Accepted cdrdao 1:1.2.1-4 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:33:27 + Source: cdrdao Binary: cdrdao Architecture: source i386 Version: 1:1.2.1-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: cdrdao - records CDs in Disk-At-Once (DAO) mode Closes: 347241 Changes: cdrdao (1:1.2.1-4) unstable; urgency=low . * Really do remove cue2toc this time (closes: #347241) Files: 4c3d08580f8aa4971bb7fbd356d53641 577 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-4.dsc ce0eccf44fd499f4962c5c272c178f97 27312 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-4.diff.gz 62313a723e0b0555af1f8297ca18664d 413692 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-4_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD1M+jlpK98RSteX8RAgdTAJ0deCLqcRlw281Yv2c5E+V5ZwIelQCfeiqx ClIPlS7FL9S6R2ZubbJFQKo= =wMrB -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: cdrdao_1.2.1-4.diff.gz to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-4.diff.gz cdrdao_1.2.1-4.dsc to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-4.dsc cdrdao_1.2.1-4_i386.deb to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-4_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted fspanel 0.7-6 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:42:05 + Source: fspanel Binary: fspanel Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.7-6 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: fspanel- minimalist panel for X Closes: 346684 Changes: fspanel (0.7-6) unstable; urgency=low . * Bah. I'd hoped to keep the same version in etch as in sarge. * Update build-deps to reflect the xlibs bitrot (closes: #346684) * May as well update to policy 3.6.2, since there's no changes needed * Squish a few compiler warnings while we're here, no substantive changes * ...and a couple of lintian ones * And translate the manpage into English Files: dd7aad7f8b81aa735c9bf004a6accab3 578 x11 optional fspanel_0.7-6.dsc b033b27b68c0bb86f4cbf7cc4cd84f66 3836 x11 optional fspanel_0.7-6.diff.gz 295c2e8586694be9b24bcdab6435d032 11642 x11 optional fspanel_0.7-6_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDzo59lpK98RSteX8RAth1AJ4o8x/CMDTRvUgjBlalWQvsKVy+8ACfeN8I sbP15zlSHjXdCPUJJESfQ0o= =NTBG -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: fspanel_0.7-6.diff.gz to pool/main/f/fspanel/fspanel_0.7-6.diff.gz fspanel_0.7-6.dsc to pool/main/f/fspanel/fspanel_0.7-6.dsc fspanel_0.7-6_i386.deb to pool/main/f/fspanel/fspanel_0.7-6_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted cdrdao 1:1.2.1-3 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:57:39 + Source: cdrdao Binary: cdrdao Architecture: source i386 Version: 1:1.2.1-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: cdrdao - records CDs in Disk-At-Once (DAO) mode Closes: 347241 347981 Changes: cdrdao (1:1.2.1-3) unstable; urgency=low . * Remove cue2toc. It's not actually part of cdrdao, upstream just copied an old version in here. It has its own package, if you want it. (closes: #347241) * Fix some manpage errors (closes: #347981) * Bump to policy 3.6.2 (no changes) * Tidy the description a little Files: f668f573f458576bb3d863ce8641c61a 577 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-3.dsc fdab0befbe374be8e0fbe321e48bb8ff 27288 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-3.diff.gz 8a1083359dbd05309f3e0faef2d9ee43 426478 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-3_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDzpaBlpK98RSteX8RAvy9AKCH1OjCXZ7BorGPvR9NeTCyO4HrCACdGnDX ompGPiP0jVrDvSm2Ior+f1A= =kXhi -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: cdrdao_1.2.1-3.diff.gz to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-3.diff.gz cdrdao_1.2.1-3.dsc to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-3.dsc cdrdao_1.2.1-3_i386.deb to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-3_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share the values that found Debian. That's kind of a strange position to take, isn't it? Does this mean that the many users who use Debian directly sheerly on technical excellence alone, without sharing Debian's founding values, are not part of the Debian world? For that matter, I don't know of any derivative Debian distributions that require their developers to agree to the social contract; so by that standard, are *any* of them part of the Debian world? Intuitively, I would not expect any standard to classify any of the current derivatives as 'part of the Debian world'. We have very little interaction with any of them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 09:57:15AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, 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 Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, That's simply wrong given the many people who use both and who cares about both. By this reasoning, Windows is 'part of the Debian world'. I hope you didn't expect anybody to take it seriously. You're only one inside Debian and you can't generalize your personal opinion on the whole project. That's an amusing attitude for somebody who just did exactly that in the previous sentence. Sorry, you missed my point. I do not direct our users/developers to another distribution, I call for better cooperation so that WE can fill the gap by taking part of their work. Did you really just say we should cooperate better so that we can do Ubuntu's work for them? The arrogance of such a statement is only surpassed by its inanity. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for people who can't understand sarcasm? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:55:14PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Andrew Suffield wrote: That's simply wrong given the many people who use both and who cares about both. By this reasoning, Windows is 'part of the Debian world'. I hope you didn't expect anybody to take it seriously. Ok, not well worded, let me rephrase it. It's wrong given the many exchanges that we have between the two communities. If the Ubuntu/Debian community didn't overlap so much (and if we were in two different world), we certainly wouldn't have so many discussions about Ubuntu. The fact that we spent more time talking about both Nexenta and Gentoo shows this one to be either false or uninteresting, depending on how you interpret it. (and no I don't plan to respond to the rest of your troll) That's okay, I skipped responding to most of your troll too. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for people who can't understand sarcasm? I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu post was important to quite a few people. Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not, then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't think important to the subscribers is the correct measure. I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. They are really investing time on the co-operation, they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it. I considered editing this out, but I'm quoting it instead because it's a neat bit of libel[0] in an attempt to change the subject. This is not about Ubuntu at all - it could have been *anybody*'s press release being reposted. This is about appropriate use of Debian mailing lists. [0] I don't know who made this shit up, but as far as I'm aware it's purely fictional. We're objecting to Ubuntu's *PR*, and they're complaining that we're trying to stop collaberation? WTF? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about lesbians
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:51:03PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: If you still can't take the hint, I'll be more blunt: this isn't the first crass stunt you've pulled by any means, and you are now right at the limits of many peoples tolerance. Pull another one again, I may be forced to file a request for your expulsion. That might happen for this one yet. If your message is merely a troll, I would respectfully ask you please to expell yourself. I was perfectly serious. This is merely the latest in a number of things Mr Suffield has done which are detrimental to the project in a number of ways. Some of these are not a matter of public record, so you would be unaware of them. I hope you realise that if I were the litigious type, you would be receiving a court summons in the next day or two (it's lies, btw, for those of you watching - I hope nobody bought that 'secret offenses' noise, it's like the PATRIOT act or something). Consider yourself fortunate that I am not so inclined, and be *very* careful about what you say in the future; other UK residents may not be so generous. Of course, if I find you causing me actual monetary damage in some way, I might change my mind. [There's considerable case law for this with email. An untrue statement of fact which damages the reputation of a person (or a company) or holds him, her or it up to hatred, ridicule or contempt is libellous is one of the common phrasings of the test, and email authors are held to the same standard as journalists. There is no freedom of speech principle in UK law; you can express opinions, but that's all. You may not make false *or* *unprovable* statements of fact with intent to harm.] And if you start mud-flinging in earnest, I don't think I would be the first one to be expelled from the project. I have no interest in you, but you really do not want to force my hand on this - I haven't done anything wrong other than holding opinions you don't agree with, and you certainly can't put any evidence behind that 'detrimental to the project' claim, but *you* are pursuing a personal vendetta. Again. Oh, and that would be 'incitement to cause harm', which is a criminal offense these days. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about lesbians
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 11:03:37PM +, Brett Parker wrote: Of course, the post to d-d-a about lesbians that then goes on state Don't post irrelevant stuff here. It would be a real shame if the list had to be moderated because people can't exercise good judgement. Seems to me that you really hadn't thought about what you were posting, or where. That was not an appropriate place for the post, and you should know better. It looks to me rather like you missed the point of that mail, despite quoting it. What did you think the point was? Alternatively, what do you think is the correct mailing list for contacting (all of) the developers about appropriate use of d-d-a? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about lesbians
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 11:24:06PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:51:03PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: If you still can't take the hint, I'll be more blunt: this isn't the first crass stunt you've pulled by any means, and you are now right at the limits of many peoples tolerance. Pull another one again, I may be forced to file a request for your expulsion. That might happen for this one yet. I was perfectly serious. This is merely the latest in a number of things Mr Suffield has done which are detrimental to the project in a number of ways. Some of these are not a matter of public record, so you would be unaware of them. I hope you realise that if I were the litigious type, you would be receiving a court summons in the next day or two (it's lies, btw, for those of you watching - I hope nobody bought that 'secret offenses' noise, it's like the PATRIOT act or something). The events are a recorded in the debian-private archives, which I am not permitted to reveal here. I have at no point stated anything which is untrue, and any Debian developer who wishes to verify it may look at the August 2005 archives (debian-private.200508.gz on master:~debian/archive/debian-private is the worst to date). That is not disclosable on this list. In this archive I express the opinion that just because somebody died, that does not permit random developers to go around making statements on behalf of other developers. Not even person X is sorry for your loss. Not without the permission of person X. If making a stand for simple integrity is so terrible, then colour me terrible. I do not see what is so bad about objecting to people making statements, on behalf of other people, without their permission. [Obviously I can't repost or significantly report on all the stuff people said to villify me and misrepresent my position as being anything other than the above, but it's not relevant anyway] I fail to see how expressing a simple opinion like that, which is not even an uncommon one, *on a private mailing list*, could possibly be 'detrimental to the project'. That is pure slander. If you do reply, please do so in -private. If you do reply, please do so in public. I will not stand for any more of this hiding behind unverifiable statements. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so much. I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly discuss your concerns face-to-face. The intent here being stop people from scrutinising Ubuntu in public; get it off the lists so that it's less visible. Not likely. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Development standards for unstable
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:49:08PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: While the package might not be of the quality we strive to achieve within Debian; if a bug is not release critical we consider the bug not to be serious enough to impact the packages' releaseworthyness. This is by definition. Even if there are many of those bugs, they appearently do not prevent the core functionality from working. Well the definition is given in policy and a policy change (to be discussed) might change the definition of release critical. So if we define that numbers N_n normal bugs and N_i important bugs and time spans T_n and T_i where a bug is completely unattended by the maintainer (e.i. no comments, no reason why not fixed, etc.) we can define a measure X = Sum(N_n * T_n) + 2 * Sum(N_i * T_i) and if this measure excedes a certain limit we define this as RC critical. Well it's nice in theory. The problem is that you have to set the threshold high enough to exempt glibc and dpkg, and when you do that, I have not yet found a metric that complains about any other packages (I've tried two or three times to invent one). Sure, you could just manually exclude those few big offenders, but if you're going to do that then what's the point? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:31:40PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so much. I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly discuss your concerns face-to-face. The intent here being stop people from scrutinising Ubuntu in public; get it off the lists so that it's less visible. Not likely. Do you want visibility or solve current problems ? If I were interested in solving Ubuntu's problems then I would be working on Ubuntu. As people keep pointing out, Ubuntu's failure to cooperate effectively is *not* our problem - the only 'problem' that *we* have is that Ubuntu-worshippers keep showing up and proselytizing. An effective solution to this problem is to raise awareness to the point where people stop believing and start thinking. It appears to be working. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:08:52PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: We can't decide how they need to give us something MORE back and it's their problem? Whoever said they need to do that? They just need to stop bragging about shit they don't do. There's at least two ways to accomplish this. If they fail to contribute in a meaningful way, it just means more work for them (in trying to maintain a diverging fork). Hence, that's their problem. It's not really a problem for us. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Development standards for unstable
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:15:25PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: On the other hand I can not really believe that it is impossible to touch glibc and dpkg bugs with some kind of status (I'm working on it, Help would be welcome in this particular task, ...). I don't think it's impossible, and it would probably be an improvement. The relevant point is that it isn't happening, and what are you going to do about it? If a scheme can only work for unimportant packages, it's probably not worth the effort of implementing. So I'd say you have to start with something that gets this part right. Of course, this is just a reflection of the real problem here - calibration. Exactly where were you planning to draw the line between current packages that are well or poorly maintained? Hell, if you can do *that*, there's ways to derive the metric in an automated fashion. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Development standards for unstable
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:11:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: Well it's nice in theory. The problem is that you have to set the threshold high enough to exempt glibc and dpkg, and when you do that, I have not yet found a metric that complains about any other packages (I've tried two or three times to invent one). I think the problem might be that the formula doesn't take the package's installed base and/or age into account. The number of bugs in the BTS tends to increase as both values increase without much connection to the actual number of bugs in the package that affect many users, since people eventually hit most of the edge cases, and those sort of bugs are often the least likely to get fixed. It might help, if there was only a good way to sample this information. popcon is pretty dubious, and I've got no idea offhand for a good way of detecting the age of a package (particularly when you consider package renames and changelog rotation and such). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first place. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Canonical's business model
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:44:28PM +0100, jeremiah foster wrote: On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Thomas Bushnell writes: No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian, while pretending to cooperate. Could you be more explicit? I know there has been concern about Ubuntu amongst debian developers, and that Mark Shuttleworth has some doubts about working with DCC, although he is rather vague in my opinion. But what are the problems with Ubuntu? Is it an unecessary fork? Or is it not contributing back its changes to debian software? I think it's the pretending that pisses people off. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Canonical's business model
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists? Don't be fooled by From mail headers. Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta, etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:49:25AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 15:41 +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first place. Being polite and standing up for your beliefs are not mutually exclusive. That would depend on your beliefs. 'Honesty', for example. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Canonical's business model
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:56:35PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists? Don't be fooled by From mail headers. Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta, etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them. I agree with similar things being said but i'm yet to hear about the lack of collaboration and give Debian something back. None of the other companies ran around pronouncing how great they were at 'giving things back' and how 'committed' they were to free software, etcetera. That appears to be the relevant point. I don't think anybody seriously objects to the existence of companies who *don't* do these things. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Canonical's business model
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:25:01PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:56:35PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists? Don't be fooled by From mail headers. Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta, etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them. I agree with similar things being said but i'm yet to hear about the lack of collaboration and give Debian something back. None of the other companies ran around pronouncing how great they were at 'giving things back' and how 'committed' they were to free software, etcetera. That appears to be the relevant point. I don't think anybody seriously objects to the existence of companies who *don't* do these things. Are you saying that they're spending more money with PR than really contributing back ? I don't know about money, but I'm pretty sure their claims exceed their actions. I think that a sufficient response is to point this out whenever people start worshipping Canonical in public. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so much. On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:57:35AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: There are still rather intense emotional responses to Ubuntu within the Debian community, as evidenced in this thread and others. First a dismissal of dissenters as 'emotional' (deliberate flame, thinly veiled so as to pay lip service to their 'code of conduct'). However, there seems to be a trend toward more effective collaboration at the individual level, as many Debian maintainers now recognize that Ubuntu developers are, by and large, standing by and willing to work with them, and that such collaboration requires active participation from both sides. This is a statement that some people who work for Ubuntu also work on Debian, or assist people who are working on Debian, which is what we'd expect of any company that employs people interested in Debian - not much of a claim really. It also takes the opportunity to blame the Debian maintainers for failing to cooperate with Ubuntu ones, in those cases where such 'collaboration' does not occur. In comparison with other Debian derivatives, past and present, the fact that this kind of discussion has been happening at all, with both parties involved, is a significant step forward. And this is just insulting Progeny (and the rest) while promoting the superiority of Ubuntu. It's also wrong. I don't think it's any real surprise that people dislike this sort of behaviour. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:13:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 19:13 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 09 Jan 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Miles Bader wrote: [snip] I, for one, am far more interested in the message than the way which the message is conveyed. The way the message is conveyed *is* part of the message. Yes. When somebody puts on a smart suit and tells you, in 'polite' and clipped tones, that everything you believe in is wrong and that you should instead do things *his* way, then you know that not only is he a self-obsessed bigot, he's dishonest about it too, and furthermore that he thinks you're stupid enough to believe that he's being nice to you. At least if he didn't *pretend* to be polite then there would be a certain amount of integrity in his actions, and probably less actual insult. Dishonesty is *not* an equivalent substitute for respect. If you're being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a liar. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Canonical's business model
[Most of the replies from people appear to have completely missed the point, but I'll just pick up on this one because it's not so far off...] On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:52:43AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: It's also important to not completely conflate the people who work for Canonical with the actions of Canonical the company. The primary thing I object to is that the ones doing the conflating are Canonical themselves. They're forever talking about how great they are for giving back to Debian, and all their wonderful committments. Many people who work for companies contribute to free software as part of their job, as a hobby, or in that grey area of their days that's partly work and partly their own time. Many of free software's most valuable contributors have done this. Which means that the distinction between Canonical and any other company is pretty much nothing - except for their continual, offensive PR effort claiming otherwise. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Canonical's business model
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need for launchpad
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:45:02AM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Developers will choose to use them when and where it makes sense for them to do so. Ironically enough, it looks like all Debian Developers already have an account there... because I have one, and I never ask for one: URL: https://launchpad.net/people/rfrancoise Automatic import of the Debian LDAP data? URL: https://launchpad.net/people/asuffield URL: https://launchpad.net/people/srivasta etc... I shall upload some of Manoj's pornography immediately. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Powerfulness (was: tioga : a powerful plotting system in ruby)
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 03:28:27PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 23:52 +0100, Juergen Salk wrote: I am just wondering if we shouldn't be more chary of using meaningless (or soliciting) phrases like powerful in package descriptions in general. Sounds like something that should be added to lintian. Too hard, too many combinations, too much investigation needed to pin it down. For example, there's over 150 packages using the word 'best' - I can't imagine that could possibly be right, but you never know without reading the thing... -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need for launchpad
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 07:49:33PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:02:09AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: On Sunday 08 January 2006 07:27, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 03:19:42PM -0500, Frans Jessop wrote: Ubuntu's launchpad is amazing. Do you think it would be helpful if all DD's worked through it on their projects? Wouldn't that keep things more organized and efficient? Or perhaps Debian could build its own version of launchpad which is better. Again, I think it would do a good job keeping everything organized an efficient. The day when working on Debian requires the use of a web interface will be the day that I hunt down and painfully kill the person responsible for doing it. Luckily that the bts of Launchpad has a mailinterface..which is quite nice. So some other parts will have mailinterfaces as well, and some other goodies where someone can attach some nice cli tools. Which nobody except the Blessed Few (being those who have signed the NDA allowing them access to the Launchpad code) can modify or enhance. And even then have uncertain chances of getting it deployed into a place where it's useful, and goodness knows how practical it would be to do this anyway - the backend limitations could be anything. You can't normally design real APIs onto production software and get anything but a mess, you have to engage in sound engineering from the start. Removing the ability to manage things from the shell would not be more organised and efficient unless you're a complete fricking moron who can't operate a unix host. Which appears to be the target audience of launchpad. Well, I'm happy to see, that a lot of people are not thinking like you. They see launchpad as a collaborative worktool. Your comment doesn't follow from what Andrew said. Indeed, it appears to demonstrate a complete absence of having understood the paragraph it is in reply to, or perhaps even having read it. Finally, are you not able to use lynx? I know your smarter than that. Pressing the down-arrow 50 times to reach an action button takes a lot longer than typing a quick command to invoke that same action, and we both know it. And more to the point, is almost completely immune to scripting. Which is the ultimate problem with most of these things. I don't think Debian would even be here today if random people couldn't throw together stuff they wanted to see done on top of the stuff we already have; that's how most of our current infrastructure was created. Unix tools should do one thing well and let another tool do the next thing. That's how we've come this far. It's also a statement of some elementary engineering principles. It always amazes me how eager people are to abandon these concepts in favour of some grand integrated white elephant that's all CSS and no trousers. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need for launchpad
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:27:07AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:20:52 +0100, Torsten Landschoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: OTOH I'd like to have Debian move to using a single SCM and storing all packages in repositories. Currently you need to know Subversion, CVS and tla if you want to be sure you can directly work with the Debian sources. Our tools could also be better integrated. Source packages use umpteen different patch systems etc. which should be done away with. It would be nice to change this but I don't have the time and motivation to even try it. Perhaps you do? And hey, if you can do all that, can you also solve th psky little problem of global hunger? And get rid of vi while you are doing so? And the SARS thing, and avian flu, and all that? And I want a pony. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need for launchpad
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:44:57AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: On Sunday 08 January 2006 10:39, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 07:49:33PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:02:09AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: On Sunday 08 January 2006 07:27, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 03:19:42PM -0500, Frans Jessop wrote: Ubuntu's launchpad is amazing. Do you think it would be helpful if all DD's worked through it on their projects? Wouldn't that keep things more organized and efficient? Or perhaps Debian could build its own version of launchpad which is better. Again, I think it would do a good job keeping everything organized an efficient. The day when working on Debian requires the use of a web interface will be the day that I hunt down and painfully kill the person responsible for doing it. Luckily that the bts of Launchpad has a mailinterface..which is quite nice. So some other parts will have mailinterfaces as well, and some other goodies where someone can attach some nice cli tools. Which nobody except the Blessed Few (being those who have signed the NDA allowing them access to the Launchpad code) can modify or enhance. And even then have uncertain chances of getting it deployed into a place where it's useful, and goodness knows how practical it would be to do this anyway - the backend limitations could be anything. Sure, but this applies to any software, actually the best example is the kernel. No it doesn't. I can change the kernel and eliminate any backend limitations that offend me. I cannot do so with some external web service. I can apply any changes I want to the kernel. I cannot apply any changes to some web service, I can only beg the owners to do it if they feel like it. These problems are the very ones which free software *solves*. They're a big part of the reason why most of us are here. Therefore, a lot of people never learned the advantages of cli, and more people don't want to learn them. Why? I don't know, and it doesn't matter. But, even those people we have to reach with an easy to use interface, and if this means: webapplications, so be it. It doesn't mean, that I or you have to use it The point which you are arguing in favour of is that I be forced to use it. Otherwise you don't appear to *have* a point, since that's what we're talking about. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need for launchpad
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:25:28AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: I know your smarter than that. Pressing the down-arrow 50 times to reach an action button takes a lot longer than typing a quick command to invoke that same action, and we both know it. Please don't throw bogus solutions around like that, it only encourages him. Hehe...well, it's a matter of working behaviour. I never said, that working from the CLI is not faster or more productive sometimes. What I'm trying to say is, that this arrogant elite thinking must go away. As far as I can see, you are the only person who has brought such thinking to this thread. The rest of us are objecting to your claims that we should be forced to work in the manner used by the most incompetent user you can find. I don't think anybody here (other than you) actually cares what method such users use, so long as it does not affect us. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need for launchpad
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:30:20AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: ,[ https://wiki.launchpad.canonical.com/HCT ] | 1.13. Will the source package import code be open source? | | Not at this time. ` Hmm. Not a strong commitment to the open source philosophy or anything like our social contract. So, can one trust any company like this to retain the service as librè service in the long run? Or only until enough people are hooked in? Can anybody actually think of a reason why they might want to keep any of this code proprietary, other than grabbing power? I can't see *any* way in which this could possibly be anything else. The only reason I can think of is to be able to use launchpad to control people, for whatever reason. That would be pretty much the antithesis to us. It's everything we've been opposed to all these years. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Canonical's business model
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:30:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: They're investing in writing better tools, and they're keeping them private so as to maintain a competative advantage with them over Red Hat, SuSE, Fedora, and so forth. Including Debian, for that matter. ...damnit, I never thought of that. And you know why not? Because on some level I thought that all the noise they make about 'contributing back to Debian' was more than just lip service. I had (stupidly) wanted to believe that it wasn't *just* their PR machine at work. If you're right, then it would mean that their concept of 'contributing back' means to purchase 'goodwill' at the lowest available price - which would be consistent with the behaviour we've seen from them so far. In effect, treating it as another asset, and behaving like a classical company that focusses on the bottom line. So that's actually plausible. I don't know about other people, but personally I do not appreciate being treated as a tradeable asset. And I am reminded of a passage from Pratchett's /Carpe Jugulum/: Mightily Oats: There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example. Granny Weatherwax: And what do they think? Against it, are they? Mightily Oats: It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of grey. Granny Weatherwax: Nope. Mightily Oats: Pardon? Granny Weatherwax: There's no greys, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is. Mightily Oats: It's a lot more complicated than that-- Granny Weatherwax: No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts. Mightily Oats: Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes-- Granny Weatherwax: But they starts with thinking about people as things -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need for launchpad
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 03:19:42PM -0500, Frans Jessop wrote: Ubuntu's launchpad is amazing. Do you think it would be helpful if all DD's worked through it on their projects? Wouldn't that keep things more organized and efficient? Or perhaps Debian could build its own version of launchpad which is better. Again, I think it would do a good job keeping everything organized an efficient. The day when working on Debian requires the use of a web interface will be the day that I hunt down and painfully kill the person responsible for doing it. Removing the ability to manage things from the shell would not be more organised and efficient unless you're a complete fricking moron who can't operate a unix host. Which appears to be the target audience of launchpad. We're working with the real stuff here, not kids toys. Web interfaces don't scale to the level at which we have to work *all the time*. Just ask the BTS admins what happens when somebody scans http://bugs.debian.org/ to collect data. Oh, and hey - when SuSE are doing better than you at publishing the tools they use, it's a hint that maybe you suck. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: APT public key updates?
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:38:37PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: In the third case, again the compromise is either detected, or it isn't. If it's detected, we're revoking the key again; if it's *not* detected (and it seems to me that anyone able to compromise the pgp key without also having to compromise ftp-master is likely good enough to go undetected), then this is a case where scheduled key rotations help us. There's also a secondary case where they help. Any PGP key can be cracked with sufficient outlay of computing power. Scheduled key rotations mean that this has a minimum *cost* requirement associated; it prevents mere time from being sufficient. If you work out the numbers carefully then you can effectively stop this attack for everybody who isn't rich enough to just hire away all the critical people and take control that way. Of course, the other requirement for this to work is that the new key not be generated until shortly before the old one is ready to expire. However, we don't have to do this annually; with a 2048-bit key, replacing every five years and generating the new key one year before the old one expires should be safe at present. That's a conservative estimate. To defend against ancillary attacks (like somebody grabbing a copy of the key from ftp-master) you need to know how probable they are, and reduce these figures accordingly. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: stable aliases for CD drives
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 05:55:03PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote: Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked /dev/hdX - /media/cdrom ? Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX won't necessarily be stable anymore. (and, once more, and much worse: network interfaces need a solution to the same problem...) nameif, ifrename - really, this problem has been solved so many times that it's just not funny any more. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:43:34AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 08:38 +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On the other hand, I think there might be some benefit to requiring that the Maintainer field must always denote one single Debian developer, who would be the buck stops here guy for that package. Not an applicant, not a mailing list, and not a group of people. This not an applicant thing is a bad idea. As you might know, the NM-process is designed around the idea that someone has to prove they're up to the task they want to do. That's why for packagers it's required to have packaging activitity. Disallowing them to have the final responsibility over a package disables you to evaluate whether they're actually fit for this responsibility. Actually it doesn't, you could work it out something like this: The maintainer is a developer who is ultimately responsible for the package. The applicant does most of the work. One of the primary criteria for judging the applicant would be how much work the maintainer has to do - the question put to them would be of the form Would you be comfortable with handing this package over to this person, after watching them work for N weeks?. The issues with the current system are that we end up with a lot of packages being non-maintained by failing applicants, and we get a lot of useless packages added to the archive just because an applicant needed to find something of their own. This scheme should fix the former and reduce the latter. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:31:19PM -0500, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: On the other hand, I think there might be some benefit to requiring that the Maintainer field must always denote one single Debian developer, who would be the buck stops here guy for that package. Not an applicant, not a mailing list, and not a group of people. I believe the tools have now advanced to the point where this is a practical option. In general you're always far better off forcing every *change* to a given component to go through a single individual. Large projects need a pumpking, because dogpiling creates lousy software. For Debian this would be cumbersome and unwieldy as a rule, but some high-importance tasks could benefit from it. I think you have something here, but I think allowing an applicant/mailing list in maintainer should be ok. In the case of an applicant, if they're doine the work, they both deserve the credit I don't think we should be using the control file for this purpose. Particularly since it does not and never has included a list of the people who do most of the work on a given package. Consider samba - the 'maintainer' hasn't been heard from in ages, and nowhere in the control file are all the relevant people listed. The obvious place for this information would be the changelog - this is the current convention (again, see samba). and should be the one to get all the messages that the various debian infrastructures sends out (Archive scripts, BTS, point of contact for security, etc). I *think* that the relevant infrastructure tools have now all been fixed so that you don't have to use the Maintainer field to accomplish this. Instead, why not propose a Responsible-For: header for control that lists a person inside the project who the buck stops with in the case of an applicant or team maintained package? Because I don't see how it would be semantically different to the Maintainer field. The distinction between them is not apparent (what is Maintainer supposed to mean under this scheme?). And adding new fields is more work, so you don't do it without a good reason. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:17:43PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: If the problem is lack of motivation, and the chief motivator is a sense of responsibility, then you don't want to diffuse that. Specifically motivation to do *this* task, rather than any of the others in the pile that need doing. People who maintain significant packages tend to be busy. Their reason for doing one thing over another will be primarily dependent on what they want to do, and what they feel they *should* do. We would all be much worse off with the abolition of individual responsibility. The constitution already abolished it -- at least, if you interpret article 2.1 the way some people have. I consider 'individual responsibility' to be a matter of personal ethics, not enforced punishment. We do have a few morally bankrupt maintainers (or, non-maintainers). I think the majority of developers have some sense of responsibility, though. This belief is primarily founded on the fact that I don't think Debian could have survived this long at this size without it. Maybe it would be useful to reinforce a sense of responsibility in Debian. You can't reinforce or enforce ethics - attempting to do so merely gives you obedience, or a herd mentality. And I don't think that a blame culture will accomplish anything. On the other hand, I think there might be some benefit to requiring that the Maintainer field must always denote one single Debian developer, who would be the buck stops here guy for that package. Not an applicant, not a mailing list, and not a group of people. I believe the tools have now advanced to the point where this is a practical option. In general you're always far better off forcing every *change* to a given component to go through a single individual. Large projects need a pumpking, because dogpiling creates lousy software. For Debian this would be cumbersome and unwieldy as a rule, but some high-importance tasks could benefit from it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Size matters. Debian binary package stats
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 09:56:27AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote: On 12/19/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:27:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steinar H. Gunderson: My comments are about the same as on IRC: - Disk space is cheap, bandwidth is cheap. Depends. Decent IP service costs a few EUR per gigabyte in most parts of the world. I wish we could get it that cheap for my day job. What we have to pay to get useful bandwidth has more zeros in it. Are you paying 10 $/gb? Heck yes, you can't get it that cheap unless you have no SLA (or one of those insulting SLAs that come with residential service, claiming that it doesn't have to work at all). And you can't get that at all on a pipe of any significant size (unless you're big enough to work out a peering agreement). We pay per month though, not per byte. Where is it that expensive? UK. As a general rule, UK bandwidth prices are roughly five to ten times those of equivalent service in other EU countries. Not that you can get equivalent service. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:23:32PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: I would support requiring team maintainership because TM will be beneficial in almost all cases and making it a requirement it cuts off a lot of useless discussion. Cute theory, gaping hole. Making a group of people responsible for something, rather than a single person, means that they can all spend all their time passing the buck and hoping that one of the others takes care of it, with the result that nobody does. Debian is a great example of this problem in practice. Most of the more significant teams show this problem to one degree or another. Common places where it appears are ftp-master, debian-admin, and scud. You get a lot of people able to meddle with something but none of them responsible for actually seeing that it gets done - and so some of it just doesn't get done. The NEW queue used to get backed up all the time for exactly this reason. The problem went away when one person became responsible for processing it. Replacing teams with individuals usually works better, where it's actually possible. When it isn't, you probably need to break up the task more until it is. We would all be much worse off with the abolition of individual responsibility. If I were feeling in a conspiracy-theorist mood then I'd suggest that those who are promoting team maintainance are trying to gain power while evading responsibility. But frankly I think that's giving them too much credit. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Size matters. Debian binary package stats
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:27:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steinar H. Gunderson: My comments are about the same as on IRC: - Disk space is cheap, bandwidth is cheap. Depends. Decent IP service costs a few EUR per gigabyte in most parts of the world. I wish we could get it that cheap for my day job. What we have to pay to get useful bandwidth has more zeros in it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Stephen Frost MIA?
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:25:31AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: how about sending this to Frontdesk [EMAIL PROTECTED] or MIA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of spamming debian-devel with that? Since when is a message that is on topic (or at least relevant) to Debian development spam? Everything on -devel is spam these days, didn't you get the memo? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Accepted cdrdao 1:1.2.1-2 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:26:09 + Source: cdrdao Binary: cdrdao Architecture: source i386 Version: 1:1.2.1-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: cdrdao - Disk-At-Once (DAO) recording of audio and data CD-Rs/CD-RWs Closes: 340691 Changes: cdrdao (1:1.2.1-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Fix stupid bug that makes the package impossible to build. So the question is, why did it build for me? (closes: #340691) Files: 5e9e6be59a68e1b610e8f298771aac53 588 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-2.dsc 92a911e665291e9a3d78aaa07e25c6b4 26432 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-2.diff.gz dd01d5849c615609a5653fffc694c99d 416954 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-2_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDh2Z1lpK98RSteX8RApvbAJ9bzqqQN6jjnGWqPnkUo4LcLqalTwCeMj8p tIKNDAvmaH9u+ioRnUofluI= =bLNq -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: cdrdao_1.2.1-2.diff.gz to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-2.diff.gz cdrdao_1.2.1-2.dsc to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-2.dsc cdrdao_1.2.1-2_i386.deb to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-2_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted cdrdao 1:1.2.1-1 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:43:37 + Source: cdrdao Binary: cdrdao Architecture: source i386 Version: 1:1.2.1-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: cdrdao - Disk-At-Once (DAO) recording of audio and data CD-Rs/CD-RWs Closes: 133473 140038 222036 249634 249642 300958 309735 311738 326472 337360 Changes: cdrdao (1:1.2.1-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release - Unbreak toc2cue (closes: #222036) - Includes newer scsilib version with amd64 support - note that this is completely untestable and not in Debian anyway, so don't bother filing bugs about it not working (closes: #249634, #249642, #326472) * Clean up dead Suggests relation to gcdmaster (closes: #311738) * Fix copyright file to include upstream authors (closes: #337360) * Fix manpage to include current authors (closes: #300958) * Completely disable the ability to run setuid root, and expand the description in README.Debian. That should be the end of security issues in cdrdao. (closes: #309735, #133473, #140038) * Bump priority up to optional (was extra) - k3b wants to depend on it Files: b2a135e9b0f42f150121e182dcfa14bd 588 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-1.dsc d959c98e08105b5b8380de275bac1413 1728003 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1.orig.tar.gz 0ee8f5e22560bfedeabede9d026bff9d 26306 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-1.diff.gz eeed55cdafb272ab4b1012387d254d31 417016 otherosfs optional cdrdao_1.2.1-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFDhkvDlpK98RSteX8RAhG5AJiit6toJY4II3vlm0JS+84WbMdiAKCDzt6h 3SxaR1WLFfYx5c/lqkYc0w== =/GWS -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: cdrdao_1.2.1-1.diff.gz to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-1.diff.gz cdrdao_1.2.1-1.dsc to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-1.dsc cdrdao_1.2.1-1_i386.deb to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1-1_i386.deb cdrdao_1.2.1.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/c/cdrdao/cdrdao_1.2.1.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:49:35PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: Only quoting the first part of the second definition changes the meaning significantly -- but that is what is necessary to make it apply at all. Complete bullshit. Get a life. plonk -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:34:30PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Kenneth Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great opportunity. I've got news for you: the great opportunity here was that *you* were able to base *your* software on Debian. And that only happened because Debian protected your rights to that software through the DFSG. Very nicely said. Thanks, Kenneth. And I respect Debian developers work. And wait when Debian developers will respect ours work too. You're probably going to be waiting a long time. I suggest that instead you think about doing something deserving of respect. Taking a copy of solaris, written by other people, and a copy of Debian, also written by other people, and then putting them next to each other, in violation of the license on lots of these things? That is not deserving of respect. Coming along and telling us that the license we chose deliberately for the purpose of prohibiting you from doing this is wrong? That's not deserving of respect either. Now go away and stop doing it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. This is completely and fundamentally wrong. CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis. This is incomprehensible gibberish. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis. This is incomprehensible gibberish. This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may be inapt, wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is neither incomprehensible nor gibberish. It makes no sense at all, therefore it is both incomprehensible and gibberish (they're roughly synonyms). incomprehensible 2: difficult to understand gibberish \gibber*ish\ (j[i^]bb[~e]r*[i^]sh or 2. Incomprehensible, [or ...] Grow up, and find something less crazy to do than picking on people bigger than you. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Accepted icheck 0.9.7-4 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:05:18 +0100 Source: icheck Binary: icheck Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.9.7-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: icheck - C interface ABI/API checker Changes: icheck (0.9.7-4) unstable; urgency=low . * Fix stupid makefile Files: e553dc97fe17547e5cc8b998ea78626c 581 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-4.dsc b996cb09f570d5897a034b585dac71ac 11474 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-4.diff.gz ada2162592f252bb2cb050d5955e8cb4 81234 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-4_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDSdtXlpK98RSteX8RApdmAJ9LLJTOKNwYlCCwoQDQ30/4A1z8mQCdFemR evd5NYVmCqFVepkJjWBNB5g= =Cw6D -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: icheck_0.9.7-4.diff.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-4.diff.gz icheck_0.9.7-4.dsc to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-4.dsc icheck_0.9.7-4_i386.deb to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-4_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted tla 1.3.3-3 (source i386 all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 +0100 Source: tla Binary: tla-doc tla Architecture: source i386 all Version: 1.3.3-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: tla- arch revision control system tla-doc- revision control system (documentation) Closes: 201172 298591 319141 319671 325690 Changes: tla (1.3.3-3) unstable; urgency=low . * Upstream has gone away, so I'll just sweep up all the outstanding patches... * Apply patch from Ian Jackson to fix stdarg abuse (closes: #319141, #325690, hopefully) * Update config.sub/config.guess (closes: #319671) * Apply patch from Kusanagi Kouichi for 'tla id' syntax (closes: #298591) * Include a version of Hans Ulrich Niedermann's generate-manpage.pl, hacked to work within the debian build tree, and install the manpage it emits (closes: #201172) Files: 2bfeee7a0dbe0c23771299b260bed574 582 devel optional tla_1.3.3-3.dsc feb23c5632fec91307f29738ec246c12 44429 devel optional tla_1.3.3-3.diff.gz 5cc393c978fae24d7bb87ce94787dfb8 50492 devel optional tla-doc_1.3.3-3_all.deb 0c04f6d24b702a5832c1b1a7cf70 291466 devel optional tla_1.3.3-3_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDNCRTlpK98RSteX8RAtfGAJ9qzrFEynh67tv/S3b9uyyI1DaUMwCfYSv3 ImvcyrhADitoxQPpb526lU0= =Wa0b -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: tla-doc_1.3.3-3_all.deb to pool/main/t/tla/tla-doc_1.3.3-3_all.deb tla_1.3.3-3.diff.gz to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-3.diff.gz tla_1.3.3-3.dsc to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-3.dsc tla_1.3.3-3_i386.deb to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-3_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange. That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. Only insofar as the laws generally chosen are accepted. If somebody showed up with a choice for Swaziland[0], we might have a problem with that. But although US law is fairly right-wing, and German law is fairly crazy, neither of them are actually prejudicial in a fair court. [0] It's an autocracy (under state of emergency rules for about 30 years, they're currently trying to reestablish some semblence of democracy); the case would be determined by who paid the largest bribe to the king. Given his proclivities, that might be the one with the cutest intern. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:24:19PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: 9. MISCELLANEOUS. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a jurisdiction which has such a law on the books, which _can_ be opted out of, but I doubt such exists, as it would defeat the purpose of having that law in the first place. Under certain limited conditions, yes. Generally, no. There's a few statutes on the books around the place which say This applies to [...] unless waived by both parties and similar stuff. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote: --cut-- Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star .copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Ah, ok, nice to know. Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications: Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't modifiable). Yeesh. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#326656: ITP: libjetty4-lib -- Pure Java HTTP Server
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:35:11PM +0200, Trygve Laugst?l wrote: Version : x.y.z I presume you spent so much time on the list of author[sic] that you never got around to deleting this line, or any of the others with bogus template values in them. Upstream Author : ^^^ The point here is that these are all names for the same person? Also, in the time it took you to type this list I could have packaged it twice, and liberated a small country from an oppressive dictator. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: It is 23:53, do you know whether your package (un)installs cleanly?
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:53:35PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Unconditional use of non-essential packages in postrm when a package is purged (policy, 7.2, description of Depends). One of the most common reasons is because the package uses ucf. Which is because the example postrm given in ucf is wrong, so if you're using ucf, beware. See #326085 -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#325709: ITP: xmms2 -- XMMS2 is a redesign of the XMMS music player
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:52:45AM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote: On 8/31/05, Laszlo Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 14:31 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Florian Ragwitz] XMMS2 is a redesign of the XMMS music player. It features a client-server model, allowing multiple (even simultaneous!) user interfaces, both textual and graphical. Gee, and Beep Media Player is going through a similar redesign. Me wonder. What? Where? Google... Once that's finished and packaged, we'll have four xmmses. I think old ones can be dropped after a while with transitional packages. xmms2 is still in early developlement, and xmms1 dev most likely will not stop immediately. My experience with xmms1 has been that development stopped about two years ago :P (There hasn't been much but bug fixes since 1.2.8, in 2003) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: long long support on all archs?
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:10:24PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote: On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:38:02PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: typedef int64_t long long; FWIW, it's typedef long long int64_t;. The syntax of typedef's is similar to variable declarations. It is precisely the same, in fact; there are only semantic constraints which differ from object declarations. 'typedef' has the same syntactic class as 'extern', 'static', 'register', and 'auto' - it's a storage class. You could have written this with equal validity: long int typedef long int64_t; -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mindterm
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 12:18:29AM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Many internet cafe's or kiosk computers (or school computers, *sigh* though they're a lot better than they used to be) prevent running executables from outside specific paths, and limit write access to those paths. Also, I've seen lots of kiosks that keep a browser in full screen mode, preventing access to anything other than the web. A java applet is the only viable solution in cases like these. I've hacked a lot of those kiosks to run putty on them. It's really, really hard to stop people from running arbitrary code on windows. Most people can't even do it to people who *don't* have terminal access. Not that mindterm isn't still useful. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: README - confusing, irrelevant, redundant, useless
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 01:25:37PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Perhaps the upstream README should be renamed 'README.upstream'? Given the context, it would probably make more sense to rename it to IGNOREME. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Accepted icheck 0.9.7-2 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:29:57 +0100 Source: icheck Binary: icheck Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.9.7-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: icheck - C interface ABI/API checker Changes: icheck (0.9.7-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Kill off the pesky test for alignment difference output, it's just not going to work. Files: 4de740995c1d933a989a4d2b0af4e3ec 580 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-2.dsc e5e3c5ddf17a778bc49375b8365de6c3 5811 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-2.diff.gz c11f45b40d691be21e54d0164e22eef5 80488 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-2_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDAMPdlpK98RSteX8RApGcAJ49GFYE574umQUelEUccb0PnfJ+YgCeN4ll 4djg7vKqZAT2D1b1OliQosQ= =RUlL -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: icheck_0.9.7-2.diff.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-2.diff.gz icheck_0.9.7-2.dsc to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-2.dsc icheck_0.9.7-2_i386.deb to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-2_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted icheck 0.9.7-3 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:57:52 +0100 Source: icheck Binary: icheck Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.9.7-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: icheck - C interface ABI/API checker Changes: icheck (0.9.7-3) unstable; urgency=low . * Upload the version *with* the fix applied. Not the one without it. I am sacrificing a kitten just to make sure. Files: f509fbfbd866bd40b06bdbd57a2205ea 580 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-3.dsc 09b0568b38987f29a9fc4bff85098af8 5933 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-3.diff.gz ef447c42776e94f5240faa8a5fe6b990 80574 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-3_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDAOcglpK98RSteX8RAnI9AJ4lni1mVVOAHV41fwbSVOkdtkYv/ACfQ+B0 hTgQlmIIS/3egxhBE0cn6KI= =0tB/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: icheck_0.9.7-3.diff.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-3.diff.gz icheck_0.9.7-3.dsc to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-3.dsc icheck_0.9.7-3_i386.deb to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-3_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#322774: ITP: ddccontrol -- a program to control monitor parameters
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:30:32PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:22:24PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Le Ven 12 Aot 2005 22:18, Roberto C. Sanchez a écrit : to wich /dev/??? entry does the program speaks to ? if it's video (e.g.) then the normal user of a box is supposed to be in the video group, and setuid is not required. Here is what Nicolas (the upsrteam author) said: You should note that there is a suid app installed (ddcpci), this is required because ddccontrol needs to read/write directly to the PCI memory, because there is no I2C support for Intel IGPs in the kernel and nVidia I2C support conflicts with the 3D-accelerated proprietary drivers. Every suid app could be a security problem (the code is very simple so I don't think so, but we never know .-)). It speaks to /dev/i2c-* when possible and then PCI memory in the case of Intel video, as Nicolas described. Definitely ask then, and include this piece of information in the question. Only people with the relevent hardware would ever want it suid, the rest don't. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Firefox:I get redirected to microsoft website when entering http//kernel.org or http//debian.org
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:47:27AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: The fact that a number of these searches wind up at microsoft.com, though, when doing a direct google search on the entered string does not, suggests there is room for improvement in the auto-searching feature... The mozilla foundation are bankrolled by google nowadays. It can't be 'improved' without forking. Remember folks, corporate involvement in free software is a 'good' thing. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Firefox:I get redirected to microsoft website when entering http//kernel.org or http//debian.org
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:50:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 02:42:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:47:27AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: The fact that a number of these searches wind up at microsoft.com, though, when doing a direct google search on the entered string does not, suggests there is room for improvement in the auto-searching feature... The mozilla foundation are bankrolled by google nowadays. It can't be 'improved' without forking. Er, of course it can -- it can be fixed to send the full string to Google, instead of truncating it at the first slash? Oh, I see. I didn't notice this was happening at all; the I'm feeling lucky search doesn't work for those of us who use an http proxy, as firefox just sends the whole thing to the proxy and it sends you back an error page. Which is actually a rather nice solution. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bruce Perens hosts party at OSCON Wednesday night
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 01:58:15PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: IMHO this is a profound disrespect for the great work done in Debian by Bruce. Are we thinking of the same guy? And to boot, an e-mail calling for curriculae for a recruiting party is on-topic to a DEVELOPERS list No. This is why the debian-jobs list exists. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: fresh blood gets congested: long way to become DD
It's a pretty theory but it fails to account for reality. On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Tue, August 2, 2005 10:28, Andreas Barth wrote: And, BTW, is it not our problem to have too few AMs While I can agree that there are too few AMs, the whole process itself seems pretty bureaucratic with room for improvement. Once you've completed the AM stage, this still has to happen: - AM checks application. - Front Desk checks application. - DAM checks application. - DAM creates account. (Source: nm.debian.org) So, once the AM, who has done a thorough review of the candidate, then you still need to pass three steps. Why? Once you've reached the AM-approved stage, you've already got: - a good review by an existing developer (advocate) Advocates are utterly useless. Anybody, absolutely *anybody*, no matter how much of a stupid MCSE-waving windows nutcase they might be, can get advocated, and people do routinely get advocated who have no hope of passing. The flaw in the system is simple and obvious: in order to get advocated, you must find precisely one developer in a thousand who thinks they should sent a brief fluffy mail about you. - an assurance from a person very experienced with Debian and with handling new developers AMs aren't much better, as a group. The FD checks their applications so as not to waste the DAM's time reviewing bogus ones, and the DAM checks them to filter out people who shouldn't get in. The reason why we need both these checks is most simply explained by pointing out that both of them reject a significant number of applicants - if we didn't have them, people would get in who shouldn't, or the DAM's already limited time would be wasted, slowing the process down more. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: fresh blood gets congested: long way to become DD
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 04:36:28PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Do you have any good arguments why it isn't the other way around, that some of the rejections get rid of people which could have done a great job as a debian developer? How about 'not second guessing people without cause'? I'm not going to argue that the rejections being made are bad ones. If you are, this is the wrong place to do it. If you're not, then you don't have a point here. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: fresh blood gets congested: long way to become DD
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 09:35:24PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Andrew Suffield] How about 'not second guessing people without cause'? Sounds like a good idea. I am not sure how this comment is connected to the message you replied to. It was an answer to the quoted question. I tried to avoid second guessing you, by asking the following question: You seem to assume that all rejections are correct, and get rid of some people which should not be accepted as debian developers, while all approvals are suspect and might let through a person which should have been rejected. Is this correct? You choose to ignore it, so I am still not sure about your opinion. That question is irrelevant to my point and furthermore it's a distraction, so I will continue to ignore it. I have no interest in the tangent you are trying to redirect towards. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: fresh blood gets congested: long way to become DD
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:03:44PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: I notice that some of the statistics at http://nm.debian.org/ don't make sense. They are in fact complete nonsense, because of the way they're calculated. I keep meaning to do something about it but never have time. As it stands, they don't really say anything useful. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Accepted icheck 0.9.7-1 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:28:17 +0100 Source: icheck Binary: icheck Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.9.7-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: icheck - C interface ABI/API checker Changes: icheck (0.9.7-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release Files: a3a435e79234decb8e2925303a090894 580 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-1.dsc 1be7b0fca5e61c48666303a8fb43238e 92226 devel optional icheck_0.9.7.orig.tar.gz 09af89878f9e8ddecb4256b0ecbfeee7 5079 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-1.diff.gz 7c67282af9dacafa0909c35ca2eae148 80274 devel optional icheck_0.9.7-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC7lwRlpK98RSteX8RAlOSAJ9Y/Iih26OAutGdZvIJ3w0LratEPACfUB4W hu9Q4w8hDr2PrCTTXb5DSHM= =BO4u -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: icheck_0.9.7-1.diff.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-1.diff.gz icheck_0.9.7-1.dsc to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-1.dsc icheck_0.9.7-1_i386.deb to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7-1_i386.deb icheck_0.9.7.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.7.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted icheck 0.9.5-1 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:48:26 +0100 Source: icheck Binary: icheck Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.9.5-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: icheck - C interface ABI/API checker Closes: 318710 Changes: icheck (0.9.5-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release - Generate alignment attributes in arch-indep form (closes: #318710) Files: 6ed88a540799b13823a03decdddb70c3 581 devel optional icheck_0.9.5-1.dsc db0ee85631533a100275aca13447a812 89014 devel optional icheck_0.9.5.orig.tar.gz 2aebeabbc8e8ef919a8bb071f60c17c1 11991 devel optional icheck_0.9.5-1.diff.gz 4d367ed17c6aa539c70cd2444981d824 79088 devel optional icheck_0.9.5-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC7Q+elpK98RSteX8RAoTGAJwIPdU9Yf8DFewPD/zssvBZ6D3tngCfdXa/ 40fT7EjRF2enqaflRnUXp08= =5IPE -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: icheck_0.9.5-1.diff.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.5-1.diff.gz icheck_0.9.5-1.dsc to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.5-1.dsc icheck_0.9.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.5-1_i386.deb icheck_0.9.5.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.5.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted arch-buildpackage 0.1-3 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:16:55 +0100 Source: arch-buildpackage Binary: arch-buildpackage Architecture: source all Version: 0.1-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: arch-buildpackage - tools for maintaining Debian packages using arch Closes: 291630 Changes: arch-buildpackage (0.1-3) unstable; urgency=low . * Fix support for using different binaries instead of tla (closes: #291630) Files: 5592e9a1edc35b9102f5cb9312147586 600 devel optional arch-buildpackage_0.1-3.dsc 25cef184d832a8f75a569a3148777b6f 11586 devel optional arch-buildpackage_0.1-3.diff.gz cbc779945146f223f065b3ec84c551c7 9512 devel optional arch-buildpackage_0.1-3_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC7XnMlpK98RSteX8RAiXMAJ9IXFTIzzbc/19PjK0p2m71Dv9r5ACfV3sj jaOP0uBLh5jfkyKa9zCjuWo= =zeYk -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: arch-buildpackage_0.1-3.diff.gz to pool/main/a/arch-buildpackage/arch-buildpackage_0.1-3.diff.gz arch-buildpackage_0.1-3.dsc to pool/main/a/arch-buildpackage/arch-buildpackage_0.1-3.dsc arch-buildpackage_0.1-3_all.deb to pool/main/a/arch-buildpackage/arch-buildpackage_0.1-3_all.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted icheck 0.9.6-1 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:54:55 +0100 Source: icheck Binary: icheck Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.9.6-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: icheck - C interface ABI/API checker Closes: 318710 Changes: icheck (0.9.6-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release - Generate alignment attributes in even more arch-indep form (closes: #318710, again) Files: 7f4b249a72b66f3d94d2e88a410b9adf 580 devel optional icheck_0.9.6-1.dsc 4e48d196ede8107a757f4f1d2110a46c 90943 devel optional icheck_0.9.6.orig.tar.gz 6ca5eefa857e126245da9231d591062f 5027 devel optional icheck_0.9.6-1.diff.gz 6e5d2dffda9a0ff5b548cb21634cda4d 80396 devel optional icheck_0.9.6-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC7XoBlpK98RSteX8RAgxlAJ0crt0V98vEDaoCbv6uUaOnh32NwwCfTd81 8mC4bb4DxrTWFFsNycpfrqA= =lnYH -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: icheck_0.9.6-1.diff.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.6-1.diff.gz icheck_0.9.6-1.dsc to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.6-1.dsc icheck_0.9.6-1_i386.deb to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.6-1_i386.deb icheck_0.9.6.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.6.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Usability: Technical details in package descriptions?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 02:47:22PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 20-Jul-05, 10:47 (CDT), W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what do you think about the usefulness of technical (and other strange) details in package description? While mostly agreeing with the other comments (libbar is a C library is useful/appropriate; foo is a perl program is not.), I'd guess this is a symptom of a more general problem: far too many package descriptions are taken verbatim from the upstream website/whatever. This leads to the irrelevant technical details you noted, as well as unfounded hyperbola (Foo is the world's best baz mangler) and generally bad writing. Most of these are probably worth a wishlist bug, but ONLY if accompanied by a suggested improvement. Most such phrases I have seen can be 'improved' merely by deleting them. They're content-free. I guess you could provide patches reducing the description to one or two lines, but it seems kinda like a waste of effort. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cpufrequtils init script in rcS.d
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:52:52AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: Hi, * Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-15 10:50]: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:21:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Mattia Dongili | - setting the CPUFreq policy must be done as early as possible in the | boot process (IMHO) Why? This looks just like an opinion without any rationale. It's dumb anyway. If you wanted it set early, you'd have done it on the kernel command line. Maybe its a misunderstanding but what is the problem of setting it during the normal use of the system? There's no problem with setting it during normal use. It's just dumb to worry about how early you can persuade sysvinit to set it, since if you actually want it early, you can do it way before init starts. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cpufrequtils init script in rcS.d
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:21:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Mattia Dongili | - setting the CPUFreq policy must be done as early as possible in the | boot process (IMHO) Why? This looks just like an opinion without any rationale. It's dumb anyway. If you wanted it set early, you'd have done it on the kernel command line. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: no time for all debian tasks was: interacting with the press
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:03:00PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 17:57 +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: On 7/14/05, Christian Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anand Kumria wrote: Thanks for your comments -- however I don't think anyone should be able afraid to point out when a debian developer is obviously not able to satisfy all the Debian-related demands on their time; let alone their committments. First of all, in my opinion your mail never should have gone to -devel, but only to Martin Schulze and maybe to Branden Robinson. Why can't this be discussed in public? There are probably more people concerned about this then only him. Initially it is far better to air ones dirty laundry in the privacy of your own house than out in the Public. Due mainly to the fact of yellowish stains, brown streaks and in-human smells, or in other words Bringing to your attention before you embarrass him before a multitude of people. How exactly do you know that he didn't? Do you read Joey's mail for him? [That goes for all you other people saying the same thing] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#317722: ITP: libfile-nfslock-perl -- perl module to do NFS (or not) locking
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:12:53AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: Program based of concept of hard linking of files being atomic across NFS. No. Talk to debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Accepted tla 1.3.3-2 (i386 source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:56:17 +0100 Source: tla Binary: tla-doc tla Architecture: source i386 all Version: 1.3.3-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: tla- arch revision control system tla-doc- revision control system (documentation) Closes: 317603 Changes: tla (1.3.3-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Back out bogus change to libneon25; that wasn't supposed to hit sid yet (closes: #317603) Files: 7cd2d2bb4b995acb78fec0afd965a160 576 devel optional tla_1.3.3-2.dsc 52c5a0c74a098b66e7561599b9c877c0 10576 devel optional tla_1.3.3-2.diff.gz af1a93b9c20f3a758f641e4a4a39eb77 50188 devel optional tla-doc_1.3.3-2_all.deb 63691aa1f3c5c79b52d2d45478dd734d 283188 devel optional tla_1.3.3-2_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC0XbLlpK98RSteX8RAthtAKCHHUSDbn+9hSvNZhkcQv8srrd/xACeLJM8 HGM1XVq3XnRvLUwYrAXT2KI= =sACg -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: tla-doc_1.3.3-2_all.deb to pool/main/t/tla/tla-doc_1.3.3-2_all.deb tla_1.3.3-2.diff.gz to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-2.diff.gz tla_1.3.3-2.dsc to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-2.dsc tla_1.3.3-2_i386.deb to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-2_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to tell user default random pass for daemon?
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: Suppose you'd like to generate a random pass by default after your daemon is installed. How should you get that pass to the user? Is it allowed to write it to a file in root's home dir? Mail it to root. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Does Debian need a press office?
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:35:34AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: With the recent article from Zdnet, does Debian need a press officer or www.debian.org/press? If harm is done to the reputation to the Debian organization by word or deed, should there be someone to respond to this? Any legitimate news organization should do adequet fact checking and take a moment to ask some individual in Debian (or any org) for an offical comment. They found something 'newsworthy' and ran with it like a tabloid. I doubt they would do this with IBM! We are not second-class! It's zdnet. They'd do it even faster for IBM. zdnet are not journalists, they are an advertising shop. Their business is to attract as many banner ad views and clicks as possible, which they routinely do by posting controversial stories which later turn out to be false. It seems to be working. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:15:27PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote: Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is this really what we want? I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, though it was too late (May?) to accept that. I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. I second the motion. I realize that the goal of Debian is not to appease the unwashed masses. However, it seems logical (and warranted) to bump the major version number to indicate the dramatic differences between Sarge and (the to be released) Etch. I think multiarch would warrant a major version bump. Gcc 4 and X.org would not IMHO. I think that none of these things warrant a major version bump, and the Debian major version number should be increased with releases of fspanel. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Accepted icheck 0.9.4-1 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:48:39 +0100 Source: icheck Binary: icheck Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.9.4-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: icheck - C interface ABI/API checker Changes: icheck (0.9.4-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release - Include manpage Files: 837f638adcfc1bc90ab7ac3cc1651cb1 580 devel optional icheck_0.9.4-1.dsc 1a38e33430a78638a56d7ed313796c0e 75086 devel optional icheck_0.9.4.orig.tar.gz 41d83629a25bb8a82be50b6437d598ce 4838 devel optional icheck_0.9.4-1.diff.gz d2fb7bd7d3405c6eef0ba108e866276b 51964 devel optional icheck_0.9.4-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCzCo/lpK98RSteX8RAlJ3AKCL6DDEDxAJVyPMoSkWOBVKJSwSHQCfTLFn wE9dO1U5VaOUrxJ5vyeQ1dA= =Gt9P -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: icheck_0.9.4-1.diff.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.4-1.diff.gz icheck_0.9.4-1.dsc to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.4-1.dsc icheck_0.9.4-1_i386.deb to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.4-1_i386.deb icheck_0.9.4.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.4.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted icheck 0.9.3-1 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 21:28:06 +0100 Source: icheck Binary: icheck Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.9.3-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: icheck - C interface ABI/API checker Closes: 306078 308162 Changes: icheck (0.9.3-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release - Handles characters treated as integer values (closes: #308162) - Includes support for baseline files * On target for etch (closes: #306078) Files: 2f6bdbec255245b399ea060fec40b9a6 580 devel optional icheck_0.9.3-1.dsc a4bfe142e9e438b57de2e87e006c3857 72011 devel optional icheck_0.9.3.orig.tar.gz 715bdc9c5960a22be0c2e274882cabdc 4660 devel optional icheck_0.9.3-1.diff.gz 6b68d3b78d7c2b7b8d1d080d63fe02a4 48886 devel optional icheck_0.9.3-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCyEs6lpK98RSteX8RAlmYAKCIf633q6DQydO79VLDtsjne9iWpACZAbsk xqLjKAH+5gPDVwXJwyF+8Eg= =L2KC -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: icheck_0.9.3-1.diff.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.3-1.diff.gz icheck_0.9.3-1.dsc to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.3-1.dsc icheck_0.9.3-1_i386.deb to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.3-1_i386.deb icheck_0.9.3.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/i/icheck/icheck_0.9.3.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted tla 1.3.3-1 (i386 source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 19:01:45 +0100 Source: tla Binary: tla-doc tla Architecture: source i386 all Version: 1.3.3-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: tla- arch revision control system tla-doc- revision control system (documentation) Closes: 239037 258671 278056 284660 289402 289692 292087 304792 314898 Changes: tla (1.3.3-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release (closes: #314898) - Documentation rewritten, all old bugs on the documentation are now obsolete (closes: #278056, #284660) - Local paths to make-archive are now absolutised (closes: #258671, #304792) - Dangling symlinks for the hook script are trapped (closes: #239037) - Stray declaration appears to be gone (closes: #289692) * We are now on target for sarge and etch, so bugs relating to woody are obsolete (closes: #289402) * Use /bin/bash, not /bin/sh (closes: #292087) * Update archive references in README.Debian * Bump to libneon25 Files: 4c0d9283bcb127d828ea5489df55 576 devel optional tla_1.3.3-1.dsc cc6c818dbb37271dbcf11c13e71f25cf 4343016 devel optional tla_1.3.3.orig.tar.gz 8c9cef9c645b21cbee90a2df499ad254 10620 devel optional tla_1.3.3-1.diff.gz f3fea71101105142fdb45c1cd8c1a5cd 50144 devel optional tla-doc_1.3.3-1_all.deb f701af28a61c655911a4787e276153de 283170 devel optional tla_1.3.3-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCyEl2lpK98RSteX8RArOMAJ4keHRhehGE4bRCGdS6vSa8u/cirwCfTtQS XZE5I/L2XvKM5IkpmTNnCa4= =Xyr/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: tla-doc_1.3.3-1_all.deb to pool/main/t/tla/tla-doc_1.3.3-1_all.deb tla_1.3.3-1.diff.gz to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-1.diff.gz tla_1.3.3-1.dsc to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-1.dsc tla_1.3.3-1_i386.deb to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3-1_i386.deb tla_1.3.3.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/t/tla/tla_1.3.3.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Why can't we leave this to the maintainer or even local admins though? These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the security of those users, and they have extreme BOFH power over them anyway. However, having the root appear by default, so that no-one at the remote site really knows it's there (who consults the root list) and it's now on Y thousand or million desktops - that is a different kettle of fish. You've missed the really interesting, really important case. What about the site admin team for X thousand desktops who produce a modified firefox package to be used across the whole company? This is the normal, expected usage of Debian. A quick reminder of what's at risk here: if the private key of a root cert trusted by Firefox became compromised, _any_ SSL transaction that any user trusting that cert performed could be silently MITMed and eavesdropped on. Let's be serious here. You've already got the verisign certificates, and you've got a helpful dialog box that appears whenever new certificates are presented to the browser such that the user can just whack 'ok' without reading it. SSL security on the internet at large is a myth. Anybody who trusts it is insane; the risks aren't very significant. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Meta-Tag for non-free docs bugs?
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:29:57PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: I'm currently planning to organise the removal of non-free documentation from Debian. There is not yet a timeline for when I plan to do a mass bug filing but I will try to prepare a list of affected packages soon. To be able to track the bugs automatically I propose to use some kind of meta tag in their subjects similar to the [INTL:language] tags used by some l10n teams. I would go for [NONFREE-DOC:license] where license is the acronym of the license (GFDL, OPL, CC-SA, etc.) Include the version number of the license in the tag. For some of them, we have reason to think that future versions may be free (since most of them don't have upgrade clauses, that will not fix the bug; an upload of some kind will be required for that) - but CC-SA2.0 will always be non-free. It would be a nuisance to have to update all the tags in the future. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:05:11PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Andrew Suffield | On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:32:36PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: | I therefore propose | that we do the following: | | * Don't install any screensaver modules whatsoever, except one that | shows a blank screen and turns off the monitor after a while. | | This is called 'power management', and is enabled by default on every | installation of X, last I looked (configure with 'xset dpms'). A | 'screensaver' is those things which display silly animations, and has | to be installed extra. | | So just don't install any screensavers. Why did you? Because dpms doesn't lock your screen and provide at least _some_ security. Ah, so you want a screen locker, not a screensaver? That's probably a valid point. We could use a decent generic X screen locker that didn't do any dumb shit. Just black the screen and wait for a keystroke. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ftp-master, ftp and db .debian.org moving - hosting sought
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 11:43:53AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Wed, June 22, 2005 11:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, June 22, 2005 10:25, James Troup wrote: o be a donation, i.e. gratis. Debian can't pay for it's own hosting. I was wondering about this statement. Debian receives monetary donations and owns quite a lot of money - wouldn't paying for critical parts of infrastructure like ftpmaster be money well spent? I think the point is that we ask for a donation before we spend money on it. Sure, but the statement quoted above rules it out entirely. can't pay is pretty definitive. I'm wondering why it's that certain that we can't pay for it. Furthermore, actually paying for it does not create a problem like now where the hosting gets cancelled suddenly. Hah, as if. When you're *paying* for hosting then they don't think twice about cutting your bandwidth/service/connectivity/power and/or confiscating your server without warning. Consumers are easily replaced. When it's donated then at least they feel bad about it; when you're a consumer then there is no such ethical problem for the host. Anyway, we don't have that kind of money. High-level hosting costs a fortune on a recurring basis. There are few things that could be fatal to Debian, but introducing a requrement for an income of several grand per month is one of them. Besides which, it makes economic sense to have the donation come from the hosting company, with no money changing hands. Anything else is grossly inefficient. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: TODO for etch ?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 07:22:08PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Florian Weimer may or may not have written... * Olaf van der Spek: You should set the clock using NTP *before* starting any daemons. Most daemons don't use monotonic clocks (I'm not even sure if Linux supports them at the required level), and some of them fail in strange ways if the system clock warps. Doesn't Linux or NTP support gradually changing the clock exactly to avoid such warps? Gradually skewing the clock doesn't exactly work that well if the offset exceeds a few minutes. You don't want to run with a wrong clock for hours or even days. Maybe ntp, ntpdate etc. should recommend adjtimex? adjtimex is pretty near useless and should not be used. It can make things worse rather than better, especially with the clocks in modern boxes (which are grossly inaccurate). Under *no circumstances* should adjtimex be used at the same time as ntpd. The clock will jitter all over the place because they won't agree and will keep slewing it in opposition to each other. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: TODO for etch ?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:48:14AM +0200, Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote: Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Florian Weimer may or may not have written... Gradually skewing the clock doesn't exactly work that well if the offset exceeds a few minutes. You don't want to run with a wrong clock for hours or even days. Maybe ntp, ntpdate etc. should recommend adjtimex? ntp has its own sophisticated logic if skewing, but does not correct offsets 500 sec (AFAIK). Having your BIOS clock at local time (e.g. UTC+1), then installing Linux with configuration system clock = UTC, will remain a falseticker. Even offsets of some minutes need a long time to be corrected by ntp. That's not really true, it's just the default configuration. Actually the default configuration in Debian is pretty sucky. It assumes that ntp is used in combination with ntpdate - but ntp upstream is of the considered opinion that this is a bad plan. Nowadays, I always change it to add the -g option to ntpd (disabling the 1000s limit) and the iburst option to the config file (causes ntpd to sync up in seconds when it starts up, instead of hours, before entering normal operation). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian concordance
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system, particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some poking in this area about a year ago, which involved tracking when individual symbols were added to a package -- apparently, many packages would actually be happy with glibc 2.1 or so (at least on i386), but we have no way to track this... I was just thinking the same with this thread ... The principal problem with the shlibsyms stuff was that in order to track when symbols are added to a package, you need the list of the set of symbols that were in the last version -- and as the source packages are put together before the binary, the source package wouldn't contain the updated set of symbols. Once we begin to deploy icheck, we will have all this information. Haven't yet figured out how to do anything with it. It is not sufficient to track when symbols are added to a package. You must also check when their meaning changes. I have not yet been able to find a way to do this on a per-symbol basis, only a per-library one (I can find examples that break all the 'obvious' approaches). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian concordance
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system, particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some poking in this area about a year ago, which involved tracking when individual symbols were added to a package -- apparently, many packages would actually be happy with glibc 2.1 or so (at least on i386), but we have no way to track this... I was just thinking the same with this thread ... The principal problem with the shlibsyms stuff was that in order to track when symbols are added to a package, you need the list of the set of symbols that were in the last version -- and as the source packages are put together before the binary, the source package wouldn't contain the updated set of symbols. Once we begin to deploy icheck, we will have all this information. Haven't yet figured out how to do anything with it. It is not sufficient to track when symbols are added to a package. You must also check when their meaning changes. I have not yet been able to find a way to do this on a per-symbol basis, only a per-library one (I can find examples that break all the 'obvious' approaches). However, breaking the meaning of any symbol is supposed to mean that we punt by changing the soname, no? The notable exception would be glibc, which is the really interesting case here. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:54:40AM +0200, Miros/law Baran wrote: 17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The S in DFSG does not stand for copyright, it stands for software. Software usually contains copyrighted code, and sometimes it also contains trademarked names or images. You can argue that the DFSG does not apply to trademark restrictions, but I hope you have a better reason than S stands for Copyright. You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you can't distribute modified versions. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. the problem is, that most of these sexual pictures or whatsoever are created and even provided because they're offending. maybe not to offend somebody directly, but rather because offending material is that popular. That's simply another way to say that the group of people who are offended is a minority. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:53:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: In fact, most of the effectiveness of SBL-XBL really comes from the CBL, as shown by the widely known statistics: http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/Blacklists_Compared.html Statistics which list only hits, and not false positives or false negatives, pretty much speak for themselves (and the people who cite them) as to their relevance. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a crit : You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. That would be the part where the trademark holder tells you that you can't distribute modified versions. The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they are ready to give us this right because they trust us). After they first told us that we couldn't distribute modified versions, that was one of several outcomes of debian-legal's investigation into this matter, yes. There were several others, too. Oddly enough, I *do* know what happened. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
