> > I have never rejected any SELinux patches for Upstart; I have simply
> > never been *sent* any.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543420#10
>
This pretty much proves my point. I was never sent these patches,
instead Debian kept them to itself and never attempted to get the
> Or just have per-user cgroups that a process is moved into when
> logging in, see libpam-cgroup for something that does this.
>
Then getty would respawn the second you login, stealing the controlling
terminal from bash.
> In addition, killing all members in a cgroup when a service goes down is
> It is still on the wishlist, but the needed pieces are not ready, so
> it seem unlikely to happen this late in the release process. At the
> moment, I believe it will happen shortly after Squeeze is released, if
> the needed pieces are ready by then.
>
I will be at DebConf all week.
I'll be th
> What is so bad about init scripts? Where am I supposed to put my init
> script magic[1] in an upstart scenario?
>
Upstart job configs go in /etc/init
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a d
> OTOH, it is not obvious to me anymore that Debian should commit to
> Upstart now that systemd has appeared and it has many compelling
> features. I believe we should consider systemd's merits and wait and
> see how it will work in the next Fedora release and if SUSE will
> really adopt it.
>
I'm
> This does mean that when you use something like screen, the tty it was
> connected to is from then on unusable, right? As the cgroup that
> contains the screen process also contains the getty and it doesn't
> kill one without the other as that is in no way reliable :-)
>
Yes.
I investigated usi
> One of my concerns about upstart is that systems that want to
> use SELinux and upstart _have_ to also use an initramfs, which is yet
> another component of the system that has to be audited. There have
> been patches proposed, and semi-rejected b the upstart folks, who are
> of the opinions tha
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:01 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
> 1 TB is not rounded. It means precisely 1 × 10^12 bytes, no more and no
> less.
>
No it doesn't.
The meaning of 1 TB depends on the context, and has always done so.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[E
rounded
anyway. If you really want to know how many bytes are available, you
can use this great unit called the "byte" which is accurate and not
subject to change[0].
Scott
[0] Unless you're older than 25.
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 16:50 +0100, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote:
> Actually bandwidth is mesured in bits per second and no bytes per second
>
> On 6/12/07, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bandwidth should be quoted in true SI units over a metri
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:50 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:24 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > The difference is a sufficiently small percentage, that most users will
> > not care.
>
> No, like I said in my earlier post, the error grows quickly.
the use of powers of two multiples altogether, no?
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
."
"No, you mean two gibibytes! A gigabyte is ten-to-the-nice
bytes, whereas a gibibyte is two-to-the-thirty bytes!"
*punch*
"Ow! You broke my nose!"
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:32 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> As some of you may have noticed, the patches.ubuntu.com website and
> equivalent mailing of changes to the Debian PTS and ubuntu-patches
> mailing list has been offline, or at least intermittent, for a few
> weeks.
>
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 23:30 -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 4/2/07, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As some of you may have noticed, the patches.ubuntu.com website and
> > equivalent mailing of changes to the Debian PTS and ubuntu-patches
> > mailin
we were using being partially incomplete for a while.
The latter problem seems to have been fixed, and the Canonical sysadmins
are working on the former.
Sorry for any inconvenience,
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On 2006-07-17 20:39, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The Ubuntu distribution will be the first to make use of this new feature
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
r scottwatcher
script that's feeding the Debian PTS ... when this isn't the case.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
el announcing the changes to the PTS before
we started sending, so as not to surprise anyone -- they are being sent
now (assuming everything works )
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 19:37 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 19:11 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> >
> > > Scott James Remnant dropped me an email recently, interested in
> > > improving the
On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 19:11 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Scott James Remnant dropped me an email recently, interested in
> improving the automake situation in Ubuntu and Debian[0].
>
> [0] Their plan, which mirrors mine, is documented here:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutomakeTrans
On 2/21/06, Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You probably missed this question, which I also wanted to ask:
>
Frank forwarded it to me, and I replied to him in person -- here's the reply.
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:55:23PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
On 2/21/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.02.21.1506 +0100]:
> > File a request here:
> > https://launchpad.net/products/nda/+addticket
>
> This isn't a rant, but a serious wishl
As a few people have noticed, the Ubuntu patches repository is
currently producing some unusual results; in particular the patches
seem to include Debian changes as well as Ubuntu ones.
The patches are produced by a tool we oh-so-amusingly call NDA
(Nightly Difference Analysis), which like the MOM
Hi guys,
For various personal reasons you've probably not seen me around much in
the last few months; and unfortunately, for the same reasons I've
decided to take a Sabbatical from working on Debian.
I've already arranged maintainership of both of my packages:
Matthias Klose will take over bui
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 23:42 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't know if it's feasible, but my ideal vision for how the new
> version tracking would handle bugs in stable would be that if the
> version in stable is affected, the bug is left open if it's tagged
> sarge or if it's of RC severity;
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 11:42 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Walking up to a "man on the street", if anything, you'll find Debian has
> > a far worse reputation than RPM and RedHat-derived distributions. The
> > general feeling is that
On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 11:35 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> "Debian packages just work" has been a truism for *years*, and it's been
> one of our key technical selling points. I don't want to see that fall
> by the wayside. This thread is a perfect example of what will happen
> if we don't worry about
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:32 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > &
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system,
> particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some
> poking in this area about a year ago, which involved tracking when
> indivi
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 14:36 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:00:43AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > I just wanted to confirm my recollection that now that stable has been
> > released
> > with support for ~ in package versions in dpkg and apt, we can now use ~ in
>
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 00:32 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Adam Heath [Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:47:39 -0500]:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > It was that such package versions could not be used *before* sarge
> > > released,
> > > not that they would be supported immediately *
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 16:19 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> If you have a package that depends on libselinux1-dev or if you intend
> to upload such a package, please find below the correct way(tm) to add
> SElinux support:
>
> * debian/control or debian/control.in (or even debian.control.in.in)
>
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:50 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g.,
> > > buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipu
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:20 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > Historically we always wanted to be able to use all the source in the
> > > archive with the tools available in stable. If that policy is
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 09:18 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think
> > it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear
>
[I am not subscribed to debian-devel, please Cc: me if you feel your
reply deserves my attention.]
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 10:10 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
>
> > > The basics of the new format are:
> > > * Multiple upstream tarballs are supp
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:37 +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
> To prepare the sourcecode for inspection and/or minor modifications an
> additional argument for debian/rules would fit well into the current model.
>
> Calling "debian/rules prepare" should leave the tree in a state where the
> source
this with the dpkg maintainer, nor has he
> > | > made his code public.
> > |
> > | Er, Adam Heath has made plenty of uploads of dpkg, and is listed as an
> > | Uploader.
> >
> > Yes, but (again, TTBOMK) he still hasn't discussed it with Scott James
> > R
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 17:40 +1000, Steve Kowalik wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:54:01 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen uttered
> > TTBOMK, he hasn't discussed this with the dpkg maintainer, nor has he
> > made his code public.
> >
> Er, Adam Heath has made plenty of uploads of dpkg,
>
Hasn't made any in
init" changes. It doesn't always get it right, in
fact it probably more often gets it wrong, but it can help a little.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant Ubuntu Down Under -- 25th - 30th April 2005
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vibe Rushcutters, Sydney, Australia
signatur
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> > that
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
> > > package name accordingly?
> > >
> > Yes, that
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > My concern is the same as that of the Project Leader, that the existing
> > powerpc port
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > >
> > W
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
>
Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
are currently two competing efforts for this port.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange thin
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:10 +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:51 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +, Scott James Remnant
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wr
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:49 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, let me be blunt about this.
>
> It is a political problem, the dpkg/buildd/ftp-master admin have not the will
> to implement such a solution, and thus block any attempt to implement this
> kind of problem.
>
> We would need at least a d
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:32 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
> > | Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
> > | done to begin with, nothing about who works or
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:04 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
> >> Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
> >> done to begin with, nothing about who works or doe
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:43 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:52:22PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:25:02PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > > Sure that's good. It stops to be that good when they're obviously
> > > trying hard to impose their employ
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:25 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> One the one hand, we have the Ubuntu cabal at key positions in the
> >> Project; on the other hand, we have Project Scud, which members are
> >> currently employed by companies having inte
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:51 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +0000, Scott James Remnant
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> It does a significant number of other things, one of them being pay
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 11:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:20AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * AurÃlien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:56]:
> > > Would it be possible to have a list of such proposed architectures?
> >
> > amd64, s390z, powerpc64, netbsd-
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:34 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >* Thiemo Seufer
> >| For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
> >| requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-star
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 12:05 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Paul Hampson wrote:
>
> > * timestamp skew means that the autobuilt makefiles will try
> > to rebuild configure from configure.in even if configure is patched by
> > dpkg-source at the same time as configure.in
> >
Unfortunately, this problem turns out to be not as trivial to solve as
first thought. Not from a code point of view, but from an acceptable
implementation point of view.
Having dpkg notice a certain style of postfix (I prefer the "+b1" form)
in the Version of a package and strip that before assi
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 09:59 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Er, hardly. libdpkg will contain *extremely* low-level stuff.
> Reading/writing debs(ar/tar/gzip/bzip/checksum stuff).
>
No, that's in libdeb (or libdpkg-deb, haven't quite decided the name of
it, yet).
If you'd bothered to pay any attentio
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:13 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> > * Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
> >
> > | On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > | > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > | > > On 20050228T164806+0
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 23:06 -0600, Micah Anderson wrote:
>#957: dpkg 957 802533782 open [EMAIL PROTECTED] wishlist
>
Do I get a medal when I fix this in the next week or two? :) I've been
working on an implementation over the weekend that's to my liking.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like t
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 22:24 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:04:17AM -0400, Maykel Moya wrote:
>
>> I'd recently adquire a little laptop (p3 900, 256 MB RAM). I'm been
>> thinking to install Ubuntu in it cause Ubuntu is optimized for desktop,
>> but I'd like to package some
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 20:43 +, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Is this problem known? What is the cause of this? I checked both the
> dpkg and the gettext bug report pages but did not recognise anything similar.
>
*mutters something about Joey "I steal namespaces" Hess* :p
Scott
--
Have you ever,
On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 18:19 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 06:11:42PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > In my quest to log package installation, I wrote a wrapper script for
> > > dpkg.
> >
> > $ tail -1 /etc/apt/apt.conf
> > DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs {"logger -t D
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:03 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2005 14:45:52 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Yes. Debian packages are supposed to be able to be installed and
> >start working without requiring any reboots. We've made this work
> >pretty well for libc
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 18:44 +0100, Frank KÃster wrote:
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In effect, if you're building unstable packages on stable, the first
> > thing you should build is unstable's build-essential.
>
> Are you kidd
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:21 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Frank KÃster
>
> | That's correct from the point of view of a buildd, or of a developer
> | running a sid machine. But it is not correct for backporters: Imagine
> | that packages are added to build-essential, or versioned dependencie
On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 17:06 +, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Scott James Remnant may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > And a far better solution to the "a package on disk needs dependencies"
> > solution is for a command-line tool that can grab
On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 14:00 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:20:19PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The change *to* Enter was the thing that broke dselect for those of us
> > who have been using it since woody and earlier. Switching back to the
> > old behaviour unbroke it
The stats:
8,920 source packages in Debian unstable main.
8,254 declare a build-dependency on debhelper
= 92% of packages build-depend on debhelper.
Is that sufficient to declare it build-essential?
The downside:
Package: debhelper
Depends: perl (>= 5.6.0-16), coreutils | fileutil
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:26 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:52 am, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > It's breaking elegance to fix something I'm not convinced is a problem.
>
> Just to be clear: you mean the elegance of the dpkg code, not
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 18:28 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > What's interesting is nobody has jumped in on this thread to point out
> > that dpkg *has* a dependency field for forcing checking of dependencies
>
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 21:57 -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> What would be the impact on (c)debootstrap of changing the operation
> of dpkg?
>
Forget the impact on debootstrap, the impact on APT and dselect is
pretty huge. dpkg is designed to be able to unpack packages while their
dependencies
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 11:19 +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > dpkg (1.10.26) unstable; urgency=low
> > * Revert to current 'stable' behaviour of Space/Enter/'Q' in the dselect
> > help screen, Space leaves the help screen and Enter and 'Q' do nothing.
> > It's dangerous to encourage us
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 19:30 +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> * Scott James Remnant [Tue, Jan 11 2005, 08:19:21AM]:
>
> > > dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the
> > > installation of foo-modules_2.0
> > >
> > dpkg does not abort the i
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 18:51 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> Once upon a time Scott James Remnant said...
> > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:15 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> >
> > > dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0
> > > dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modu
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:58 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:53:57AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:35 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wro
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:35 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all.
>
Note that I said "remove", the old files are replaced during the unpack
phase rather th
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 18:40 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Otavio Salvador]
> > No because some applications doesn't depends only of configuration
> > files but data-files. When you purge then, all data files will be
> > removed together (in major of times). Another problem is how you can
>
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:15 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0
> dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modules_2.0
> dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the
> installation of foo-modules_2.0
>
This is incorrect.
dpkg doesn't remove foo-module
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
> > mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
> >
> > Ie, multiple input methods: .deb, .rpm, filesystem
> >
>
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 14:59 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The main technical effect that I see would be that the names of some
> dynamic libraries would change. And compatibility with the old names
> could be maintained indefinitely if necessary.
>
?!??!?!?!?!?!?!"PO!(*"!$*_(!$*"($*!("*$_*!"*$("
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 18:13 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> I needed a tool to change the version number of DEB files after
> repacking them with dpkg-repack. So I wrote one. Very simple, does
> not really warrant its own package, but devscripts is also not
> really the place for it. It is unlikel
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 16:07 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Many packages are buggy and include the .pc file in the main package (not the
> -dev).
>
Did you actually check whether any of these *had* -dev packages?! A lot
of them would be bogus bugs.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 14:47 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> I've just started packaging some library which provides .pc file for
> pkg-config. So I was wonder where to put this file and if my -dev package
> should depend on pkg-config.
>
> As usual I started looking how it is done in ot
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 00:22 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 1) Current gnome-panel do *not* support XDG menus (only KDE does).
> (Debian menu has XDG menu support through menu-xdg.)
>
It's very much in the works, check out gnome-menus in CVS. It'll
probably be in the next GNOME release, as I unde
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 16:57 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 18:08 +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday 28 October 2004 16.40, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 18:08 +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Thursday 28 October 2004 16.40, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Warning: The signature is bad.
>
> I guess this was unavoidable in a posting about a security related issue
> with GnuPG...
>
Verifies fine here.
Scott
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 09:06 -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:40:30AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
> > might sue you for distributing something that they have written and
> > released under the GPL, and
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 08:15, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> There's the question of botched uploads. I think we've all accidentally
> >> botched an upload one time or another, and having access to auric means
> >> we can fix it without having to call on
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote:
> Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what
> you hate.
>
Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like
this...
If I say "I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet", is that practising hate
speech?
Scott
--
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 00:21, Nunya wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > And way out from Right Field...
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
>
> go back and count the # of "christians are stupid" statements
> substitute any r
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 05:54, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 04:07:56AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> | Only GNOME applications should be in the GNOME Applications menu.
>
> Why?!
>
Rationale (and a real-world example):
Both KDE and GNOME are at
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 22:50, AKL. Mantas Kriauciunas wrote:
> Debian has a usability problem - it's hard to start lots of programs,
> installed from debian packages, because simple users just can't find
> them in menu.
> Standart debian menu entry isn't good solution for user-friendly
> desktops,
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 22:56, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> I certainly miss the varied and up-to-date information that I was able
> to get from auric. Taking James Troup's advice from his announcement
> of discussing information we'd like from auric,
>
There's the question of botched uploads. I think
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 22:16, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Scott James Remnant may or may not have written...
>
> > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 08:47, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> But your message didn't inclu
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 08:47, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > But your message didn't include a Content-Type header specifying that,
> > so it's likely to come through as garbage for most MUAs...
>
> Right, here it is again
>
> \xEF\xBB\xBF\xE8\xBE\xAD\xE6\xB
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 12:41, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:45:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We've often downplayed asking for help in favour of encouraging people
> > to *offer* to help, but since we're having problems, it's important to
> > try everything we can to over
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 03:18, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >But an ssh key on removable media is not vulnerable to keysniffing
> >alone, where a password is.
>
> If such behaviour becomes common, the keysniffers will simply copy
> anything that looks like an SSH key that exi
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 02:15, Brian May wrote:
> All large uploads (ie greater then several kb) hang when I try to
> upload them, so I can't test this...
>
> Hmmm... Wonder if this is a local problem with my Internet connection or
> a problem with the remote system... Probably a local problem.
>
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 20:59, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:31:54PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > For example, every self-hosting compiler build-depends on itself
> > (many of them can be bootstrapped, but I'm not sure we want to require
> > bootstrapping on every buil
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
