Re: Excluding a single arch on an arch: any

On Sunday 12 August 2007 19:13:38 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 05:43:27PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > > Won't this then prevent the package from migrating to testing, because > > it's arch: any, but failing to build on a release arch? > > "and remove the binaries from unst

Re: Excluding a single arch on an arch: any

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 05:43:27PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > On Sunday 12 August 2007 13:35:02 Adeodato Simó wrote: > > * Reinhard Tartler [Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:27:50 +0200]: > > > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Is is possible to make the equivalent of an Architect

Re: Excluding a single arch on an arch: any

On Sunday 12 August 2007 13:35:02 Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Reinhard Tartler [Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:27:50 +0200]: > > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is is possible to make the equivalent of an Architecture: any package > > > except that it excludes one or two specific architect

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

On 8/12/07, Carl Fürstenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/12/07, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:45:42 + (UTC) > > William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Neil Williams debian.org> writes: > > > > > > > If those figures are correct, it look

Re: GTK1 Apps (was: Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian)

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:36:40 +0100 Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > I don't have any power to remove their packages from Debian, but I > > urge every maintainer of a package depending on GTK+ 1.2 to either > > start the work on GTK2 porting it or consider it

GTK1 Apps (was: Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian)

Josselin Mouette wrote: > I don't have any power to remove their packages from Debian, but I > urge every maintainer of a package depending on GTK+ 1.2 to either > start the work on GTK2 porting it or consider its removal. And now is > more than the time to start this. Neil Williams wrote: > If an

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:18:32PM +, William Pitcock wrote: > > It seems that you don't understand why we call it an XMMS replacement: > > it's not at all about having all the same features, it's about the core > > functionality. If we consider audacious an XMMS replacement it means > > that w

Re: Excluding a single arch on an arch: any

>> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > Is is possible to make the equivalent of an Architecture: any package >> > except >> > that it excludes one or two specific architectures? > * Reinhard Tartler [Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:27:50 +0200]: >> I think the best you can do is to wri

Re: Excluding a single arch on an arch: any

* Reinhard Tartler [Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:27:50 +0200]: > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is is possible to make the equivalent of an Architecture: any package > > except > > that it excludes one or two specific architectures? > I think the best you can do is to write a che

Re: Excluding a single arch on an arch: any

"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is is possible to make the equivalent of an Architecture: any package except > that it excludes one or two specific architectures? I think the best you can do is to write a check for that specific architecture in the package's preinst script, a

Ola

Oi Debh, tudo bem? Voce sumiu nas duas ultimas semanas ... aconteceu alguma coisa? foi algo que eu falei ou fiz? To morrendo de saudades de ti ... se eu fiz algo, por favor, me diga nao seria a primeira vez que eu faco alguma merda e vc se distancia ... eu sei que voce prefere nao falar, e ad

Excluding a single arch on an arch: any

Hey folks, Is is possible to make the equivalent of an Architecture: any package except that it excludes one or two specific architectures? Basically, I'd like to be able to write, for example: Architecture: any [!ia64] I know I could specifically list supported architectures, but I don't wan

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

On 8/12/07, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:45:42 + (UTC) > William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Neil Williams debian.org> writes: > > > > > If those figures are correct, it looks like GTK1 will be with us for > > > quite some time yet. > > > > Don

Bug#437460: ITP: libpuz -- crossword puzzle (PUZ) manipulation library

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Joseph Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libpuz Version : 0.0.1 Upstream Author : Josh Myer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.joshisanerd.com/puz/ * License : GPL2 or higher Programming Lang: C Descripti

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock a écrit : > Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > >> I think you need at least an Intel HDA card to reproduce that problem, >> as it's probably the driver that presents something weird to the >> lib. Might even need a MacBook with the same setup :| >> >> I'll see on another machine

Re: UTF-8 man pages

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 09:09:07AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: >>> For HTML if Japanese text is short, embeding gif/png file is better >>> than using UTF-8 characters. Then you can read it from any >>> c

Re: UTF-8 man pages

"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 09:09:07AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: >> For HTML if Japanese text is short, embeding gif/png file is better >> than using UTF-8 characters. Then you can read it from any >> configuration. > ...except a text-mode one? My

Re: conflicting gssapi libraries

Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ> It may be that they were trying to provide an indirection > Russ> layer between MIT and Heimdal so that people could choose > Russ> whichever they want at runtime. I'm not sure of a

Re: conflicting gssapi libraries

Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > GSSAPI was created to allow the use of multiple authentication > mechanisms. If you do not want to allow that, then you should just get > rid of GSSAPI completely and use the Kerberos APIs directly, as in this > case GSSAPI just adds a lot of unneccessar

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > wmbubble 437425 > wmcliphist 437433 > wmclockmon 437442 > wmfishtime 437429 > wmmaiload 437444 > wmressel 437430 > wmusic Remote control dockapp for XMMS, will go away with XMMS. I've removed it from the wiki too. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - D

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:45:42 + (UTC) William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neil Williams debian.org> writes: > > > If those figures are correct, it looks like GTK1 will be with us for > > quite some time yet. > > Don't give up hope quite yet. To save repeating the list in email: htt

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

On 2007-08-12, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> karamba > > This is a Qt app, and it has been mostly replaced with SuperKaramba AFAIK. And is only using gtk1/xmms to communicate with xmms. It builds nicely without also. (Of course, you then miss the xmms functionality, but ...) /Sune

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

Neil Williams debian.org> writes: > If those figures are correct, it looks like GTK1 will be with us for > quite some time yet. Don't give up hope quite yet. > > After a little more trimming of libraries, packages that are just > dependencies of other packages in the list, I get 192 unorphaned

Re: adduser/deluser on postinst

On 11/08/2007 Marc Haber wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >For some code examples which do work (and are used in several > >packages) see: > > > >http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch9.en.html#s-bpp-lower-privs > > Why does this HOWTO suggest replicating code that is alre

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

Mikhail Gusarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JB> And there are still some useful applications in the list... > > Probably some workflow for phasing them out might help. It's possible for some of these applications, but not for all. The best approach is probably to port them over to GTK2, but I s

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

Twas brillig at 15:07:29 12.08.2007 UTC+02 when Julien BLACHE did gyre and gimble: >> Contrary to my own preconceptions, I'd say that the idea of removing Gtk1 is >> dead-in-the-water. :-( JB> And there are still some useful applications in the list... Probably some workflow for phasing th

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Luk Claes zomers.be> writes: > Well Debian has another focus than Fedora Core, I won't comment further > on the implications... I'm not qualified to comment on that either. However, I was simply demonstrating that other distributions found it possible to integrate within the time window. > It s

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 274 are neither gtk libraries nor related to xmms. > > 231 of those are not orphaned. That's a lot of packages. > After a little more trimming of libraries, packages that are just > dependencies of other packages in the list, I get 192 unorphaned > pack

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:52:45 +0100 Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just because I had nothing to do, I generated a list on the wiki on > > all packages that depends on gtk+ 1.2; see: > > http://wiki.debian.org/GTK+_1%2e2_leftovers OK, a few stats from that page (which I've updated to

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

> > > I propose you STFU and go fix your bugs. > > > > I propose you stop classifying bugs > > Now, will you please go fix your bugs ? Gentlemen, I think that your discussion about who is faulty or not is going far from the topic of this list, which is the development of the Debian distribution.

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > > I think you need at least an Intel HDA card to reproduce that problem, > as it's probably the driver that presents something weird to the > lib. Might even need a MacBook with the same setup :| > > I'll see on another machine if the ALSA plugin behaves bett

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 11:52:45AM +0100, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With apache1 being removed, isn't it the right time to remove gtk1 > (and glib1.2) as well? It's also time to remove libxml1. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe"

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, we are indeed aware of your bug, however, after inquiring with the people > responsible for the ALSA plugin, the conclusion we presently have is that we > are > unable to reproduce it, so it will take some time before we can come up with a > patch

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > > Two bugs: > - random crashes while scrolling the playlist > - segfault in the ALSA output plugin > > That's in case you're interested in > fixing the pile of crap that is your ALSA output plugin (hey, XMMS' > one behaves pe

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:47:46 +0200 "Carl Fürstenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/12/07, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le samedi 11 août 2007 à 06:57 +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) > > a écrit : > > > You are saying to the mantainers who if they doesnt work > > > on a

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 10:13:45AM +, William Pitcock wrote: > Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > > > > > Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:34 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > > I wonder what kind of crack you are on. Your website shows the 1.3.0 > > release date as being 2 march 2007. Th

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=audacious;dist=unstable Yes, I have discussed these with Adam Cecile. Many of those bugs have been fixed in 1.4, and cannot be fixed in current 1.3 due to architectural shift from the old XMMS paradigm to a n

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 10:13 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > > If you think one month is a considerable amount of time, you have no > > idea of what integrating a distribution means. > > I find it funny that Fedora Core 5, 6, and 7, all included the latest versions > of Audacious at the tim

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > > Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:34 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > You should talk about this with the maintainer; this has nothing to do > with our processes. If that version was so buggy as not to be usable, > the maintainer should have prevented it fr

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I propose you STFU and go fix your bugs. > > I propose you stop classifying bugs which state "is not XMMS" as bugs in > Audacious, or generally talking about commandeering my project. Thanks! Two bugs: - random crashes while scrolling the playlist -

Re: conflicting gssapi libraries

On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 07:13:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Why? Could you explain what the UMich indirection library practically > adds for our users? Why would we want to continue using it rather than > linking directly against an appropriate GSSAPI implementation? GSSAPI was created to a

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 10:00 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > I propose you stop classifying bugs which state "is not XMMS" as bugs in > Audacious, or generally talking about commandeering my project. Thanks! "Crashes and locks up randomly" sounds much like "is XMMS" to me, so I don't think

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > > I propose you STFU and go fix your bugs. > > JB. > I propose you stop classifying bugs which state "is not XMMS" as bugs in Audacious, or generally talking about commandeering my project. Thanks! William -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] w

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:58 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > Then it is supported by us upstream. Therefore, if it crashes or blows up in > your face, people should tell us about it, and not complain on a mailing list > or > talk about commandeering projects to make Audacious into some sort

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:34 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > It's not our fault that Debian packaged an old, buggy, and generally speaking, > broken version of Audacious with a bunch of backported patches that may or may > not be fully compatible. You should talk about this with the maintai

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

gmail.com> writes: > > Lenny has had 1.3 for over a month now. > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/audacious/news/20070706T223908Z.html > > FYI: The status of the audacious source package > in Debian's testing distribution has changed. > > Previous version: 1.2.2-4 > Current version: 1.

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui darkbolt.net> writes: > GTK+ 1.2 are unmantained upstream, yes. No it's not. GTK1 maintainance ceased in Feburary 2001. > I've read on this thread, on a critical for audacious "as xmms > replacement", I've pointed who audacious doesn't have many features > present

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As you don't seem to have understood at all, none of the xmms >> alternatives are up to par with xmms, with many of them having >> usability or stability problems. > > Please stop blaming the faults and defects of your packaging process on > upstream

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On 8/12/07, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not our fault that Etch did not ship with 1.3. 1.3 had been out for a > considerable amount of time when Etch shipped. Please don't claim that the > most > recent versions of audacious (as shipped and maintained by us) crashes every > 2

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > As you don't seem to have understood at all, none of the xmms > alternatives are up to par with xmms, with many of them having > usability or stability problems. Please stop blaming the faults and defects of your packaging process on upstream developers. Audac

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui darkbolt.net> writes: > Simply you can read this thread and can find a report of audacious (main > candidate for xmms replace) crashing on a max time of 2 minutes running. It's not our fault that Debian packaged an old, buggy, and generally speaking, broken version o

Re: conflicting gssapi libraries

> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Russ> It may be that they were trying to provide an indirection Russ> layer between MIT and Heimdal so that people could choose Russ> whichever they want at runtime. I'm not sure of another Russ> reason for it. The UMich li