I do all my work on Debian Slink i386, but just made a potato
install on Alpha. To my surprise, some of my packages are broken
wrt the /usr/share issue on alpha. Note that these are packages
that I haven't upgraded yet wrt this issue, and so they are
stated in the control file to be compliant to
Edward Betts wrote:
> My suggestion would be:
>
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.38
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.12
>
> Can anybody provide arguements against just having two kernels?
1- Sometimes a new `stable' kernel introduces new bugs or
problems. (Didn't Debian recom
I wrote:
> In the preparation of a package, I've come up against a man page
> made for Red Hat that doesn't process correctly for Debian (at
> least on slink).
>
> The man page defines a table [...]
This is solved. Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me to add
this line at the very top of t
How universal is the use of ttyS0 instead of cua0 in other
distribution (e.g. Red Hat)? I told the upstream maintainer
of powstatd (a UPS monitor) that I has changing cua0 to ttyS0 in
the docs and config file for Debian, and he said he'd changed it
upstream too if that's what everybody uses.
Do
Paul Slootman wrote:
> What happens if you pass the -pt option to man?
$ man -pt -l ./powstatd.8
Then it works. Running that option on the _installed_ page like so:
$ man -pt powstatd
doesn't work.
The uptream author said I should be able to view the man page
using:
$ gtbl powstatd.8 | nro
In the preparation of a package, I've come up against a man page
made for Red Hat that doesn't process correctly for Debian (at
least on slink).
The man page defines a table like so:
[cut]
Hit ^C to stop after you see something like:
.in +3
.TS
tab(#);
l2 s2 s2 s4 s2 s4 s
l2 l2 l2 l4 l2 l4 l.
p
My jazip package is almost ready to be uploaded (jazip is an X tool to
easily mount and unmount Iomega Zip and/or Jaz drives). It is
suid-root and gives all users the ability to mount and umount zip and
jaz devices. I'm contemplating creating a group jazip as a means to
let sysadmins control user
Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Alternatively, you could install a chrooted potatyo environment, just to
> compile your stuff, and not touch your actual slink stuff.
Any docs on how to do this?
sh-utils.info doesn't say much, and nothing this specific of
course.
Thanks,
Peter
I wrote:
> I run Slink at work and at home, but decided to install potato's
> gcc and g++ on my home box to recompile the potato packages that
> I maintain
>
> # apt-get -d -u install gcc g++
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> The following extra packages will
I run Slink at work and at home, but decided to install potato's
gcc and g++ on my home box to recompile the potato packages that
I maintain (keeping work box on slink for stability).
Since my bandwidth is at work, I doing the following to download
what I need (and then I'll sneaker-net everythin
On Fri, 14 May 1999, David Bristel wrote:
> My own reasons for wanting these updates in there is that we go
> frozen, and then a major release comes out. Suddenly, Debian
> may be more stable, but MAJOR packages are out of date.
Andrew D Lenharth wrote:
> I agree, I would like to see a system
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Oscar Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
> > Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
>
> It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
> drop-in replace 2.0 (unl
Will some guru tell us what critical packages we need to update
in order to use 2.2 ?
kerneld is replaced by something else, etc.
I guess that if I'm asking that means I should wait for a proper
Debian upgrade. Or does kernel-image-2.2.0-i686_2.2.0-1_i386.deb
have all the dependencies sorted out
Lalo Martins wrote:
> [#include ]
>
> Oh boy! Cammon! Now I need to install 25M (tetex-bin~=10 +
> tetex-base~=15) just to compile texi files into html or info? No
> good. I hate tex and my HD is small. :-)
>
> I really think we should continue to provide separate "texinfo"
> and "texi2html" pa
Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> >
> > > [1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt
> >
> > Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by
> > mutual agreement:
> >
> >(a
> [1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt
Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by
mutual agreement:
(a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
(b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
(c) Inclusion in a
> > THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THIS PROGRAM - whatsoever. You use it entirely
> > at your risk, and neither Tomislav Uzelac, nor FER will be liable for
> > any damages that might occur to your computer, software, etc. in
> > consequence of you using this freeware program.
> >
>
> What I hi-lighted
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There is no reason ever to uncompress a file (lesspipe and
> lessopen make it unnecessary).
Good thing if lesspipe is now correctly setup (Wasn't in bo, and I'm not
sure I don't have a older hacked version of /etc/csh.login on my system).
You still get garbage i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > [Want to know how Debian violates the GPL all the time? Check how
> > > many GPLed packages in Debian have modifications yet don't obey 2(a).]
> >
> > I think there should be a /usr/doc/emacs20/README.Debian what says that
> > /usr/share/emacs/20.3/lisp/startup.
I wrote:
> It occurs to me that upgrading a package should delete old versions
> of user-uncompressed doc and info files.
Santiago Vila wrote:
> The package system is not supposed to read your mind.
>
> You should never uncompress files "in place" because then dpkg will be
> unable to remove t
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Michael" == Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Michael> Quoting Jason Gunthorpe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >> I think this idea of 'lets quickly do something fast' is ill concieved an
> d
> >> is ultimately going to hurt our image. I've looked at the
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#27823: proftpd: non-maintainer upload (alpha) diffs
> X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/16743
>
> [Want to know how Debian violates the GPL all the time? Check how
> many GPLed packages in Debian have modifications yet don't obey 2(a).
Pending approval of my application for maintainer-ship, I intent to package
the following for contrib (none will make it into slink):
Package: xwatch
Depends: libc6, libforms0.86, xlib6g (>= 3.3-5)
Suggests: syslogd
Description: Xwatch monitors logfiles and displays in an X window.
The disp
"Thomas Gebhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the configuration files of all debian packages are located in /etc.
> That's really fine.
>
> But the package manager stores its configuration (access method,
> list of selected packages, ...) somewhere in /var/lib/dpkg. Why?
Steve Dunham wrote:
Martin Schulze wrote:
> An easy way to implement this would be to simply add a line to the
> source section of debian/control of each package like
>
> Source: gtkfind
> Section: x11
> Priority: optional
> Maintainer: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Author: Matt Grossman
Gregory S. Stark wrote:
>
> John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This a kind of interesting looking package. It is GPL'd but
> > depends on a no-source-available library. I just reread the relevant
> > portions of the GPL, but I'm no Talmudic scholar.
> > Can the GPL be pr
I was surprised that glimpse was not on my Debian CD, so I downloaded it
from the Debian web page. Until [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me it was
non-free.
What I find strange if that I managed to download it without realising it
was non-free. I only *now* noticed that it's non-free by putting the
cur
I just noticed that glimpse is *not* on my _official_ LSL Debian 2.0 disk
set. Strange.
I wonder what else I'm missing.
Peter
101 - 128 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
