date:20060925

[pkg-debianlogo] svn repository

2006-09-25 Thread Stefano Melchior

Ciao a tutti,
ho una domanda da sottoporvi.
Mi sono fatto creare il repository pkg-debianlogo (su Alioth) per 
manutenere il pacchetto kernel-patch-debianlogo (presto diventerà
linux-patch-debianlogo).
Tuttavia mi è stato creato il repository CVS, benchè preferisca SVN per
mantenere una certa coerenza con gli altri sistemi di versioning che ho.

La mia domanda (fore banale) è: posso crearmelo io o devo chiedere 
a qualcuno?

A presto

SteX
-- 
Stefano Melchior, GPG key = D52DF829 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.openlabs.it/~stex-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://etinarcadiaego.dyndns.org  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype ID stefanomelchior


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

2006-09-25 Thread Dariusz Pietrzak

  Please tell me what's wrong with *current* package and what can we do to
 IIRC, one of the things that lead to the rejection of the mplayer
 package last time:
 http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2006-July/044840.html
 This has been fixed in both upstream (svn of mplayer), and in packaging by
Andrea Mennucc. 
-- 
Dariush Pietrzak,
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294  05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

New essential package sysvinit-utils split out from sysvinit

2006-09-25 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen


To prepare for the async boot system upstart currently in
experimental, the sysvinit source package maintainers have decided to
split out a few programs from the sysvinit binary package.  The new
sysvinit-utils package will be a dependency of upstart, and the old
sysvinit package is a conflict.  This is to avoid the code duplication
resulting from upstart to provide its own copy of the same programs if
this split isn't done.  The new sysvinit-utils package is an essential
package, so the ftp-masters asked me to report its introduction here.

The split has been tested using debootstrap and apt, so I do not
expect any surprises with the installation system nor with upgrades
because if this split.

The new package is currently only in experimental, along with other
changes to the boot system.  I plan to test the other changes from
experimental for a while before uploading to unstable.

JFYI.

Friendly,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gfdl gcc documentation packages for non-free: update

2006-09-25 Thread Frank Küster

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:

 On Sep 23, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  As long as the source is available in the package this is not a bug at
  all.
  - even if the build infrastructure is missing how to build the
manpages, it's no bug?
 If they can be manually built only using software in Debian then it's
 not a bug.

I'd say it's still a wishlist bug.  Something to remember, for example,
in case you're talking to upstream about documentation issues.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Re: New essential package sysvinit-utils split out from sysvinit

2006-09-25 Thread Steve Langasek

On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:09:55AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:

 To prepare for the async boot system upstart currently in
 experimental, the sysvinit source package maintainers have decided to
 split out a few programs from the sysvinit binary package.  The new
 sysvinit-utils package will be a dependency of upstart, and the old
 sysvinit package is a conflict.  This is to avoid the code duplication
 resulting from upstart to provide its own copy of the same programs if
 this split isn't done.  The new sysvinit-utils package is an essential
 package, so the ftp-masters asked me to report its introduction here.

 The split has been tested using debootstrap and apt, so I do not
 expect any surprises with the installation system nor with upgrades
 because if this split.

 The new package is currently only in experimental, along with other
 changes to the boot system.  I plan to test the other changes from
 experimental for a while before uploading to unstable.

sysvinit is also an Essential package.  What steps are you taking to ensure
that you've retained the proper semantics for Essential?  Such changes
should be backed with more than just an apt upgrade test, because an apt
upgrade where everything /works/ may not be the case we'll have to worry
about in the future.  As a start, I think that sysvinit would need to
Pre-Depend on sysvinit-utils, to ensure that the packages are unpacked in
the correct order to not break sysvinit on disk.

Also, sysvinit is an Essential package.  So how is upstart going to conflict
with it?  (At least, it seems that upstart can't be usefully introduced into
Debian until etch+1, and that only if sysvinit itself is *not* going to be
Essential for etch.)

Which programs are going to be in the sysvinit package, and which ones are
going to be in the sysvinit-utils package, and why?

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Problem including asm/timex.h (linux-kernel-headers 2.6.17)

2006-09-25 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout


On 9/22/06, Martin Kittel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So this brings me back to me original problem: are user-space
applications allowed/supposed to use these headers? And if so, how are
they to be used if the headers rely on __KERNEL__ to be defined?


My understanding was that userspace should never use kernel headers
directly. Instead, userspace should copy the parts of the header that
is relevent to them. I think the idea is that eventually stuff
expected to be used will be moved to the sanitized headers in glibc.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: New essential package sysvinit-utils split out from sysvinit

2006-09-25 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen

[Steve Langasek]
sysvinit is also an Essential package. What steps are you taking to ensure
that you've retained the proper semantics for Essential? Such changes
should be backed with more than just an apt upgrade test, because an apt
upgrade where everything /works/ may not be the case we'll have to worry
about in the future. As a start, I think that sysvinit would need to
Pre-Depend on sysvinit-utils, to ensure that the packages are unpacked in
the correct order to not break sysvinit on disk.

Yes, sysvinit need to pre-depend on sysvinit-utils, and this is
already done. The debootstrap test also verified that this work. And
to list the steps I have taken:

- looked at how Ubuntu have done a similar split
- tested using debootstrap to verify that this do not affect the installer
- tested using aptitude upgrade to verify that it do not affect upgrades
- tested using 'dpkg -i' (need to be done in two steps because of the
pre-depend) to verify that the packages behave as they should.

I am open for suggestions on what more to test. The packages are now
available in experimental, for those interesting in testing it.

Also, sysvinit is an Essential package. So how is upstart going to
conflict with it? (At least, it seems that upstart can't be
usefully introduced into Debian until etch+1, and that only if
sysvinit itself is *not* going to be Essential for etch.)

You are correct, and this is intentional. The point is to make it
easier, not trivial, to test upstart and other sysvinit replacements.
Those testing upstart will have to cope with the removal of the
essential package themselves for Etch. After Etch we might consider
making it even easier.

Which programs are going to be in the sysvinit package, and which
ones are going to be in the sysvinit-utils package, and why?

I realise I forgot to point to the discussion where the introduction
of this package have been discussed. The thread start in
URL:http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-devel/2006-September/001095.html.

The programs killall5, last, lastb, mesg, pidof and sulogin are moved.
they are used independently from init, and I believe it make sense to
make them available in a separate package.

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 211 matches

Mail list logo