Re: delay of the full etch freeze

Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Charles Plessy] The rationale is that the 8th is old freeze deadline minus 10 days, so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as the deadline for having new

Alas for lilypond in etch

It seems that it is extremely unlikely that lilypond 2.8 will be in etch. We are still waiting on guile-1.8; the first upload took about three weeks to get through the NEW queue and was then bounced by ftpmaster because it contained a license problem. It is now back in the NEW queue, but it is

Re: delay of the full etch freeze

Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Charles Plessy] The rationale is that the 8th is old freeze deadline minus 10 days, so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as the deadline for having new

Accepted lilypond 2.6.5-3 (source all i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:59:58 -0700 Source: lilypond Binary: lilypond-data lilypond-doc lilypond Architecture: source all i386 Version: 2.6.5-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED

Accepted gnucash 2.0.2-2 (source i386 all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:57:26 -0700 Source: gnucash Binary: gnucash-common gnucash Architecture: source i386 all Version: 2.0.2-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed

Re: Call for votes for GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel

Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, given this poorly worded ballot, i suppose the vote will be void anyway, and i strongly call for everyone to vote further discussion over the other solutions. If people do not READ THE RESOLUTION, then they get what they deserve. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

ftp upload queue?

The upload queue on ftp-master.debian.org seems to be stuck; anyone know why? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ftp upload queue?

Aurélien GÉRÔME [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As soon as I send a mail, the deamon restarts... Good news! ;) Yep. Thanks magic elves!

Accepted ifhp 3.5.20-9 (source i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 18:05:49 -0700 Source: ifhp Binary: ifhp Architecture: source i386 Version: 3.5.20-9 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted gnucash 2.0.2-1 (source i386 all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:31:50 -0700 Source: gnucash Binary: gnucash-common gnucash Architecture: source i386 all Version: 2.0.2-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas

Accepted gnucash-docs 2.0.1-1 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:52:40 -0700 Source: gnucash-docs Binary: gnucash-docs Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.1-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell

Accepted miscfiles 1.4.2.dfsg.1-6 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:11:53 -0700 Source: miscfiles Binary: miscfiles Architecture: source all Version: 1.4.2.dfsg.1-6 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell

Accepted miscfiles 1.4.2.dfsg.1-7 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:36:52 -0700 Source: miscfiles Binary: miscfiles Architecture: source all Version: 1.4.2.dfsg.1-7 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell

Accepted gnucash 2.0.1-4 (source i386 all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 22:44:23 -0700 Source: gnucash Binary: gnucash-common gnucash Architecture: source i386 all Version: 2.0.1-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas

Accepted gnucash-docs 2.0.0-2 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 23:13:39 -0700 Source: gnucash-docs Binary: gnucash-docs Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.0-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell

Accepted miscfiles 1.4.2.dfsg.1-5 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 23:46:34 -0700 Source: miscfiles Binary: miscfiles Architecture: source all Version: 1.4.2.dfsg.1-5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell

Accepted mmake 2.3-3 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 00:04:55 -0700 Source: mmake Binary: mmake Architecture: source all Version: 2.3-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted mmorph 2.3.4.2-9 (source i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 00:12:41 -0700 Source: mmorph Binary: mmorph Architecture: source i386 Version: 2.3.4.2-9 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted psrip 1.3-5 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 00:28:22 -0700 Source: psrip Binary: psrip Architecture: source all Version: 1.3-5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted slib 3a3-4 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 00:38:06 -0700 Source: slib Binary: slib Architecture: source all Version: 3a3-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted ifhp 3.5.20-8 (source i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 20:07:50 -0700 Source: ifhp Binary: ifhp Architecture: source i386 Version: 3.5.20-8 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted libofx 1:0.8.2-2 (source i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:21:16 -0700 Source: libofx Binary: ofx libofx3 libofx-dev Architecture: source i386 Version: 1:0.8.2-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas

Re: A plan to get rid of unnecessary package dependencies

Christian Aichinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a start, I've written a script that searches for unnecessary dependencies and reports them. Results are available here: http://rerun.lefant.net/checklib A problem means that the package has useless dependencies on library packages. This

Re: A plan to get rid of unnecessary package dependencies

Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian Aichinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A problem means that the package has useless dependencies on library packages. This causes the kind of trouble outlined above and should be fixed. A HOWTO

Accepted lilypond 2.6.5-2 (source all i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:01:35 -0700 Source: lilypond Binary: lilypond-data lilypond-doc lilypond Architecture: source all i386 Version: 2.6.5-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED

Accepted lilypond 2.6.5-1 (source all i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 22:34:19 -0700 Source: lilypond Binary: lilypond-data lilypond-doc lilypond Architecture: source all i386 Version: 2.6.5-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: lilypond and thanks to Rob Browning

Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Bill Allombert has helpfully provided a hint about what will solve the bug; if that works, I'll upload 2.6 now with the RC bugs fixed, and 2.8 as soon as feasible. I tried to look at the bug Bill has

Re: lilypond and thanks to Rob Browning

Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is my hope that #359855 will not exist in the new lilypond. However, this is just a hope. If ghostscript continues to have such a bug, then solving it will become of critical priority for getting

Re: lilypond and thanks to Rob Browning

Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I spent quite some time investigating #359855... Apparently you need to add ttf-bitstream-vera and ttf-freefont to the build-depends to fix the problem. At least that worked for me, though I don't know exactly why. Splendid; I'm going to try this

lilypond and thanks to Rob Browning

Rob Browning, the guile maintainer, has been doing a lot of hard work trying to get guile-1.8 into Debian. Turns out there were some critical timing bugs affecting the operation of fork in the guile threading implementation, bugs which are too intractible to solve immediately. Rob has uploaded

Accepted scm 5e2-3 (source powerpc)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:04:04 -0700 Source: scm Binary: scm Architecture: source powerpc Version: 5e2-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted gnucash 2.0.1-3 (source i386 all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:38:12 -0700 Source: gnucash Binary: gnucash-common gnucash Architecture: source i386 all Version: 2.0.1-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas

Accepted gtkhtml 1.1.10-10 (source all powerpc)

PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: gtkhtml- HTML rendering/editing library - bonobo component binary. libgtkhtml-data - HTML rendering/editing library - data files. libgtkhtml-dev - HTML rendering/editing library - development files. libgtkhtml1.1-3

Accepted ifhp 3.5.20-7 (source i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:25:22 -0700 Source: ifhp Binary: ifhp Architecture: source i386 Version: 3.5.20-7 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted slib 3a3-3 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:48:39 -0700 Source: slib Binary: slib Architecture: source all Version: 3a3-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL

Accepted gwrapguile 1.3.4-17 (source powerpc)

-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libgwrapguile-dev - Development package for libgwrapguile1 libgwrapguile1 - g-wrap: Tool for exporting C libraries into Scheme interpreters Changes: gwrapguile (1.3.4-17) unstable; urgency=low . * Orphaning package. * debian/control

Accepted libcapplet 1:1.5.11-13 (source powerpc)

-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libcapplet1 - Library for Gnome Control Center applets libcapplet1-dev - Library for Gnome Control Center applets - Development Changes: libcapplet (1:1.5.11-13) unstable; urgency=low . * Orphaning package. * debian/control (Maintainer

Accepted imlib 1.9.14-31 (source all powerpc)

Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: gdk-imlib1 - compatibility package for gdk-imlib11 gdk-imlib11 - imaging library for use with gtk gdk-imlib11-dev - Header files needed for Gdk-Imlib development imlib-base - Common files needed

Accepted libglade 1:0.17-6 (source powerpc)

: low Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libglade-bonobo0 - Library to load .glade files at runtime (Bonobo controls support) libglade-bonobo0-dev - Development files for libglade (Bonobo controls support) libglade

Accepted oaf 0.6.10-7 (source powerpc)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:40:22 -0700 Source: oaf Binary: liboaf-dev liboaf0 oaf Architecture: source powerpc Version: 0.6.10-7 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell

orphaning Gnome 1 libraries

For a while I have been maintaining the gnome-1 libraries, because gnucash was the last big package which required them. When I uploaded the gnome-2 version of gnucash into unstable, I filed RFAs for these libraries. Now that the gnome-2 version of gnucash has migrated into testing, I'm

Accepted bonobo 1.0.22-10 (source powerpc)

PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: bonobo - The GNOME Bonobo System. libbonobo-dev - The GNOME Bonobo library - development files. libbonobo2 - The GNOME Bonobo library. libefs-dev - Embedded File System library - development files. libefs1- Embedded

Accepted gal0.x 0.24-8 (source all powerpc)

-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libgal-data - G App Libs (data files) libgal-dev - G App Libs (development files) libgal23 - G App Libs (run time library) Closes: 359683 380006 Changes: gal0.x (0.24-8) unstable; urgency=low . * Orphaning package. * debian/control.in

Accepted gnome-libs 1.4.2-33 (source all powerpc)

libart-dev libgnome32 libgnome-dev Architecture: source powerpc all Version: 1.4.2-33 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: gnome-bin - Miscellaneous binaries used by GNOME gnome-dev-doc

Accepted gnome-print 0.37-12 (source all powerpc)

: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libgnomeprint-bin - The GNOME Print architecture - binary files libgnomeprint-data - The GNOME Print architecture - data files libgnomeprint-dev - The GNOME Print architecture - development files

Accepted gnucash-docs 2.0.0-1 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:53:12 -0700 Source: gnucash-docs Binary: gnucash-docs Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.0-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell

Accepted gnucash 2.0.1-2 (source i386 all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:41:10 -0700 Source: gnucash Binary: gnucash-common gnucash Architecture: source i386 all Version: 2.0.1-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas

Accepted libofx 1:0.8.2-1 (source i386)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:52:48 -0700 Source: libofx Binary: libofx2c2a ofx libofx-dev Architecture: source i386 Version: 1:0.8.2-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas

Re: cdrtools

Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Thomas Bushnell: As a countermeasure, the FSF tries to extend copyright to interfaces, so that you do create a derivative work merely by programming to a specific interface of a library written by someone else, without copying their code. I'm not

Re: cdrtools

Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to the GPL, section 0: The act of running the Program is not restricted... And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run, this would appear to me to be what applies. In particular, it appears to me that you could

Re: cdrtools

Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Daniel Schepler: And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run, this would appear to me to be what applies. In particular, it appears to me that you could satisfy the GPL and still dynamically link against a non-free library,

Re: glibc and UNACCEPTs

Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed it, given it was a major accidental change to a rather core library just as that library should've

Accepted gnucash 2.0.1-1 (source i386 all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:26:11 -0700 Source: gnucash Binary: gnucash-common gnucash Architecture: source i386 all Version: 2.0.1-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Thomas

Re: package ownership in Debian

Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Due to the my stuff, don't touch that! current approach, but (again) this is just IMHO. I have had people insist that I needed to maintain a package differently, but they have all been strangely unwilling to post clear applyable patches or make NMUs.

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jul 29, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: So what? If you know how to fix that issue, then why don't you upload a package based on Pierre's work with the fix? Why don't you do it RIGHT NOW and get DONE with this madness? I don't know a fix

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When this thread started, you had decided to bind the fix with the new upstream release and you had blocked the new upstream release with the switch of the default Python version. Now you're also blocking this new upstream release with a major new

Re: lilypond and python

Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le dim 30 juillet 2006 07:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : No, it requires *both* the newer Python pure speculation, upstream *AND* users on the list, claim it works with python2.3. so stop with that, it's tiresome. This is incorrect

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote the default python version, and I maintain that my original fix would work with the new upstream release. Your original fix would not succesfully apply as a patch to the new upstream version. It's also, as it happens, the *wrong* way to make the

Re: lilypond and python

Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le jeudi 27 juillet 2006 à 16:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it seems that guile 1.6.8 is buggy. people reported to have build lilypond with guile 1.6.7 and/or guile-1.8 correctly. And I

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is the stupidiest thing you ever did, because everyone had to look at your handling of your packages. Everybody saw your gcc-4.1 RC with a patch which you're blocking until the new upstream release. Everybody saw the awful packaging mistakes you

Re: package ownership in Debian

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership. Make it 100% mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first. There are many ways of working together with people, and co-maintainership works well for some

Re: lilypond and python

Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it seems that guile 1.6.8 is buggy. people reported to have build lilypond with guile 1.6.7 and/or guile-1.8 correctly. And I suppose *HERE* is the real problem, which you failed to spot, because you didn't even TRIED to. I had that problem 1

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstream release, unless you are referring to something different. I am not the lilypond maintainer, I don't want to have to download an upstream

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jul 25, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Some have suggested patching lilypond to call python2.4, depending on python2.4, and not bothering with python-central and pyversions and such. No, this is still required, but I didn't want to force

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jul 26, 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote: You could just add an explicit dependency on python2.4 and do a s/python/python2.4/ over lilypond. For which I've sent a patch already. I believe the patch you sent was not against the current upstream

Re: lilypond and python

Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, come on. sed -i -e '1s/python[0-9\.]*/python2.4/' $(find . -name '*.py') Don't tell me it takes you more than half a minute to come up with something like that. And don't tell me you can write a mail such as the one I'm replying to in less than

Re: lilypond and python

Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is this, solution number 4 for Mr. BSG's complaints? I am almost beginning to believe that he is more interested in complaining than just fixing the problem. Solution? How about this, if I apply that recipe and try to compile, you pay me $100

Re: lilypond and python

Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is this, solution number 4 for Mr. BSG's complaints? I am almost beginning to believe that he is more interested in complaining than just fixing the problem. And the gratuitous rudeness is apalling. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: lilypond and python

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,

Re: lilypond and python

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,

Re: lilypond and python

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

Re: lilypond and python

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

Re: lilypond and python

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

Re: lilypond and python

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

Re: lilypond and python

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?

Re: lilypond and python

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

Re: lilypond and python

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

Re: lilypond and python

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

Re: lilypond and python

Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well, there's curently only one person spreading lies and fud about python packaging, so please don't talk about lies as well. I'm still testing uprades and fixing upgrade issues. experimental has a python-defaults pointing to 2.4, so you can prepare

Re: lilypond and python

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: So, let me make plain: I am entirely happy to accept a workaround patch for lilypond's current upstream stable release that will make it build and use python 2.4 even when that is not installed as python

Re: lilypond and python

Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: experimental has a python-defaults pointing to 2.4 When did this happen? Is there some reason you didn't reply to my status-requests with this information? Why are you trying to keep things secret from me? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have refused greylisting for a long time for that exact reason. However the setup Pierre Habouzit describes does not delay most of legitimate mail. Frankly, the remaining delays are sporadic and one can live with them. What bothers me is that we

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: And finally, if we don't care about standards conformance, I have said that a good second-best is to document exactly what our requirements are, rather than burying them in apparent secrecy. What

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even worse, there's nothing preventing a site from saying it has a temporary local problem when it _does_. Thus, if your mail server can't handle retrying, it will drop mail every time something is not in perfect working order. And hardware or network

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Jul 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still, if you think it's just nitpicking, then why not ask the IETF to amend the standard to clearly permit this practice? Because there is no reason to do this, this is not a standard issue

Re: Greylisting: discussion should stop here, for now (Re: greylisting on debian.org?)

Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the record (it was already said in the thread IIRC), the setup we are discussing is in production on alioth since sth like 4 or 5 monthes now (maybe a bit less) on my idea, and thanks to Raphael Hertzog for actually using his alioth admin hat

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: If the anti-spam advocates consistently said our measures impose such-and-such a cost, but we think it's worth it, I would be delighted. the measures impose a cost, but we think it's worth it Can you

lilypond and python

I have been criticized for not uploading the new lilypond packages and being quite a bit behind the public releases. Unfortunately, the current lilypond requires python 2.4, and expects to call it as python, not just in the build process, but at run time. I had been assuming that the python

gnucash on alpha

There is a grave bug (#378346) filed against gnucash on alpha which seems to be quite arch specific. Mail to the debian-alpha team for assistance has not been answered (though I have been told that the team is very small). Is there someone with access to an alpha that will look at this bug, and

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, up to now, we've found Thomas Bushnell who seems really hardly voting against greylisting on Debian hosts, with arguments about it breaking established standards. I personnally find these arguments very nitpicking and mostly aimed at finding a

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you have some mechanism in place to detect such a case when or if it happens? Deal with it when people complain. Also, this kind of information can be shared so that not every mail admin has to find it out himself by users complaining. Are

what's the python status?

So presumably the python transition is now ready for changing the version on python defaults, right? What remains to be done? I would ask directly, but they have not yet responded to any question I have asked. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greylisting already exists. This would just make it _less_ of a problem. By greylisting from /27 netblocks, you wouldn't block any additional mail as opposed to greylisting in general; quite to the contrary. Yes, I understand. What I'm saying is

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suggest that when we find a domain that sends mail from 120 /27's (roughly a /20), we worry about it then. An excellent strategy. Do you have some mechanism in place to detect such a case when or if it happens? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The specific example used was some spam source sitting in the same /27 netblock in a colo server room, and getting through the graylister because a proper MTA from the same /27 netblock had already been added to the approve it, it does

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's better than not greylisting anyone. Nobody is trying to design the perfect spam filter. We just want to reduce spam on debian.org

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG tb at becket.net writes: martin f krafft madduck at debian.org writes: [...] It assumes, for example, that the remote MTA will use the same IP address each time it sends the message. [...] eh no. Standard greylisting practise

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's better than not greylisting anyone. Nobody is trying to design the perfect spam filter. We just want to reduce spam on debian.org. A perfect spam filter is one which catches all spam and bounces no valid mail. Saying we aren't trying to be

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Read below. When you do, please remember that many of us consider that a fully-open system which drowns us in SPAM is also broken, because you do lose information for failure of locating it among the noise. You may lose that information;

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Jul 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am concerned that you not use a spam-defeating technique which blocks perfectly legitimate and standards-compliant email. Then why you are not loudly complaining about the antispam software

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >