On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 10:54:47AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
What's wrong with basic-desktop being x-window-system-core plus a WM
plus xterm? As I said, x-window-system contains things which are far
away from being basic. If we force it to be on
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 10:54:47AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
What's wrong with basic-desktop being x-window-system-core plus a WM
plus xterm? As I said, x-window-system contains things which are far
One comment:
In pre6-pre7-package.diff.txt I see:
-Non-US:pool/non-US/main/e/erlang/erlang_8.0-4_i386.deb
-Non-US:pool/non-US/main/e/erlang-slang/erlang-slang_1.0-3_i386.deb
-Non-US:pool/non-US/main/o/openh323/libopenh323-dbg_1.7.4-6_i386.deb
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 10:08, Santiago Vila wrote:
One comment:
In pre6-pre7-package.diff.txt I see:
-Non-US:pool/non-US/main/e/erlang/erlang_8.0-4_i386.deb
-Non-US:pool/non-US/main/e/erlang-slang/erlang-slang_1.0-3_i386.deb
On 30 May 2002, Philip Hands wrote:
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 10:08, Santiago Vila wrote:
If we accept that a first non-US CD does not necessarily have to
contain the whole of non-US, we could change the way of generating
the CDs from Including most of non-US in CD#1, excluding big packages
Previously Philip Hands wrote:
The good news is that TeX is in, the bad news is that packages such as
xdm, xfs xterm are out. This seems bad, but I suppose since gdm kdm
are on there, and one can survive without xfs, and gnome-terminal is in,
we could actually live without those, but will
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Philip Hands wrote:
The good news is that TeX is in, the bad news is that packages such as
xdm, xfs xterm are out. This seems bad, but I suppose since gdm kdm
are on there, and one can survive without xfs, and gnome-terminal is
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Philip Hands wrote:
The good news is that TeX is in, the bad news is that packages such as
xdm, xfs xterm are out. This seems bad, but I suppose since gdm kdm
are on there, and one
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 10:50, Santiago Vila wrote:
On 30 May 2002, Philip Hands wrote:
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 10:08, Santiago Vila wrote:
If we accept that a first non-US CD does not necessarily have to
contain the whole of non-US, we could change the way of generating
the CDs from
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
This package depends on xspecs so it's certainly not for normal users.
We are operating with two sets of constraints.
The task system. x-window-system is part of task basic-desktop, so to
remove it means that this task is incomplete and probably
Perhaps this is a simple typo/mistake and it should be x-window-system-core,
not x-window-system, the single package in the basic-desktop task?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 12:30, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Philip Hands wrote:
The good news is that TeX is in, the bad news is that packages such as
xdm, xfs xterm are out. This seems bad, but I suppose since gdm kdm
are on there, and one can survive without xfs, and
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:57:38PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Hmm, considering that woody has already 8 binary CDs (i.e. 7 US CDs
and 1 non-US one) a 2nd NONUS CD would not be such a big change.
Steve noticed that several of the packages that claim to be non-US are
actually now in main, but
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
The release. We were told in no uncertain terms that we were not to mess
with task system.
More than being a part of, x-window-system is the *only* package in
the basic-desktop task.
I think there is
Santiago Vila wrote:
More than being a part of, x-window-system is the *only* package in
the basic-desktop task.
I think there is something fundamentally wrong in this task if it's
called basic and, at the same time, it includes xspecs.
There is also a `desktop' task containing
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
I would like to hear some comments about this from whoever created
this weird basic-desktop task.
Well, take a look at tasksel's changelog:
* Make the basic-desktop task incude all of x-window-system (so it gets a
WM and
Philip == Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philip Looking at the sizes of the packages on CD#1_NONUS from pre6
Philip I see that stating with the largest we have (after getting
Philip rid of the kernel images):
Philip 128882447 emacs21_21.2-1_i386.deb
Philip 105322127
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:24:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
I would like to hear some comments about this from whoever created
this weird basic-desktop task.
Well, take a look at tasksel's changelog:
* Make the basic-desktop task incude all of x-window-system (so
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:24:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Well, take a look at tasksel's changelog:
* Make the basic-desktop task incude all of x-window-system (so it gets a
WM and xterm and so on), while the desktop task uses just
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
What's wrong with basic-desktop being x-window-system-core plus a WM
plus xterm? As I said, x-window-system contains things which are far
away from being basic. If we force it to be on CD #1, lots of very
popular packages will end up being in CD #2.
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Philip Charles wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
What's wrong with basic-desktop being x-window-system-core plus a WM
plus xterm? As I said, x-window-system contains things which are far
away from being basic. If we force it to be on CD #1, lots of
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
If we can't fix usability bugs during the freeze, we might better
unfreeze woody for a while, fix the basic-desktop task, and freeze
woody again...
Let's get woody out of the door fast. Tomorrow preferably, if not, the
day after. We can reccommend
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 16:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
I've already replied to Phil's bug about this, but this doesn't actually
work out: erlang's in non-US in testing and unstable, and won't be
moving for woody. There's a bunch of stuff for which new versions have
been uploaded to main for
Warning: My interpretation of the numbers in the pop-con may be wrong.
[ Someone please remind us about the meaning of the different columns ].
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 29, Santiago Vila wrote:
The first number is the number of people in the popularity contest who
use the package regularly.
Hmm, I wonder why doc-linux-text has priority standard at all, when so few
people use it regularly... Anyway, I would drop all the aspell packages, plus
On 29 May 2002, Philip Hands wrote:
Does anyone have other candidates for a move, or reasons not to move any
of the packages mentioned above?
Good luck. Don't $#@! tasks.
Phil.
--
Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand
+64 3 488 2818Fax +64 3 488
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 07:36:49PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
Believe it or not, TeX/LaTeX is a major reason people switch to
Linux. That's actually why i switched to Linux seven years ago and
most people i know using Linux do so because of the finely integrated
TeX/LaTeX environment.
Well,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Stone) writes:
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 07:36:49PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
Believe it or not, TeX/LaTeX is a major reason people switch to
Linux. That's actually why i switched to Linux seven years ago and
most people i know using Linux do so because of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wichert Akkerman) writes:
So prove to us that TeX is popular. These days that would surprise
me very much.
Believe it or not, TeX/LaTeX is a major reason people switch to
Linux. That's actually why i switched to Linux seven years ago and
most people i know using Linux do
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Philip Charles wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
Yes, but this does *not* answer my question at all:
kernel-image-* packages do not belong to any task, are any of them more
popular than tetex-bin? I believe they are not, but the only data I
have to
I have been convinced.
What kernel images, packages, source, patches do we want on CD1?
At the moment we have, rough list. Resubmitted in case you have deleated
it. What no source!
Phil.
Package: kernel-image-2.2.20
Package: kernel-image-2.2.20-compact
Package: kernel-image-2.2.20-idepci
On May 24, Philip Charles wrote:
I have been convinced.
What kernel images, packages, source, patches do we want on CD1?
At the moment we have, rough list. Resubmitted in case you have deleated
it. What no source!
Certainly all the 2.4.16 packages could go; there's no point in having
We can drop 2.4.16 since we have 2.4.18 (I think this is already done).
If we add kernel-source-2.4.18 and kernel-source-2.2.20, these are the
popularities in decreasing order:
kernel-image-2.2.20 418
kernel-source-2.4.18 150
-- we could cut
Same list adding pcmcia-source:
kernel-image-2.2.20 418
kernel-source-2.4.18 150
pcmcia-source 81
kernel-image-2.4.18-686 29
kernel-source-2.2.20 28
kernel-image-2.4.18-k7
Title: Re: What kernel stuff on CD1? Was Still no TeX in CD#1
Le Fri, May 24, 2002 at 11:11:13PM +1200, Philip Charles écrivait:
What kernel images, packages, source, patches do we want on CD1?
Those we already have.
Check tasks/exclude-woody : we're excluding kernel-image-2.4.16
I've checked the pre6 images and teTeX is still in CD #2.
I made a very simple and precise question about this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2002/debian-cd-200205/msg00133.html
but nobody answered. What's the problem?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:05:45PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
but nobody answered. What's the problem?
Apparantly there isn't a consensus that tex needs to be on cd 1. I
certainly don't see that it does.
--
Mike Stone
msg03798/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
I believed there was a consensus that the most popular packages would
be on CD #1. Thanks for replying but my question remains unanswered.
So prove to us that TeX is popular. These days that would surprise
me very much.
See it by
Previously Christian T. Steigies wrote:
These days? Do you think everybody is using w**d, or is there something
else you can use for writing papers, books, letters, faxes, creating posters?
For scientific documents *TeX is still pretty much the only real
solution, but with scientific community
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
These days? Do you think everybody is using w**d, or is there something
else you can use for writing papers, books, letters, faxes, creating posters?
Yes, there are many options. Which is why tex doesn't necessarily
deserve
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
I've checked the pre6 images and teTeX is still in CD #2.
I made a very simple and precise question about this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2002/debian-cd-200205/msg00133.html
but nobody answered. What's the problem?
This goes back about two
41 matches
Mail list logo
