Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> So aspell changed the library name to libaspell15c2, which breaks all
>> the existing packages that use libaspell.
>>
>> Was this really an ABI change in lib
So aspell changed the library name to libaspell15c2, which breaks all
the existing packages that use libaspell.
Was this really an ABI change in libaspell? If not, there was no
reason to make the change as I understand it. Were high-severity bugs
filed on all the packages that depend on the l
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20050716T195244-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> That's a far cry different from someone wanting to enforce a
>> requirement.
>
> Who, in this thread, is this hypothetical someone?
Right. Manoj asked:
Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, to rely on 1300 developers to all think of your cunning method of
> solving a problem clearly makes sense. After all, to *write down* a
> technique that solves the problem, and make it available to all of them
> would stilt their creativity, hinder th
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just read this article[1] in the SMH. I think there are a few points that
> you should keep when talking to the press in future:
>
> - don't "slag" them off / don't complain aobut the press
>
> - Just talk about Debian, unless explicitly a
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | I'm saying you must make sure you can get bug reports from users.
>
> So having you maintainer address be a sink to /dev/null would be fine
> since you can read bug reports on the web.
No. You need to be able to get bug reports from users even if t
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunatly the CCCP is currently maxed out on power in its existing
> racks, so is not taking new clients, unless one moves.
Is this true for its "sister sites" too? The web page says they have
sites in Seattle, Chicago, Toronto, and Washington.
Thomas
"Thijs Kinkhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, June 22, 2005 10:25, James Troup wrote:
>> o be a donation, i.e. gratis. Debian can't pay for it's own hosting.
>
> I was wondering about this statement. Debian receives monetary donations
> and owns quite a lot of money - wouldn't paying fo
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 01:46, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be
>> > a
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you think you could offer hosting under these conditions, please
> send details to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can't offer hosting, but I do have a suggestion (though perhaps it's
already been considered and rejected). We could perhaps take
advantage of the C
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That being said, even if you couldn't do that, there still are ways to
> avoid the problem: e.g., do graylisting based on the /24 of the sending
> host, rather than on the /32, and make the delay only valid for five
> minutes rather than an entire hour
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 18-Jun-05, 17:24 (CDT), Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable
>> for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
>
> Any
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:30:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Is realtime a requirement for bug reporting?
>>
>> Since delays could be weeks fro
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be
> acceptable. Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not helpful.
I am ok with anti-spam measures which enable a well-behaving false
positive sender to know they have r
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> So my IP address, which my ISP promises will always be the same, and
>> is initialized by DHCP, is static. But most of the IP addresses in
>> the block are handed out dynamically. How wil
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, even if said frequency is very low. If my ISP does not give me a
> guarantee that when I reconnect I will get the same address again, and
> that noone else is going to use that address, I consider it a dynamic IP.
>> If so, lots of ISPs (mine, for
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is simply no point in running a mail server on a dynamic IP. It
> will not be able to accept mail in a reliable way, even with dyndns, so
> you need some other host to accept and forward your mail to you anyway,
> so you can as well route it throug
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. Several people (myself included) have made offers to that effect.
Great, I'd like to sign up. Can you please email me directions?
Do I need a colo, or will you tunnel?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>>>> Indeed, I have been sending my mail with UUCP since more than 10 years
>>>> and I am not
Robert Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>>> Indeed, I have been sending my mail with UUCP since more than 10 years
>>> and I am not going to stop soon.
>>
>> That's fine. What people are aski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jun 19, Robert Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Email can also be "non-realtime" in the case of those that still use the
>> old clunky, but still effective, UUCP method of mail delivery (I use this
>> method on my dialup-based BBS that I sti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jun 19, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Just to make clear: this "requirement" of yours is one you have
>> invented.
> Me and a large part of the Internet.
What large part?
>> for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jun 18, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Email is realtime. I receive mails much more quickly than five minutes
>> on average; within seconds, typically, even for round-trips to many
>> mailing lists. Reducing that to minutes on average
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jun 18, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > > Why is it my responsiblity to remove myself from CBL when you start
>> > > refusing mail from me? What am I supposed to do when there become
>> > > fifteen misbehaving BLs out there each in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jun 18, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:28:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> > Stop sending mail from dynamically-assigned IP addresses. Deal.
>> Please show me how to check for "dynamically-assigned IP".
> If
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jun 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Why should I have to do extra work to save you the effort? I guess
> Why should I waste a huge quantity of resources because a few people
> cannot accept
Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Choosing not to use greylisting because it causes mail to become
> non-realtime is *not* a valid complaint. Which is the point I was
> trying to make in a roundabout fashion.
People are not using "realtime" in its technical sense here. They are
using
Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Email may appear to be realtime, and you may even expect it to
> be because this is frequently how it works. But this is not guaranteed.
The RFC requires "best effort".
> Either way people's, misguided, beliefs on the realtimeness of
> email deli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> Stop sending mail from dynamically-assigned IP addresses. Deal.
Gee. There is no reliable way to know whether an IP address is static
or not. SMTP is supposed to work from both: which means that
graylisting is in fact violating the protocols in a sever
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jun 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Why is it my responsiblity to remove myself from CBL when you start
>> refusing mail from me? What am I supposed to do when there become
>> fifteen misbeh
Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/18/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > So what? It's *e-mail*. If you need realtime, pick up a phone, or use
>> > one
Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CBL only lists addresses that spam thier spamtraps, and removes
> listings automaticly after several days. They attempt not to list
> mail servers. To be removed immediatly, just fill out their web form
> with the IP address to be removed.
Why is it m
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what? It's *e-mail*. If you need realtime, pick up a phone, or use
> one of any of the innumerable chat systems.
Ok, from now on, I should report bugs to you by phone?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It stops a lot of viruses and spam, with no false positives. What's the
> problem?
It has false positives, in fact, because it fails badly for certain
perfectly reasonable kinds of email delivery.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
> #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
It seems to me that it's a wishlist item.
It also seems to me that a reasonable course would be to disable it by
default, but leave it as
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> accusing people of being members of a Canonical-controlled cabal when they
>> do you the courtesy of informing you about their personal priorities for
>> etch. Your choice.
>
> "personal priorities", that's
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just a thought. How about setting up an aging system for who can fix the
> bugs. Give the maintainer N time period to act on the bug and then if
> the maintainer can not fix it or will not fix it, other folks who have a
> patch should be able to apply to fi
Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO, after a year, the bug should have been fixed, otherwise it should be
> tagged "help", and ideally the maintainer should write a short explanation
> about why he is unable to fix the bug (so that other people can really help
> him).
I
Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, the maintainer asked for more info, the user submitted the
> requested info, and then there was no activity in the BTS for a year.
What exactly do you want the maintainer to do in this case?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-20 11:48]:
>> One could decide to let RM: bugs on ftp.d.o always linger a certain
>> amount of time before processing, for complete removals, in any case.
>
> That's someone I wanted to suggest anyw
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[a lot of repetition that pretty much ignores what I said, and
especially where I said:]
>> So this is a tempest in a silly teapot. I'm happy to leave the thread
>> here, since the upshot is a no-relevance-to-important-issues.
So, since you ignor
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry about that; I skipped a step or two. Your "unilateral grant of
> permission" is not in fact a recognized mechanism under law for the
> conveyance of a non-exclusive copyright license.
I'm sorry, can you point me to the statute here? The
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At this point, there seem to be quite a
> few people who agree that the FSF's stance ("copyright-based license")
> and the far-from-novel one that you advance ("unilateral license /
> donee beneficiaries") are untenable in the jurisdictions with w
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses
>> are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It
>> does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts.
>
> The words "license" and "contract" are
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An action for copyright
> infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
> instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
> through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you
> have succ
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the
> published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
> inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
> that he can have no reasonable basis unde
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
>
> I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start
> going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that
> automatically creates an initramfs.
Yes, this is surely true. When I had t
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. Debian is figuring it out. My whole point is that you've shifted
> the job of doing so to the site admin. If you are expecting dpkg to
> take on the responsibility for peeking under people's mounted /bin
> directories and installing/upgrading th
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:38:33AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> This just seems like change for the sake of change, with trivial benefits,
>> if any.
>
> I agree, and I admit to not having read this whole thread, but has anyone
> made a serious argumen
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
>> Um:
>>
>> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
>
> That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
> out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, really, there isn't. It is not possible to send mail to a Debian
> mailing list any more without offending somebody. Even if your mail
> contains nothing but trivially verifiable facts, somebody will still
> be offended (often inexplicably, and som
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For me, this is a closed issue until you change the FHS. (Something that
> I don't think is very likely to happen, but best of luck to you.)
Since the FHS tries to be responsive to what different distributions
want, this doesn't help in the question: Sh
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> We've been told that /usr is necessary to allow network
> Thomas> sharing. Of course, you can network sh
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
>> files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
>
> We dont talk about thousands, on a edium sized system it is a few h
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most applications I've seen that use libexec make it entirely trivial
> to move it to /usr/lib: "./configure --libexecdir=/usr/lib". (I don't
> think apps that don't do this, or something like it, should be a major
> consideration here--take apps out of
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
> of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really doesn't
> appeal to me (and however easily spread that cost, it's a lot of work --
> it's more work than the /usr/
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
>> a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
>> that have been mentioned he
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The difference being that Debian has already split /usr from / and
> therefore is only paying the marginal cost of maintaining it, whereas
> Debian has not split /usr/lib from /usr/libexec and would have to pay the
> (far larger) initial cost of moving ev
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 13, 2005, at 11:28, Humberto Massa GuimarÃes wrote:
>>
>> You said it yourself. Even if your 256MB machine were typical (it's
>> not), the less cache memory you use to cache dentries of /usr/lib,
>> the better (more memory for your apps, or t
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 Ã 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a Ãcrit :
>> Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
>> cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
>> /usr/lib, some of them twice or three t
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>>Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>&
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you agree that "that bug" should be fixed (in Etch), irrespective
> of whether the FHS is also changed to split /usr/lib?
I'm not expert enough on the other factors that might be relevant to
say.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> What does the default Debian install do?
>
> Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
> Which is a sane choice as directory inde
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue,
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
>>> default? A: Last
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
>> better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
>> default Debian install?
>
> /etc/ld.so.cache
Um, no. ld.so.cache g
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>>> These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
>>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
>>
>>
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
> default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
> I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
> and I am pretty sure finding a file in
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
> are screwed with / on lvm. Also snapshots and pvmove don't work
> (deadlock).
>
> raid0/5 don't have support in the bootloaders.
>
> reiserfs/xfs miss support in bootloaders or
GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
>> the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
>> the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
>
> (I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you think are the original reasons "/" needed to be small?
I know what they are. PDP-11 boot loaders couldn't access long block
addresses. This was copied into 32V on the Vax, where it entered
4BSD.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
>> then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
>
> But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people think it's obvious, but the lack of
stated r
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which doesn't? Minix maybe. Even ext2/3 has hashes for dir if you
> format it that way.
Is this the Debian default for installation?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
>> semantic signific
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
> -lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
> might look into some other directories as well, and it might fill in foo
> into some other patterns than "lib%
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
> not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
> with the size of the directory. That's the question I answered.
How does ld determine that -latoheun will
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
>> >
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
> difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
> you have thousands or millions of them.
Why? Is there magic now?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
>> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
>> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>>
>> It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
>
> I disagree.
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FWIW, I've noticed that "3.1" is already used in quite a lot of
> documentation and on websites with articles relating to Debian. It
> was announced quite some time ago, and so it would be rather
> inconsiderate [gross understatement] to change it at this
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's the syntax for the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for adding a second
> submitter?
I believe
submitter [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
works just fine.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you do immediately lower the severity of a bug I raised the severity
> of again, could you please at least put my in the Cc header of the
> message you send to the BTS?
No, that's not a requirement. If you want to receive notifications,
you should a
Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:30:22AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Looking at the bug log, it seems that you had no business increasing
>> the severity in the first place. You didn't report the bug, you
> [...]
&
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You seem to confuse this with bug closing. It's common practice to
> adjust the severity of a bug to a RC one if a RC issue was mistakenly
> reported as non-RC, and neither your Developers Reference nor your
> release team have ever disagreed with this
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> severity 306015 grave
> thanks
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded
> it, it would be nice if you would:
> - Cc me
> - send a better explanation than "This is not a missing dependency, feh"
Looking at t
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Keep in mind that whenever you contribute something back to upstream,
> you generally get little recognition for it (at least in my experience).
> The code just becomes part of the new upstream version. I'm not too
> sensitive about the "recognition" part a
"Thijs Kinkhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So to conclude, there's no reason for that mass bug filing apart from your
> "feeling" that it "looks funny". Since it poses no real problem at all, I
> don't even see a lintian-test being warranted for this. This should indeed
> be closed unless you
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's also funny that people want debian to release so bad, and yet fight
> the release team at every announcement. I don't see a problem with
> wanting to know as much about transitions and migrations in advance as
> possible. I'm sure there will be a
Wouter van Heyst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The awkwad situation would be that d-i is part of Debian, and non-free
> isn't, so anything in non-free can not be part of the installer?
> But having a (non-free) firmware section with components of that in the
> installer is ok?
If it's done right,
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
>
> This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
A free kernel can't support that hardware. It's a shame, but it's
true. If we want an alternative installer with
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The choice is not between free firmware and non-free firmware. The
> choice is between firmware on disk and firmware on chip. That's the
> reality of the situation. I'd prefer us to adopt policies based on what
> currently exists, rather than on what m
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With these changes done, we are now on the home stretch for the sarge
> release. We are now only waiting on the arm buildds to recover and
> catch up to a reasonable extent, and on one last glibc upload -- and
> then sarge is FREEZING. This is, therefo
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As said, burn all hardware in your house. Now. Please. Then you have
> definitely defeated the evil non-freeness.
As I have said, I don't think non-free software is evil. I just think
it is not part of the Debian main archive.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is bullshit/lies/cheating (pick one). It should be worded:
>
> "We are not willing to support his hardware just because we (at least
> some of us) decided to demonstrate how can we can strike against the
> non-freeness of the hardware development ass
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:09:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:50:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> What
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why? How does it benefit Debian if our users have to obtain firmware
>> > from somewhere else to make their hardware work? How does it benefit
>> > freedom if we imply that hardware with on-chip firmware is preferable?
>>
>> The DFSG says that's the
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Distribute the non-free firmware. Our users are happy.
> 2) Don't distribute the non-free firmware. Our users either download the
> non-free firmware from elsewhere (bad) or replace their hardware with
> parts that have the non-free firmware in flas
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /etc/issue is meant for the sysadmin to edit. It is free form
> text. /etc/lsb-release is not.
All conffiles are there for the sysadmin to edit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
701 - 800 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
