On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:27:33 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> This seems a useful summary:
>
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > Does Files: *.c mean that everything below applies equally to all
> > files that match the pattern or does it mean that the statement
> > includ
subdivide the copyright statements.
Collation is desirable, subject only to differences between licences.
There is no useful purpose in subdividing the copyright statements in
debian/copyright - anyone who wants that information needs to Read The
Source.
--
Neil Williams
=
http:/
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:29:17 +0200
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > If replying from the -policy list, please keep either me or -devel
> > CC'd. I'm subscribed to both -devel and -i18n. Thanks.
> >
> &g
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:04:14 +0200
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Neil Williams (14/04/2009):
> > This is where the Draft TDeb Specification, created at the
> > ftp-master/i18n meeting in Extremadura, will be developed and improved.
> > Motivation
> >
> >1. U
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:10:16 +0200
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Neil Williams (14/04/2009):
> > > Any reason not to make that “sourceful uploads”?
> >
> > Well, the maintainer will be making the initial TDeb upload
> > (effectively +t0) so the restriction doe
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:42:30 +0200
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Neil Williams (14/04/2009):
> > > > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep4/#index9h2
> > >
> > > You probably need to clarify in your DEP what “initial” means.
> >
> > This section covers part
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:10:12 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > Because it's a useless waste of time to make a spurious distinction
> > where none needs to exist.
>
> We seem to largely be talking past each other.
>
> > Unless the fil
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:50:58 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > Consensus can also be gleaned from the common practice of packages
> > already in main. It is extremely common to find debian/copyright
> > contains a single list of copyright hol
popular:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=bcrypt
Just because a package is old or dead upstream doesn't mean it is
necessarily removable from Debian - there has to be a problem with the
package on a release architecture (as there is on amd64 currently) or
building from sourc
Should source packages need to build-depend on debug packages?
(See python-gtk2 for one example. python-all-dbg is small but
python-numpy-dbg is 15Mb!)
Just curious - is it only python packages that do this?
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http
On Wed, 06 May 2009 18:39:32 +0200
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 17:35 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > Should source packages need to build-depend on debug packages?
>
> When it is needed.
>
> > (See python-gtk2 for one example. python-all-dbg
modify it
> based on suggestions.
> Debian QOF packaging team
>qof
I'll fix that in the next upload, no need for a bug report.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpN5N6MGdd
stribution.
Umm, so exactly like any standard bug report that is severity important
or lower?
A tracker like you describe would just be ignored in many cases, I
don't see how that would help anyone.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpvmks7ErrDV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
it not for cron.
At which point, I begin to wonder if 'cron' and 'at' cannot simply be
told to use a log file if no MTA exists. Alternatively, create a
dummy-mta that converts MTA requests into log files without all the
mail headers.
--
Neil Williams
=
http:
ine with a lintian warning which
> can be overriden by the maintainer in case he decides recommending the
> doc package is the reight way to go.
lintian is probably the best option - a lintian check can also
probably handle the distinction between a library -dev package and an
applicatio
nstall docbook-utils', that is entirely unwarranted.
> Only in the special case of software documentation does it happen that
> the documentation is completely written, and the "user" (developer or
> buildd) just needs the "runtime".
Umm, we have a lot of
On Fri, 8 May 2009 12:33:15 +0200
Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> > TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write
> > TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support
>
> Come on. That we do NO
nted."
Shouldn't that be a Recommends?
I still want to *not* have to install texlive-doc-base on systems that
only want to use docbook-utils and have Install-Recommends turned off. I
don't see why texlive makes that impossible.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpxxA3V4zIx4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e which is what we
avoid by using Emdebian Grip. If the unchanged package needs to be
downloaded, it's not that much of a gain over having the package from
Debian unchanged, which is what it sounds like we would have to do.
> > It wouldn't be so bad if texlive-base didn't depen
ard wrote the scripts in his early perl days, so you might expect
> some code horror).
Doesn't look too bad at this stage but I haven't started hacking it
around yet. :-)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpFOme6DAcyE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/tools/em/class.nusoap.php
typo3-src-4.2
However, to get any further, the mere filename collision needs to be
checked to see if these really are the same files or have the same
functionality.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
ht
e that is part of another package.
It would be good if we could have a way of doing this, it's about time
we could get cross-compilers into Debian longterm without adding yet
more binary packages to the existing gcc workload.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:18:40 +0100
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > A better approach:
> [..]
> > You have searched for paths that end with nusoap.php in suite sid,
> > all sections, and all architectures. Found 7 results. File
> > Packages
>
&
ental about gtk+extra2 or quicklist and
do not try to persuade me to keep them in - I have no intention of
spending yet more time on packages that have been left too close to the
precipice called "bit-rot". I've learnt that lesson.
dd-list:
Ludovic Brenta
libgtkada2
Steffen Joeris
tinue
> to offer it as a public service if it's needed. It's just that if it
> doesn't need to be a public facing mail domain, we all get a little
> less spam in our inbox, and the service becomes easier to administer.
Maybe a list of packages that do use it and an addre
//qof.sourceforge.net/doxy/structQofDate__s.html
(That file is actually part of the libqof-doc binary package as well as
the symbol itself existing in libqof1 {Lenny} as well as the new
libqof2 {sid}.)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgp0cYg0sB7QI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
salve Salazar
attr (U)
Niv Sardi
attr (U)
Nathan Scott
attr
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpth2LLtucSJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Debian menus.
Is this just an aberration (because the icon concerned is - visually -
identical to the gthumb icon) or some new feature?
(For the fix itself, I'm going to migrate those manual install rules
into a gpe-gallery.install file and cut out all the extra stuff in
debian/rules, then a
eed a new upstream release every single time.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
pgp2zSIit5kwN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
upstream release.
Let's just drop the whole idea for Files: - if some packages find it
useful, then the Files: field can be optional but it cannot be sensible
to mandate it for large upstream teams.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpSSna8mmsoF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
rk something as "I will not fix" if
> actually there's nothing to fix. I'm curious to know how other
> maintainers have addressed such cases in BTS.
Nothing to fix? close the bug. I don't see we need two different ways
to close a bug. Invalid would still close the bug.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:05:09 -0300
Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 05:45:24PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:24:48 -0300
> > Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> >
> > > #531002 made me bring this to -devel. It seems
therefore may need multiple uploads to
stable and quick transitions etc.
Most bugs asking for a new upstream version to be uploaded are rightly
wishlist, there needs to be some other reason why it would be a higher
severity. It makes no sense for this to be a single severity.
--
Neil
t; > Mid april Now
> > sysvinit-core:89% 81%
> > systemd-sysv: 6% 19%
>
> A question: If you uninstall a package is that reflected in the popcon
> graphs too?
Yes, of course it is, if that system has popularity-contest enabled.
--
Neil Wi
ntribution.
> What is your experience with that?
> How do you feel if you read such messages?
> Maybe more important: How do you feel if you don't get such messages?
reportbug has a seldom used kudos feature but a personal thanks is
often better received than an automated one.
--
ith systemd, but
> > I'm sure there's a better way.
>
> I think you can just put
>
> Package: systemd
> Pin: origin ""
> Pin-Priority: -1
If what you actually intend is to retain sysvinit-core, it would need to be
systemd-sysv
--
Neil Will
ting distro by changing some defaults
or changing the package selection, adding some metapackages to change
what gets installed by default.
Most of the time, you don't actually need to change much.
See also https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.l
of whatever needs any of the content. That way, only
packages which use the code are affected.
If you can't do that, embed everything needed and spin out a single
binary from whichever one is the unlucky reverse dependency. That way,
the only extra content is a few lines in debian/cop
ion/ and using symlinks in the
bigger package to pull in the files that package wants?
It's more work for the maintainers but it's less work for users - which
is the right way around.
> Inlining is solving the wrong problem.
Tiny packages are the wrong solution.
--
Neil Willia
to regularly
validate as many dtbs as I can, using LAVA. More testers are always
wanted.
Yes, I do need to blog about what I've done so far with this ... keep
getting distracted
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
tandard
> ports like this?
Do both a) and b) - ensure that if the local admin changes the port
number, things continue working after service restart & reboot.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ports depending on a package
which is only available on linux:any. It seems that debcheck is taking
a very simplistic view of that and should really only report if an
architecture-dependent package depends on a package which is not
available on the same arch.
A QA nag tool which is so commonly
found 477990 3.9.5.0
thanks
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:09:35 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > Do we care about any distinction between optional and extra any
> > longer?
>
> I would say no we don't and suggest the
make it easier to collaborate with
> upstream using git, it would be silly to not have the upstream
> sources in our git repositories.
Wrong - it makes a lot of sense for upstream to *not* have packaging
files together with the upstream sources. It also makes good sense for
the packaging
n the upstream tarballs are sufficient if you use a workflow based
> on gbp import-orig.
No, not when tags are unrelated and could collide.
Standardising git packaging is a pointless and thankless task. Nothing
is likely to be gained, just a lot of time wasted on arguing on mailing
lists.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ct of emails to bug reports? At the very
least, something in the first few lines of the content saying what you
are pinging?
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ot;Re: ping?"
Maybe the right fix #744339 is to use the bug title instead of the
package name?
Additionally, the "reply" function could always insert the bug title
(it can always be edited after) instead of the subject of the previous
message.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:30:28 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
One other idea - maybe the top level reply link (the one showing the bug
number at the very top of the page) could use the current bug title as
the subject of the reply rather than leaving it blank?
--
Neil Williams
=
http
8 would seem typical practice.
2.2.5-6 will not work for a new upload to unstable - it already exists in the
archive.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ultiple suites at
the same time does not make sense to the archive. The mood of the
maintainer is rightly ignored by dak.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
just for an experiment which itself led to a
dead-end. If the changes are included, the changes need to be described
in the changelog.
Every change made to a package goes into the changelog.
Changes not included in the package don't go into the changelog.
/me not sure why this needs to be s
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:30:09 -0700
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Please always include the package name / topic in the subject of the
> > email or, as a matter of last resort, in the first few lines of the
> > content of the message.
happy to change those to obs-build.
Any number of packages could have claimed /usr/bin/build by now,
instead we have sbuild, debuild, pdebuild, make, dpkg-buildpackage,
git-buildpackage and a host of others. I don't see that obs deserves to
be the "one true build" which may be
e in the package
or is simply masking a bug elsewhere in the package. Either way, the
package does still have RC issues independent of the compiler. Fixing
those would be more useful than escalating to -devel when the
maintainer for the compiler hasn't even been asked what he thinks.
--
Neil
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00188.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00189.html
"Withdrawal of Proposal"
Lack of support for the GR (from those entitled to vote upon the GR)
was the declared reason for withdrawal.
--
Neil Williams
=
ht
just a SMOP after all...
(Note: In common with a lot of us, I don't have time to work on any
other software than the load I have currently... but that does *not*
preclude someone else joining the effort and doing some of it. It is
not currently possible for me to take on more software development but
it is not impossible.)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Personally, I don't think there should be - at least until we have
developer archives available via dak.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpb9Kmda9601.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:00:05 +0200
Malte Forkel wrote:
> Am 22.10.2014 um 15:38 schrieb Neil Williams:
> > Don't go messing with apt trusted files either, package the key as a
> > keyring package (like emdebian-archive-keyring) and depend on that.
>
> I'm nore sur
ploaded
the SecureApt key for the external repo a long, long time ago. Other
than that, the use of the repository was entirely down to documentation.
Note: this doesn't preclude writing tools which enable external
repositories inside a controlled environment (like a chroot) rather
than th
;https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/iceweasel-l10n-af> they show
> different versions.
Check with ftp-master but this looks like a cruft operation is needed.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpvYdDnSqMgM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/netatalk3/ ?
netatalk 2.2.5 is in sid and wheezy but has an RC bug #751121, so did
not migrate.
So there'll be no netatalk package in Jessie, not 2.25 and not 3.*
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpPl2AiIYVjj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
he RC bug now is too late to get
the package back into testing.
(I forgot this when I did the same with midori #768458 - the unblocked was
refused.)
E: package midori not in testing
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpITlwk6lgx3.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
can be accommodated and development moves on. If a
binding decision is finally made, whether that be by a GR or a
delegated team, there is no point allowing people to perpetuate the
arguments long afterwards. There is enough scope for that already
without making it formal.
--
Neil Will
then need to tell gdb where to
find the .c files.
So your second question is invalid. The "debug information" could mean
two things - the debug symbols which are in a standard path and the
source code which is not. This also means that there is no point in
pre-processing - gdb can
y used for Debian uploads and asserts that
we don't care about anyone using packages which do not go directly to
ftp-master.debian.org.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpCO5md02tRo.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
mply upload to NEW with use of the -sa -v options to
dpkg-genchanges.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpDmBrvjo0D5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
disruptions, talk to the release team (and wait for a response) before
uploading.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpG3GwG4aWvK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
; not to point at specific DMs I defer to mention which packages I'm
> thinking of.
Bearing in mind your previous question about eglibc, it is probably
worth saying now that a new upstream version of such an important
package is not something which should be rushed merely to get it into
ebian overall.
Equally, take a care about which packages your packages depend upon
because if there are optional components which bring in dependencies on
shoddy code, you may need to quickly back away from those dependencies
or face your own package being removed.
--
Neil Willi
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:28:16 +0400
Oleg wrote:
> What email i can use to send patch for thttpd to?
> And is it normal that i cann't see thttpd package in wheezy?
http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/thttpd.html
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.cod
ebian.org/#search_contents which can
search for files listed within packages.
The 23Mb size of Contents*.gz is a barrier to doing this automatically
or via lintian etc. For those with slow connections, p.d.o is possibly
the best option, for specific files which may have problems.
--
problem and then be given time to make the
necessary upload *before* the breakage is created.
Communication is helpful - causing possibly a few hundred RC bugs is
*not helpful*, whether close to a freeze or not.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgp8OGlPpwWBN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
distributions):
Origin: Debian
Suite: local
Codename: test
Architectures: i386
Components: main
$ reprepro export
Job done.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpeIup11SZOm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ding packages.
That would have been fine but the upload had been made without this
check being done. This could have been so much better if the discussion
had preceded the upload.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpiHh1jYOfAa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
7;d support XFCE4 as the default Graphical Desktop Environment and
possibly putting GNOME (and KDE) as alternative options.
That way, GNOME and KDE (as explicit options) should only show up in
the list if using a medium which can provide that amount of packages.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpNe4XGAwAJ3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ast recommend
> in the doc that the command be executed as an ordinary user "where
> possible" to avoid accidental harm.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpRZUidabRlY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
her round with the next
release because packages just keep getting fatter.
Stop investing time in stop gap measures - we need a durable solution
and that is likely to mean dropping GNOME and KDE as an option for CD#1.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpALWVSNRSqw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
gt;
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg4.html
As is that of the QA team in general:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/unknown-package/TODO
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpa4gGwolAc6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
cial treatment in
this regard - as long as when the orphaned bugs are closed, some
mention is made of the bug numbers in the bug report at ftp.debian.org.
(If ftp.debian.org gets removed we will have larger problems, or no
problems at all, depending on your perspective.)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpeomPNC6faJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
be closed. It could be
triaged in the previous versions, if people have the time, but that may
well have already happened or someone may have added a comment to the
bug that it affects old releases too.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpRfWwcshipn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ckages when two lsb packages stand out from the rest.
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=lsb
If lsb-desktop becomes uninstallable it can be dropped like any
other package.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpcfGPqYVj4y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
on
> ==
> Do not mount /tmp as tmpfs by default. Instead...
No. The default is fine and sane but no default will ever satisfy every
possible device. Low memory devices have many many more problems than
just where /tmp is mounted.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpFujBBNhc3Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:25:58 +0300
Serge wrote:
> 2012/5/25 Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > You cannot expect to mix those two worlds and for things to "just
> > work".
>
> Easy. Let's leave /tmp on a real disk and both world will "just work"
it helps clarify/fix RC bugs, I'll do what I can but there
are more than enough RC bugs to go around, I may well get distracted
by others which are more directly relevant to my usage.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgptqayWEPg1v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
bothered to help their fellow maintainers by adding a sentence to a bug
report, those maintainers are doing it wrong.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpnKLPmvlxvb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
"No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we
welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
interact constructively with our community."
http://www.debian.org/intro/diversity
Your comments above are destructive, not constructive.
http://wiki.
is always room
for more social involvement between people in Debian. We all spend too
long alone with just a laptop for company.
Bug squashing parties are *social* events where bugs happen to get
fixed.
If everything was to be done only remotely there would be no bug
squashing parties at all.
s
That is no reason for it to be uploaded either.
There is no good reason for any new window managers in Debian. There
are good reasons to look at removing at least 10% of the ones which are
in Debian.
Doing that comparative analysis would be a good start for identifying
which can be removed - now *that* would be doing something useful for
Debian. This bug is *not* useful to anyone. Please close it and find an
RC bug to close instead.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpJZ80FBSfOC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:31:12 +0200
Arno Töll wrote:
Dropping the bug CC.
> On 24.06.2012 19:15, Neil Williams wrote:
> > This bug is *not* useful to anyone. Please close it and find an
> > RC bug to close instead.
>
> I'm pretty sure this could be expressed in anothe
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:42:33 +0200
Arno Töll wrote:
> On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> > packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
>
> Letting alone the package in particul
ackage does have merit compared to all the existing
equivalents, then explain those merits and let your peers judge the
package.
The issue is to fix the problem in Debian, not just introduce a new
package which fixes nothing.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpUT9xx6tkN0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
. I'd expect that the
process itself shows that #43 isn't actually needed at all and that
whatever is desired can be achieved by patching one of the existing
ones.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpQr67DQQziL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t; existing alternatives in Debian. This cannot always be judged at ITP time.
On what basis are things going to "rise above" if there is nothing which
separates them from the existing packages?
NotInventedHere syndrome should *not* be welcome in Debian. That's not
progress, that's just abusing the contributions of your peers.
Don't make more work for people.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpVjKiJSvMHb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
eets the criteria for "party" - maybe a shindig or
> a hootenanny.
If people get together and work on Debian and fix bugs, it's a BSP.
Have fun!
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpoiLw18Wwfs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
dit the description ?
> Shoud-i use this http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control.en.html#summary ?
Just add a comment that the final description will be
You can use summary with that, yes, but as long as it exists in the bug
log, people can look at the end of the log.
--
Neil Willi
e package was retained - indeed it just makes it likely that the
package would be removed at that point as uninstallable and likely
FTBFS which are RC bugs.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpN07vw7o9xx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
of Crush using Multiarch cross-compilers should get us
back to a sub 32Mb install of a Debian system, maybe sub 20Mb. (Sub
16Mb means using uClibc which is a harder problem.)
Anyone with ideas on how to prune the iconv files normally provided
with eglibc:libc6? Find me/Wookey @/during DebConf.
htt
nt to help the release, do have a look at the release critical bugs.
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/debian/main.html
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpOLWEOC9gLn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
?
You're much more likely to get a useful reply if you report a bug
against dwarfdump. That also ensures that necessary version data is
also retrieved.
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
This list is for development of Debian, not use of Debian packages for
development of other stuff.
t need to be
a database, the problem needs to be fixed at manufacture such that
Linux kernel support "just happens". Check out the Linux Foundation.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgp88XhyCQI60.pgp
Description: PGP signature
601 - 700 of 1111 matches
Mail list logo
