ge too? Is it possible to fix this
> sexism problem?
If you draw some (DFSG-free) pictures of naked men for the program, I
hereby promise to patch it to support theming (offer good for two months
from today).
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:01:08 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:26, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> >> Hi again,
> >>
> >> perhaps to bring down the conversation
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:55, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:41:30 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:01:08 -0600, Joe Wreschnig
> >> <[EMAI
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:23:21 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:55, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> And how do we find who we are alienating? Oh, I know: lets have a
> >>
enge/response... A future version will incorporate Sender Policy
Framework (SPF) or similar sender identification systems..."
So not only does it fail to stop spam in any useful way, it doesn't even
fail to do so according to the standard, and it sends out more email
noise while doing so
t;
> I'm pretty sure that FUD got killed last time someone (perhaps you, even)
> raised it. From memory, the FCC rules only state that there must be a means
> for effectively preventing the modification of the firmware used in the
> device. Obscurity is not the only means of doing
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libifp
Version : 0.1.0.11
Upstream Author : Geoff Oakham
* URL : http://ifp-driver.sourceforge.net/libifp/
* License : GNU GPL
Description : library for communicating with iRiver iFP audio devices
libifp al
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: quodlibet
Version : 0.7
Upstream Author : Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.sacredchao.net/~piman/software/quodlibet.shtml
* License : GNU GPL
Description : audio library manag
7;s and shopper's
> requirements first. Similarly, other programs are nearly impossible
> to install and use without an IT degree, Zen Cart can be installed and
> set-up by anyone with the most basic computer skills. Others are so
> expensive ... not Zen Cart, it's
at least has the excuse different architectures need different versions.
Why not hold up the examples of the tens of thousands of packages that
only have one version, even though they are development "frameworks"? To
pick one of extreme complexity, Perl. Perl migrations go smoother tha
pace
requirements.
However, it probably shouldn't be default. A hard link would be a pretty
incompatible change if someone modifies the file after it's been
dh_installed (I don't have any concrete examples, but I suspect
something does it, if only because 13000 packages guarantees
cial standards for the character set and
terminal specifications are, but people who are interested are going to
be looking for "ANSI" or "ANSI graphics", not a standards document
number.
(Compare the usage of "ISOs" to refer to CD images regardless of their
status
ship between RC bugs in testing
and new packages. But I would like to have something concrete to tell
upstream developers when they ask me why, despite my having a package
ready a month ago, their users still can't get it via APT. Right now I
just have to mumble something about sarge, busy
ly also meant 'Debian GNOME Maintainers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
t 6 months ago, but then never got back to
me, so as far as I know there are no users of it. It is fully tested and
simple enough that it probably won't require any maintenance beyond
Python transitions.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
, while the original, offensive message is sitting on d-d-a.
If you are upset by how Andrew acted, talk to him rationally, regardless
of whether it's public or private.
If you are *very* upset by how Andrew acted, there is an appropriate and
agreed-to policy for expelling developers. Roger Leigh
gabytes installed, with no non-Essential
> dependencies.
>
> (strictly an observation of fact; I'm not expressing an opinion either way
> about the change)
The python-minimal I see depends on all of python2.3. In Ubuntu perhaps
it's 2MB, but in Debian right now it's almo
I agree with Steve. Unless we're going to make this package Essential,
it's kind of pointless (unless compatibility with Ubuntu is a primary
goal -- maybe it should be, but then someone needs to explain why,
because it's not obviosu to me). And I don't see a need to make i
so that it could be Essential: yes,
> not to support stripped-down Python installations.
So why does Debian need/want python-minimal?
(This is a question mostly for Matthias, I think, but if you know the
answer that's great.)
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> debian-python Cc'ed
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:02:32PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
> > > reason for creating python
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:31 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Some reasons:
> > >
> > > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packa
the motions without actually changing our Python packaging or
upgrading the version, so we just got all of Python as Essential. No one
wanted that.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
not "I'd like to write
scripts in X" but "There is this large body of people writing scripts in
X, and it'd be nice if we could work with them."
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
amer, so this
doesn't solve a real problem. I would rather see either
1) -ugly get past NEW, we get MAD, users get MP3 decoding, situation
stays as its been for years, or
2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
(Speaking with my hat as a DD, and as upstream mai
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:10, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
>
> MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patent
ou don't get the patent license. So we're back at the status quo,
but with an MP3 decoder that's worse than the one we currently don't
have a patent license for.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 07:59 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > To get this license one must agree to a contract that forbids
> > modification and further redistribution. It's not going to happen for
> > Debian.
>
> Ok, when its not DFSG-compli
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:58 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the
>
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:35 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > AFAIK that's only if you want to distribute their binary. If you want to
> > distribute their source, then that's just the MIT license.
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libmusepack
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : The Musepack Development Team
* URL : http://www.musepack.net
* License : 3-clause BSD
Description : Musepack (MPC) format decoder library
libmusepack allows you
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: pyflac
Version : 0.0.2
Upstream Author : David Collett
* License : GPL
Description : Free Lossless Audio Codec [Python bindings]
FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. Grossly oversimplified, FLAC is
similar to O
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: pymusepack
* URL : http://www.sacredchao.net/~piman/software/python.shtml
* License : GNU GPL v2
Description : Musepack (MPC) decoder library [Python bindings]
libmusepack allows you to decode files in the Musepack au
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: pymodplug
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : Joe Wreschnig
* URL : http://sacredchao.net/~piman/software/python.shtml
* License : GNU GPL v2
Description : ModPlug mod-like music shared libraries [Python
f US law.
(But then, Clinton never did anything worth knowing anyway, did he?)
It's not hard to find information about the measures Debian has taken
for crypto export compliance, which do involve sending information a
government mailbox (albeit one that probably goes unread) about our
exports:
bian's (and since it uses dh_python, nothing in the package is
changed for it to do that).
I'd be happy if it just said "Foo Bar is the Debian maintainer for this
package; there is no Ubuntu maintainer. Foo Bar may not be able to help
you if you are having problems." or something similar. Right now it
indicates that we're Ubuntu maintainers, and that's just wrong.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
.mine.nu/jakub/
> * License : Artistic License
> Description : Photography of shells aligned to form the Debian logo
> A photography that consists of shells aligned to form the
> Debian logo.
A package for a single background is a remarkably stupid idea. This
should go in
with a reference to the HTML if it's actually
that important.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ything in Debian is
software, is not.
It's also the only reasonable way to define software. Or at least, the
only reasonable way I (or anyone else who has voiced their opinion on
this issue here) have come up with in 3 years, and it's not for a lack
of trying.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:53, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 11:06, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> | How do you show it's not software? How does it differ from software?
> |
> | What if I take the view that Mozilla is an interpreter and anarchism is
>
ting with an old version of Python is a bad idea, because the
migration from x to x+1 does not happen instanteously, and so you may
very reasonably with x and x+1 to be installed together.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
is to only list the architectures it
builds on, rather than 'any.
> Can we provide ia64 development space for the guys at grsecurity?
http://testdrive.hp.com/ has limited (actually, unlimited, which is the
problem) free IA64 porting/testing facilities.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED
.
Personally, I'm surprised there's still people with printers who
*haven't* tried CUPS. For the vast majority of situations, it's
incredibly easier to configure, and usually more reliable about output,
than lprng.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 01:44, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:51:53AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > For the vast majority of situations, it's incredibly easier to configure,
> > and usually more reliable about output, than lprng.
>
> Implying that the
version X.Y.
These are arch-dependent:
- /usr/lib/ruby/version/X.Y/#{arch}-#{os} for all arch-dependent
modules. I believe most architecture-dependent modules need to be
recompiled for each version of Ruby anyway, and so a version-independent
architecture-dependent directory makes no sense.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
#x27;s a problem every large project and many small
ones have, not just Debian. Claiming that Debian is dying because of it
is absurd.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
se (it didn't, last time I looked). In fact, there don't
appear to be any "dumb" MTAs (like ssmtp or nullmailer) that support TLS
and SMTP authentication. This is why I can't use Mutt anymore.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
entoo.
Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but
always get the desired functionality, than install less than is desired,
and then have to spend 20 hours recompiling for the necessary
functionality.
For most people, disks are cheap. Time isn't.
--
Joe Wresch
in the README (specifically, only a
credit for it), but not the manual page, nor the configuration file, nor
README.Debian. ssmtp.conf has no manual page.
If it is there, it's damned well hidden.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 17:01, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2003 16:48:18 -0500
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but
> > always get the desired functionality, than install less than is
ckage seems to be very
unmaintained. :/ Two important bugs, one of which I'd consider critical,
both with patches, and no update for 6 months.
I'm going to test a package with TLS (and probably the other patches in
the BTS); if I don't find anything wrong, I'll file another bug.
-
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 20:18, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:27:24PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 14:32, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > Except when your sponsor goes AWOL for 3 weeks after giving them the
> > > URL
> > > to
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 12:53, Fumitoshi UKAI wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> libtest-unit-ruby1.8 (<- libtest-unit-ruby)
Actually, I now only maintain Test::Unit for Ruby 1.6. Since it became
included with 1.8, akira yamada maintains that version, and when 1.8 was
pac
e, the installer is
totally useless for doing anything but writing another non-free
installer, since it's so trivial. There is no reason to install the
installer unless you plan to install and use the non-free software.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
o localize a module since then you
don't want to screw with __builtin__; you should use a local _
assignment instead (http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/node329.html).
It's basically what you wrote.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ode objects. They're
automatically recoded when you try to print them (based on the same
function lgettext uses, locale.getpreferredencoding()). As Steve said,
unicode objects are basically like str objects, so code changes should
be minimal. I'll take a look at Linda/Lintian soon to see what needs to
be done, but I suspect it'll be trivial.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ed, not built, by official
> Debian Developers.
>
>
> Is that intended to change, or is it a typo in the proposal?
I have always rebuilt (with pbuilder) packages I sponsor before
uploading them. This has accidentally broken a sponsored package once
due to a misconfiguration, but it
/usr/lib/python2.3/config/Makefile). Personally
I think it's dumb, but maybe the Python maintainers know better? This is
what triggered the bug in python-flac for me. Overriding distutils isn't
something I've figured out yet (doing so is a task for the weekend).
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
it for ifp-line to be removed before uploading the new
libifp?
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
st confusing
NetHack parts of NetHack's UI to a new player. I'd prefer it was hjkl by
default.
(And, I'm an Emacs user, at that.)
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4s. Optimizations happen in both new instructions *and* new
instruction ordering; the former is usually upwards-compatible, but the
latter is not.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 16:27, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> > A program that is CPU-bound *and* can be encoded more efficiently will
> > benefit from compiler optimizations. Some CPU bound things just aren't
> > going to be
e it propagates to testing. He's stated numerous times that the
porting is just packaging work and that he's capable of doing it.
I am not sure of the best technical way to make this happen, though.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
asked on the upstream mailing list about. It does, however, seem to
work fine despite that.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
hose of you who have too much MP3 music - too bad. You clung to a
closed standard, and Ogg's been out for a long time.)
--
- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.sacredchao.net
"What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
okay to be diff
-devel in case one of the official developers wants to hammer my work
into something suitable for contrib (a non-official part of Debian that
many users of Debian get packages from).
--
- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.sacredchao.net
"What I did was justified becau
one?
IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
if I'm only using packages from main.
--
- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.sacredchao.net
"What I did wa
se I
consider free. But that wasn't what I said. I said I consider a document
with invariant sections non-free, which is my own personal judgement,
and not the FSF's or DFSG's. It just happens that, right now, the DFSG
agrees with my point of view.
--
- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL P
ng. However, I believe
Invariant Sections (as in the FDL) impose restrictions that are
non-free.
--
- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.sacredchao.net
"What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
okay to be different, to not conform to socie
r of XML documents. Or the number of
LISP-generated documents versus the number of static documents.
I was actually wondering when I wrote my first message if any package in
Debian was using LISP for document creation, but I couldn't think of any
offhand. Thanks. :)
--
- Joe Wreschnig <
70 matches
Mail list logo
