* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 23:02]:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > the other hand side, the difference is only one week - and if nothing is
> > broken by that, we can freeze the kernel at N-110 also.
> i think comparing the kernel with the toolc
Thanks for your comments.
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:34:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:23:31AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> wrote:
> > 1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/3/55
>
> > Perhaps the idea of maintain a kernel with other distros is not bad,
> > if Ubuntu shows up as a
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:23:31AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> 1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/3/55
> Perhaps the idea of maintain a kernel with other distros is not bad,
> if Ubuntu shows up as a candidate, I would like to add Progeny, Linspire,
> Xandros, "DCC Allianc
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:27:25PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:01:03PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > (forgot to CC d-kernel on this)
> > On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
> > >
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:50:22 +0100, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-03 12:24:29]:
>> They are right: most probably they will find it easier to make
>> contributions to other projects.
> we need to promote the easy entry points to contributin
Please remove me from call-wave. Thanks, corkylinda54 ( Louis E. Grantham )
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I think the single-user system is the last one that alternatives handling
> should optimize for, since the *one* person who's going to know to type
> "nvi" instead of "vi", and the one person who can fix the alternatives if he
> doesn't like them, is the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/03/2006 10:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>>
>>>On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:59:12PM +0100, Andi Drebes wrote:
> Hi there!
> I'm currently developing an application for library management (real books,
> CDs, etc). I'd like to distribute it over the internet, because I think it
> could be useful to other users. As I'm using debian and like it prett
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:58:49AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 03-Jan-06, 00:46 (CST), Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
> > > other than swa
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> But yes, udev is the problematic case, altough i run 2.6.14 with sarge udev
> and it works.
AFAIK it should work with the default ruleset. It breaks only with
certain custom rules due to a bug in the libsysfs version used by udev.
So
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
> Le jeudi 29 décembre 2005 à 21:25 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit :
> > > You edit or add to the udev rules. These are usually used to set
> > > policy for whole categories of devices, but you can of course fine
> > > tune it, or replace all the stan
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other
> >> newer
> >> things newer kernels might require.
> >
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 05:28:15PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
> things newer kernels might require.
Notice that Linus recently expressed on LKML that udev and other userland
breakage on kernel upgrade is not to acceptabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
>> things newer kernels might require.
> OTOH, old kernel are buggy and out of date wrt modern hardware, and we
> lack the
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 00:17, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Given that backports.org seems to successfully track kernels on sid
> already (as per Steinar's comment), and given that I've heard Frans
> Pop mention the possibility of a sarge d-i update using 2.6.12,
Hmm. That needs a bit of cont
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:24:04 +0100
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Without the "current method sucks" comments please; saying "I
> > think the current situation could be improved by..." is much more
> > likely to get positive reactions.)
>
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le vendredi 30 décembre 2005 à 17:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
>> Something troubles me. You make unofficial packages while waiting for
>> official
>> packages. Aren't you DD ? Wouldn't uploading these unofficial packages
>> in unstable make them
On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
> things newer kernels might require.
OTOH, old kernel are buggy and out of date wrt modern hardware, and we
lack the manpower to backport for years fixes and new featur
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le vendredi 30 décembre 2005 à 17:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
>> Something troubles me. You make unofficial packages while waiting for
>> official
>> packages. Aren't you DD ? Wouldn't uploading these unofficial packages
>> in unstable make them
On Jan 03, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder how that's going to happen wrt udev and a couple of other
> things that, as of today, depend on a precise version of the kernel.
udev only depends on a "recent enough" version of the kernel (probably
2.6.15 by the time etch will be fro
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On 1/3/06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> > should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> > [...]
> > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:04:39PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal of
> > this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an implementation
> > which convinces them :) The release team deserves to be
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:13:37AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:52, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation
> > and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something
> > that works out just fine for ubunt
* Steinar H. Gunderson [Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:34:26 +0100]:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:45:16PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > 2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing (i.e. SATA just
> > starting to get implemented).
> The real question (IMHO) is probably whether it would be possib
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:09:18PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > And have you added stable-security into the equation ? Your choices of back
> > in
> > april are in part responsible for the abysmal situation in stable-security
> > with regard to kernels during these past months.
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:52, Sven Luther wrote:
> The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation
> and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something
> that works out just fine for ubuntu even, but which the current
> linux-2.6 common package infrastruc
Sven Luther wrote:
> And have you added stable-security into the equation ? Your choices of back in
> april are in part responsible for the abysmal situation in stable-security
> with regard to kernels during these past months.
Pedantically speaking, fjp made no d-i release decisions last April.
Sven Luther wrote:
> Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal of
> this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an implementation
> which convinces them :) The release team deserves to be informed about the
> possibility though.
Cite message-ids or irc l
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:33:44PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal
> > of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an
> > implementation which convinces them :
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:45:16PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> 2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing (i.e. SATA just
> starting to get implemented).
The real question (IMHO) is probably whether it would be possible to get
newer kernels into volatile. I'd guess "probably not", gi
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote:
> Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal
> of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an
> implementation which convinces them :)
Bullshit.
We (d-i team, mainly Joey) gave very good reasons why
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:26:02PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On 1/3/06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> > should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> > [...]
> > We will have a kernel whi
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:01:03PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> (forgot to CC d-kernel on this)
>
> On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
> > with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release ever
Hi there!
I'm currently developing an application for library management (real books,
CDs, etc). I'd like to distribute it over the internet, because I think it
could be useful to other users. As I'm using debian and like it pretty
much, I'd like to add it to the list of packages that debian oficia
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:32:12PM +0100, Maximilian Attems wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
> >
> > Why do you put the kernel t
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your mail. I just want to point out that we published the
> timeline already back in October, but of course, that shouldn't refrain
> us from changing it if this is necessary. :)
Yeah, i was already chidded (?) th
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(sorry for the previous empty posting)
> Already it should be possible, provided the d-i guys get their act together,
> to have a new d-i .udeb sets within 48 hours or less of a new upstream kernel
> release, altough the image build may take longer, and we h
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
>
> Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> should be together with the rest of base, i believ
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
>
> Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> should be together with the
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
> with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2
> month.
2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing (i.e. SATA just
starting to g
Hi,
thanks for your mail. I just want to point out that we published the
timeline already back in October, but of course, that shouldn't refrain
us from changing it if this is necessary. :)
[re-arranged the quote]
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 22:03]:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:
On 1/3/06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> [...]
> We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time with
> this plan, since there are
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> N-110 = Mon 7 Aug 06: freeze base, non-e
ti, 2006-01-03 kello 21:06 +0100, Josselin Mouette kirjoitti:
> Le vendredi 30 décembre 2005 à 17:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > Something troubles me. You make unofficial packages while waiting for
> > official
> > packages. Aren't you DD ? Wouldn't uploading these unofficial packages
> > in
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I no longer use this package myself. It would be better off with a maintainer who does use it.
Cheers,
Shaun
simulavr: Atmel AVR simulator
simulavr simulates the Atmel AVR family of micro-controllers,
emulates a gdb remote target, and displays register and memory
Le vendredi 30 décembre 2005 à 17:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> Something troubles me. You make unofficial packages while waiting for official
> packages. Aren't you DD ? Wouldn't uploading these unofficial packages
> in unstable make them official ?
I don't think we need more packages maintai
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libclass-meta-perl
Version : 0.52
Upstream Author : David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~dwheeler/Class-Meta-0.52/
* License :
Le jeudi 29 décembre 2005 à 21:25 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit :
> > You edit or add to the udev rules. These are usually used to set
> > policy for whole categories of devices, but you can of course fine
> > tune it, or replace all the standard rules with your own. The default
> > gives you all the
Scripsit Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>-c string If the -c option is present, then commands are read
> from string. If there are arguments after the
> string, they are assigned to the positional
> parameters, starting with $0.
Debian people are well aware of Ubuntu and their way of doing things. No
need to point it out.
As for your problem, please post to debian-user or other more apropriate
mailing list and describe it as precisely as you can. Debian-devel is
for internal development of Debian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Le mercredi 28 décembre 2005 à 23:49 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit :
>> You'll only get mails if the sender sends to ###-submitter.
>> Mail sent to just ### is not forwarded, and only stored.
>> This is not a bug in the software, but in the person sendi
Thanks for your answer, and information you provided.
At the begining I have to make a correction. My happiness last for a
day or two, after that the problems with gnome, web-browsers, totem
came back (maybe after reboot ? I don't know yet..). I found some more
verbose error message from totem say
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:30:44AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mercredi 28 d?cembre 2005 ? 23:49 -0600, Adam Heath a ?crit :
> > > You'll only get mails if the sender sends to ###-submitter. Mail sent to
> > > just
> > > #
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 23:49 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > You'll only get mails if the sender sends to ###-submitter. Mail sent to
> > just
> > ### is not forwarded, and only stored.
> >
> > This is not a bug in the software, but in the person sendin
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 28 d?cembre 2005 ? 23:49 -0600, Adam Heath a ?crit :
> > You'll only get mails if the sender sends to ###-submitter. Mail sent to
> > just
> > ### is not forwarded, and only stored.
> >
> > This is not a bug in the s
Hello,
> > > However due to the QT library transition my package
> > > which I fixed in unstable at once has not entered testing yet...
>
> packagesearch | 2.0.4 | testing | source, alpha, ...
> packagesearch | 2.0.4 | unstable | source, alpha, ...
You are right, the QT libra
On 03-Jan-06, 00:46 (CST), Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
> > other than swap vi alternative priorities and swap important<->optional
> > priorities?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Andreas!
On 1/3/06, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-03 12:24:29]:
> > They are right: most probably they will find it easier to make
> > contributions to other projects.
>
> we need to promot
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 12:42:22PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 22 d?cembre 2005 ? 16:51 +0100, Robert Millan a ?crit :
> > This package contains the FreeBSD 6.x counterparts of some standard build
> > utilities (make, yacc, lex ..)
> > .
> > They have some specific modifications n
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> we need to promote the easy entry points to contributing to debian more
> prominently
> and should hide the "how to become a DD" in comparison. we should leave that
> option
> for the ones that want to contribute above average.
If there is any truth to what Joseph Mich
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> Whats needed is a genuine team of 2-5 suitable new maintainer 'peers'
[...]
You just described how Alioth-based team maintainership works when it
involves people who aren't DDs, which it often does AFAIK.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 08:19:30PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> 'just plug' is the watchword. New device model just needs a reboot - in
> some circumstances device numbering is random without hardware changes and
> without software changes.
So it exposes a bug more frequently than before.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: locomo
Version : 1.0
Upstream Authors: Alexios Chouchoulas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andreas Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tobias Schleuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le mercredi 28 décembre 2005 à 23:49 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit :
> You'll only get mails if the sender sends to ###-submitter. Mail sent to just
> ### is not forwarded, and only stored.
>
> This is not a bug in the software, but in the person sending the mail.
I consider this a bug in the softwa
* Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-03 12:24:29]:
> They are right: most probably they will find it easier to make contributions
> to other
> projects.
we need to promote the easy entry points to contributing to
debian more prominently and should hide the "how to become a DD"
in comparison
Le jeudi 22 décembre 2005 à 16:51 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
> This package contains the FreeBSD 6.x counterparts of some standard build
> utilities (make, yacc, lex ..)
> .
> They have some specific modifications needed to be able to build FreeBSD 6.x
> sources.
Maybe it's a dumb questio
Joseph Michael Smidt wrote:
> I believe the greatest barrier the Debian Project has in preventing
> widespread
> contributions from greater numbers of volunteers is a psychological barrier.
> I have
> personally introduced Debian to several of my friends and always emphasize
> the idea
>
Ryan Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> exim treats 45x errors to be per host, rather than per address.
That depends on when it gets the error.
If exim gets a timeout or an error message after sending RCPT TO, it
is treated as a recipient error, and not a host error.
http://exim.org/exim-html
On Jan 03, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> every legit address I can think of at uol.br.com, with zero bounces,
> so they are either a damned good black hole, or are well aware of the
> nuisance they are being and just don't give a starving rats ass.
[X] they are well aware and do not
71 matches
Mail list logo
