ti, 2009-03-24 kello 17:50 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
I am expressing my opinion now, on a mailing list devoted to
debian development. I have not been keeping up witht eh bureaucratic
rigmarole that seems to be being wrapped around discussions, not after
we got the notice
ke, 2009-03-25 kello 01:32 +, Noah Slater kirjoitti:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm curious... What do you think *is* the Debian way of doing things
like this ?
Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP was needless bureaucracy.
I'm hardly likely
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Kalle Valo kalle.v...@iki.fi wrote:
Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com writes:
As a lot of you know we have a new regulatory implementation for Linux
wireless now [1]. We have kept the old regulatory implementation
through a Kconfig option,
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, nescivi wrote:
Given that there are several audio oriented distributions based on Debian
(e.g. 64studio and pure:dyne) that would benefit from this, and I am sure
their teams may be interested in helping to support it too.
IMHO it makes perfectly sense to try to join
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:20:59PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There are 215
packages waiting [1] about half of which have been there 3 or more
weeks.
FWIW, my lastest NEWs (emerged in the last few days) took between four
and six
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
Last time I poked them it seemed it was not easy to figure out how to
deal with, if at all, the optional but recommended RSA signature stuff
[1] with the DFSG.
[1]
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
Last time I poked them it seemed it was not easy to figure out how to
deal with, if at all, the optional but recommended RSA signature stuff
[1] with
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
Last time I poked them it seemed it was not easy to figure out how to
deal
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There are 215
packages waiting [1] about half of which have been there 3 or more
weeks.
NEW is being processed almost daily.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:12:10AM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There are 215
packages waiting [1] about half of which have been there 3 or more
weeks.
NEW is being processed almost daily.
Deng Xiyue manphiz-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org writes:
IMHO, except package with just SONAME bump, packages in NEW queue are
better processed in a FIFO manner. Just my two cents.
Most of the time this is the case. But, if you upload a large, complex
package, that might get passed by for a
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:02:18PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
IMHO, except package with just SONAME bump, packages in NEW queue are
better processed in a FIFO manner. Just my two cents.
Most of the time this is the case. But, if you upload a large, complex
package, that might get passed
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems
the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation
for it.
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
2009-03-25 (수), 16:55 +0800, Deng Xiyue:
IMHO, except package with just SONAME bump, packages in NEW queue are
better processed in a FIFO manner. Just my two cents.
OTH, do we really need a manual check for SONAME bump? Was there any
upload rejection in the past on new binary package addition
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:11:03AM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
Obviously this is causing starvation. Maybe one ftpmaster should always work
from the back of the queue, or they should make sure to always process one
package from the back of the queue for every three from the front?
That's not
Jonathan Wiltshire deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk writes:
I enquired previously about whether we might have some developers
assist the ftpmasters by pre-assessing packages and reporting
appropriately, which might ease the process. I don't know if this would
actually help them or just duplicate work,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There are 215
packages waiting [1] about half of which have been there 3 or more
weeks.
It might be worthwhile reflecting upon what purpose the queue has. In
a
On Mittwoch, 25. März 2009, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Munin ... does not
support alerting
It does. Directly or via nagios.
regards,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:11:03AM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
Most of the time this is the case. But, if you upload a large, complex
package, that might get passed by for a while so that several small,
easy packages might be processed in the same time.
Obviously this is causing
Andreas Tille wrote:
After reading the documentation, I still don't know if a blend is useful for
us. Blends seem to be some kind of cooler tasks, is that true?
Well, the terminology was taken over from tasksel at some former point
in time - but it is a little bit more.
Could you elaborate
Hello,
Looks like oprofile needs a rebuild .
$ opreport
opreport: error while loading shared libraries: libbfd-2.18.0.20080103.so:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
$ dpkg -L binutils | grep libbfd-
/usr/lib/libbfd-2.19.1.so
I’m told libbfd.so is a
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 11:08:28 Stefano Zacchiroli, vous avez écrit :
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:11:03AM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
Most of the time this is the case. But, if you upload a large, complex
package, that might get passed by for a while so that several small,
easy
Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, nescivi wrote:
Given that there are several audio oriented distributions based on
Debian
(e.g. 64studio and pure:dyne) that would benefit from this, and I am
sure
their teams may be interested in helping to support it too.
IMHO it makes perfectly
Hi,
Now we're talking about improving Debian for multimedia, realtime
kernels and the like, I thought let's make some work on more things to
overcome some dissadvantages of Debian for audio production compared to
other distro's.
Why is such a core app and also beautiful app as Ardour is,
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
I have several very small ocaml packages waiting in NEW for several
weeks now. I am upstream on these packages, and, honnestly, it takes
few minutes to check them (only 3 files of code in tarball).
There are currently 46 packages in NEW which have
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:58 +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Why is such a core app and also beautiful app as Ardour is, not even in
Debian stable or testing? This is a big problem imo and it should be
solved as soon as possible. I can't imagine that there is a real
problem, cause I know
Hi,
part of the debconf stuff in our packages is the config script. This
script's purpose is to ask the sysadmin questions via debconf. The
action should then happen in the postinst maintainer script.
The way our buildds work right now is that the host apt and host dpkg
are asked to install
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I’m told libbfd.so is a private/internal library of binutils that should
not be dynamically linked against. A static version exists (libbfd.a),
and packages should be using that AFAIK.
Cc'ing -devel in case there’s a reason it should not
* Paul Wise [Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:29:10 +0900]:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I’m told libbfd.so is a private/internal library of binutils that should
not be dynamically linked against. A static version exists (libbfd.a),
and packages should be using that AFAIK.
Grammostola Rosea rosea.grammost...@gmail.com writes:
Shouldn't plain Debian also support those Pro audio Firewire devices,
the ones the FFADO team are making drivers for?
Debian as a whole probably not. However interested contributors are
strongly encouraged to help the debian kernel
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit? From what I gather (after reading the docs and
skipping through the pages you have referenced), all I see are tasks (enhanced
with metapackages with Recommends), and a nice web frontend. I'm pretty sure
I'm missing something
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:32 +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
My personal experience is not consistent with this.
I have several very small ocaml packages waiting in NEW for several weeks now.
I am upstream on these packages, and, honnestly, it takes few minutes to
check
them (only 3 files of
I was requested to forward the following mail by Sven Luther:
- Forwarded message from Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr -
From: Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr
To: Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org, listmas...@debian.org
Cc: Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
o Is the fact that the config script is run on the host a bug in
apt-get, dpkg, debconf, or apt-utils?
dpkg-preconfigure is part of the debconf package, and gets called using
the following configuration setting:
/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf:
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs
On Wed, Mar 25 2009, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ke, 2009-03-25 kello 01:32 +, Noah Slater kirjoitti:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm curious... What do you think *is* the Debian way of doing things
like this ?
Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP
On Wednesday 25 March 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
dpkg-preconfigure is part of the debconf package, and gets called using
the following configuration setting:
/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf:
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs {/usr/sbin/dpkg-preconfigure --apt || true;};
You can probably just remove this
Sven Luther dijo [Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:01:17AM +0100]:
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
were handled.
But the reason for this are in no way related with the number of
seconds, but
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
I read this on the Debian multimedia mailinglist:
Unfortunately lenny was already freezed by that time, and although
both of the above updates were really safe (IMO) and despite all the
efforts I and especially Reinhard put into convincing the release
managers, we are
2009/3/25 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:58 +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Why is such a core app and also beautiful app as Ardour is, not even in
Debian stable or testing? This is a big problem imo and it should be
solved as soon as possible. I can't imagine
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debian?
What's good for Debian is good for us :-) but the Debian project may
not want to tweak the kernel or the FireWire stack just for the
benefit of FFADO users. In the 64 Studio
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:44:55PM +0100, sean finney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:52:28AM -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort (or similar tools, make sure
they're
sorted in a way as dpkg would sort the versions) | while read i; do
git-import-dsc
Le Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:12PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa a écrit :
Most of the REJECTs are very trivial, so any peer review helps to spot
them. I'd say that 90% of the REJECTs are simple the package contains
license X files but X isn't listed in debian/copyright. Spotting
these before the
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francesco Paolo Lovergine fran...@debian.org
* Package name: dans-gdal-scripts
Version : 0.14
Upstream Author : Dan Stahlke
* URL : http://www.gina.alaska.edu/projects/gina-tools
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C++
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:13:42PM +, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:44:55PM +0100, sean finney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:52:28AM -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
find . -type f -name 'foo*.dsc' | sort (or similar tools, make sure
they're
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:18:20PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
This raises some questions:
It might also explain why someone found sbuild-createchroot was
running apt-get upgrade on the host system.
- should config scripts be allowed to create/touch/modify files
(I think the answer here
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
What about:
General Resolution sponsorship requirements
sounds like package sponsorship requirements to me. therefore i suggest
to be extra clear and change it to 'Requirements for General Resolution
Sponsorship'.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 06:18:00PM +0900, Changwoo Ryu wrote:
2009-03-25 (???), 16:55 +0800, Deng Xiyue:
IMHO, except package with just SONAME bump, packages in NEW queue are
better processed in a FIFO manner. Just my two cents.
OTH, do we really need a manual check for SONAME bump? Was
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32:23PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
I have several very small ocaml packages waiting in NEW for several weeks now.
I am upstream on these packages, and, honnestly, it takes few minutes to
check
them (only 3 files of code in tarball).
Of course, keep in mind, we
Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org (25/03/2009):
Yes, there have definately been times when packages are rejected from
NEW that only got there becuase of a package addition. I'd say its
common, even. If a package passes through new, then the maintainer
uploads without really paying attention to
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:18:46 Mike O'Connor, vous avez écrit :
I have several very small ocaml packages waiting in NEW for several weeks
now. I am upstream on these packages, and, honnestly, it takes few
minutes to check them (only 3 files of code in tarball).
Of course, keep in
On 2009-03-25, Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org wrote:
As a hint. When this happens, respond to the REJECT email you get when
you re-upload so that we know that there is a package we have already
checked, so that we know you are re-uploading and addressing our
concerns.
If you want this,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:24:59PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org (25/03/2009):
Yes, there have definately been times when packages are rejected from
NEW that only got there becuase of a package addition. I'd say its
common, even. If a package passes through
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
were handled.
I understand the furstration
Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes:
This raises some questions:
- should config scripts be allowed to create/touch/modify files
(I think the answer here is no)
debconf-devel(7):
The config script should not need to modify the filesystem at all. It
just examines the state
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
There was clearly a need for those GR, so raisong the number of
seconders would just have the consequence to prevent us from voting on
important topics.
FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:44:19AM -0400, Mike O'Connor wrote:
yes, usually it should. It doesn't always. I have tried to file bugs
when I find them in the archive. The citadel related packages are a
recent example of this. Unfortunately they don't always get filed. In
my mind it would be
2009-03-25 (수), 11:13 -0400, Mike O'Connor:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 06:18:00PM +0900, Changwoo Ryu wrote:
OTH, do we really need a manual check for SONAME bump? Was there any
upload rejection in the past on new binary package addition cases?
Yes, there have definately been times when
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either
of those GRs (particularly 2008_002, which did indeed strike me as a
waste of the GR process).
Well, even if
Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org (25/03/2009):
[...] we are having trouble keeping up with the NEW queue wihtout
doing all of the source checks of packages not in the queue as you
seem to be suggesting we should possibly be doing.
Actually, that's not what I meant to suggest. :) I've been
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:24:59PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org (25/03/2009):
Yes, there have definately been times when packages are rejected from
NEW that only got there becuase of a package addition. I'd say its
...
And while the new package is kept out,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 08:50:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Personally, my first instinct would be to call that an RC bug, but I may
be missing some case where config needs to modify the file system.
Given that one of the original goals of all this was to allow the config
to be done on a
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There was a clear need for a clarification. Why we had to vote on the
clarification after Ganneff made it clear that it wasn't his intent to
implement prior to consensus is still highly perplexing
On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
For 2008_002 in particular, there was a clear need of such a decision,
since the previous announce had been made as if it was about to happen
while there was apprently no consensus for it.
There
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 05:30:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
I thought I'd sent out this mail, but apparently I did that when I had
just reinstalled my laptop and the mailsetup wasn't working yet. Sorry
about that.
Now almost a month ago, I asked Don Armstrong to create
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kel Modderman k...@otaku42.de wrote:
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 17:51:41 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25,
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 17:39:03 Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
Last time I poked them it seemed it was not easy to figure out how to
deal with, if at all, the optional but recommended RSA signature stuff
[1] with the DFSG.
Michael Meskes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:24:59PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org (25/03/2009):
Yes, there have definately been times when packages are rejected from
NEW that only got there becuase of a package addition. I'd say its
...
And while the new
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 17:51:41 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Last
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
Hi
I thought I'd sent out this mail, but apparently I did that when I had
just reinstalled my laptop and the mailsetup wasn't working yet. Sorry
about that.
Now almost a month ago, I asked Don Armstrong to create architecture
tags in the BTS. I've always felt
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 03:37 +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
And as its probably best to coordinate with Ubuntu, they have a
wireless-crda package which combines both into one package. Its
shipping for Jaunty.
And that's the only way to sanely package it (by combining the two pieces
upstream
Luk Claes l...@debian.org (25/03/2009):
Michael Meskes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:24:59PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
And while the new package is kept out, the package currently in the
archive might not be suitable at all. In the case of a single binary
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 03:57:49PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:44:19AM -0400, Mike O'Connor wrote:
yes, usually it should. It doesn't always. I have tried to file bugs
when I find them in the archive. The citadel related packages are a
recent example of this.
Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
Hi
I thought I'd sent out this mail, but apparently I did that when I had
just reinstalled my laptop and the mailsetup wasn't working yet. Sorry
about that.
Now almost a
On Thursday 26 March 2009 03:41:30 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kel Modderman k...@otaku42.de wrote:
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 17:51:41 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
Hi
I thought I'd sent out this mail, but apparently I did that when I had
just reinstalled my laptop and the mailsetup wasn't working yet. Sorry
about that.
Now almost a month ago, I asked Don
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Kel Modderman k...@otaku42.de wrote:
The DFSG seems to suggest that the source code to the regulatory database
should be modifiable and the derived work distributed under the same license.
It is my understanding that:
Debian probably won't need to build the
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Mike O'Connor wrote:
I cannot. I can say that I opened RC bugs and made sure others from the
FTP team and from Release and Stable Release were aware of exactly what
was happening. The uploader was upstream, so upstream was being made
aware as well.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:45:30AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 17:39:03 Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
Last time I poked them it seemed it was not easy to figure out how to
deal with, if at all, the
Russ Allbery wrote:
debconf-devel(7):
The config script should not need to modify the filesystem at all. It
just examines the state of the system, and asks questions, and debconf
stores the answers to be acted on later by the postinst script.
Conversely, the postinst script should almost
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
debian-volatile isn't an appropriate place for this because many
stable users don't use volatile and it is fairly important they are
kept up to date with this, kinda like the timezone database.
AFAIK, volatile.d.o _is_ the proper way to keep the timezone
Vincent Danjean wrote:
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
I read this on the Debian multimedia mailinglist:
Unfortunately lenny was already freezed by that time, and although
both of the above updates were really safe (IMO) and despite all the
efforts I and especially Reinhard put into
taste they need to be informed what to choose from. It's like a
restaurant
where you choose from a menu. Currently we are lacking a complete
multimedia
menu in Debian.
An menu entry for multimedia sounds good to me
(Ubuntu has an menu entry for 'multimedia production:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:43:51 +0100
Grammostola Rosea rosea.grammost...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw. why doesn't Ardour from unstable hit testing? This is normal for
packages in Sid after some time right? Now there is no Ardour in stable
AND testing.
All the information is available via the PTS for
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Kel Modderman k...@otaku42.de wrote:
The DFSG seems to suggest that the source code to the regulatory database
should be modifiable and the derived work distributed under the same license.
It
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually technically it could be a different person. I maintain crda
upstream and John maintains wireless-regdb upstream, for example. I
just need John's pubkey file which is non-binary. CRDA just reads the
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
taste they need to be informed what to choose from. It's like a restaurant
where you choose from a menu. Currently we are lacking a complete
multimedia
menu in Debian.
An menu entry for multimedia sounds good to me
(Ubuntu has an menu entry for
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:59:25AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 05:30:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I made a short overview of this on the wiki, at
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Debbugs/ArchchitectureTags
Got an extra ch in there?
That was pointed out on IRC,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:03:26PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Now almost a month ago, I asked Don Armstrong to create architecture
tags in the BTS. I've always felt that such a thing would be useful,
because often porters are unaware of architecture-specific bugs, simply
Andreas Tille wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
taste they need to be informed what to choose from. It's like a
restaurant
where you choose from a menu. Currently we are lacking a complete
multimedia
menu in Debian.
An menu entry for multimedia sounds good to me
(Ubuntu
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Grammostola Rosea rosea.grammost...@gmail.com writes:
Could you comment on this? I think it's the best when Ardour will hit
Lenny.
New packages are not in scope of the update policy of released debian
versions. So this is not going to happen.
Second
Grammostola Rosea rosea.grammost...@gmail.com writes:
Could you comment on this? I think it's the best when Ardour will hit
Lenny.
New packages are not in scope of the update policy of released debian
versions. So this is not going to happen.
Second option is as a Lenny backport.
That's
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
pkg-fonts-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Package name: ttf-umeplus
Version: 20090209-1
Upstream Author: UTUMI Hirosi utuhir...@yahoo.co.jp
URL:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Nothing against this but I used the term menu in a different than this
technical meaning. I hope this became clear in my mail.
That was clear, but it bumped up a old idea I had in my head ;)
Please take that idea serious...
To whom do you
On Mittwoch, 25. März 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Debbugs/ArchchitectureTags
I'm not sure renaming-and-redirecting is possible on the wiki; if it is,
someone please do so (and sorry for this mess).
done :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
* Kurt Roeckx [Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:52:22 +0100]:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
changes when in fact it is
Hi,
I'm finding that I can't keep up with devel but I would like to be able
to see a summary of consensuses (consensii?) that result from the
discussions, as well a final summaries of best practices (and changes
to them. Also a neat changelog of policy changes I should be aware of.
Basically I
(Sending a personal copy because you said that you weren't following
debian-devel easily. Apologies if this was a mistake.)
Daniel Dickinson csh...@brucetelecom.com writes:
I'm finding that I can't keep up with devel but I would like to be able
to see a summary of consensuses (consensii?)
I kind of got lost in this discussion. Is there a summary and debian
policy and debian reference patch so that those of us who are just
looking to do what we're supposed to do know what we are supposed to do
and how to do it?
Thanks,
Daniel
--
And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it
Is there any information on how the typical package is supposed to use
this new format, or (I'm a little confused on this) is it even in place
yet? If it's not in place how do we prepare for it?
Regards,
Daniel
--
And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early,
now I
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:18:51 -0400
Daniel Dickinson csh...@brucetelecom.com wrote:
I'm finding that I can't keep up with devel but I would like to be able
to see a summary of consensuses (consensii?) that result from the
discussions, as well a final summaries of best practices (and changes
to
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
