Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: gnus 25609 Gnus: prerm script failure make it impossible to upgrade/pruge [64] (Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]) We should not ship without although it's technically not essential. We'd better find somebody to fix this bug. MAD, what's up? I don't know. I thought: 1) Manoj took over the package with my blessings, and 2) he did so with the specific intention of fixing the bug. However, looking at the package as it stands, I see that in fact the upgrades I thought Manoj did were actually done by Turbo as NMUs (which would explain why it was still being listed as my package). I've done a new release which I believe fixes all outstanding bugs. Turbo, would you like to take over the package? Mike.
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Hi, Michael == Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael I don't know. I thought: 1) Manoj took over the package with my Michael blessings, and 2) he did so with the specific intention of fixing the Michael bug. And I did. I uploaded a package, and closed all bugs. Before the freeze, even. It is under my name in the BTS. It was put into the archive way before the freeze. Michael However, looking at the package as it stands, I see that in fact the Michael upgrades I thought Manoj did were actually done by Turbo as NMUs Michael (which would explain why it was still being listed as my package). It is now listed as my package! II even posted on this earlier that the bugs have been fixed. Michael I've done a new release which I believe fixes all outstanding bugs. Michael Turbo, would you like to take over the package? NO NO n Please look berfore you do this!. You have effectively hijacked my package. Please do not offer it to other people. Please retract your upload. I am no lonmger willing to give up this package, after all the effort that I have put in it. manoj cat /home/Debian/ftp/private/project/Incoming/DONE/gnus_5.6.44-2_i386.changes -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.5 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:32:41 -0500 Source: gnus Binary: gnus Architecture: source all Version: 5.6.44-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: gnus - A versatile News and mailing list reader for Emacsen Changes: gnus (5.6.44-2) unstable; urgency=low . * New maintainer. * Enhanced the Long description. * Made all the maintainer scripts follow the Skeleton maintainer scripts Written by Charles Briscoe-Smith, March-June 1998. * Fixed the location of the emacsen remove call, which should clear out the problem faced while removing the package. Make sure the script is way more robust about misssing directories and all. closes: Bug#25609 * Changed dependency to xemacs20-bin instead of xemacs20 (which does not, in fact, exist). closes: Bug#25585 * Made the install/remove scripts always return a valid exit status, and be generally better behaved. closes: Bug#26536 * Made the rules file more genralized, and more in line with my ther packages. * Also install the HTML documentation, since we are supposed to be moving to HTML, after all * Fix the control file. There was no section and priority information, so dpkg-genchanges complained. Files: a5973df16ed2551eb15a906fe48d69d4 660 news optional gnus_5.6.44-2.dsc ea5a156d11facf2e6153eb68ef6acf27 7399 news optional gnus_5.6.44-2.diff.gz c47e7d0401df364a03f754b7c054c198 1039142 news optional gnus_5.6.44-2_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBNiWps23FgPXHJhCVAQEf+AP+J/j390LSPBHf1ZiXSVty3DEe/b1tYfVE w7Ikl/I/S9rigNqQYRKeuZD9r9spRw0+PLcH8l7UcooqEExjZxWEqCRLWcLn/tck GY5FxZ8tTbFQPRhkgYlvblBDAkXDpJMi7OYnBuqlzKYspTDupW3WBnBTyd+BCGca ahlGKZk6Z2o= =QX6J -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Helen Keller Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote: meskesOn Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote: meskes libmagick4-dev19332 libmagick: ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb LI#67 [217] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K. Ellis)) meskes meskesI wish I would understand a message like that. :-) meskes You can ! ... homey 11 echo 'E: libmagick: ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb' | lintian-info E: libmagick: ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb N: N: In the package contents list, the shared library has to come before N: any symbolic links referencing the shared library. N: N: Refer to Packaging Manual, chapter 12 for details. N: John Lapeyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Previously Martin Schulze wrote: I vote for leave them in. I feel much in favour of presenting them to the world. Basically they work. rantPlease remove gnome, esp. gnome-freecell and gnome-mahjong. My productivity has severly dropped since I discovered them. They are just too darned good and addictive... /rant Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpeRQk2areTr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:46:58PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote: While you're all on this thread, what about mozilla? The current Debian package doesn't work with the current libc (#27181, severity: grave). I was going to ask Brian for an extension for mozilla as I won't make 00:00 Saturday GMT That's not a problem. The freeze deadline is for regular package uploads. Now that we're in the freeze, only bugfixes are allowed. If you get mozilla to work again, that fixes 27181 (which is release-critical), so such an upload should be accepted. Ray -- Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:46:58PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote: While you're all on this thread, what about mozilla? Please keep it in, too. This one's another major visibility package for free software. I was going to ask Brian for an extension for mozilla as I won't make 00:00 Saturday GMT, but if you're throught out alpha packages maybe I should do something else this week-end? Since your new upload is for removing bugs by using a new upstream that should be okay. Brian? Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Let's look a bit further at those bugreports.. balsa 27726 balsa cannot be run [0] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ole J. Tetlie)) balsa 27894 balsa is linked against ancient version of gtk [0] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ole J. Tetlie)) A new balsa has already been uploaded (0.4.6-1), I think that fixes these bugs. gnus 25609 Gnus: prerm script failure make it impossible to upgrade/pruge [64] (Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Removing that will make a _lot_ of people really angry I think.. htdig 25412 htdig: htdig ignores config file stuff/absolute pathnames compiled in [70] (Gergely Madarasz [EMAIL PROTECTED]) infocom 21478 infocom: Integrating infocom interpreters [175] (Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED]) jdk1.127097 jdk1.1: error in installing jdk1.1: links are in a mess [18] (Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED]) jdk1.127330 jdk1.1: Files should be conffiles [12] (Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED]) jove 27219 jove: Jove wants /usr/tmp [14] (Loic Prylli [EMAIL PROTECTED]) junkbuster25258 junkbuster: junkbuster has security holes [74] (Paul Haggart [EMAIL PROTECTED]) kaffe 20980 kaffe: kaffe depends on jdk-common [186] () kdebase 23655 kdebase includes /etc/X11/Xsession [118] (Stephan Kulow [EMAIL PROTECTED]) kdebase 25903 kdebase doesn't include rights to distribute kvt [56] (Stephan Kulow [EMAIL PROTECTED]) kdebase 25974 kvt creates ~/.kde with root as owner and insane permissions [55] (Stephan Kulow [EMAIL PROTECTED]) kdegraphics 25627 kdegraphics violates copyright [63] (Stephan Kulow [EMAIL PROTECTED]) kdelibs0g 24643 kdebase: We have no licence to distribute KDE binaries when linked against Qt [90] (Stephan Kulow [EMAIL PROTECTED]) kdemultimedia 25628 kmultimedia violates copyright law (and debian policy) [63] (Stephan Kulow [EMAIL PROTECTED]) kdeutils 25630 kdeutils copyright problems [63] (Stephan Kulow [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Needles to these have been removed. knfs 27250 knfs (remote root exploit) [14] (Anders Hammarquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Is that actually in slink? It also has a security problem which has not been fixed yet, but I seem to remember knfs is still in experimental. mozilla 27181 mozilla dumps core [15] (Debian QA group debian-qa@lists.debian.org) That seems to be a problem with library versions: for some people mozilla works fine (for me for example), for others it dumps core on startup. We might want to investigate that further. netatalk 25598 netalk: several problems (and the solution) [64] (Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Looking at the bugreporttitle there already is a solution, so removing this should not be necessary. pcmcia-modules-2 27395 pcmcia-modules are totally broken out of the box [11] (Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED]) pcmcia-source 26657 pcmcia-source: Needs this patch to work on 2.1.118+ kernels [32] (Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED]) 27395 is more of a local problem iirc, 26657 should be easy to fix, since the patch is already supplied. Besides, removing pcmcia will also break the boot-floppies, so we can't really remove these. strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51] (Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Let's keep this one :) yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton)) yagirc has just switched maintainer and a new package was uploaded, so this might already have been fixed. Again, please let me know if you feel differently. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll be removing all of those packages in the list directly above to be removed from slink during the freeze. Note: the above lists are made directly from the bug logs. I haven't actually correlated them with the list of packages that actually exist. If a package listed above has already been removed from the distribution, don't worry about it. Again, I offer my help with the bugscripts, since my scripts do check if a package is still available. Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpEh6eXRfyOI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
thread... == It's alpha software, but it's free and doesn't break your system. Let's ship it. If we are going to remove all packages which are buggy, we have to ship an empty CD ROM. Bug free software doesn't seem to exist per definition :) Who cares if Gnome is buggy? People who want to use it will use it, and find bugs and report them, they'll do some testing. We need to encourage testing. This is how the bazaar model works. As long as people don't expect it to work smoothly, there's no problem. == The debian CD's have had software marked alpha or beta in the past, (sometimes marked VERY alpha). So what's the problem with Gnome? (RedHat is shipping gnome). _ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Hi,
Wichert == Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gnus 25609 Gnus: prerm script failure make it
impossible to upgrade/pruge [64]
(Michael Alan Dorman
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Wichert Removing that will make a _lot_ of people really angry I think..
I am the new maintainer. A new version has already been
uploaded and installed, and all bugs against gnus are now closed. I
shall now concentrate on the make-gnus script, and see about
packaging that.
manoj
--
Date: 17 Mar 90 18:30:39 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal
Schwartz) @ARGV=split(//,'Just another Perl
hacker,');push(@x,'')[EMAIL PROTECTED]@ARGV;
for$x($[..$#x){grep(*y=*_,$x[$x]);$y=shift;[EMAIL PROTECTED];
@ARGV=split(//,'Just another Perl hacker,');push(@x,'')[EMAIL PROTECTED]@ARGV;
for$y(@x){$y=shift;[EMAIL PROTECTED];
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Brian White wrote: mount 27421 mount: fails to parse existing /etc/fstab [10] (Vincent Renardias [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I've just fixed this in a non-maintainer upload with prior negotiation with the official maintainer. -- Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about it's friends.
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Hello, On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote: strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51] (Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and found no explanation. I think strace is too useful for debugging and should not be removed. Imagine later bug reports, where the developers wants the user to run strace. And then try to explain them why strace is not included in the Debian distribution. Looking at the bug report, I see no reason why strace should be undistributable. It works okay in many situations and does not break the system. Unless Raul or someone else can provide some rationale for the importance of the bug, I vote for downgrading it to severity normal. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:52:33PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to take a look at bug #27395 because pcmcia-modules works for me. The report says not that they don't work, but that some things are not so good. They seem to be valid concerns although I'm not sure they are release-critical; Manoj may disagree. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time. What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff? The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0 release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and stable. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to release them as a part of a stable distribution, as they really aren't. There aren't any guarantees that the stuff that runs today is going to run tomorrow. Cheers, - Jim
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Thu 15 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote: strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51] (Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and found no explanation. I think strace is too useful for debugging and should not be removed. Seconded! I agree fully. Paul Slootman -- home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote: Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time. What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff? The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0 release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and stable. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to release them as a part of a stable distribution, as they really aren't. There aren't any guarantees that the stuff that runs today is going to run tomorrow. This is right, but please don't remove gnome from slink. If gnome on CD-Rom the user can play with it and can write bug-reports and/or pachtes. Change only the description with a first Line like '** This is alpha software. It can run but it can destroy the system too **' and you can move it to extra. Grisu -- Michael Bramer - a Debian Certified Linux Developerhttp://www.debian.org PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux Sysadmin -- Use Debian Linux The Box said 'Windows NT or better', so I installed Debian Linux pgpyV7Exfk3yQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
smb2www 27641 perl 5.005-02 breaks smb2www [0] (Craig Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]) This one also refers to the version of perl which has been removed. (It broke every module, so there are several such bug reports) I knew about it, but not which bugs it affected. I'll disable this bug on my side so it won't affect anything. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Touch passion when it comes your way. It's rare enough as it is; don't walk away when it calls you by name. -- Marcus (Babylon 5)
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wednesday 14 October 1998, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following are packages I feel we can remove: ... netatalk 25598 netalk: several problems (and the solution) [64] (Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED]) As a new developer, I just want to be sure. Does it mean we can ship 2.1 with *less* packages than 2.0 and important packages like this one? If so, why would people upgrade to slink?
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Jim Pick wrote: Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time. What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff? The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0 release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and stable. I vote for leave them in. I feel much in favour of presenting them to the world. Basically they work. There are bugs and some pieces don't work. I don't consider this as a problem. Regards, Joey -- Install joe (Joey's Own Editor) correct: Joe's Own Editor
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote: strace26065 strace confused about sigaction flags [51] (Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hmm. Why is this bug important anyway? I've looked at the bug report and found no explanation. Darn. I downgraded that one to normal yesterday. I must have missed it going over the list, since the severity hadn't propogated to the bug-list when I generated the reports. If it isn't normal by now, please change it again. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- If you have a 50% chance of guessing right, you'll guess wrong 75% of the time.
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote: What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff? Keep it in! The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0 release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and stable. Declare the packages alpha if you want but keep it in please. Let's give the people a chance to use gnome. BTW I use it and found parts to be pretty stable. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff? The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0 release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and stable. I vote for leave them in. I feel much in favour of presenting them to the world. Basically they work. There are bugs and some pieces don't work. I don't consider this as a problem. Also, slashdot says slink includes Gnome. It would be a disappointment to many if we pulled it. Ben -- nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chebuctohttp://www.chebucto.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote: Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, everybody... It's that time again. I've gone through the bug logs and made my list of packages to keep/remove should they still have release-critical (i.e. critical, grave, or important) bugs at ship time. What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff? The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0 release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and stable. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to release them as a part of a stable distribution, as they really aren't. There aren't any guarantees that the stuff that runs today is going to run tomorrow. I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a fine demonstration, but it doesn't add value to Debian until it can be used either a) to hack against, or b) to provide a workable desktop environment.
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote: vrwave23436 vrwave should maybe go in contrib? [124] (Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a [EMAIL PROTECTED]) xswallow 25932 Xswallow should be in contrib [55] (Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a [EMAIL PROTECTED]) OK. These two are mine, sorry for not answering before. - vrwave Vrwave should go into non-free, because the license does not permit commercial use without prior consent of IICM. This is a pity, since it means there will not be a VRML browser for slink in main. A real pity. This is my fault, I should have had more time to fix this (move it into non-free) with a new upload, but I don't know how to do this? File a bug against ftp.debian.org? Anyhow, there is another point here I would like to be cleared. Bug #23436 states it should go into contrib because it depends on jdk1.1 I am not suscribed to debian-java (nor have time to read it), but I think it is a pity that ALL java software (even *real* free ones) should go into contrib just because there is not of now a java virtual machine that will really work. This is not to say that I do not appreciate developer's efforts on guavac, kaffe, or similar software. - xswallow It depends on netscape since it is a plugin for it, I will try it with mozilla though, if it works I might rename the depends to to Depends: netscape | mozilla. If not it could be moved onto contrib. This is ok for main? Regards Javi
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote: This is my fault, I should have had more time to fix this (move it into non-free) with a new upload, but I don't know how to do this? File a bug against ftp.debian.org? Just upload the package with section non-free/whatever, and it will be taken care of. - xswallow It depends on netscape since it is a plugin for it, I will try it with mozilla though, if it works I might rename the depends to to Depends: netscape | mozilla. If not it could be moved onto contrib. This is ok for main? Depends: mozilla | netscape would be better for main, particularly since mozilla is a real package and netscape is virtual. Note that mozilla itself is listed for removal, because it won't run with libc6 2.0.7u. I think it's likely that the bug is in libc6, though. Richard Braakman
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White wrote: libmagick4-dev19332 libmagick: ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb LI#67 [217] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K. Ellis)) I wish I would understand a message like that. :-) libpgjava 27753 libpgjava: depends on jdk1.1-runtime, which is now included in jdk1.1 [0] (Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anyone's taking care of this? Since Olipher cannot compile at the moment we need an NMU. But I lack the possibilities to download the source. I might try tomorrow though. secure-su 26827 secure-su breaks findutils (And who knows what else) [25] (Guy Maor [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Guy, do you have the time to fix this? Personally I like the secure-su package a lot. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Michael == Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Brian White Michael wrote: Brian libmagick4-dev 19332 libmagick: Brian ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb LI#67 [217] Brian ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott K. Ellis)) Michael I wish I would understand a message like that. :-) It's pretty simple. The packaging manual says that for dpkg to do its job correctly w.r.t. shared libraries and symlinks, you *must* install the .so.1.2.3 library in debian/tmp/ before you make the symlink from the .so.1 - .so.1.2.3 . This is so dpkg can emulate what ldconfig does. -- Brought to you by the letters B and S and the number 3. * denotes Hot and Spicy! -- *Ben Gertzfield Debian GNU/Linux -- where do you want to go tomorrow? http://www.debian.org/ I'm on FurryMUCK as Che, and EFNet and YiffNet IRC as Che_Fox.
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Ben Armstrong wrote: The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0 release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and stable. I vote for leave them in. I feel much in favour of presenting them to the world. Basically they work. There are bugs and some pieces don't work. I don't consider this as a problem. Also, slashdot says slink includes Gnome. It would be a disappointment to many if we pulled it. Args. Don't argue with a Brucism. Apart from that you're probably right. Regards, Joey -- Install joe (Joey's Own Editor) correct: Joe's Own Editor
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Wednesday 14 October 1998, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following are packages I feel we can remove: ... netatalk 25598 netalk: several problems (and the solution) [64] (Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED]) As a new developer, I just want to be sure. Does it mean we can ship 2.1 with *less* packages than 2.0 and important packages like this one? If so, why would people upgrade to slink? Slink contains 500 packages more than hamm. I didn't count that many packages on Glider's list. Why upgrade? Because the packages are newer? Contain new^H^H^Hless bugs? Reflect the current development? Regards, Joey -- Install joe (Joey's Own Editor) correct: Joe's Own Editor
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Marc Singer wrote: I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a fine demonstration, but it doesn't add value to Debian until it can be used either a) to hack against, or b) to provide a workable desktop environment. There are two big values. a) Marketing: Debian ships with Gnome, the new desktop environment. b) Publicity: Look that's *the* desktop environment Regards, Joey -- Install joe (Joey's Own Editor) correct: Joe's Own Editor
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 12:18:21AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Marc Singer wrote: I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a fine demonstration, but it doesn't add value to Debian until it can be used either a) to hack against, or b) to provide a workable desktop environment. There are two big values. a) Marketing: Debian ships with Gnome, the new desktop environment. b) Publicity: Look that's *the* desktop environment Well, what happens when lots of people try it, see that it is broken, and associate Gnome with being broken and unstable? That said, I don't think that will happen if it is loudly declared to be *ALPHA SOFTWARE*, and I think everyone will benefit from more copies being distributed, and vote in favor of shipping. Ciao, -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:24:23PM -0700, David Welton wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 12:18:21AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Marc Singer wrote: I installed it yesterday to get a glimpse at what they are doing. I'd say it should be left out because it doesn't really work. It is a fine demonstration, but it doesn't add value to Debian until it can be used either a) to hack against, or b) to provide a workable desktop environment. There are two big values. a) Marketing: Debian ships with Gnome, the new desktop environment. b) Publicity: Look that's *the* desktop environment Well, what happens when lots of people try it, see that it is broken, and associate Gnome with being broken and unstable? That said, I don't think that will happen if it is loudly declared to be *ALPHA SOFTWARE*, and I think everyone will benefit from more copies being distributed, and vote in favor of shipping. It's alpha software, but it's free and doesn't break your system. Let's ship it. If we are going to remove all packages which are buggy, we have to ship an empty CD ROM. Bug free software doesn't seem to exist per definition :) Who cares if Gnome is buggy? People who want to use it will use it, and find bugs and report them, they'll do some testing. We need to encourage testing. This is how the bazaar model works. As long as people don't expect it to work smoothly, there's no problem. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
David == David Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Well, what happens when lots of people try it, see that it David is broken, and associate Gnome with being broken and David unstable? That said, I don't think that will happen if it David is loudly declared to be *ALPHA SOFTWARE*, and I think David everyone will benefit from more copies being distributed, David and vote in favor of shipping. While you're all on this thread, what about mozilla? I was going to ask Brian for an extension for mozilla as I won't make 00:00 Saturday GMT, but if you're throught out alpha packages maybe I should do something else this week-end? -- Stephen --- Perl is really designed more for the guys that will hack Perl at least 20 minutes a day for the rest of their career. TCL/Python is more a 20 minutes a week, and VB is probably in that 20 minutes a month group. :) -- Randal Schwartz
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Brian ada-rm 27918 ada-rm: This large package should be architecture: Brian all [0] () This is fixed and the bug has been closed. Sam - -- Samuel Tardieu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAwUBNiTT/IFdzKExeYBpAQEMNAP/YPACdtFhUgKfDHi6dmOb25XcRmI/8mQm aS8N2ajDCYjh2enpnrqTfC6IDW63k8hBotkjQk2y0NP2P1VikOPv4mYPPEGLcpbx xw+GaXu+/eYbUt8jnkZ4VKelvjJuWMEwQ6UzwIbmD7gqFgtSIi9KsHRwU/WTGZJJ 5ckOJw5COcc= =wWpA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
perl 27604 Perl @INC needs /usr/lib/perl5 [7] (Darren Stalder [EMAIL PROTECTED]) perl 27738 perl: @INC does not contain /usr/lib/perl5 [0] (Darren Stalder [EMAIL PROTECTED]) This doesn't affect the current perl version but the version to be used in 2.2. However you're right, that we cannot ship 2.1 without perl. That's what I thought, but I wanted confirmation before I excluded them explicitly. The following are packages I feel we can remove: balsa 27726 balsa cannot be run [0] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ole J. Tetlie)) balsa 27894 balsa is linked against ancient version of gtk [0] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ole J. Tetlie)) Will be fixed tonight (promised by maintainer). Also a new upstream version is about to arrive. gnome-gnothello 27405 gnome-gnothello doesn't run here [10] (James LewisMoss [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Closed now. Okay. I'll be regenerating the list on Friday after the install, anyway. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- When you love someone, you're always insecure. (Tell Her About It -- B.Joel)
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
*-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton)) | | Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking | care of this one, too? Already uploaded. Closing bugs as soon as I have minutes to spare (IMO :-). -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee to theorems (Paul Erdøs) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [-: .elOle. :-] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
*-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton)) | | Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking | care of this one, too? Yelp! This bug is now closed, but I think I found another. Can someone try yagirc, and see if it works at all. It starts up for me, but I can't connect. If someone has some time to spare, I'd appreciate help on this one. -- ...Unix, MS-DOS, and MS Windows (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). (Matt Welsh) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [-: .elOle. :-] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
smb2www 27641 perl 5.005-02 breaks smb2www [0] (Craig Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]) This one also refers to the version of perl which has been removed. (It broke every module, so there are several such bug reports) John Lapeyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
yagirc trouble (Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1)
Ole J. Tetlie wrote: *-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton)) | | Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking | care of this one, too? Yelp! This bug is now closed, but I think I found another. Can someone try yagirc, and see if it works at all. It starts up for me, but I can't connect. It crashes if there is no .yagirc directory. After the first crash it run but wasn't able to display the icons. Screenshot at http://www.infodrom.north.de/~joey/Linux/Debian/yagirc.png On startup I get tons of these: Gdk-WARNING **: Creating pixmap from xpm with NULL window and colormap Regards, Joey -- Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about it's friends.
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Brian White wrote: htdig 25412 htdig: htdig ignores config file stuff/absolute pathnames compiled in [70] (Gergely Madarasz [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Fixed last week, remembered to close it today :) -- Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Re: yagirc trouble (Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1)
*-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Ole J. Tetlie wrote: | *-Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | yagirc24747 yagirc: Binary and Libs for yagirc stored in /bin and /lib [87] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton)) | | | | Davide isn't maintaining this package anymore. Ole, are you taking | | care of this one, too? | | Yelp! This bug is now closed, but I think I found another. | Can someone try yagirc, and see if it works at all. It starts up | for me, but I can't connect. Fortunately, this was false alarm. My brain was down. | It crashes if there is no .yagirc directory. Argh. Will fix. | After the first crash it run but wasn't able to display the icons. Hehe. I complained to the author about the same thing. He told me that I was lucky because the current pixmaps were so ugly. Then I got suspicious and did: my_favourite_image_viewer /usr/share/yagirc/pixmaps/quit.xpm Try it! :-) | Screenshot at | http://www.infodrom.north.de/~joey/Linux/Debian/yagirc.png | | On startup I get tons of these: | | | Gdk-WARNING **: Creating pixmap from xpm with NULL window and colormap They are harmless, but annoying. Upstream is working on it. -- ...Unix, MS-DOS, and MS Windows (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). (Matt Welsh) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [-: .elOle. :-] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: yagirc trouble (Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1)
Ole J. Tetlie wrote: | After the first crash it run but wasn't able to display the icons. Hehe. I complained to the author about the same thing. He told me that I was lucky because the current pixmaps were so ugly. Then I got suspicious and did: my_favourite_image_viewer /usr/share/yagirc/pixmaps/quit.xpm Try it! :-) Just templates, or what are you trying to tell me? Regards, Joey -- Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about it's friends.
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following are packages I feel we can remove: pcmcia-modules-2 27395 pcmcia-modules are totally broken out of the box [11] (Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED]) pcmcia-source 26657 pcmcia-source: Needs this patch to work on 2.1.118+ kernels [32] (Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Uhhmmm, pcmcia-modules is very important. A notebook doesn't have connectivity without this (unless the notebook is using a modem hooked to an internal serial port). Debian 2.1 will be shipped with a 2.0.x kernel so I fail to understand why bug #26657 is critical to the release of Debian 2.1. I have to take a look at bug #27395 because pcmcia-modules works for me. peloy.-
