Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that will fix the problem.
*sigh* all the mail sent by the python scripts is done by
utils.send_mail(); if you want to ensure they don't send any mail make
that function a nop. But it's becoming increasingly clear to me that
the source should proba
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:11:08AM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > Err, bullshit, there's doc/*.1.sgml and --help for most of the key
> > scripts.
>
> [1106] [snoopy:unstable:bam] ~/cvswork/dak >helena --help
helena is
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First you were encouraging us to learn to use it, now your
> discouraging us from even trying
Err, no I wasn't. I don't encourage people to use katie, in fact I
actively discourage it. Even the README now tells people to use
something else and that's
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > - rose creates initial directories (actually some where missing; I can't
> > > remember which onces were missing and which ones were misconfigured
> > > though now).
> >
> > rose uses the provided config file; it'd be hard for her to "misconfigure"
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps the most important part of the build log shoulc be quoted as well:
Or not.
> The following central src deps are (probably) missing:
> libglib1.2-dev (>= 1.2.0), libgtk1.2-dev (>= 1.2.10-4)
Which is just that the central src deps are out
"Adam Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>>
>> This works fine when the locales exist for each localisation, but if
>> they don't exist, it defaults to C locale/US-ASCII charset. Can the
>> autobuilders guarantee a full set of generated locales, or is only C
>> available?
>
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Btw, looking at the reports, I see 30 submitted from i386 architectures,
> one from a powerpc machine, none from other architectures, although all
> architectures are affected. Conclusions? ;-)
Well, duh, let's see. Several architectures' build were e
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I am suggesting is that katie has a list of such cases (although
> I'm not proposing a particular format):
>From my point of view, such information would ideally be:
o not centrally controlled, but package/maintainer(s) controlled[0]
o trivial
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm having a hard time getting it to work though. I tried Uploaders with
> dpkg 1.9.17 and no go:
>
> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown information field Uploaders in input
> data in general section of control info file
It needs to be in the source section
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's how I tried it, no go. dpkg-gencontrol does not contain the
> word '[Uu]ploaders' on my system either.
Oh, right, yah, okay; it appears it was only dpkg-source that was
patched. The dpkg-gencontrol is just a warning though, the Uploaders
field still
Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see this status at the excuses page:
Bogus dep-wait; I've given it back so the buildd will actually try it.
--
James
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It sounds like all you need is for dpkg-scanpackages or apt-ftparchive to
> optionally accept a list of filenames, instead of a list of directories.
> I think this would be a useful enhancement.
apt-ftparchive already does.
--
James
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Any new tool that hypothetically gets written or packages isn't going
> >to get put in potato either.
>
> Having spent four hours last night to try getting a debhelper 3
> (unsuccessfully) backported to potato makes me wince at _any_
> backporting effort.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Apparently the package is never to be accepted into Debian,
Err, no, I never said that. I said it would be processed normally and
that you would not harass us into special casing you.
--
James
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > tags 113360 wontfix
> > severity 113360 wishlist
> > thanks
Which means since you won't leave the bug closed, I'll mark it wontfix
instead. That doesn't alter my statement in the close mail and
repeated here on -devel. Since you don't seem
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 08:20:00PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Can someone please help me with this?
>
> Have you identified why libkcm_karea.so is linking against libgphoto2.a
> instead of against libgphoto2.so?
It's a broken symlink; I seem to r
Package: ax25-apps
Version: 0.0.5-5
Severity: serious
Patrick Ouellette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone else have this problem? Is it a "feature" or a bug?
It's a bug in your package.
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/scratch/ax25-apps$ dpkg-source -x ax25-apps_0.0.5-5.dsc
| dpkg-source: extracting
Mikael Hedin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this a problem with gcc?
No, it's a problem with ogle. -mcpu=ultrasparc is like
unconditionally compiling an i386 binary for Pentium 4's only,
i.e. not a good idea. The buildd pretends it's not really an
UltraSPARC for exactly this reason.
--
Jame
Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > SOLUTION 3
> > --
> > Well, we can also decide that to leave the situation as it is. In this
> > way, however, users would not be able to install the new version of the
> > library without also installing libpaperg (and libc6...)
>
> That isn't
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looks like libgdbmg1 should be required, [ ... ]
No; perl shouldn't depend on libgdbmg1. libgdbmg1 is obsolete and
deprecated. I asked the perl maintainer if he could fix this back in
March or so, apparently it hasn't happened.
--
James
~Yawn And Walk
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, in cases like this the order in which the deb files are
> presented to dpkg is relevant. So if a novice is upgrading a large
> set of packages, and the packages are not presented in the corect
> order, the upgrade process issues ominous
"Jules Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Debian 2 ships with Gimp 1 take that redhat :-)
>
> Huh?
>
> Who managed a new major version during a depp freeze?
It's not a major new version, it's the final release of the 0.99.xx
series; it would be very silly to release hamm with 0.99.xx and not
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(Alex Yukhimets) writes:
> > Currently the version of glibc in frozen is older than the version
> > in Slink. Does this mean we plan to release Hamm with that
> > prerelease of glibc? Or are we planning on including 2.0.8 when
> > it's released?
> >
> > If we plan to include
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Alex Yukhimets) writes:
> > > There is a good reason to include recent glibc into frozen - latest
> > > JDK-1.1.6 does not work with glibc from hamm.
> >
> > Umm, that's not a good reason. Certainly nothing like a good enough
> > reason to justify us shipping with an *out of
"Darren/Torin/Who Ever..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
> > James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > No; perl shouldn't depend on libgdbmg1. libgdbmg1 is obsolete
> > > and de
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know perl, and am only going on what Ray has been telling
> > me. It was my understanding that perl could be made to
> > dynamically load it's gdbm p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> > "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Manoj> iii) It forces you to use fakeroot or sudo or super or
> Manoj> be root to
> Manoj> create a kernel image .deb file (this is not as
> Manoj>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> I would like to have `mc' and the two packages it depends on placed
> into the base set.
I think this is a horrendously bad idea.
> We could then get rid of both `elvis-tiny' and `ae', and be left
> with a powerful tool that is easy for beginner
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >* Added pre-dependency for passwd to msqld as its tools are used
> > in the preinst.
>
> Does anybody object?
My original objection was going to be base around the fact that passwd
is Essential, but it turns out it isn't, my bad. I'd hate to
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > We could then get rid of both `elvis-tiny' and `ae', and be
> > > left with a powerful tool that is easy for beginners and
> > > experienced folks alike.
> >
> > And we would be left without an editor which works when in single
> > user mode. Wha
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (including the Linux/m68k FAQ, which isn't in Debian because it's
> not DFSG-free and I have no intention of making it DFSG-free),
Great Chris, but what happens if, God forbid, you (and Jörg) were to
be run over by a bus tomorrow? Your FAQ becomes wor
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This doesn't touch the fact that MC would be a very convenient
> additional feature for a user friendly Debian base system.
a) I don't think it would be, b) that's not what the proposal was; the
proposal was to remove ae *and elvis-tiny* from the base sys
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> severity 20250 important
> severity 17381 important
> severity 19218 important
> severity 19991 important
> severity 21812 important
> merge 20250 17381 19218 19991 21812
> thanks
Please note that --force-overwrite really has to be turned back on by
def
Hi,
[ I don't like sending these semi-spam announcements, but I guess it's
important that, in the unlikely event, of a security/important bug
in one of my packages, people don't waste any time waiting for me to
respond ]
I'm off down south this afternoon for roughly a week (I hope no more),
"Darren/Torin/Who Ever..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't know perl, and am only going on what Ray has been telling
> > me. It was my understanding that perl could be made to
> > dynamically load it's gdbm part on request and that way perl need
> > only recommend or (better) suggest gdbm
Francesco Tapparo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So my question is: must I add Depends: debianutils (>> 1.6), or I'm
> guaranteed that will be upgraded the essential packages first? Is
> this bug-fix worthy of an hamm release?
Yes, no, IMO no.
--
James
~Yawn And Walk North~
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 15:37:30 $ ldd `which gnuplot`
> libvga.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc5-compat/libvga.so.1 (0x4000c000)
> libreadline.so.2 => /lib/libc5-compat/libreadline.so.2 (0x40048000)
> libm.so.5 => /lib/libm.so.5 (0x4006a000)
> libc.so.5 =>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ruud de Rooij) writes:
> Package: jde
[...]
> Depends: emacs20 | xemacs20-bin
^^
Why? We run JDE on Emacs 19.34 here in the department just fine.
> Recommends: jdk1.1-dev
\begin{just checking}You realise, of course, this puts it in
contrib?\e
Igor Grobman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some time around Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:07:24 +1000,
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > elvis-tiny is small enough to fit on too (although that may have
> > changed now that we use slang rather than ncurses - can
> > elvis-tiny use slang??) and pro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ruud de Rooij) writes:
> > > Depends: emacs20 | xemacs20-bin
> >^^
> >
> > Why? We run JDE on Emacs 19.34 here in the department just fine.
>
> According to the requirements as listed on
> http://sunsite.auc.dk/jde/, to get JDE to work with [x]
Florian Hinzmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Later someone will reassign that bug to the correct package, but the
> maintainer of that package won't get any mail.
That's simply not true.
--
James
~Yawn And Walk North~ http://yawn.nocrew.org/
--
To UNSUBSCR
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> If people weren't being childish about the addition of 2 characters to the
> changelog, which the users generally never see, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion.
[...]
> Use the tools provided!
>
(Sorry for the AOL, but...) Well said; I wish
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 23 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
>
> > (Sorry for the AOL, but...) Well said; I wish people would get
> > over their epoch-phobia already.
>
> And I wish people would stop suggesting a poor solution.
How is it a ``poo
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current problem can be solved by a version suffix and therefore
> does not require an epoch.
Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version
suffix[1]. What's your point? Are you saying we don't need epochs?
Or anyone using epochs
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isn't it true that dpkg ignores the "Depends:" lines when ordering
> the configure scripts for these packages?
No; it ignores the dependencies when *unpacking* the packages but if
foo depends on bar, dpkg will run bar's postinst before foo's. Try it
and
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version
> > suffix[1].
>
> Not where 1.0 follows 3.14, for example.
You clearly can, as I demonstrated in my foo
Michael Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> but i didn't find SOURCE OF WHIPTAIL at all, what's going on there??
You didn't look very hard.
Package: whiptail
Version: 0.21-8
[...]
source: newt
--
James
~Yawn And Walk North~ http://yawn.nocrew.
updated for glibc, reported by Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. [#13140]
* debian/control (dpkg-dev): depend on perl as POSIX (not a part of
perl-base) is needed by most of the perl dpkg-* scripts, noticed by
Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. [#22115]
-- James Troup
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 1998 at 05:36:37PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Assuming, of course, that Debian will accept them as a developer.
>
> Are people with legitimate packaging interests being rejected?
That's a ridiculously simplistic question that I w
"Steve Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can, however, prove that one person has been told that they would
> not be accepted if they applied. That person is me.
Eh? You were *not* told that by the new maintainer team, so it has
absolutely zero relevance.
You've ``proved'' absolutely nothing
Kikutani Makoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you accept a passport as the above formal documents ?
Yes. [Though if there is any opportunity to meet another developer in
real life and cross sign each others keys, this is the preferred
method, where it's viable.]
--
James
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Old/slow/lomem machines can't properly compile X or Mozilla anyway.
Bzzt. I've compiled xfree86 for Debian/m68k on a 386/25 equivalent
with only 14Mb (don't ask) of memory several times. Took 5 days,
like, but it compiled ``properly''.
--
James
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes in gratuitous QP:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 12:15:40PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > > Old/slow/lomem machines can't properly compile X or Mozilla anyway.
> >
> > Bzzt. I've compiled xfree86 for Debian/m68k on a 386
Christopher Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your mighty 386/25
^
a) cut out the sarcasm, it's uncalled for.
b) get your facts right, it's not a 386, it's a 386/25 equivalent[1]
as I said already.
> with 4MB can make World the entire X distribution and custom kern
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about pop stars? We could have Debian sporty, Debian Ginger, Debian
> Posh...
*bang*
--
James
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(James A. Treacy) writes:
> Should apt have to download the dsc file for a package before it
> knows what the source files are?
Why on earth not? If it's going to download the source, the .dsc file
is part of the source and has to be downloaded anyway.
> > > If there are pla
[ Please don't Cc me on replies to a public mailing list ]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (James A. Treacy) writes:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(James A. Treacy) writes:
> >
> > > Should apt have to download the dsc file for a package before it
> > > knows what the source files are?
> >
> > Why on earth not?
Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.4.0.30
>
> $ dpkg-shlibdeps src/fortify; cat debian/substvars
> shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)
>
> $ fakeroot dpkg-shlibdeps src/fortify; cat debian/substvars
> shlibs:Depends=libc6, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
> > : Look at fakeroot's shlibs file. This is not a bug (or certainly not
> > : the one you're claiming
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
> > existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
>
> This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter) I disagree; I've oft
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So you want to force all porters to join another list?
HTH does one force volunteers? No, I want the list to be available if
porters want to join it.
> Why not contact them in their native lists?
Because these lists are for users too and mass cross
[ Why on earth is this on devel? It's not relevant here. ]
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It provides:
[ Gratuitous advertisement for smail snipped ]
> The same setup should be installed on kullervo. If not, I might get
> over and remove exim there in order to install Smail, too
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Format: 1.5
> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 15:03:31 -0400
> Source: es
> Binary: es
> Architecture: source i386
> Version: 0.90beta1-3
> Distribution: unstable
> Urgency: low
> Maintainer: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Description:
> es - An extensible shell bas
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ Moving this to debian-devel, discussion doesn't belong in the bug report. ]
[ Killed the Cc: line. ]
> James Troup wrote:
> > There is no i386 port in as much as i386 maintainers 99.5% of the time
> > _don't_ compi
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup wrote:
> > They don't compile from freshly unpacked source.
>
> How odd. Other maintainer must work substantially differently than I, then.
If you're building foobar 1.1-3, do you really recompile from a
fr
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup said:
> > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > James Troup wrote:
> > > Why does a binary-only NMU give you the right to skip waiting, while
> > > a normal NMU does not? Why a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > binary-only MNU hits only one arch
> > normal NMU hits possible all archs=20
>
> A binary-only MNU violates the GPL, end of story.
FUD, FUD, FUD and more FUD. The source changes for our binary-only
NMUs are _always_ sent to the BTS.
Also, please get over this GPL
Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Out of curiosity, which version of PGP is the debian de facto standard.
> I'm currently using v5, but I've seen a number of people use 2.6...
2.x; we don't accept later stuff.
--
James
Hartmut Koptein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. binary-only NMUs breaks policity
> 2. every NMU must be with source
> 3. Porters needn't to ask maintainers for permission
> 4. a NMU fixes bugs; no need to forward this to the BTS or the maintainer
>
> ok for all ?
That would be a big
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> > 1. binary-only NMUs breaks policity
>
> Probably.
Wrong.
--
James
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you're building foobar 1.1-3, do you really recompile from a
> > freshly unpacked foobar_1.1-3.dsc?
>
> Yes.
Congratulations; you're in the minority.
> > > Binary-only and normal NMU's are the same thing,
> >
> > No they're not. Why do you insist
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Each day you autobuild say, 30 packages from Incoming.
Building (especially auto-building) packages from Incoming is a bad
idea, please don't encourage it.
--
James
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup wrote:
>
> > Who said [binary-only NMU's for i386] were bad?
>
> You did.
No, I said binary-only NMUs as a whole were not ideal; I didn't say
anything about binary-only NMU's for i386. Please try to
David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:23:38PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> >Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Out of curiosity, which version of PGP is the debian de facto standard.
> >> I'm currently using
Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the status of gnupg?
Not yet used in Debian.
> Is there a Debian package available?
Yes, on non-US.
--
James
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But
> >> nobody > goe
Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not discouraged, it's simply not allowed or usable. New
> > maintainer don't accept PGP 5 keys; PGP 5 keys don't go in the
> > Debian keyring and dinstall doesn't accept them.
>
> I find it strange that you would make this mistake.
I've looked
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could somebody explain me, why, oh why, do we have to wait more than
> two months for trivial ftp.debian.org bugs to be fixed?
Perhaps because the more you whine about it the more prone we are to
ignore you?
--
James
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bugs against ftp.debian.org are often important - these ones are holding
> up slink's release (granted, they're not the only things holding it up).
No, it's not these ones. Santiago is whining (again) about other bugs.
The release critical bugs for ftp.d
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote:
> > As I mentioned in an earlier posting, there's no reason for this bug
> > to be release-critical.
>
> This is another bug. Not being able to compile a package at all *is*
> a release-critical problem and violat
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +case ${host} in
> + *-pc-linux-gnu)
^^
s/pc/*/ (pc==non-i386 unfriendly)
--
James
"Never trust trucks"
"Edward John M. Brocklesby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think so - Octopi can't fly!
Someone who obviously hasn't read RFC 1925...
--
James
"Never trust trucks"
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 08:29:42PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > +case ${host} in
> > > + *-pc-linux-gnu)
> >^^
> >
> > s/pc/
Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hmm, is it really a good thing to have dinstall announce the
> > uploads? I often depend on the announcements to alert me to new
> > versions in Incoming. In the new setup, the announcements won't
> > come until
lib1g (>= 1:1.1.3)
| Installed-Size: 50
| Maintainer: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Description: render images of the earth
| xplanet is similar to xearth, where an image of the earth is rendered
| into the X root window. Both mercator and orthographic projections
| can be displaye
101 - 185 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
