Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consequently, when you apt-get remove the software, you don't get an
orphan data package.
... though perhaps aptitude's method of doing this is cleaner
(automatically removing unneeded packages).
-Miles
--
.Numeric stability is probably not all that
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:54:15 +0200
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I both cases, the circular dependency would be useful to avoid
installing the common data without the software. Consequently, when
you apt-get remove the software, you don't get an orphan data package.
You can then apply
Hi all,
In agreement with the current maintainer, Jonathan Oxer, I will take
over maintainership of lcdproc. As per his wishes, he will continue to
be co-maintainer (uploader) for the time being.
This is mostly to let ftpmasters know that he has indeed agreed to
these terms so that the
also sprach Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.25.0324 +0100]:
I have written a script that I think would be useful in Debian. It
seems excessive to make a package for for it, but a quick google for
'debian scripts' didn't turn up any convenient websites or
repositories, so I thought
Il giorno lun, 24/07/2006 alle 23.22 +0200, Jan C. Nordholz ha scritto:
unison:
Conflicts on unison ( 2.9.1-3)
I guess this is meant to prevent older versions of unison and unison2.9.1
(which Provides: unison) from being installed together (the same holds
for unison-gtk).
If
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 06:46, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi David,
David Watson wrote:
* Package name: pybridge-common
are you planning to ship three different *source* packages?
If so, why?
(ITPs are filed per source package, but on a first glance, a single
source package with multiple
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:12:54PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5):
Clearly, dpkg authors have read all of policy, including the
caveats about circular dependencies.
This is particularly amusing given that that
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:31:56AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.25.0324 +0100]:
I have written a script that I think would be useful in Debian. It
seems excessive to make a package for for it, but a quick google for
'debian scripts'
Hi DDs,
I recently stumbled upon a bug (#379561) in wordpress. Wordpress depends
on a mysql-server installed in order to run, but the Debian package
wordpress does not.
I filled a bugreport and the answer was that some users might want to
connect wordpress to a remote mysql-server so the local
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:15:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
You persist in using the word `fix'. But that's not correct. There
is NOTHING WRONG with circular dependencies per se.
Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
problematic. I would try to avoid it other
Hi all
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:12:24 +0200
Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since wordpress is not the only package depending on mysql-server, I'd
like to ask how other developers dealt with this problem?
My proposal to satisfy both use-cases was, to provide two versions of
* Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-25 10:12]:
I recently stumbled upon a bug (#379561) in wordpress. Wordpress depends
on a mysql-server installed in order to run, but the Debian package
wordpress does not.
I filled a bugreport and the answer was that some users might want to
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 10:21:03AM +0200, Michal ??iha?? wrote:
My proposal to satisfy both use-cases was, to provide two versions of
wordpress:
(1) wordpress -- depends on mysql-server
(2) wordpress-remotesql -- does not
How about:
Depends: mysql-remote-server | mysql-server
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 10:12 +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
I recently stumbled upon a bug (#379561) in wordpress. Wordpress depends
on a mysql-server installed in order to run, but the Debian package
wordpress does not.
I filled a bugreport and the answer was that some users might want to
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would only fix problems in experimental, lilypond is currently not
releasable, so imaginating that the Python switch would not happen, we
would end up without lilypond.
In my opinion, the current lilypond in Debian is not suitable for
release,
Michal Čihař [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:12:24 +0200
Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since wordpress is not the only package depending on mysql-server, I'd
like to ask how other developers dealt with this problem?
My proposal to satisfy both use-cases
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Greenland wrote:
Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that
uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to
those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that depend on
foo, although they
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:49:06 +0100
Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about:
Depends: mysql-remote-server | mysql-server
Then create a dummy mysql-remote-server package which (possibly
conflicts with mysql-server) could be used to satisfy dependencies
only?
If you want
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:18:36 +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
[...]
May be a better solution would be to flag foo-data as useless alone.
(I would love to be able to hide from aptitude all these useless
alone packages so I could sift faster in the package list).
!~Gappropriate-tag-here
The
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find
it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive
packages...
foo-data can often be arch: all, saving mirror space.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Em Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:56:26 -0700
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
In my opinion, the current lilypond in Debian is not suitable for
release, even with the existing problems solved. It would not be
appropriate to release such an old version in etch, and if nothing
happens
Henning Glawe writes (Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5):
Well, the problem with circular deps is not caused by dpkg but by the way
apt calls it:
Ahh. Well, perhaps apt should be fixed, as you say.
Personally I (still!) don't use it on my own systems.
Ian.
--
To
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Greenland wrote:
This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused.
Rather,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:34:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Greenland wrote:
This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Loïc Minier writes (Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5):
I fail to see how the circular depends between tasksel and tasksel-data
would cause any bug though. I agree it's best to fix circular deps in
general, but it's not necessarily
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also sprach Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
be removed, but I prefer to ask
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can
split them between dpkg calls causing install failures.
The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure
becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing to remove
On 7/25/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An alternative would be to have a pseudo-package (or however we name it)
mysql-server-remote that a local admin installs to tell dpkg that it
should never install a local server. I'm not sure this is a typical use
case, but the principle might
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 01:06:28PM +0200, Marcus Better wrote:
Hello,
I've recently started to use svn for package maintenance, both in order to
enable team maintenance and because it's a great way to keep track of the
code.
Previously I used dpatch or quilt for the Debian changes.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 09:18:27AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I replicate the advantages of quilt by keeping quilt patches in
Subversion. This allows me to use svn-inject -o, which doesn't put
the upstream sources in version control at all - just the Debian
directory.
I like this
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: live@lists.debian-unofficial.org; debian-edu@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:51 PM
Subject: Package Selection for Debian Live
This means that there can be quite a
few
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto C. Sanchez) writes:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 09:18:27AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I replicate the advantages of quilt by keeping quilt patches in
Subversion. This allows me to use svn-inject -o, which doesn't put
the upstream sources in version control at
Martin Wuertele wrote:
What is the preferred solution for this kind of problem?
Wordpress already suggests virtual-mysql-server which is imo sufficient.
There might be arguments to raise this to recommends however I don't see
the need for 2 packages. It might make sense to mention the mysql
#include hallo.h
* Otavio Salvador [Mon, Jul 24 2006, 09:26:58PM]:
IMO it is much easier to find functionality like this if it is already
present on the system than if you have to search for it. And it seems to
me basic enough that it warrants inclusion in base, especially as
On 24-Jul-06, 17:18 (CDT), Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Greenland wrote:
Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that
uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to
those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that
Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 17:15 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
problematic. I would try to avoid it other than in closely coupled
sets of packages, and it is best of one of the packages in the cycle
is per data without a
On 25-Jul-06, 07:10 (CDT), Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it be a better thing to fix the bug and have deterministic
software?
Dpkg isn't deterministic in the general case.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
On 24-Jul-06, 17:32 (CDT), Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Greenland wrote:
This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused.
Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any
Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 18:18 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
I don't buy the often-made argument that foo-data packages are generally
useful to install just to look at the beautiful data. It doesn't fly; if
you want to look at the data, use apt-get source. The exact same
argument could be used
Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency
in debconf. Why don't you just fix it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This doesn't answer the question. Let me rephrase it another way. If
someone
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Henning Glawe writes (Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5):
Well, the problem with circular deps is not caused by dpkg but by the way
apt calls it:
Ahh. Well, perhaps apt should be fixed, as you say.
Personally I
On 25-Jul-06, 10:14 (CDT), Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Wuertele wrote:
But how can a user mark the sql-server as
installed-to-satisfy-dependency? I mean when I remove wordpress (or some
similar package) mysql-server won't be removed until I do it manually.
Wasn't the
Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
exim4-config:
Conflicts on exim4-config ( )
This is both a virtual and a real package. (There is just one packags
in Debian providing it.)
cu andreas
--
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the
Title: New Naming Convention
I currently do not subscribe to the mailing lists. So I don't know if this has been considered.
I want to offer a suggestion for a new distro naming convention. I have enjoyed the Toy Story names. But perhaps it has run it's course. We have used 10 toy stoy
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Otavio Salvador [Mon, Jul 24 2006, 09:26:58PM]:
IMO it is much easier to find functionality like this if it is already
present on the system than if you have to search for it. And it seems to
me basic enough that it warrants
Half of KDE and a number of other applications currently fail to build
with a message similar to:
| *** YOU'RE USING autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.60.
| *** KDE requires autoconf 2.53 or newer
Before I file bugs on these packages, I wanted to check whether this
is a known problem and/or whether the
A number of applications currently fail to build with something like:
| sparc-linux-gnu-gcc -g -O2 -o .libs/ots ots.o ../src/.libs/libots-1.so
/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so /usr/lib/libxml2.so -ldl -lz -lm /usr/lib/libpopt.so
| /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lz
In bug #378494, filed on one of these
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Half of KDE and a number of other applications currently fail to build
with a message similar to:
| *** YOU'RE USING autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.60.
| *** KDE requires autoconf 2.53 or newer
Before I file bugs on these packages, I wanted to check
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:56:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would only fix problems in experimental, lilypond is currently not
releasable, so imaginating that the Python switch would not happen, we
would end up without lilypond.
In
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:45:53PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
A number of applications currently fail to build with something like:
| sparc-linux-gnu-gcc -g -O2 -o .libs/ots ots.o ../src/.libs/libots-1.so
/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so /usr/lib/libxml2.so -ldl -lz -lm /usr/lib/libpopt.so
|
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:16:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:45:53PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
A number of applications currently fail to build with something like:
| sparc-linux-gnu-gcc -g -O2 -o .libs/ots ots.o ../src/.libs/libots-1.so
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-25 11:16]:
One grave bug on libxml2, please. The common case of linking against
libxml2 using libtool is now broken, for no discernable reason. This is
irresponsible library maintenance; it shouldn't be left to the maintainers
of all the *other*
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:27:58PM +0200, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:16:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:45:53PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
A number of applications currently fail to build with something
Josselin Mouette wrote:
If I'd follow your reasoning, we shouldn't be able to pull by APT a
library package libfoo2 without pulling some package using it.
The clear difference between a library package and some random
collection of data is that (most) C libraries have an API and are
designed to
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency
in debconf. Why don't you just fix it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This doesn't answer the question. Let me
(Dropped debian-qt-kde, added pkg-kde-talk.)
* Martin Michlmayr [Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:40:40 +0200]:
Half of KDE and a number of other applications currently fail to build
with a message similar to:
| *** YOU'RE USING autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.60.
| *** KDE requires autoconf 2.53 or newer
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:27:58PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:16:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:45:53PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
A number of applications currently fail to build with something like:
|
* Jeremy Herndon [Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:22:44 -0700]:
forgetful dory or undiciplined darla.
Yes! Adjectives! Forgetful Dory 8.07!
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
* Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-25 20:39]:
Executive summary: please do file bugs
Okay, doing now. Thanks.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:44:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:27:58PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:16:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:45:53PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr
* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:39:57 +0200]:
(Dropped debian-qt-kde, added pkg-kde-talk.)
Cc: Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Fixed this by bouncing. Also, p-k-t is lists.alioth.d.o, not lists.d.o.)
--
Adeodato Simó
Osamu Aoki writes (Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5):
Just curious ...
dselect with dpkg-ftp ?
Yes. It does need some handholding and the need to dpkg -iGROEB its
download area repeatedly is annoying but it's very reliable in the
sense that (if you are happy to drive dselect)
Josselin Mouette writes (Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5):
Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 17:15 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
problematic. I would try to avoid it other than in closely coupled
sets of packages,
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 19:22, Jeremy Herndon wrote:
We have used 10 toy stoy names over a period of 10 years. That is a good
round number and would be a logical place to start anew.
Logical? Hmm, well, as far as I know logic has something to do with
causes and effects, which I can't see
On Jul 25, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main rationale is that its init script offers offers a fairly clean and
obvious way for users to set values in /sys at boot time. (Without the
need for them to hack a local init script.)
echo looks clean and obvious to me as well, and does not
On Jul 25, Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that we already have equivalent functionality for /proc values
so makes sense to have it in too.
No, wishing a feature-complete set of configuration file for aestethical
reasons is not enough to move more stuff to base.
--
ciao,
Hi folks
raptor.debian.org, the s390 developer machine, is down. The data center
which hosts them have major problems with the air conditioning system.
As the whole zSeries is down, this affects any host within the domain
zseries.org.
Bastian
--
We have the right to survive!
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
So yes, please re-add the dependency on libxml2-dev for the time being.
We're still not so much in a rush.
Yes, we *are*. The RC bug count for etch is currently moving in the wrong
direction, and having dozens of FTBFS bugs added
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 21:16, Marco d'Itri wrote:
echo looks clean and obvious to me as well, and does not require 180 KB
of new packages.
Why do you choose to completely ignore the option (that was mentioned at
least twice) to move the init script part to a separate or existing base
On Jul 25, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you choose to completely ignore the option (that was mentioned at
least twice) to move the init script part to a separate or existing base
package? That would make the addition to base only a few KB.
*If* this really added only a few KB
This one time, at band camp, Ben Pfaff said:
Does KDE use something other than autoconf --version to check
the Autoconf version?
AUTOCONF_VERSION=`$AUTOCONF --version | head -n 1`
case $AUTOCONF_VERSION in
Autoconf*2.5* | autoconf*2.5* ) : ;;
Maybe not so forward compatible.
--
This one time, at band camp, Martin Michlmayr said:
Half of KDE and a number of other applications currently fail to build
with a message similar to:
[...]
kst_1.2.1-1
This is fixed in -2.
Thanks,
--
-
| ,''`.
* Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-25 19:53]:
Half of KDE and a number of other applications currently fail to build
with a message similar to:
[...]
kst_1.2.1-1
This is fixed in -2.
Yes, the following packages have newer versions that fixed the bug.
I checked this before filing
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 13:40 pm, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Half of KDE and a number of other applications currently fail to build
with a message similar to:
| *** YOU'RE USING autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.60.
| *** KDE requires autoconf 2.53 or newer
Before I file bugs on these packages, I
Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I intend to do an update-menu thing that calls 'fburn --gui',
which makes for a somewhat friendly interface from a window manager
menu or icon. Also it doesn't just blast out the image and hope it's
okay; unless
* Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-25 20:39]:
If you could usertag the bugs them, that'd be nice (e.g. tag
autoconf260-ftbfs, user [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=autoconf260-ftbfs;[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:56:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In my opinion, the current lilypond in Debian is not suitable for
release, even with the existing problems solved. It would not be
appropriate to release such an old version in etch, and if nothing
happens with python
#include hallo.h
* Otavio Salvador [Tue, Jul 25 2006, 02:23:16PM]:
Well then we might work reducing the code size but at least am I
talking about functionality and that's important in my POV.
Important for whom exactly? I do not have this package installed here
and I never missed it. Now I
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you told the maintainers of alml and songwrite (reverse-depends of
lilypond) about this? It wouldn't be fair to them to find out at the last
minute before the etch release that their packages won't be releasable
because lilypond wasn't ready,
Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That said, I would also like to see python-defaults upgraded to
python2.4, and can't see a reason for much more delay.
Don't bother asking; they don't answer questions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Aurélien GÉRÔME [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is utterly unacceptable. What do you do of the
reverse-dependencies? If you are not capable of dealing with a package
that you are supposed to maintain, you should O: it or RFA: it, instead
of cornering users. That is irresponsible as a Debian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jul 25, Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that we already have equivalent functionality for /proc values
so makes sense to have it in too.
No, wishing a feature-complete set of configuration file for aestethical
reasons is not
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sebastian Harl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: git-completion
Version : 0+20060722
Upstream Author : Ben Clifford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.hawaga.org.uk/ben/tech/gitcompletion/
* License : GPL
Description
Em Ter, 2006-07-25 às 02:04 +0200, Frans Pop escreveu:
My main rationale is that its init script offers offers a fairly clean and
obvious way for users to set values in /sys at boot time. (Without the
need for them to hack a local init script.)
It's far away from actually being installed by
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-25 14:52]:
Of course it's a miserable course of events if it happens. But are
you seriously saying that you think lilypond 2.6.3 is suitable for
the release, even with the existing RC bugs fixed? I thought you
were in agreement that releasing
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a
s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond.
So, will the python change happen?
Maybe instead of beating me up for not knowing what is the best use of
my time, the python team could be encouraged
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bryan Sutula [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: openhpi
Version : 2.5.2
Upstream Author : Tariq Shureih et. al. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://openhpi.sourceforge.net/
* License : other (enclosed below)
Programming
Le mer 26 juillet 2006 01:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a
s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond.
So, will the python change happen?
Maybe instead of beating me up for not knowing what
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your mails are a marvelous proof of bad faith. if you want to enforce
your package to use python2.4 for some (apparently borken — but I
didn't bothered to check) reason, you just need (either through
debian/pyversions + pysupport or
Le mer 26 juillet 2006 01:53, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your mails are a marvelous proof of bad faith. if you want to
enforce your package to use python2.4 for some (apparently borken —
but I didn't bothered to check) reason, you just need
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it has been said numerous time, that you just need to sed the shebang of
those scripts, such modifications are often used in python packaging,
and is easy to do.
Right, the question is whether this is a long-term change or a
short-term change?
On Jul 25, Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, wishing a feature-complete set of configuration file for aestethical
reasons is not enough to move more stuff to base.
So let's remove setctl from base.
There is no such package. But if you think that some of the packages
currently in
Em Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:53:47 -0700
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
As I have said multiple times, lilypond now requires python 2.4 to
work correctly.
You're telling me that if I use debian/pyversions and the rest of
that, whatever it is, then lilypond scripts and user code
Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're telling me that if I use debian/pyversions and the rest of
that, whatever it is, then lilypond scripts and user code which
depends on python 2.4 will automagically get it even though it uses #!
on ordinary python? This sounds like it's
Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Il giorno lun, 24/07/2006 alle 23.22 +0100, martin f krafft ha scritto:
An upgrade is the same as removing the old and installing the new
package, so other than maintainer script invocations (which will
differ if the old package was removed because
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you understand. A workaround costs me lots of time to
get in place. I'm perfectly clear about how to go about installing a
workaround. The question is, is the work worth it?
Running sed costs you lots of time? Come on. I can
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Running sed costs you lots of time? Come on. I can understand your
irritation at the lack of information about how the python transition is
going, but it really shouldn't take you any length of time at all to
change things to reference 2.4
* Matthew Garrett [Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:14:51 +0100]:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you understand. A workaround costs me lots of time to
get in place. I'm perfectly clear about how to go about installing a
workaround. The question is, is the work worth it?
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- From http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00684.html:
But I don't alas, have the time to spend on a workaround patch myself,
which will (supposedly) become obselete very quickly.
The sad conclusion that, with this sentence
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am completely serious: all of the mails quoted below stress me
profoundly
Have you tried decaf...?
-Miles
--
We have met the enemy, and he is us. -- Pogo
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
