Re: GDM, getty and VTs

2009-11-16 Thread Travis Crump
Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit : >>> Just because it is a tradition doesn’t mean it’s the correct way. >> So far I haven't seen any argument as to why it shouldn't be the correct >> way. > > It’s broken because: > * there are race

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

2009-05-10 Thread Travis Crump
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: >> If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser >> and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. >> Even knowing preci

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

2009-05-10 Thread Travis Crump
Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery was > heard to say: >>> I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. >> I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian >> warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally go

Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal

2006-06-05 Thread Travis Crump
> One would think that even developers that haven't been elected/appointed to certain positions don't get to do these things. Travis Crump[not a debian developer] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Please revoke your signatures from Martin Kraff's keys

2006-05-26 Thread Travis Crump
ywhere unless I really need to since it is really bad to lose it and doesn't fit in a wallet, not to mention my passport photo isn't a very good likeness being 9 years old whereas my license only last 4 years]? Travis Crump[not a DD, nor have I been to a keysigning] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Experimental or unstable.

2006-01-05 Thread Travis Crump
Nicolas François wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 02:03:37PM +, Simon Huggins wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 02:44:38PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: >>> * Marc Haber [Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:40:45 +0100]: Experience with adduser shows that no-one besides the maintainers themselves and t

Re: [RFC] xulrunner, shlibs, and dependencies.

2005-12-02 Thread Travis Crump
Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi > > As you may or may not know, I'm currently working on packaging > xulrunner, which is ought to be the central point for all future mozilla > technology, meaning that at more or less long term, all mozilla products > (firefox, thunderbird, etc.) will be built on top of it

Re: Status of libpng transition

2005-10-24 Thread Travis Crump
Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder, when latest wxwindows2.4 packages will be moved to testing. > If I look at > > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=wxwindows2.4 > > it is a valid candidate and the dependency from libpng should be fine > as well > > http://qa.debian.org/dev

Re: Everyone go test aptitude 0.3.4!

2005-10-01 Thread Travis Crump
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 05:48:14PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: >> I've just uploaded aptitude 0.3.4 to experimental. This is basically a >> release candidate for 0.4 -- if no nasty bugs crop up, it will be uploaded >> as >> 0.4 in unstable once the translators c

should changelogs be in chronological order

2005-01-16 Thread Travis Crump
Should changelogs be in chronological order or should they be in version number order? Specifically I just noticed that libtiff4's changelog is out of chronological order[attached for reference]. It seems that the maintainer was maintaining two branches: an experimental branch[3.6.1-3->3.7.0-

Re: Comparing FHS 2.3 and 2.1

2004-10-28 Thread Travis Crump
Ron Johnson wrote: On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 19:53 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: paddy wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:28:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:02:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: 5)== User specific configuration files for applications are stored in the user's hom

Re: Anyone interested in libical?

2003-10-13 Thread Travis Crump
Simon Richter wrote: Hi, Is anyone interested in adopting libical? It has been orphaned for 193 days (#187030). I wouldn't mind removing it, but mozilla build-depends on it (perhaps this can be changed, tho?). Mozilla builds fine without libical. What does happen, then? Will it still be able to

Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib

2003-09-08 Thread Travis Crump
Colin Watson wrote: ? I think that's a minimal specification for a correct installer package which does its work by creating Debian packages; unless you think that it's better for the installer package to spit out a .deb somewhere which you then have to install separately, which seems to me like a

Re: [debian-devel] Status of mICQ code audit

2003-04-25 Thread Travis Crump
Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-23 03:30]: If someone missed a meeting because a program they installed out of Debian had a time bomb in it, they would be justified in questioning their use of Debian, not just the application. No. They would be justified in que

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

2003-04-19 Thread Travis Crump
Marcel Weber wrote: Hans, I hope that the removal of these credits was a mistake and that they're going to be included in future releases of testing. ReiserFS is a really fine piece of software and anyone who helped with it's development should have the right to be credited if he or she wants so

Re: apt_preferences man page

2002-12-09 Thread Travis Crump
Thomas Hood wrote: If a target release has been specified, then APT uses the following algorithm to set the priorities of the instances of a package. Assign: priority 100 to the instance of a package that is already installed (if any)