Re: mc problem - solved.
On 6 Jul 1997, Paul Seelig wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Troup) writes: It's Debian policy (afaik) that as little as possible should go into stable after release, and *definitely* as little as possible, if any, new upstream releases. This is very wise but i'd expect as well that stable should feature in any case released full versions of software instead of obsolete development releases. Like i already stated above serious bugfixing has resulted into mc-4.0 and it is IMHO necessary to make an upgrade release of mc to the officially released and officially approved final release of the MC development team. Considering the circumstances that: - mc is now really quite out of date; - going to hamm is quite a big leap (libc6), I do certainly look forward to having mc-4.0 in Debian-1.3.x. Until I am very sure that the transition to hamm and libc6 is a smooth one, I will cherish Debian-1.3.x as very stable. I will gladly test an mc_4.0.deb. Cheers, Joost -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mc problem - solved.
On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, David Puryear wrote:
On 05-Jul-97 Paul Seelig wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Puryear) writes:
In your /etc/mc/mc.ext you should have these:
# deb
regex/\.deb$
Open=%cd deb:%d/%p/
View=%view{ascii} dpkg-deb -c %f
A while back, I reported this as bug, but I guess it was not fixed.
I'll report this to the MC upstream maintainer Miguel de Icaza for
inclusion into the regular MC distribution. He was already so nice to
include support for *.deb in the main source code upon my request a
few months ago. Another milestone in making Debian packaging a de
facto standard besides RPM. ;-)
Cheers, P. *8^)
Sorry, I should have mentioned that this doesn't happen with upstream source
distribution.:)
In another interesting note, when I replace mc.ext from mc-4 source to
/etc/mc/mc.ext, *.deb and *.tar.gz browsing is lot faster using
mc_3.5.17-1_i386.deb:) If you are wondering why I didn't keep mc-4, I like to
keep this system *.deb format as much as possible, so I'll wait for mc-4.deb:)
You might be waiting for a long time. The package maintainer seems to
have lost interest. Perhaps we ask Paul nicely if he would take on the
job?
I found the problem. I listed version of various things on three Debian
boxes to which I have access. The version of mc is not an issue.
elm oak gum
mc worksno yes yes
dpkg1.4.0.8 1.4.0.8 1.4.0.8
libc4 4.6.27-15 4.6.27-15 -
libc5 5.4.23-65.4.23-65.4.23-3
libc6 2.0.4-1 - -
tar 1.12-1 1.11.8-11 1.11.8-11
gzip1.2.4-151.2.4-151.2.4-15
ldso1.9.2-2 1.8.10.21.8.10.2
perl5.003.07-10 5.003.07-10 5.003.07-10
The odd man out seemed to be tar, so I downgraded elm to the bo/tar with
the result that mc now works as advertised. The question now is - do I
lodge a bug report on mc or on tar? What evidence is there to support
either action?
My thanks to the list with special mention to Paul, David and Dale in
tracking this down.
mc_4.0-1 is a big improvement for me and I suggest that you all get hold
of a copy. There are copies on many mirrors including sunsite.
Lindsay
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lindsay Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perth, Western Australia
voice +61 8 9316 2486modem +61 8 9364-9832 32S, 116E
http: http://rolf.ece.curtin.edu.au/~lindsay debian linux
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mc problem - solved
As Lindsay pointed out, the patch in my previous post will break *.deb viewer for those who have tar-1.11. Be very afraid and do `dpkg -l tar` before applying the patch. :) (patch works for tar-1.12-1) -- Dimitri -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mc problem - solved
Hi 1) Please disregard my previous posting with lots of Perl and stuff: I was falling asleep when I posted that. I'm attaching a patch for /usr/local/lib/mc/extfs/deb (or wherever it is on your box) below. Note that the patch has Y2K bug, which leads me to 2) Is there a function in Perl to convert month from 2-digit MM to 3-letter Mon or do I have to roll my own? How about: $Mon=(Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec)[$mm-1] || bad_thing; ? Alex Y. -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ | _ 7 ''' \() (O O) / \ \ +---oOO--(_)+ |\ __/ -- | Alexander Yukhimets [EMAIL PROTECTED] | || | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ | ( / +-oOO---+ \ / |__|__| ) /(_ || || | (___)ooO Ooo \___) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mc problem - solved.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lindsay Allen) writes: In another interesting note, when I replace mc.ext from mc-4 source to /etc/mc/mc.ext, *.deb and *.tar.gz browsing is lot faster using mc_3.5.17-1_i386.deb:) If you are wondering why I didn't keep mc-4, I like to keep this system *.deb format as much as possible, so I'll wait for mc-4.deb:) You might be waiting for a long time. The package maintainer seems to have lost interest. Perhaps we ask Paul nicely if he would take on the job? Did you mail the official package maintainer directly, Lindsay? Note that there is an *unofficial* Debian mc-4.0 binary provided by me available on the regular Midnight Commander FTP sites, which can be installed within the regular Debian package management. And yes, i would love to take over maintenance of MC to keep it more up to date than it was kept in the past. I already had an email conversation with the current maintainer of the MC package Fernando Alegre [EMAIL PROTECTED] because i wanted to take over maintenance of MC out of being unsatisfied with the update frequency as well. Fernando stated that he wants to keep the package. Unfortunately he also stated, that he won't make an update release for stable but that he will concentrate on an libc6 release for unstable. I suppose his source distribution will compile with stable's libc5 anyway. Anyway, i consider it rather strange that Fernando isn't bothering to participate in this thread? But probably he is only reading along in debian-devel and not debian-user and simply doesn't know of it at all. The odd man out seemed to be tar, so I downgraded elm to the bo/tar with the result that mc now works as advertised. The question now is - do I lodge a bug report on mc or on tar? What evidence is there to support either action? I suppose you'd rather report a bug on tar. I had actually trouble with a former tar as well (it segfaulted with tar cvMf ...) and the solution was to simply recompile from it's unaltered Debian source package to make it work again. mc_4.0-1 is a big improvement for me and I suggest that you all get hold of a copy. There are copies on many mirrors including sunsite. Yes, mc-4.0 is a *very* much better version of MC and i wouldn't want to downgrade to mc-3.5.17 again. Anyway i think it is necessary to keep stable up to date with an officially released non-devel version like mc-4.0 and i hope that Fernando will make up his mind and provides a binary for stable as well. Maybe interested parties should ask him politely for an update in stable? Cheers, P. *8^) -- Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mc problem - solved
Alex Yukhimets wrote:
How about:
$Mon=(Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec)[$mm-1] || bad_thing;
?
I did, patch's below. I'd rather use an existing function if there was one
-- must be a software engineer in me (типа внутренний шпион).
--
Dimitri
--- deb.origSun Jul 6 22:32:52 1997
+++ deb Sun Jul 6 23:54:54 1997
@@ -34,8 +34,10 @@
{
while(PIPEIN)
{
-
($perm,$owgr,$size,$month,$day,$time,$year,$path,$arrow,$link,$link2)
+
($perm,$owgr,$size,$date,$time,$path,$arrow,$link,$link2)
= split;
+ ($year,$mon,$day) = split(/-/,$date);
+ $month =
(Gee,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec)[$mon]
|| Gee;
$owgr=~s!/! !;
next if $path=~m!/$!;
if($arrow eq 'link')
Re: mc problem - solved.
On 6 Jul 1997, Paul Seelig wrote: Note that there is an *unofficial* Debian mc-4.0 binary provided by me available on the regular Midnight Commander FTP sites, which can be installed within the regular Debian package management. Paul, for someone who is ignorant of the regular MC ftp sites (do you mean sunsite or tsx-11?), could you elaborate on where this new *.deb of MC could be located? Thanks in advance. | Debian GNU/ __ o Regards, |/ / _ _ _ _ _ __ __ .| / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / Randy| // /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | ...because lockups are for convicts... -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mc problem - solved.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Edwards) writes: On 6 Jul 1997, Paul Seelig wrote: Note that there is an *unofficial* Debian mc-4.0 binary provided by me available on the regular Midnight Commander FTP sites, which can be installed within the regular Debian package management. Paul, for someone who is ignorant of the regular MC ftp sites (do you mean sunsite or tsx-11?), could you elaborate on where this new *.deb of MC could be located? Thanks in advance. I suppose you could definitely find all necessary information in /usr/doc/mc/README ;-). Anyway, just check out the official MC homepage http://mc.blackdown.org/mc/; for further information. The primary FTP site for MC is ftp://ftp.nuclecu.unam.mx//linux/local/; which contains a subdirectory with binaries for quite some platforms. A debianized source package can be found at our institute's FTP site in ftp://ietpd1.sowi.uni-mainz.de/pub/debian/unofficial/sources/;. According to the official Debian package maintainer Fernando Alegre a debianized source package can be expected at least for unstable in a week or so. But i suppose it'll arrive into incoming first. Cheers, P. *8^) -- Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mc problem - solved.
[ Redirected to debian.user at Paul Seelig's insistence ] Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No. New upstream versions do not go into stable without *very* good reason. Well, the current mc-3.5.17 is an *old* development version which has since long been superseded by some 31 following patchlevels including serious bug fixing and quite some very worthy new features culminating into the switch from mc-3.5.48 to mc-4.0. And it's 31 patch levels of new and untested (in Debian) code. Not to mention that if you were to release it it would be a new maintainer and completely new and untested Debian packaging. The latter is an officially released version by the official upstream maintainers and i'm sincerely of the opinion that we shouldn't accept any obsolete devel versions of programs in stable. It's Debian policy (afaik) that as little as possible should go into stable after release, and *definitely* as little as possible, if any, new upstream releases. (The only exception to this is major security holes, which is why xfree 3.3 might/will be going into bo-updates) -- James -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mc problem - solved.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Troup) writes: [ Redirected to debian.user at Paul Seelig's insistence ] Thanks a lot! :-) Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, the current mc-3.5.17 is an *old* development version which has since long been superseded by some 31 following patchlevels including serious bug fixing and quite some very worthy new features culminating into the switch from mc-3.5.48 to mc-4.0. And it's 31 patch levels of new and untested (in Debian) code. Not to mention that if you were to release it it would be a new maintainer and completely new and untested Debian packaging. I'd rather see it the other way round. There are 31 patch levels of serious bug fixing absent from the current Debian package of Midnight Commander. Guess why i upgraded MC on my own? Because the official maintainer didn't seem to care about the bug fix releases of the upstream developers and i didn't want to accept working with an obsolete development version of MC. My unofficial package is almost completely based on the official maintainers Debian packaging. BTW it is out of question that i'd release a new official mc-4.0 package as a new maintainer. There is already a maintainer responsible for the mc package and i do accept that he wants to keep it. But i'd wish he kept his maintenance more oriented toward current upstream releases of MC. It's Debian policy (afaik) that as little as possible should go into stable after release, and *definitely* as little as possible, if any, new upstream releases. This is very wise but i'd expect as well that stable should feature in any case released full versions of software instead of obsolete development releases. Like i already stated above serious bugfixing has resulted into mc-4.0 and it is IMHO necessary to make an upgrade release of mc to the officially released and officially approved final release of the MC development team. Thank you, P. *8^) -- Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
