Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Instead, you could hold a grudge and complain. That would be in keeping
> with the Debian tradition, after all.
Not really holding a grudge; the problem was only just resolved
yesterday. In a week, it would be forgotten. It was just ironic.
> Note: I
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG [Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:28:43 -0800]:
>
>> Well golly gee. When I sent mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], saying
>> that packages had failed due to temporarily missing build
>> dependencies, it was apparently i
Vincent Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, we are in need of assistance! Recently ARM was "separated"
> from testing as it is believed it was not keeping up. In fact, the ARM
> buildds are generally keeping up well - the problem now is a large
> pile of 131 "maybe-failed" packages [1].
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The archive signing key gives absolutely no integrity ensurance on the
> deb package. The only thing it insures is that the file was not
> altered _after_ leaving ftp.de.debian.org for the mirrors and/or
> user. In no way does it prevent altering
Anthony Towns writes:
> .deb signatures are aimed at giving users some sort of assurance the
> package is "valid"; but when you actually look into it -- at least in
> Debian's circumstances -- those signatures can't actually give any
> meaningful assurance for any specific validity.
Don't they g
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:43:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> libgnutls-dev is a suitable substitute for libssl-dev when one wants
>> libssl.
>
>> However, libssl-dev provides *two* libraries; the othe
libgnutls-dev is a suitable substitute for libssl-dev when one wants
libssl.
However, libssl-dev provides *two* libraries; the other is libcrypto.
Is there a GPL-compatible replacement for the latter?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to the reports of another member of the ftp-master team, the
> situation was cleared up, but Mr. Troup re-enabled the check that
> breaks dpkg-sig on purpose after not being amused about HE's rant on
> here.
If this is accurate, it is not reasona
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are you trying to do instead? If you might have noticed, we have
> _just_ _another_ ftpmaster situation _right_ _now_, and from handling
> of #339686 by a member of the DPL team I don't get the impression that
> the DPL team actually cares.
I can't un
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i have not given up that hope yet and i invest a considerable
> amount of time working on this issue as part of my work on the
> DPL-Team. others there do so, too.
I hope this is true. I really do. However, I have no particular
evidence that it is
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If somebody designs and implements (after a suitable architectural
> review) some software to support distributed keyring maintenance in a
> secure, auditable way, it is likely that calls for adding more people
> to the task would be considered more se
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
>> related to programs in Debian.
>
> You expect no contributions about release procedu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> Personally, I'd like to read the papers. It's a shame that Debian
>> can't distribute them to me.
> Debian does not want, it's quite a different issue.
Debian does not want what? To distribute them? Hogwash. I'd be
happy to upload them.
--
To U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation? What is the
>> non-computer-program which we have "too much" of?
> No, I am saying t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
>> software. Are you confusing software and computer programs?
> No, I j
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
>> their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
>> papers as part
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 02:16:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > And while dash is also optional, all *correctly* written /bin/sh
>> > scr
Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Today I did a update of the system (yes, sid and yes I know it can be
> unstable but...) and the update includes grep where no open critical bug
> was seen. After Boot the system was completely broken as of the libpcre
> dependency.
>
> So please do not c
Anthony Towns writes:
> When you see some code that's not available under the GPL's terms,
> what's your reaction:
>
> (a) gosh, what can I do to convince the author to give it to me
> under the GPL?
>
> (b) you aren't/shouldn't be allowed to do that. stop now.
>
> (c) *shrug*
Eric Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose someone has reported a bug that the maintainer can't
> reproduce, but the reporter can. Is it reasonable for the maintainer
> to email the reporter and ask whether a new version fixes the problem,
> or is that considered obnoxious?
It's certainly
Andy Teijelo Pérez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió:
>> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL
>> > sour
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources
> very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is
> comming.
Once again, delete the binaries *now*.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK. point taken. This will be "fixed" soon. Hopefully in Alpha 1, which
> bits is planned to be release by the end of this week.
That is not acceptible. You must fix it now, not soon. You can fix
it by, for example, removing the binaries you are dist
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
>>> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
>>
>> Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and lib
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
>
> I hope I "honored" your orignal request now. :-)
It was not my request. Where is the C library, and is it bei
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What is this "will be"? You are distributing binaries now; you must
>> therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible
>> with the GPL.
>
> You are welcome to obtain account at the web portal and check out the
> source directly fr
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check
>> the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any?
>
> you can check, than re-check again and again, Nexenta OS GNU/OpenSolaris
> is a complete open source p
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
>> >
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will skip the lengthy enumeration of people who distribute binaries
> without distributing the system header files -- distributors of whole
> operating systems are relatively rare -- since the obvious retort is
> that those distributors can take advant
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will refer back to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, where I
> wrote that we will have to disagree on the meaning of that phrase.
> You say that it includes system header files; I think a reasonable
> interpretation is that it means interface definition files for t
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
> awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
> necessary system header files with their application's source code.
What is this "almost nobody"?
Debian most certain
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
> in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
> "Source code" is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications. For applications -- w
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
> work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
> of an application that uses them. The C library header files are also
> in no way part of the preferred form f
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Explain please.
>
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> contributed back to the community.
No. Any change to foo.c can be kept entirely private if you wish. The
GPL only requires that *if* you choose to distribute yo
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
>> > variant of dpkg. Will D
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people are already violating
the GPL, we are "forced" to do something other tha
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> It is not clear to me that
>>> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
>>> defin
Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
> should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like
> somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great
> opportunity. I've got news for you: the g
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
>> problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and
>> GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.
>
> ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about
> CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under
> CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody
> (including propriatery distributors)
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My reading of the "interface definition files" clause is that it only
> applies to those associated with the modules contained in the
> executable. That is, it means header files as well as implementation
> files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
> make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
> sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be
> GPL-free. All GPL software will be distri
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anyone who maintains a package depending on libglade up to this, or
> could the GNOME team adopt libglade?
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01199.html
Since I'm the de facto gnome 1 weenie, being the last maintainer of a
big
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is clear tension between this and the "mere aggregation" clause.
> However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
> modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
> by the mere aggregation clause than the t
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
> against the spirit of the DFSG?
I disagree. It does not go against the spirit of the DFSG.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
> variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
> duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
> to force developers do duplicate their wo
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL?
I don't know. I've asked the FSF. It depends on the details of
exactly what they are doing.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship
> GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc,
> tar, sed, awk etc... btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for
> download, so, one could try to install
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
You are incorrect. The BSG license most certainly is GPL-compatible.
> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler,
Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The
> numerous-our-examples issue?
Of course, that's an issue.
Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solaris. But I'm not
sure they do so.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta
> OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in
> their list besides GNU/Linux?
I have no problem with it, provided it fits the legal requirements.
It seems t
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
>
>> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
>> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
>
> There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
> simili
Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If application A is deployed as a standalone application built
>>> using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a
>>> Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything
>>> oth
Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the
> major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package,
> I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the
> application itself.
Wrong.
> Furt
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We *do not* mix GPL-based and CDDL-based projects within Nexenta OS.
You don't link CDDL libraries into GPL'd programs? At all? I
disbelieve.
> Please read some more details on license which allows closed binary
> re-distribution at http://www.opensol
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's
> likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the
> kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance.
But only with the licensing question sorted out first.
--
To UNS
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CDDL is a good open source license and "blessed" by R.S.
That does not make it compatible with the GPL. You cannot combine
code from two licenses unless the licenses are compatible, and the
CDDL is not compatible with the GPL.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt,
> you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible:
> http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is
> shipped with Solaris distribution.
Ho
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The enormous ABI transitions have been particularly hard, of course. If
> we can avoid ABI-breaking transitions in the future it would help. :-) I
> think we have a poor image of the effectiveness of 'testing' because *both*
> of the last two relea
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kudos to the people who are holding back on new depdendency-bumping uploads
> until this enormous clog makes it into testing. Can the rest of you
> please make a serious effort?
>
> If your package is caught up in the clog -- don't make a new upload.
Jonas Meurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it produces at least a bloated passwd/group/shadow file. This is reason
> enough to consider possible solutions.
You're worried about disk consumption?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many authentiaction systems do not use pam or shadow authentication.
> That's the point of the counter argument.
So how does removing the line from the password file suddenly change
things?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Leaving around unused accounts is plainly wrong too, and also a
>> > potential security risk.
>
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In various discussions recently it has been suggested that it would be
> a good idea (TM) to make the init.d scripts run in parallel. This involves
> using some tags from the new LSB and generally making explicit some
> run-time dependencies that hav
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have we actually got a specific case of this happening and there being a
> real security threat from it? Seems like an aweful lot of hand-waving
> and concern for a possible scenario that doesn't seem to have actually
> happened much (if it all, so far
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Leaving around unused accounts is plainly wrong too, and also a
> potential security risk.
Can you outline the risk please?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> * Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 20:13]:
>> > This is just patently false, as has been pointed out elsewhere. What
>> > security hole, exactly, is created by orphaning a file?
>>
>> Well, if some
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Same way you know that the system administrator hasn't modified a file
>> > in /usr/bin.
>>
>> U
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > By knowing what the package uses the user for. This is somewhat akin to
>> > the PostgreSQL package's
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I disagree with the idea that removing a user is a bug. If the user was
>> > added by the package, a
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Problem being, if daemons don't remove their (supposedly exclusive-use)
> accounts, you can end in two years with 100 unnecessary accounts in a
> workstation.
And what bad results does this produce?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:44:12AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> "One cannot guarantee that the local admin hasn't used the account for
>> other things as well."
>>
>&
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I disagree with the idea that removing a user is a bug. If the user was
> added by the package, and the package is being purged, and there's a
> reasonable expectation that it wasn't used outside of the package's use
> of it then I think it's probably s
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO you can safely remove an user/group _only_ if you have made sure
> there are no files owned by that uid/group left on any filesystems (and
> checking that may be tricky if the system uses ACLs, for example).
"Any filesystems" here must include remov
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Removing system users on package purge is widely regarded a bug since
>> one cannot guarantee that the local admin hasn't used the account for
>> other things as well. Additionally, removing the system user on
>> package purge might lea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> Even if you only want to support Linux, it's *STILL* wrong to include
>> >> the kernel headers right in the package.
>> > It's n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Even if you only want to support Linux, it's *STILL* wrong to include
>> the kernel headers right in the package.
>
> It's not.
What if they are
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But since you asked, the libpng transition is waiting for the readiness of a
> large cluster of GNOME 1 packages culminating in gnucash, and will probably
> go in as soon as gnucash is ready.
gnucash is number *27* on the sparc build queue. This i
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> Of course. So let's have one ping package that provides the feature
>> on systems where the headers say "yes, we have this feature."
>
> Unfortunately, exactly that is not go
Anthony Towns writes:
>> No, the point is that the Hurd developers should write that feature in
>> the standard tar so that it can be turned on and off with a normal
>> configure test,
>
> Well, why not say "the Hurd developers should write that feature in the
> standard Linux kernel so that it
Anthony Towns writes:
> Going too far on the "consistency" side of things makes working on
> alternative OSes pointless: if Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd do
> the exact same thing, why bother putting in the effort to have both?
> Would you say that "tar" shouldn't have special options on t
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>>
>>> Good golly, Miss Molly, that's it. It does indeed blow chunks if the
>>> input is /dev/null (w
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> Good golly, Miss Molly, that's it. It does indeed blow chunks if the
>> input is /dev/null (whether within a chroot or just a normal native
>> build).
>
> Heh. G
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Quick random guess: Could pbuilder be providing either no stdin, or
>> something silly for stdin?
>
> It's possible, but the command invoked doesn't (shouldn't?!) read from
> stdin. I'll check this
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Clearly something about the buildd dynamic environment is *different*
>> from what I get if I just enter and do it myself, and that difference
>> causes the generated lilypond to fail.
>
> Quick random guess: Could pbuilder be providing either no s
Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A uuencoded tarball of the generated files would appear to be useful here.
> (You'll probably want tar's -m option when unpacking.)
Well, I'm now closer in. The first invocation of lilypond from within
the build fails. But it fails silently. The faili
Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've an ugly hack to get ccache working inside the pbuilder, that saves lots
> of build time.
Thanks, but the big build time for lilypond is mostly consumed with
tracing fonts, not compiling C code. :(
> Well, I tried that and didn't managed to get
Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, 21 October 2005 07:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I'm trying to solve bug 304932/334877.
>>
>> I can reproduce the build failure using pbuilder, but not when I build
>> on my own system directly.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 21, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Your message would seem less confrontational if you would deign to explain
>> *why* Linux-specific kernel features are important in a ping implementation.
> Because features like ping -M are of in
Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>I'm trying to solve bug 304932/334877.
>>
>>I can reproduce the build failure using pbuilder, but not when I build
>>on my own system directly.
>>
>>I would like to do the pbuilder build and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 21, Noah Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > > and build process is a mess. The upstream developer is one of the
>> > > kernel network stack maintainers, and he wants the iputils package to
>> > > always work with the latest and greatest k
I'm trying to solve bug 304932/334877.
I can reproduce the build failure using pbuilder, but not when I build
on my own system directly.
I would like to do the pbuilder build and then examine the failing
filesystem, but pbuilder always deletes the build directory, and the
manual gives no clear
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Can't the patch be posted to the BTS and NMUed after two days if
>>> there's no response (in general)?
>>
>> Yeah, but golly, sometimes there is no patch because the patch is
>> blindingly obvious.
>
> No, no, no. Please not. There's always a patch, a
Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 07:27:14PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On 10/17/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >> That is why I
Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/17/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > That is why I ask that before an NMU, someone should show me the patch,
>> > and i
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is why I ask that before an NMU, someone should show me the patch,
> and if I reply "I don't have time right now, okay to NMU that if you
> like" then it's fine (and in fact it is going to be the answer you will
> hear most from me ATM).
What if
"Jan C. Nordholz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to ask you if it is desired (and possible at all)
> that submitters close their own bugs if they have been fixed
> without the package maintainer's noticing. The informational
> pages on b.d.o don't state whether [EMAIL PROTECTED] is obeying
The arm and m68k autobuilders are having real trouble keeping up; m68k
has been well below 90% for weeks, and arm has been plummeting
recently.
Whats up?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
501 - 600 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
