Steve Robbins wrote:
I'd be happy just copying the file(s) that make up the database from
an installed machine to the new machine. Is it possible? Which files?
Yes, /var/lib/debconf/*.db
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Michael == Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael It's still mention in Suggests: etc. but the package is
Michael not listed in the Packages files anymore. Just a
Michael temporary situation or a real problem?
Bit of both. prc-tools failed to build on sparc so BenC did any
Hello, I'm Kyle Lynch, ive worked with Debian for a little while, it beats
all the other dists :)
Anyway, I'm wondering, is there any need for a website redesign or any icon
needs? I have Adobe Photoshop and I am a expert at it. I use Macromedia
Dreamweaver and I would LOVE to help this great
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 07:40:43PM -0700, Kyle Lynch wrote:
Hello, I'm Kyle Lynch, ive worked with Debian for a little while, it beats
all the other dists :)
Anyway, I'm wondering, is there any need for a website redesign or any icon
needs? I have Adobe Photoshop and I am a expert at it. I
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, IMO, anything that goes on the Debian website better be
created by free software. No offense, but if I start seeing Made
with Macromedia or Designed with Photoshop on the website, there
will be hell to pay :)
It seems very strict to require that
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 11:53:41PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, IMO, anything that goes on the Debian website better be
created by free software. No offense, but if I start seeing Made
with Macromedia or Designed with Photoshop on the website,
pgpvnKDzHpbJ2.pgp
Description: PGP message
pgpGP9OV5n0Fn.pgp
Description: PGP message
Then it must also be true that one cannot copy and then distribute, or
distribute and then copy. Have you attempted to challenge them on this
point? Do they have English professors at UWash, or just semioticians?
I never thought of this argument. It could be a good point to raise
Their position was that the words permission to copy, distribute and
modify do not grant permission to distribute a modified version. In
other words, they say you can distribute the software, and you can
modify the software, but you can't modify it and then distribute the
Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Well, IMO, anything that goes on the Debian website better be created by
free software. No offense, but if I start seeing Made with Macromedia or
Designed with Photoshop on the website, there will be hell to pay :)
There are several criteria for the
As the gpm maintainer I will try and stay polite and explain some
things.
snip
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 07:46:51PM +0200, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
I had the same problems when using the new defaults (-R ms3 and
Intellimouse on /dev/gpmdata).
Can you please give specifics?
Another nasty thing
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Well, IMO, anything that goes on the Debian website better be
Ben created by free software. No offense, but if I start seeing
Ben Made with Macromedia or Designed with Photoshop on the
Ben website, there will be hell to pay :)
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 12:54:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
God, this is a far cry from the early days of the FSF.
The world of computing is a different place than it was 15 years, and the
FSF has played an ever-increasing role in changing it.
--
G. Branden Robinson |I
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 12:45:48PM +0200, Vincent Zweije wrote:
Hello Debian developers.
I have a program for which I wish to build a .deb package. However, I
do not wish this to be in Debian proper[*]. Should this package install
under /usr/local or simply under /usr? I think under
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
P.S.: Please can you go without the PGP stuff for the mailing list? It
seems to double the size of your messages. Thanks.
I'd like to see Overfiends response to this.
--
Michael Beattie
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:44:16PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
This was what I had to write to make a Packages file in a flat dir:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/public_html/debian$ dpkg-scanpackages . override ./
Packages
You don't have to supply a third argument.
and /dev/null works fine for the
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 06:49:22PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
Roland Bauerschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 07:10:30PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
As I said above, debconf is in standard.
Sorry. I didn't know that. Dpkg and apt-cache still claim that it is
in optional:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:32:26PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:49:27PM -0700, Michael Meskes wrote:
Could anyone please explain this to me? Did Corel do anything to their files
that makes apt think it has to upgrade although its up-to-date? Or is this
a bug in
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 12:54:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
God, this is a far cry from the early days of the FSF.
Branden The world of computing is a different place than it was 15
Branden years, and the FSF has played an
Hello.
Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
-rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz
It's about 25% can be saved in download.
wbr, Serge.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Thus spake Sergey I. Golod ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
-rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz
It's about 25% can be saved in download.
Yeah, but I guess
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 03:15:10PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
Hello.
Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
-rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz
It's about 25% can be saved
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Thus spake Sergey I. Golod ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
-rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz
It's about 25% can be saved in
David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 03:15:10PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
Hello.
Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
-rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1024180 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.gz
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 04:51:53PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Thus spake Sergey I. Golod ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
-rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
-rw-r--r--1 root root
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 12:54:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Well, IMO, anything that goes on the Debian website better be
Ben created by free software. No offense, but if I start seeing
Ben Made with Macromedia or Designed with
Today, Jacob Kuntz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
does mozilla support SMILE? that's syncronized multimedia event language,
a W3 consortium stanard that tries to do much of what flash is capable of.
IIRC, only these programs officially support SMIL at the moment
(http://www.w3c.org/AudioVideo/):
Franklin Belew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If debian isn't even good enough to make our own web pages, how is that
going to look in the public eye?
'Yeah, our distribution kicks ass but our web pages require Windows2k
and X proprietary software programs to produce'
Get a grip
Ben Collins wrote:
Yeah, but I guess it would take about twice the time to unpack. Please
don't do that to my poor 486 :-((
But extra size = extra traffic = extra money, that's worse. Unpack no cost
at all
(except you time, ofcourse).
wbr, Serge.
p.s. If Debian change
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:09:27PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
Ben Collins wrote:
Yeah, but I guess it would take about twice the time to unpack. Please
don't do that to my poor 486 :-((
But extra size = extra traffic = extra money, that's worse. Unpack no
cost at all
Previously Sergey I. Golod wrote:
Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
dpkg doesn't read the Packages file, libapt-pkg and dselect do.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience
Hi
I've got a problem with rsync. The same thing happens with all the
mirrors I have tried. I'm using rsync 2.4.3 from woody.
Other info below.
Thanks
--
Rob Murray
Script started on Fri Sep 1 14:41:59 2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/hda6/realhome/debian/test$ rsync --version
rsync version 2.4.3
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:24:04AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
Now, we cannot save that much. Your example of compressing pure text is
not a measure of this whole archive. I've tested it, and converted an
bzip2 does great with sources. Packages maintainers can put large amounts of
code in bz2 and
Christian T. Steigies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What does it do?
It has the same functionality as the date (1) program, only... It
has it in grammatically correct latin.
Couldn't this be done with gettext and the normal date comand?
--
Peter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'ld prefer keeping 755 as a default.
I prefer 755 too. Peeking in others configuration files has been one
of my best way of learning new programs at uni.
I prefer a singel 'users' group for users as standard too, but lets
not change the default
Package: project
Version: 2903
Severity: wishlist
the install/update system policy is too dificult to deal while wishing
to internationalize, the dpkg's and other tools' implementation should
be reviewed for a easier internationalization of the packet managing
process.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Package: project
Version: 2903
Severity: wishlist
We have a project in Brazil to translate Debian to portugues with
more than twenty people helping. We want to dpkg, dselect, apt support
descriptions in portuguese.
Thanks Debian People for so great dist.
-- System
Hi,
I intend to package Country Codes 1.0.3, a text-based ISO3166 country code
finder (yes, I know there is a Perl module that does the same, but this
little tool is easier and more flexible). The package is actually already made
and lintian clean. It can be downloaded from
Andreas Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
None of them look DFSG-Free to me. Nonetheless, SMIL _is_ a nice tool
to produce something multimedia-ish. Hopefully, somebody writes a
DFSG-Free player in the near future -- but it won't be me, I don't
need it (-:
JFTR:
Hi,
In my never ending quest to get flamed over the WNPP, the next phase
is moving orphaned packages to project/orphaned. I intend to
generate weekly reports straight out of the WNPP information
contained on the BTS and mail them to debian-devel-announce. The
attached file is the
Their position was that the words permission to copy, distribute and
modify do not grant permission to distribute a modified version. In
other words, they say you can distribute the software, and you can
modify the software, but you can't modify it and then distribute the
Is there any difference between the packages in
deb http://ANY.DEBIAN.MIRRIR/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
and
deb http://security.debian.org/ potato/updates main contrib non-free
Thanks,
Igor Mozetic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:09:45PM +0200, Igor Mozetic wrote:
Is there any difference between the packages in
deb http://ANY.DEBIAN.MIRRIR/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
and
deb http://security.debian.org/ potato/updates main contrib non-free
Yes.
--
Mike Stone
pgpzFNgreH9vi.pgp
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:06:34PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 03:15:10PM +0600, Sergey I. Golod wrote:
Hello.
Why apt/dpkg doesn't use bzip2 for Packages file?
-rw-r--r--1 root root 749427 Sep 3 00:56 Packages.bz2
David Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Well, some of us don't have that problem - most Americans have flat rate
connections.
i think he was referring to cost of storage, not cost of transfer.
--
Jacob Kuntz
underworld.net/~jake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Regarding the severity of the ftp.debian.org bug: important.
Rationale: in the general case, packages that managed to get to this
state are non-interesting (otherwise they would have been adopted
already). That means
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
It's about 25% can be saved in download.
Standards reasons - gzip is essential: yes on Debian, and is required for dpkg
anyway. bzip2 is still priority optional, and it hasn't gained enough usage
through other channels to be raised to standard.
For
Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The packages file is the smallest part of the downloads -- What about the
debs?
it may be small but it's probably the file that gets transfered the most,
espically if you run unstable.
--
Jacob Kuntz
underworld.net/~jake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Have you ever seen the header of a JPEG output from PhotoShop?
Ben It's full of advert/copyright for the program that created it. A
Ben tell tale sign you can get away from without some sort of strip
Ben program, which IMO is just cheating.
Actually, all im trying to say is, how can I help make icons for projects
or at least help maintain the website?
X-Envelope-Sender:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: emacs 20.7.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Time: Sun Sep 3 00:54:34 2000
Mail-Copies-To: never
To:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, all im trying to say is, how can I help make icons for
projects or at least help maintain the website?
Probably you should discuss about that on debian-www list. Also you
can check bug reports for pseudo package ``www.debian.org'' on
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
The follwing packages need a new maintainer:
hugs (68186), 33 days old
hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old
I was under the impression that I was taking care of these two
(although I haven't done much with them. Tony
On 2903T125642-0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
The follwing packages need a new maintainer:
hugs (68186), 33 days old
hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old
I was under the impression that I was taking care of
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:55:32PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
P.S.: Please can you go without the PGP stuff for the mailing list? It
seems to double the size of your messages. Thanks.
I'd like to see Overfiends
William Lee Irwin III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hugs (68186), 33 days old
hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old
I was under the impression that I was taking care of these two
Package: hugs
Maintainer: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: hugs-doc
Maintainer:
56 matches
Mail list logo
