Re: Section of -dev packages
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% grep-dctrl -F Priority required /var/lib/apt/lists/storage_debian-amd64_dists_stable_main_binary-amd64_Packages -s Section | sort | uniq -c 1 Section: admin 36 Section: base 1 Section: devel 12 Section: libs 1 Section: oldlibs Not so usefull with over 25% exceptions to the rule. Happily, that's not the case in unstable today: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~grep-dctrl -F Priority required /var/lib/apt/lists/homer.mexico.debconf.org_debian_dists_sid_main_binary-i386_Packages -s Section | sort | uniq -c 17 Section: admin 2 Section: devel 21 Section: libs 1 Section: misc 5 Section: perl 1 Section: shells 14 Section: utils important packages are also installed by debootstrap, so in base.. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~grep-dctrl -F Priority important /var/lib/apt/lists/homer.mexico.debconf.org_debian_dists_sid_main_binary-i386_Packages -s Section | sort | uniq -c 13 Section: admin 3 Section: doc 3 Section: editors 20 Section: libs 8 Section: net 1 Section: text 7 Section: utils 1 Section: web Glad to see that the base section has been almost entirely done away with now, #184966 can almost be closed. The exceptions? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~grep-aptavail -F Section base -s package package: gnumach package: kernel-headers-2.4-386 package: kernel-headers-2.4-586tsc package: kernel-headers-2.4-686 package: kernel-headers-2.4-686-smp package: kernel-headers-2.4-k6 package: kernel-headers-2.4-k7 package: kernel-headers-2.4-k7-smp package: kernel-image-2.4-386 package: kernel-image-2.4-586tsc package: kernel-image-2.4-686 package: kernel-image-2.4-686-smp package: kernel-image-2.4-k6 package: kernel-image-2.4-k7 package: kernel-image-2.4-k7-smp package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-386 package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-586tsc package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-686 package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-686-smp package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-k6 package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-k7 package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-k7-smp package: kernel-image-2.4.27-speakup package: kernel-image-2.6-386 package: kernel-image-2.6-686 package: kernel-image-2.6-686-smp package: kernel-image-2.6-k7 package: kernel-image-2.6-k7-smp package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4-386 package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4-586tsc package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4-686 package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4-686-smp package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4-k6 package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4-k7 package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4-k7-smp package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-2-386 package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-2-586tsc package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-2-686 package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-2-686-smp package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-2-k6 package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-2-k7 package: kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-2-k7-smp package: libnewt0.52 package: linux-image-2.6-486 package: linux-image-2.6-686 package: linux-image-2.6-686-smp package: linux-image-2.6-k7 package: linux-image-2.6-k7-smp package: linux-image-2.6-vserver-686 package: linux-image-2.6-vserver-k7 package: linux-image-2.6-xen-686 package: linux-image-2.6-xen-k7 package: linux-image-2.6-xen-vserver-686 package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-486 package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-686 package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-686-smp package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-k7 package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-k7-smp package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-vserver-686 package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-vserver-k7 package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-xen-686 package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-xen-k7 package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-xen-vserver-686 package: linux-image-486 package: linux-image-686 package: linux-image-686-smp package: linux-image-k7 package: linux-image-k7-smp package: linux-image-vserver-686 package: linux-image-vserver-k7 package: linux-image-xen-686 package: linux-image-xen-k7 package: linux-image-xen-vserver-686 package: linux-modules-2.6.16-1-xen-686 package: linux-modules-2.6.16-1-xen-k7 package: linux-modules-2.6.16-1-xen-vserver-686 package: realtime-lsm package: realtime-lsm-source package: zd1211-source package: zd1211-firmware package: linux-image-2.6.17-rc3-486 package: linux-image-2.6.17-rc3-686 package: linux-image-2.6.17-rc3-k7 package: tasksel -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Section of -dev packages
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:06:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether? We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and since the pool structure is used sections have been quite useless. There are some reasons I'm not trying to push for this: 1) some sections still are meaningful (base comes to my mind) 2) there is no direct debtags 1-1 mapping for sections, so we have no clear upgrade path for applications that still use sections 3) I'm stuck with review of submitted tags, which means that the reviewed set of tags that goes in the Packages page is outdated. There is no current sustainable way to keep it up-to-date, and debtags cannot go prime time until that happens. Luckily they are ideas, some made it into the Summer of Code bundle, some are mostly SMOP, in a way or another we'll have updated tags in unstable again. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Section of -dev packages
Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:06:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether? We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and since the pool structure is used sections have been quite useless. There are some reasons I'm not trying to push for this: 1) some sections still are meaningful (base comes to my mind) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% grep-dctrl -F Priority required /var/lib/apt/lists/storage_debian-amd64_dists_stable_main_binary-amd64_Packages -s Section | sort | uniq -c 1 Section: admin 36 Section: base 1 Section: devel 12 Section: libs 1 Section: oldlibs Not so usefull with over 25% exceptions to the rule. 2) there is no direct debtags 1-1 mapping for sections, so we have no clear upgrade path for applications that still use sections Does anything use them apart from sorting them into sections for display? It should not be so difficult to add the value of section to each packages debtags in some form if that is considered usefull. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060518 21:20]: Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep what the package says. Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or contrib accidentially end up in main when the section is wrong? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060518 21:20]: Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep what the package says. Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or contrib accidentially end up in main when the section is wrong? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link That is intermingled with sections in the override files. But istead of having libs contrib/libs and non-free/libs the override file could just state main, contrib or non-free. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060518 21:20]: Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep what the package says. Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or contrib accidentially end up in main when the section is wrong? But a package is initially placed into main, non-free or contrib at the time it is first uploaded based on its specified section in debian/control then! At least, I presume FTP-master either agrees with the maintainer's assessment of whether it goes into main, non-free, or contrib; or else rejects the package. It seems pretty unlikely to me that a maintainer would later change the section from contrib or non-free to main (or vice-versa, for that matter) by accident. If it does get changed, almost certainly the maintainer did it intentionally as a result of a license change, etc. regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17 May 2006, at 10:46 pm, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: I found this more instructive: $ apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' | xargs apt-cache show | grep \^Section: | sort | uniq -c 1 Section: admin 1 Section: comm 3 Section: contrib/libdevel 256 Section: devel 5 Section: doc 1 Section: electronics 1 Section: games 3 Section: gnome 3 Section: graphics 6 Section: interpreters 3 Section: kde 1379 Section: libdevel ... etc In other words, on a Sarge system (with backports), over 93% of the packages (the total is 1757) report themselves as being in devel or libdevel. On the whole, I would say that is pretty good. Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I would have said there is sometimes an argument for a development package not being in devel, but rather being in the same section as its 'parent' program; one could think of devel and libdevel as being for general purpose programming tools and libraries. There could be examples where the development files are only really relevant in some extremely specialised context (for example some scientific application or other) and cluttering up the devel and libdevel sections with them just adds noise to those sections. I'm not saying I actually agree with this, but I can see an argument for it. A case in point might be libamu4-dev, a package for which I am the maintainer. This contains development files for libamu4, the core libraries of the BSD automounter. It is in libdevel, as you'd expect. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually uses these (I don't have any practical need for them, and I'm the package maintainer!) - they're there in case people want to, but I suspect it's a package needed or wanted by a vanishingly small number of people, and it certainly doesn't count as a general purpose programming library. Does it really need to be staring people in the face in the libdevel section? Tim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) iQEVAwUBRGxoBhypeFo2odvPAQIhpgf/XdDs0nRNAKrPOXpGTxSfRtqLsXzIQwPV bZPfNoeW0JcURqngfmmkb2Kv0ClEovsQ8qjEupzhYx6avX09iTmIKHvXQgZ7bckk Ve3wOgYZEHMpZOhmXyRe5SKNGXXoZqEZ8Wd4/Nl+twQlkrRXedPPO7NYXKkRgpVY T75+3PE5wrXgLafAuTGIIYthPiP4iLE8fwXBVP1qhG+jndvWoIbXe5wpQgsO5AmT 6ENlmFt7NULZsOJYlM4sP0YQHZR6lureP7dj0QNvp7dLdii9WBSH3byMsVAQAGbv j85D8Tf/SIfO4atmq1Eb4tpbPzOucvsuJM4VBFdzLNPWPu/eiNNGpQ== =FrSj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in unexpected sections, obtained as follows: grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s Section,Package | paste -sd ' \n' | \ egrep -v '^Section: (|contrib/|non-free/)(doc|python|(lib|)devel)' | \ cut -d ' ' -f 4 | sort I excluded packages in libdevel,devel,python,doc from the list since: Exclude oldlibs too. Sure, here is the list with oldlibs excluded also. Note that there may also be a few non-i386 packages that I missed. (Scroll down for the list of source packages by maintainer.) Anyone intending to file bugs may want to go through the list in more detail - for instance a convincing argument could be made that kdevelop3-dev really does belong in section kde. (And I already switched the section of cernlib-core-dev from science to devel in my local copy to be uploaded in the next few days, so no need to chastise me :-) aleph-dev beagle-dev cernlib-core-dev cimg-dev cli-common-dev courier-authlib-dev dpkg-dev gmpc-dev gnome-applets-dev irssi-dev jsvc-dev k3d-dev kaffe-dev kdeutils-dev kdevelop3-dev konwert-dev libapr1.0-dev libapreq2-dev libaprutil1.0-dev libcdg123-dev libdb4.2-java-dev libdb4.3-java-dev libdb4.4-java-dev libdspam7-dev libfontenc-dev libghc6-plugins-dev libghc6-pugs-dev libgl1-mesa-directfb-dev libgnokii2-dev libgnome-media-dev libicee-dev libkexi-dev libmodplug-dev libmodxslt0-dev libmpd-dev libnautilus-burn-dev libnmz7-dev libnws-dev libqcad0-dev libqgis0-dev libqglviewer-dev libstk0-dev libverbiste0-dev libvncserver-dev libxfont-dev libxmpp4r-ruby1.8-dev ltp-dev madwifi-dev med-bio-dev med-imaging-dev mnogosearch-dev mozilla-thunderbird-dev nut-dev nvidia-glx-dev nvidia-glx-legacy-dev perdition-dev pike7.6-dev pinball-dev planetpenguin-racer-gimp-dev playground-dev plplot-tcl-dev rsbac-dev supercollider-dev swish-e-dev thunderbird-dev vdr-dev x11proto-bigreqs-dev x11proto-composite-dev x11proto-core-dev x11proto-damage-dev x11proto-dmx-dev x11proto-evie-dev x11proto-fixes-dev x11proto-fontcache-dev x11proto-fonts-dev x11proto-gl-dev x11proto-input-dev x11proto-kb-dev x11proto-print-dev x11proto-randr-dev x11proto-record-dev x11proto-render-dev x11proto-resource-dev x11proto-scrnsaver-dev x11proto-trap-dev x11proto-video-dev x11proto-xcmisc-dev x11proto-xext-dev x11proto-xf86bigfont-dev x11proto-xf86dga-dev x11proto-xf86dri-dev x11proto-xf86misc-dev x11proto-xf86vidmode-dev x11proto-xinerama-dev xorg-dev xserver-xorg-dev xtrans-dev xutils-dev Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU) [EMAIL PROTECTED] stk Stefan Hornburg (Racke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] courier-authlib Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] verbiste Paul Brossier [EMAIL PROTECTED] supercollider Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] nautilus-cd-burner Javier Carranza [EMAIL PROTECTED] qcad Debian Apache Maintainers debian-apache@lists.debian.org apr-util1.0 apr1.0 Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org kdeutils Debian X Strike Force debian-x@lists.debian.org libfontenc libxfont x11proto-bigreqs x11proto-composite x11proto-core x11proto-damage x11proto-dmx x11proto-evie x11proto-fixes x11proto-fontcache x11proto-fonts x11proto-gl x11proto-input x11proto-kb x11proto-randr x11proto-record x11proto-render x11proto-resource x11proto-scrnsaver x11proto-trap x11proto-video x11proto-xcmisc x11proto-xext x11proto-xf86bigfont x11proto-xf86dga x11proto-xf86dri x11proto-xf86misc x11proto-xf86vidmode x11proto-xinerama xorg xorg-server xtrans xutils-dev Dpkg Developers [EMAIL PROTECTED] dpkg Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] konwert Randall Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] nvidia-graphics-drivers nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy Ludovic Drolez [EMAIL PROTECTED] libvncserver swish-e Jochen Friedrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] pinball David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] playground Jan-Marek Glogowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] libcdg123 Debian Mono Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] cli-common Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] kexi Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] libapreq2 Marek Habersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] pike7.6 Steve Halasz [EMAIL PROTECTED] qgis Johannes Hirche [EMAIL PROTECTED] qglviewer Simon Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED] perdition Philipp Hug [EMAIL PROTECTED] mnogosearch Norman Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] kdevelop3 Rafael Laboissiere [EMAIL PROTECTED] plplot Debian Berkeley DB Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED] db4.2 db4.3 db4.4 Debian DSPAM Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED] dspam Debian Java Maintainers pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org commons-daemon kaffe Bradley Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] gnokii Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] cernlib Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL PROTECTED] ltp David Martínez Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] k3d
Re: Section of -dev packages
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Playing devil's advocate for a moment: While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether? We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and since the pool structure is used sections have been quite useless. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in unexpected sections, obtained as follows: Isn't that more a matter of updating the override files? Christoph signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Section of -dev packages
Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in unexpected sections, obtained as follows: Isn't that more a matter of updating the override files? Christoph Sources say what section gets put into the deb. Overrides say what section gets put into the Packages files. Both have to change. Mismatches result in a nag mail when uploading a package and shows up on packages.qa.d.o. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in unexpected sections, obtained as follows: Isn't that more a matter of updating the override files? Christoph Sources say what section gets put into the deb. Overrides say what section gets put into the Packages files. Both have to change. Mismatches result in a nag mail when uploading a package and shows up on packages.qa.d.o. I don't really understand the reason for this redundancy. Maybe back in the good old days when the archive really was organized by package sections, it had its uses. Nowadays it just seems like a pain in the neck for maintainers who want to update the sections of their packages (most commonly, I would imagine, to oldlibs) as well as a hassle for the people with the power to update the overrides (the FTP-masters, I guess). Could the archive infrastructure be updated to synch the override file with what's in the .debs automatically? regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could the archive infrastructure be updated to synch the override file with what's in the .debs automatically? regards, Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep what the package says. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Section of -dev packages
Jörg Sommer wrote: Hi, I ever thought development packages classified by $NAME-dev belong to the Section devel or libdevel, but snip output I am really suprised. Which packages belong to devel/libdevel? I found this more instructive: $ apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' | xargs apt-cache show | grep \^Section: | sort | uniq -c 1 Section: admin 1 Section: comm 3 Section: contrib/libdevel 256 Section: devel 5 Section: doc 1 Section: electronics 1 Section: games 3 Section: gnome 3 Section: graphics 6 Section: interpreters 3 Section: kde 1379 Section: libdevel 5 Section: libs 6 Section: mail 2 Section: math 5 Section: misc 3 Section: net 6 Section: non-free/devel 1 Section: non-free/doc 3 Section: non-free/libdevel 1 Section: non-free/net 2 Section: non-free/x11 25 Section: oldlibs 17 Section: python 2 Section: science 3 Section: sound 4 Section: text 4 Section: utils 3 Section: web 3 Section: x11 In other words, on a Sarge system (with backports), over 93% of the packages (the total is 1757) report themselves as being in devel or libdevel. On the whole, I would say that is pretty good. -ROberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Section of -dev packages
In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in unexpected sections, obtained as follows: grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s Section,Package | paste -sd ' \n' | \ egrep -v '^Section: (|contrib/|non-free/)(doc|python|(lib|)devel)' | \ cut -d ' ' -f 4 | sort I excluded packages in libdevel,devel,python,doc from the list since: - the packages in doc are all manpage-dev type packages - the packages in python are mainly things like python-qt-dev Below that is the same list piped into dd-list (sorry, dd-list apparently can only output source package names). aleph-dev atm-dev beagle-dev cernlib-core-dev cimg-dev cli-common-dev courier-authlib-dev dpkg-dev gdk-imlib11-dev glutg3-dev gmpc-dev gnome-applets-dev imlib11-dev irssi-dev jsvc-dev k3d-dev kaffe-dev kdeutils-dev kdevelop3-dev konwert-dev libapr1.0-dev libapreq2-dev libaprutil1.0-dev libcapplet1-dev libcdg123-dev libdb4.2-java-dev libdb4.3-java-dev libdb4.4-java-dev libdspam7-dev libfontenc-dev libgal-dev libgd-dev libgd-noxpm-dev libgd-xpm-dev libgdchart-gd1-noxpm-dev libgdchart-gd1-xpm-dev libgdk-pixbuf-dev libgdk-pixbuf-gnome-dev libghc6-plugins-dev libghc6-pugs-dev libghttp-dev libgl1-mesa-directfb-dev libgle-dev libglib1.2-dev libgnokii2-dev libgnome-media-dev libgtk1.2-dev libicee-dev libkexi-dev libmodplug-dev libmodxslt0-dev libmpd-dev libnautilus-burn-dev libnet0-dev libnmz7-dev libnws-dev libqcad0-dev libqgis0-dev libqglviewer-dev libsdl-ttf1.2-dev libstk0-dev libttf-dev libverbiste0-dev libvncserver-dev libxfont-dev libxmpp4r-ruby1.8-dev ltp-dev madwifi-dev med-bio-dev med-imaging-dev mnogosearch-dev mozilla-thunderbird-dev nut-dev nvidia-glx-dev nvidia-glx-legacy-dev perdition-dev pike7.6-dev pinball-dev planetpenguin-racer-gimp-dev playground-dev plplot-tcl-dev rsbac-dev supercollider-dev svgalibg1-dev swish-e-dev thunderbird-dev vdr-dev x11proto-bigreqs-dev x11proto-composite-dev x11proto-core-dev x11proto-damage-dev x11proto-dmx-dev x11proto-evie-dev x11proto-fixes-dev x11proto-fontcache-dev x11proto-fonts-dev x11proto-gl-dev x11proto-input-dev x11proto-kb-dev x11proto-print-dev x11proto-randr-dev x11proto-record-dev x11proto-render-dev x11proto-resource-dev x11proto-scrnsaver-dev x11proto-trap-dev x11proto-video-dev x11proto-xcmisc-dev x11proto-xext-dev x11proto-xf86bigfont-dev x11proto-xf86dga-dev x11proto-xf86dri-dev x11proto-xf86misc-dev x11proto-xf86vidmode-dev x11proto-xinerama-dev xorg-dev xserver-xorg-dev xtrans-dev xutils-dev Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU) [EMAIL PROTECTED] stk Stefan Hornburg (Racke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] courier-authlib Peter De Schrijver (p2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-atm Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] libnet0 Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] gal0.x imlib libcapplet Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] verbiste Paul Brossier [EMAIL PROTECTED] supercollider Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] nautilus-cd-burner Javier Carranza [EMAIL PROTECTED] qcad Debian Apache Maintainers debian-apache@lists.debian.org apr-util1.0 apr1.0 Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org kdeutils Debian X Strike Force debian-x@lists.debian.org libfontenc libxfont x11proto-bigreqs x11proto-composite x11proto-core x11proto-damage x11proto-dmx x11proto-evie x11proto-fixes x11proto-fontcache x11proto-fonts x11proto-gl x11proto-input x11proto-kb x11proto-randr x11proto-record x11proto-render x11proto-resource x11proto-scrnsaver x11proto-trap x11proto-video x11proto-xcmisc x11proto-xext x11proto-xf86bigfont x11proto-xf86dga x11proto-xf86dri x11proto-xf86misc x11proto-xf86vidmode x11proto-xinerama xorg xorg-server xtrans xutils-dev Dpkg Developers [EMAIL PROTECTED] dpkg Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] konwert Randall Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] nvidia-graphics-drivers nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy Ludovic Drolez [EMAIL PROTECTED] libvncserver swish-e Anthony Fok [EMAIL PROTECTED] freetype1 Jochen Friedrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] pinball David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] playground Jan-Marek Glogowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] libcdg123 Debian Mono Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] cli-common Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] kexi libghttp Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] libapreq2 Marek Habersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] pike7.6 Steve Halasz [EMAIL PROTECTED] qgis Johannes Hirche [EMAIL PROTECTED] qglviewer Simon Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED] perdition Philipp Hug [EMAIL PROTECTED] mnogosearch Norman Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] kdevelop3 Guillem Jover [EMAIL PROTECTED] svgalib Rafael Laboissiere [EMAIL PROTECTED] plplot Debian Berkeley DB Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED] db4.2 db4.3 db4.4 Debian DSPAM Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED] dspam Debian Java Maintainers pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org commons-daemon kaffe
Re: Section of -dev packages
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in unexpected sections, obtained as follows: grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s Section,Package | paste -sd ' \n' | \ egrep -v '^Section: (|contrib/|non-free/)(doc|python|(lib|)devel)' | \ cut -d ' ' -f 4 | sort I excluded packages in libdevel,devel,python,doc from the list since: Exclude oldlibs too. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
