universal zcat ?

Dear Debian developpers, I ma looking for a wrapper around the various compressions programs (gzip, bzip2, xz, zstd, etc.) that would provide the same interface as zcat but would automatically pick the right decompressor. I could easily write one but it probably already exists. Cheers, -- Bill.

Re: Comparing FHS 2.3 and 2.1

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:07:57AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:02:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > 5)== > > > > > > User specific configuration files for applications are stored in the > > > user'

Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy

On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 10:58:55AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > [I'm not subscribed to -policy, please respect M-F-t or Cc me] > > | A repackaged .orig.tar.gz [...] must not contain any file that does not > | come from the upstream author(s), or whose contents has been changed by > | you. > `

Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy

On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:32:27PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Having the get-orig-source target is nice, but there might be cases > >> where this is impractical. > > > > debian/rules get-orig-source is code,

Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:07:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Hi Bill, hi all, > > I'd like to come back to one point of your mail: > > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If you have a whole directory of binary files, you might consider >

Debian menu and GNOME (request for help)

Hello Debian folk, As you might have discovered, the Debian menu support and in particular i18n has been greatly improved for most of the window-managers in Debian with the exception of GNOME. Here a summary of my attempts to get current GNOME and Debian menu to get along more nicely that they do

Re: Debian menu and GNOME (request for help)

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:43:44AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 00:22 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > 1) Current gnome-panel do *not* support XDG menus (only KDE does). > > (Debian menu has XDG menu support through menu-xdg.) > > >

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:12:48AM +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote: > El Jueves 11 Noviembre 2004 10:47, Jeroen van Wolffelaar escribió: > > Your package is native, I suggest supporting the 'get-orig-source' > > rules-target to make that one generate a .orig.tar.gz containing all > > upstream

Re: Debian menu and GNOME (request for help)

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 09:44:34AM +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > > 3) Eventually, GNOME will switch to xdg-menu but probably not the > > version in sarge. > > Right, the switch will be for 2.10. > > > > 4) It is rumoured that some distros apply a patch top GNOME panel > > to make it support x

Re: menu-method for .desktop files?

On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 03:54:12PM +, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > Hi > > I notice discussion on bug #241554 regarding a menu-method for .desktop > files used by KDM/GDM for window manager sessions. Has any progress been > made on this? If not I would like to volunteer for it. I definitely

Bug#283578: ITP: hot-banknote -- monetary graphical system activity monitor

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: hot-banknote Version : 0.2.1 Upstream Authors: David Odin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cyprien Laplace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> graphics: Eugène Delacroix and others. * URL : http://scnr.org/hot-

Re: menu-method for .desktop files?

On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 03:54:12PM +, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > Hi > > I notice discussion on bug #241554 regarding a menu-method for .desktop > files used by KDM/GDM for window manager sessions. Has any progress been > made on this? If not I would like to volunteer for it. I definitely

Re: menu-method for .desktop files?

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:47:16PM +, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 07:34:45PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello, > > I have written the menu method, but I did not test it. > > > > Please find it here: <http://people.debian.org/~ba

Re: menu-method for .desktop files?

Hello, I have discussed on IRC with Chis Cheney (menu-xdg/KDE maintainer) and we have a different plan: kdebase include .desktop files for wm that are translated and we will not have time to move the translations to the menu system before sarge release, so it seems better to keep these .desktop f

Re: On closing lists of bugs in changelog...

reopen 170548 thanks On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:43:42PM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > > * Added ./autogen.sh call in debian/rules ( makes package more > portable > and easier to maintain in the future ). > * (Closes: 273895, 217516, 220407, 252897, 159110, 170548, 203843) > (

Re: SVG icons

On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:25:22AM -0500, James A. Treacy wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 02:06:26PM +0100, Lo?c Minier wrote: > > > > It's defined in the _Menu_ Policy. I think the people maintaining the > > Debian menu system are best placed to tell what should be allowed or > > not. > > I

popularity-contest releases-in-use stats

Hello Debian developers I have added sometimes ago a new graph to popcon.debian.org showing what release of popularity-contest were used to report. Here is today results: Statistics per popularity-contest releases: 1.18.woody.19: 114 1.19 : 33 1.20 :

Re: SVG icons

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:55:41AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:49:49PM +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > The authoritative document is the menu _manual_: > > (/usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz), section 3.7 > > &g

Re: Linux Core Consortium

Hello Debian developers, It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is that it is not developed for itself but as a platform for the 10^4+ packages and the 10+ architectures in Debian. For example the compiler m

Re: Intel EM64T porting machine for Debian

On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:36:21AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > In addition, we have at least two other machines which are available > to developers: > > pergolesi.debian.org -- admin is debian-admin (and all developers have > accounts already) Currently, this machin

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > We have absolutely been talking to ISVs about their needs--indeed, this > has been a conversation that has been ongoing for years.. > > What about the LCC's scope isn't clear? The basic are fairly simple: > Make the cost-benefit equati

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > It seems to me than one of the main value of Debian is in the quality of > > its core distribution. One of the reason of the quality is tha

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:36:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:21:02 -0800, Michael K Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > >> Bruce Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are > >> attempting to get to use Linux as the core of their products. > >

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:29:47AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > > Would outsourcing the core packages to > >third parties not make us less nimble (if I can use the word with a > >straight face)? > > > Nobody is saying that you can't override the external stuff when > necessary. Security would be a

Re: Naming for OSSP projects in Debian (libraries, dirs)

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:05:53PM +0100, Raphael Bossek wrote: > OSSP work with you. The problem I see with OSSP are the too simple > names e.g. libsa or libuuid. The header files are also installed > by default in /usr/include. This will lead in problems for uuid > more then for sa because Debian

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > >But overriding them means we lose the certification ? > > > > > We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and > unremedied security issue ca

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:46:53PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 23:55 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > > > Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > But overriding them means we lose the certific

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 12:51:54PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Op do, 16-12-2004 te 14:46 -0500, schreef Ian Murdock: > > > We've heard > > > directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common > > > binary core will be

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 05:07:44PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care > > about his concerns why should he care about theirs ? Or alternatively &

Re: The ghost of libc-dev

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it > reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird > situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package. > > The summary is this: > > *) The 'li

Re: The ghost of libc-dev

On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:58:15AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > > >> But can one get a C compiler at all (at least a Debian-supplied one) > >> without also pulling in an appropriate l

Re: splitting a source package into 2 source packages

On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:47:51PM -0500, sean finney wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:18:19PM -0500, Josh Metzler wrote: > > I seem to recall hearing that NEW processing is based solely on binary > > packages, so that the new source package would not need to go through NEW > > if it creates a

Re: Why are you guys using user space utilities not written by us that seem to not work? Could you change who is the debian maintainer for us?

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:22:17PM -0800, Hans Reiser wrote: > I can volunteer [EMAIL PROTECTED], the guy who writes our utilities > (which work), for the task. > > This is the second time that Ed has broken Reiserfs support in Debian, > and each time it breaks Namesys looks bad, because users h

Re: Re: Statically linked binaries from fpc

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:26:13PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > Hi Bill, > > > Hello Roland, I know nothing about fpc, but does it really need to > > produce binaries statically linked with glibc ? I would expect to just > > link statically with the units and dynamically with glibc. This would >

using qemu-arm with Debian

Hello developers, I have experimented with qemu arm CPU emulation and syscall translation with Debian. I have written a summary here: This shows how to set up a Debian arm chroot and run binaries with qemu-arm, but this should also work for ppc and sparc

Re: fftw3 non-pic k7 optimisations

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:25:00PM +, Paul Brossier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:16:50PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Paul Brossier: > > > > > Two questions: > > > - can anyone spot what in these codelets causes the non-pic ? > > > > Tables of constants are addressed directly, n

Re: mplayer, the time has come

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:20:29PM -0500, Brendan wrote: > On Friday 25 February 2005 05:39 am, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 10:36 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > On Feb 25, giskard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > many people who I know, especially artists who use free software,

Popularity-contest http POST: call for testers

Hello developers, We have plans to add support in popularity-contest to send the report through http POST. Both the server part an the client part have been developed. The last issue is to actually use it in the cron job and see what issues For that purpose, I have made an experimental populari

Re: Popularity-contest http POST: call for testers

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:17:22PM -0600, Jacob S wrote: > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:48:21 +0100 > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello developers, > > > > We have plans to add support in popularity-contest to send the > > report through http P

Re: Popularity-contest http POST: call for testers

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:05:49PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Saturday 05 March 2005 06:48 pm, Bill Allombert wrote: > > For that purpose, I have made an experimental popularity-contest package > > that use both smtp and http. Please find it here: > > Have you consi

Re: fftw3 non-pic k7 optimisations

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:10:00PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005, Paul Brossier wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:05:44PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > >> Why do you insist to have that code be position-independant ? > > > > I could say because it is a 'mu

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures > starting with etch. They will be released with sarge, with all that > implies (including security support until sarge is archived), but they > would no lon

[Proposal] Upgrade newraff hardware

Hello Debian developers, It had come several times that one major problem is the load of wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take to run the testing scripts. Debian certainly has enough goodwill to get a donation of a couple of really fast box with lots of RAM, and has

Re: Vancouver meeting - clarifications

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:38:51AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 10:50]: > > Debian has a fairly big chunk of cash lying about. If we have > > problems doing testing migration because of not enough hardware, this > > is something I think we should spen

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Well, the release team are not the only Debian developers with credibility, > surely? Not everything needs to go through us; if the project has the will > to do stable releases of these architectures, in spite of the release team >

iyonix [was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:19:14PM +, Darren Salt wrote: > I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written... > > [snip] > > At the moment, the only use cases I'm confident exist are: > [snip] > > arm: We're developing some embedded boxes, that won't run Debian > > proper, but it's

[Proposal] $arch release assistants

Hello Debian-developer, I have a modest proposal to reduce the burden of the multiple architectures on the Release team. This is based on the following assumptions: I) The main problem is missing builds that slow down propagation to testing. II) Such problems are linked to buildd breakages that

Re: my thoughts on the Vancouver Prospectus

On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and > > answered] > > > > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restr

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:23:43PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > I wouldn't recommend to compile new code with 2.95 just because it is > faster. It doesn't do standard C and misses many broken constructs which > are caught by newer compilers. The real advantage of gcc-2.95 is that we start to know

Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 2

Dear Debian developers, There are some developpement with the circular dependencies problems: The GNOME team has reduced the number of circular dependencies in the GNOME suite. Thanks! Robert Lemmen has made a script that show the circular dependencies in the 3 distribution and publishes the res

Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

Hello Debian developers, When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages that are split between a binary package and a data package. This is a good thing since this reduce the total siez of the archive, however there are simple rules that should be followed: 1) Make sure pk

Debian menu system request for help

Dear Debian developers and future developers, I am been struggling with Debian menu since 3 years now. I would like some help with checking the overall menu quality. (menu entries and menu methods) If you love the Debian menu system, accept it as it is, are _very_ patient, don't mind messing wit

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:03:33PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 20-Nov-05, 05:13 (CST), Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages > > that are split between a binary package and a data packag

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:26:37PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello Debian developers, > > > > When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages > > that are split between

Re: Uploading amd64 packages

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:23:37PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: > would assume that it was fairly ovbious that the binary upload would need > to be > for an offical arcitecture, which amd64 is not (yet). In fact, it is > probably not reccomended > to be developing under a system that is not offically

Re: Advices for an su transition

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:26:20PM +0100, Nicolas Fran?ois wrote: > IIRC people from debian-audit have some tools to perform such grep on the > source package with some heuristics to extract and patch the sources > (dpatch, cdbs, ...), and ignore the documentation files (e.g. "su" is a > common wor

Re: Advices for an su transition

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 05:44:46PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:26:20PM +0100, Nicolas Fran?ois wrote: > > IIRC people from debian-audit have some tools to perform such grep on the > > source package with some heuristics to extract and patch the sour

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > 5) Of course move /usr/share/pkg to pkg-data. I meant move /usr/share/pkg to the data package, do not rename it. > 6) Do not make pkg-data to Depends on pkg. > > 7) Try to do it correctly the first time: if you move

Re: Conffiles and possible conffiles

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > Hi, > > on the debian-tetex-maint mailing list we often have problems to decide > which of the thousands of TeX input files should be treated as > configuration files - in principle, each of them can be changed in order > to change th

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:47:18AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > 4. Also IMHO one should at the very least suggest the main package from the >-data package. This helps the users of non-crappy apt frontends to >track the main package starting from the -data package. Relying o

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 2

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:05:02AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Probably I should do a massive bug report ? > > Sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks for working on this! I started the bug filling, see the res

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:36:41PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > If package foo-data is useless when foo is not installed, foo-data > should depend on package foo. This follows from policy manual 7.2: "The > Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required for > the depending p

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 2

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:06:49PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:01:54PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > However much of the > > grief come from the | xlibs (>> 4.1.0) which is meant to handle upgrade > > from woody which have a monolithic

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:35:31PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:26:34PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:15:50PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:48:53AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > Aparently yes. Menu seems to be smart enough for that, see other > > mails. Bad example, sorry. But manpages certainly aren't. > > Well, being able to read t

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:22:29PM +, Vincent Sanders wrote: > Greetings, > > However, we are in need of assistance! Recently ARM was "separated" > from testing as it is believed it was not keeping up. In fact, the ARM > buildds are generally keeping up well - the problem now is a large > pile

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:14:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Saying "that's the buildd admin's job" about tasks that don't *need* to be > done by the buildd admin is a pretty effective way of encouraging the > problems that the Vancouver proposal sought to address, where two or three > people

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Heiko M?ller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality > > within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t. > > compilation time and memory co

Re: eidviewer menu entry

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Hi, > > Since eidviewer is an interactive application, I want to add it to the > Debian menu, but I'm having problems finding the right place to put it; > none of the categories really fit. The 'Apps/Viewers' category is listed > i

Re: Debian and the desktop

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:28:28AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Christian Perrier wrote: > > And, anyway, the KDE/Gnome thing is only one of the points I meant > > about the "usability" of our default desktop system, when we target > > our dear Bob User. > > This is beyond tasksel, but Bob U

Re: Debian and the desktop

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:02:03PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > >> ... generic menu entries ... SuSE ... > > > What is needed at this point is a draft policy defining what will be > > the new layout and what will be the generic titles

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:03:27AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 04:48:24PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Which is great as a statement of principle, but it doesn't seem to offer > much as a practical recommendation; you don't get to be a buildd m

Re: debian-menu vs. .desktop

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:51:13PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Thomas Viehmann wrote: > >P.S.: Could someone give me a pointer about moving to .desktop and why > >it is/was considered a bad idea? (Or if it's just a not worth it/noone > >has time issue...) > > I believe it was considered a goo

Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

Hello Debian developers, Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by maintainers. This list is also available as (update daily, courtesy of Robert Lemmen). I reported around 1/3 to the BTS. I simply hope I won't n

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:15:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by > > maintainers. > > > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > debconf > > debconf-engli

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:26:26AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 12 janvier 2006 ? 01:49 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a ?crit : > > > At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with > > > a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular > > > depe

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:34:27PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to > > be a problem, no. > > However I can point you to bug #310490 which show a woody system that > > could not be upgraded to sarge without removing most of KDE. > >

Re: Trivial bug on apt-file (Was : Re: Development standards for unstable)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:03:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Of course, this is trivial, but fixing this bug (251 days old) is > > also trivial. Then why complain ? I feel that it gives a bad image of > > debian, when it

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

> What does aptitude give as the breakdown between unused packages being > automatically removed, and packages being removed that you actually > requested installed? Well I did not install any packages through aptitude. The numbers of packages below the lines The following packages will be automa

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:57:57PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Although sarge's aptitude did.. > > > > I don't know, there were no ways to upgrade to sarge's aptitude. > > The bug log contains a log of astronut doing the upg

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share the values that found Debian. The Ubuntu people are certainly free to use our softwares, that

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:27:31PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such &g

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion. > > Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess: > > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in > > Ubuntu and is not bit-i

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

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for

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 >

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: > > &

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > 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

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from > apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an > "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are > arguing on abstract phi

Re: Bug#349064: ITP: flash-plugin -- installer for Macromedia Flash Plugin

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:00:52PM +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > The Debian package flash-plugin is meant as an alternative or as a > replacement for flashplugin-nonfree. > > Similarities: Both Debian packages are GPL, and download the .tar.gz > from the Macromedia website to comply to the Macromed

Re: Bug#349064: ITP: flash-plugin -- installer for Macromedia Flash Plugin

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:30:26PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 07:01 -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:00:52PM +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > [snip] > > Well, but flashplugin-nonfree at least make the users feel how painful > >

Re: For those who care about the GR

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed > works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of > fact. Fact 1: The GFDL include this: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:45:07PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > There have been various proposals on that matter, and it always boils > down to the same chicken-and-egg problem: > > - policy documents existing practice, which is to invoke "build". > - the existing practice cannot be changed be

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > > > > To summarize the proposal

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:08:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal, > which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-indep in > your debian/control file, you must also implement build-arch and/or > build-indep. > >

Re: emacs 21.4, Chinese and utf-8

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:26:03PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 08:28:40PM +0100, Stefan M?ller wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am a grammar developer and I started to work on Chinese. We use a > > development system that needs utf-8 input. I managed to set up > > everything for e

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:46:38AM +1100, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: > > dpkg (1.10.15) unstable; urgency=low > > > * Fix detection of va_copy. > > * Back out debian/rules build-arch detection. It is *not* possible *at > > all* to detect available targets in a rules file. Period. > > >

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

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:51:44PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Or maybe it's just there's nothing to argue about for haskell and > scheme. Show me an administration script written in haskell or scheme, > and we can include the language in the discussion. Actually I would advocate to rewrite _

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

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:26:31AM +0100, Emilio Jes??s Gallego Arias wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when > > compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability > >

Re: ./configure in debian/rules

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote: > Yes, but the point was that mainteners get a warning from the > regular build system that their package is not cross-compile friendly. > That needs to hook into dpkg-buildpackage then, I'm afraid... Why not add a lintian check inst

Re: Delayed ldconfig execution in postinst step

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Hi people, > > I just wondered why exactly my laptop uses that much time for updates > and I think that calling ldconfig is a main problem. In theory, it > should not cost much time because VFS cache has the relevant file parts. > How

  1   2   3   4   5   >