference, ftpma

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 04:51:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to > > say "if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue > > you in a cou

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

nment to extradite you or enforce its rulings for them. Should someone be willing to do that, and a court is willing to go through all those steps with a choice of venue clause, what makes you think they'd not do so in the absence of one? > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: > > &g

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

The debian-legal checklist: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check. > Anthony Towns writes: > > [...] And as far as the actual effects go, > > I'm not sure you're going to be any bette

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:14:16AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > But even so, when you say things like "I'm personally more concerned > > about licensing than the average developer" and "I [...] expect > > people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis > > with counter argum

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >