Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]

2005-10-12 Thread Brian Kimball
Ben Armstrong wrote:

 This property of metapackages has always irked me.  If I install
 gnome and then remove gnome-games, I won't automatically benefit in
 the next release from any other goodies the gnome maintainers have
 added to gnome package.

Amen brother.

Why aren't metapackages using Recommends instead of Depends?  It seems 
like that would solve this, at least for us aptitude users.

  brian


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



Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)

2004-10-07 Thread Brian Kimball
On Wednesday 06 October 2004 04:12 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

 For example, a new set of virus definitions, we are told, may include
 a new library and a new strategy for catching viruses.  Makes sense
 to me.  But when you add that, are you just going to add in the
 latest upstream version of the virus-catcher?  In which case, you are
 *also* going to be adding in new substantive features, like say a new
 command-line syntax, or a new interface to the mail system, or other
 things that are not connected to catching a new category of viruses.

 It is *those* changes which are not allowed for security updates, and
 should not be allowed for these packages either.

Who wants to install Spamassassin-more-than-2-but-not-quite-3?  
Snort-more-than-2.2-but-not-yet-2.3?  This will just confuse your users 
and piss off upstream.

Oh, and how many new bugs will you create when you have to backport 
large chunks of code to avoid those dreaded new features that your 
users couldn't possibly want?

Either 1) allow new features when appropriate, 2) speed up the release 
cycle, or 3) leave this as a job for the unofficial repositories.

cheers,

brian




Re: Should MUA only Recommend mail-transfer-agent?

2003-08-06 Thread Brian Kimball
Eduard Bloch wrote:

 It is allowing _few_ users to work around a dependency
 which makes sence for everybody else, but is not really useful for
 _those_ few users in their special environment.

What few users?

What special environment?

Can anyone provide a real world example of a Debian system that will
have mutt but no mta (or other package that depends on an mta)?

This is all seems very contrived.




Re: Bug#60399: crashes on installation

2000-03-18 Thread Brian Kimball
Ben Collins wrote:

 That simply produces a tarfile. I was suggesting to actually extract,
 which unpacks the tarball itself.

 Anyway, if the problem is gone, it's going to be hard to track it
 down.

For the record, I did a clean install yesterday with the standard boot
floppies and experienced the same problem during dselect's installation
of all the standard packages.  I hit enter and saw that on the second go
around man-db unpacked just fine.

I don't have a spare machine lying around and don't feel like hosing my
man install so I can't go back and reproduce it.  Any clean install
would have the problem though, I guess.

(BTW, at what point should we trim To: and Cc:?  If I had sent this to
just the bug database and debian-devel would that have been enough to
have it propogate to the right people?)

--
Brian Kimball



Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)

2000-03-16 Thread Brian Kimball
Steve Greenland:

  Hmm, it's ok for you to misrepresent other people's arguments, but not
  the other way around, as follows:

Craig Sanders: 
   so why do you have a problem with infrastructure (i.e. package pools in
   one form or another) which makes it easier to build a snapshot image?

Steve Greenland:

  (And you *are* mispresenting my point, because you completely ignored
  the next paragraph where I spoke favorably about package pools.)

Here's what Steve wrote:

If you want to work on the unstable stuff, I think the
package-pool implementation would good place to start.

Craig Sanders:

 notice that i asked questions. it up to you to confirm or deny or ignore
 a question.

Statements are confirmed or denied, not questions.  Questions are
answered.

There's a gigantic difference between these two questions:

do you have a problem with infrastructure (i.e. package pools ...)?
why do you have a problem with infrastructure (i.e. package pools ...)?

You wrote the latter, which clearly misrepresents what Steve wrote.

You seem like a smart guy, so I can only assume you were being
dishonest, and not just incompetent.  Combine that with your
selfishness, your arrogance, and your excessive, unnecessary, and
juvenile obscenity, and here's what you get:

*plonk*

-- 
Brian Kimball



Re: Becoming a developer

2000-03-14 Thread Brian Kimball
Kenneth Scharf wrote:

 The program is QSSTV (the ONLY slow scan TV program
 that I know of that works on Linux.)  As the name
 implies, it is based on QT.  It now (version 3.0m)
 works with both qt1.44 and 2.0.2.  It is also GPL'ed. 
 Hope it can go in main, or at least contrib.
 The URL is 
 http://ourworld.compuserve/homepages/on1mh/qsstv

No, it is QPLed, not GPLed.  This is important because if it was GPLed
it wouldn't be distributable.

From qsstv.cpp:

 As this program is based on the Qt Free Edition, it is released under
 Q  Public Licence. Read this licence carefully before using,
 distributing or  modifying this program.  Included with this
 distribution is the QPL licence, a copy is also available at
 www.troll.no

-- 
Brian Kimball