On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
have intelligent defaults.
im wondering if anyone can help me with bug #196563. the bug says that
xmllint is segfaulting on m68k. the reporter can reproduce the segfault.
i asked him for a backtrace, but gdb segfaulted. he was able to provide
strace output however. it seems that the bug manifests before the
program's
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:21:05 +0200, Thomas Wana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2003 16:51 schrieb Marc Haber:
Additionally, I would like to seriously propose establishing a
pre-upload interface to ftpmaster so that a developer could learn that
he is writing a package pending
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:32:29 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
In the past years, I have found it annoying that the eicar anti-virus
testfile is not available as aptable Debian package.
Why is this annoying?
Because it makes
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:06:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
install phase. Let the
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:57:19 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003, Marc Haber wrote:
Since eicar.com has no license and eicar doesn't seem to be interested
in clarifying its license, inclusion of the eicar test string in
Debian proper is out of the
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:05:02 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Additionally, I would like to seriously propose establishing a
pre-upload interface to ftpmaster so that a developer could learn that
he is writing a package
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 03:01:14 +0200, Yven Johannes Leist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find that to be a very unfair accusation, since at least to my eyes there
was nothing especially unfriendly, unreasonable or otherwise criticizable in
James rejection notice.
How would you react if somebody called
#include hallo.h
* Morten Brix Pedersen [Sat, Jul 05 2003, 01:49:38AM]:
Now, you force every maintainer to update the menu entries for
localisation, when will be the next time to change them again? Why
cannot you just recognize that the Free Desktop format is superior and
invest your
Marc Haber wrote:
Well that's the purpose of ITP-bugs against wnpp I think, because
they are CC'd to debian-devel for public review.
Please show me a single ITP bug number where ftpmaster has said this
package will not go into the archive, I will reject it on upload.
There's numerous ITPs where
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:05:39 +0100, James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the current state of affairs, I am pretty sure that such a
package will be rejected by ftpmaster. They pretty sure reject almost
everything I upload.
Since you didn't bother with
How would you react if somebody called work you did and that took a
few hours silly?
In the sweetest way possible, if all you lost was a few hours then I
don't see why you're (apparently) so very upset.
Many times I have seen contributions worth days or weeks of work
dismissed from software
Marc Haber wrote:
Because it makes debugging anti-virus software harder, and forces
maintainers of anti-virus packages to have their own means of
obtaining eicar.com for testing purposes
Debugging anti-virus software should be done by the maintainers thereof.
Why would a user need this?
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
It is my opinion that it would be a good idea to have that installer
package in Debian. Heck, if I wouldn't have that opinion, I wouldn't
have spent some of my time to build that package.
Additionally, I would like to seriously
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 199197 libgnome2-common
Bug#199197: bsdgames debian X menu entries depend on gnome-terminal, not in
testing (Sarge)
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `libgnome2-common'.
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 09:35]:
Marc Haber wrote:
Well that's the purpose of ITP-bugs against wnpp I think, because
they are CC'd to debian-devel for public review.
Please show me a single ITP bug number where ftpmaster has said this
package will not go into the
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:30:47PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Bullshit. It is common for RFCs to be revised over time, and
formulated into new documents. This license prohibits agencies other
than the IETF from revising an
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 10:50]:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Additionally, I would like to seriously propose establishing a
pre-upload interface to ftpmaster so that a developer could learn that
he is writing a package pending rejection
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:36:30PM +0800, ZHAO Wei wrote:
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:47, Ralf Treinen wrote:
I remember vaguely that there used to be a licence problem with
Moscow ML. What is its exact licence now?
Under the mosml/copyright directory, there are three license files:
1.
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:08:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 10:50]:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Additionally, I would like to seriously propose establishing a
pre-upload interface to ftpmaster so that a
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:26:17AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
How would you react if somebody called work you did and that took a
few hours silly? And Mr. Troup's appreciation of my work is
appropriately named in the directory name the package sits in at the
moment.
[EMAIL
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-05
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: tkgamma
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : Pixel Fairy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://pixel.fairyden.net/tkgamma/
* License : GPL
Description : A simple color
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:14:10 +0200, Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc Haber wrote:
Because it makes debugging anti-virus software harder, and forces
maintainers of anti-virus packages to have their own means of
obtaining eicar.com for testing purposes
Debugging anti-virus software
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 11:48:24 +0200, Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is there a copy somewhere else?
Yes.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Karlsruhe,
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:43:35 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's pointless, I think. If I were an ftpmaster I would not be willing
to render an opinion on a package before I actually saw the package,
especially if I were going to be held to that opinion later (and, if I
wasn't,
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 12:05]:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:08:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 10:50]:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Additionally, I would like to seriously propose establishing a
[Stephen Stafford]
We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
Freedom.
There seem to be two ways of interpreting the social contract. One
Hi,
is it usefull/ok to close old RFP/ITP-entrys? old means for me more
than year since the last mail for ITP, and 2 years for RFP. Of course
I would write mail first whether the package is still wanted or if the
packaging is still in order, and only close if no answer for a month.
Comments?
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:05:55 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
is it usefull/ok to close old RFP/ITP-entrys? old means for me more
than year since the last mail for ITP, and 2 years for RFP. Of course
I would write mail first whether the package is still wanted or if the
packaging is
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
is it usefull/ok to close old RFP/ITP-entrys? old means for me more
than year since the last mail for ITP, and 2 years for RFP. Of course
I would write mail first whether the package is still wanted
I do not think old RFPs should be closed, at
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:05:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The point of decoupling installation and configuration is to let the admin
choose which of these scenarios happen, instead of the distribution or
the maintainer. The first is appropriate if you're doing installs of many
systems
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Stephen Stafford]
We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
The discussion is only about global reasons, as wrong license, we
don't need this package or simmilar. This reasons could be discussed
before making the package quite as easy as afterwards.
OK, so basically you think ftpmaster
* Sam Hocevar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 14:50]:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
is it usefull/ok to close old RFP/ITP-entrys? old means for me more
than year since the last mail for ITP, and 2 years for RFP. Of course
I would write mail first whether the package is still
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Stephen Stafford]
We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
Folks,
I am near explosion. I am trying to sponsor the kmymoney2 package
found at ftp://shakti.ath.cx/debian/kde3.1-sid/kmymoney2 , but
I cannot build it. I am not a KDE user, so that may be the root of
the problem.
Here is the error I see all the time:
checking for Qt... configure: error: Qt
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:56:30PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
OK, so basically you think ftpmaster people should spend review each ITP for
such global rejection reasons, then? You can't expect this to happen in any
remotely timely fashion, at least not with this many ftpmasters and this
many
checking for Qt... configure: error: Qt (= Qt 3.0.2) (library
qt-mt) not found.
Try
./configure --with-qt-dir=/usr/share/qt3
and see if that helps. If it does then upstream is using a very old
admin/ directory which should probably be updated.
If the compilation then breaks because
also sprach Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.05.1556 +0200]:
./configure --with-qt-dir=/usr/share/qt3
i had
--with-qt-includes=/usr/include/qt3
--with-qt-libraries=/usr/lib
in there, but I still get the same error if I replace that with
what you wrote above... i can also write
problem status: still unsolved.
Hmm.. is it possible to post the section of config.log where the error
occurs?
b.
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior
notice? This program does nothing and should no longer be used.
As a rule I try to avoid causing less than 469 FTBFS bugs with any given
change I make to
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:01:25AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:32:29 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
In the past years, I have found it annoying that the eicar anti-virus
testfile is not available as
also sprach Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.05.1629 +0200]:
Hmm.. is it possible to post the section of config.log where the
error occurs?
I had read this file upside down, inside out, from left to right and
right to left. I found nothing. This time I immediately spotted the
problem:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003, martin f krafft wrote:
./configure: line 1: g++: command not found
configure:21244: $? = 127
This is, IMHO, a problem with autoconf, as it should really check
for g++ first.
Uh, this is not a problem with autoconf. It is a problem with upstream
calling
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior
notice? This program does nothing and should no longer be used.
As a rule I try to avoid causing less than 469 FTBFS bugs
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-05
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: e2tools
Version : 0.0.13
Upstream Author : Keith Sheffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://home.earthlink.net/~k_sheff/sw/e2tools/index.html
* License : GPL
* Mark Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 16:05]:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:56:30PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
OK, so basically you think ftpmaster people should spend review each ITP for
such global rejection reasons, then? You can't expect this to happen in any
remotely timely fashion, at
also sprach Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.05.1718 +0200]:
Uh, this is not a problem with autoconf. It is a problem with upstream
calling AC_CHECK_COMPILERS (which checks for all compilers) and ignoring
the results thereof.
ok. i'll have it sent upstream.
--
Please do not CC me
Uh, this is not a problem with autoconf. It is a problem with upstream
calling AC_CHECK_COMPILERS (which checks for all compilers) and ignoring
the results thereof.
ok. i'll have it sent upstream.
FYI, all upstream probably needs to do is update their admin/ directory with
a fresh
You place your page on address www.sobek-sobek.com unlawfully! Remove it
immediately or you risk juridical prosecution.
Sobek-Sobek.com q analytic service q [EMAIL PROTECTED] q +420605921227
q Bryksova 27, 19800 Prague 9, CZ
attachment: winmail.dat
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:02:13PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:14:10 +0200, Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc Haber wrote:
Because it makes debugging anti-virus software harder, and forces
maintainers of anti-virus packages to have their own means of
Le sam 05/07/2003 à 17:57, Martin Sobek a écrit :
You place your page on address www.sobek-sobek.com unlawfully! Remove it
immediately or you risk juridical prosecution.
Sobek-Sobek.com q analytic service q [EMAIL PROTECTED] q +420605921227
q Bryksova 27, 19800 Prague 9, CZ
Can you read
Dear Sir,
* Martin Sobek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030705 17:57]:
You place your page on address www.sobek-sobek.com unlawfully!
No we did not.
Remove it immediately or you risk juridical prosecution.
Please take a closer look at this page, or at least read the first
paragraph:
This is a
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:22:33PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Nobody said that ftpmaster must see all problems from ITP. But - every
problem that is seen at ITP time saves volunteer time for more usefull
things.
That actually appeared to be exactly what Marc was asking for when he
started
I'm using the following APT line
deb http://download.kde.org/stable/3.1.2/Debian stable main
When I update, the Release file is ignored by apt-get. Why is this?
Also, I can't seem to upgrade or install the new packages. What have
I done wrong here?
Thanks,
Shaun
# apt-get update
Hit
On 2003-07-05T11:36:31-0600 (Saturday), Shaun Jackman wrote:
Also, I can't seem to upgrade or install the new packages. What have
I done wrong here?
Blind shot:
$ apt-cache policy
$ man apt_preferences
And doesn't this question belong to users?
-towo
--
`But When I Am Off Duty I Will
On amd64, we currently have a biarch-gcc that builds 32bit binaries by
default, and 64bit ones with a -m64 option. Coding debian/rules for this
is pretty trivial but still requires some ugly architecture specific
hacks in each debian/rules.
These hacks can be troublesome if the default compile
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 10:14:10AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Debugging anti-virus software should be done by the maintainers thereof.
Why would a user need this?
i used it many times, for example to find out which archives are checked and
which not. In fact I even already wrote bugs for AV
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:56:30PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
OK, so basically you think ftpmaster people should spend review each ITP for
such global rejection reasons, then? You can't expect this to happen in any
remotely timely fashion, at least not with this many ftpmasters and this
many
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error Don't
use me as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to
care.
this will still create fail to build bugs for no good reason.
Greetings
Bernd
--
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:44:31PM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
I propose obtaining the gcc specific options from a dpkg-libinfo
(introduced by Gerhard Tonn's lib64 patches) or dpkg-architecture.
debian/rules can query for said options, and use them in order to build
for a given host
On Saturday 05 July 2003 09:26, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 03:01:14 +0200, Yven Johannes Leist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find that to be a very unfair accusation, since at least to my eyes
there was nothing especially unfriendly, unreasonable or otherwise
criticizable in James
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-05
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: png2ico
Version : 20021208
Upstream Author : Matthias Benkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.winterdrache.de/freeware/png2ico/
* License : GPL
Description :
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:44:31PM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
On amd64, we currently have a biarch-gcc that builds 32bit binaries by
default, and 64bit ones with a -m64 option. Coding debian/rules for this
is pretty trivial but still requires some ugly architecture specific
hacks in each
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error Don't
use me as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to
care.
this will still create fail to build
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:46:00AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:05:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The point of decoupling installation and configuration is to let the admin
choose which of these scenarios happen, instead of the distribution or
the maintainer. The
Summary
~~~
Resolvconf is a proposed standard framework for updating the
system's information about currently available nameservers.
Most importantly, it manages /etc/resolv.conf , but it does
a bit more than that.
Background and rationale
During the long discussion
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:26:43PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
OK, so basically you think ftpmaster people should spend review each ITP
for such global rejection reasons, then? You can't expect this to happen
in any remotely timely fashion, at least not with this many ftpmasters
and this
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:51:27PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error Don't
use me as the next step? That way all new
Am Samstag, 5. Juli 2003 21.51 schrieb Thomas Hood:
Summary
~~~
Resolvconf is a proposed standard framework for updating the
system's information about currently available nameservers.
Cool, I really like this idea.
the need to supply resolver information
to DNS cache programs such as
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:05:59AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-07-04 00:03]:
Please stop saying rude things like Please check foo to the people
who are trying to explain the state of play to you, because they are
right: it has been like this for a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:13:09PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
And I am arguing that there is no reason not to endorse RFCs just as
we endorse license texts. That last sentence is a personal judgement
that I would guess many Debian developers would find agreement with.
I wouldn't.
The best
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:54:20PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
I think non-free removal will seem more radical if it means that
Debian will no longer distribute RFCs on the
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:26:44AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error Don't
use me as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to
care.
No. Breaking 400+ packages so our uses cannot build them from
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
So, I assume that with that you mean that we have sacrificed one of our
core values as well? My. All this sacrifice is making me hungry. :P
Damn. That means some OTHER deity has been intercepting the products of
ritual slaughter on
Howdy,
The boost libraries have excellent documentation in HTML format.
Unfortunately, there is no make install equivalent to copy the files
into a nice place. Nor is it as simple as cp -a docs ... as the
files are intermixed with the source code. But there is a top-level
index.htm file, so I
On Saturday 05 July 2003 19:44, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
On amd64, we currently have a biarch-gcc that builds 32bit binaries by
default, and 64bit ones with a -m64 option. Coding debian/rules for this
is pretty trivial but still requires some ugly architecture specific
hacks in each
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:03:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian really needs a separate policy for works which are not
software.
We could have a policy for non-software, but it should still exclude
non-free things. What you are trying
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 09:35]:
Marc Haber wrote:
Well that's the purpose of ITP-bugs against wnpp I think, because
they are CC'd to debian-devel for public review.
Please show me a single ITP bug number where ftpmaster has said this
package will not
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:24:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-05
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: e2tools
Version : 0.0.13
Upstream Author : Keith Sheffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:53:55AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| The Debian Social Contract says Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software.
| If there are things in Debian that are not free or not software,
| then we may be
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:53:56AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
Except for the title, the DFSG is very content-agnostic. It can be
applied equally well to software, fiction, nonfiction, images, what have
you.
I think that's a feature. Apparently, some people think it's a bug.
--
G. Branden
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
What's about dh_undocumented looking like:
--
#!/bin/bash
if [ $FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED = 1 ]; then
echo You are still using dh_undocumented which is obsoleted.
echo Stop it.
else
echo You are using obsoleted dh_undocumented in your debian/rules.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
Fortunately, the situation you describe is unlikely to occur because few
people are perverse enough to make their software free but their
documentation very non-free.
/me falls into a fit of coughing
*COUGH*h
*COUGH*t
*COUGH*t
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 10:14:10AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Debugging anti-virus software should be done by the maintainers thereof.
Why would a user need this?
i used it many times, for example to find out which archives are checked and
which not. In fact I even
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:21:45PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
I will upload a stunnel4 package and a stunnel with Epoch tomorrow.
Excellent decision. :) Thank you.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist:
Andreas Barth wrote:
Marc is doing it the other way: He want an interface to reject a
package before substantial work has been spent on it. So there
shouldn't be this conflict any more, which would be a good thing.
Isn't this why ITPs are usually CCed to debian-devel?
Look what has been done
[Please direct any XFree86-specific followup to debian-x.]
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:46:00AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Yet another reasons for wanting to decouple installation and
configuration is if some hardware company (such as VA^H^H Emperor
Linux) wishes to ship Debian pre-installed on
Ralf Treinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
E2tools is a simple set of GPL'ed utilities to read, write, and
manipulate files in an ext2/ext3 filesystem.
please excuse my ignorance - what would be the advantage of these
tools over the core file utilities which use the VFS layer?
You don't need
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:22:33PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Mark Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 16:05]:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:56:30PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
OK, so basically you think ftpmaster people should spend review each ITP
for
such global rejection reasons,
Hi,
From time to time the question arises on different forums whether it is
possible to efficiently use rsync with apt-get. Recently there has been a
thread here on debian-devel and it was also mentioned in Debian Weekly News
June 24th, 2003. However, I only saw different small parts of a huge
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:01:14AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Thanks to Matt Zimmerman and Joe Drew, apt-listchanges will now display
NEWS.Debian entries for upgraded packages. They're displayed before the
regular changelog entries, and Matt plans to later let it be configured
to only display
Hi,
I accidentally deleted all the messages in my debian-user folder
sigh. However, I do remember enough of your original post to
(hopefully) enlighten you. I have also done the nasty cross-post
thing to -devel because I conclude with a thought on how to get the
package pool living up to its
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are borderline cases, such as the GFDL or free works in
non-editable formats (PS, PDF, in some cases even HTML), or licenses
or other documents of perceived legal relevance.
I have argued on debian-legal that licenses as applied to specific
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:57:35PM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
E2tools is a simple set of GPL'ed utilities to read, write, and
manipulate files in an ext2/ext3 filesystem.
please excuse my ignorance - what would be the advantage of these
tools over the core file utilities which use
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Summary
~~~
Resolvconf is a proposed standard framework for updating the
system's information about currently available nameservers.
Most importantly, it manages /etc/resolv.conf , but it does
a bit more than that.
You should think of a
Artur R. Czechowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:26:44AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error Don't
use me as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to
care.
No. Breaking
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Please direct any XFree86-specific followup to debian-x.]
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:46:00AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Yet another reasons for wanting to decouple installation and
configuration is if some hardware company (such as VA^H^H
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:33:52AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are borderline cases, such as the GFDL or free works in
non-editable formats (PS, PDF, in some cases even HTML), or licenses
or other documents of perceived legal relevance.
On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 17:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
So, I assume that with that you mean that we have sacrificed one of our
core values as well? My. All this sacrifice is making me hungry. :P
Damn. That means some OTHER deity
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
