You might find more help on debian-mentors.
On 6/1/06, Indraveni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I am creating a deb package which will install some type of converter into
the system and it is working fine. NOW..I want to add an entry into the
Applcaitions/Office menu of my debian system f
Hi, I am creating a deb package which will install some type of converter into the system and it is working fine. NOW..I want to add an entry into the Applcaitions/Office menu of my debian system for that particular application which is installed from my deb package. so that when I click on t
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 12:41:52AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:48:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Then there's the issue of tracing who did an actual upload into the real
> > world. A name on a GPG key is not, by any means, a
Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2006 04:20 schrieb Luc Verhaegen:
>
>>Imho there should be an X implementation of this:
>>* driver side should be possible entirely from within the ddc module:
>>the ddc module could probe and initialise the ddci slave address for the
>>driver when han
Good evening^Wmorning,
I have uploaded mdadm 2.4.1-2 to unstable (should be ready for
(non-production) use, no *big* changes), and 2.5-1 to experimental
(*big* changes, works in my case, YMMV).
If you want to give 2.5-1 a whirl, I would appreciate it. Until the
initramfs-tools maintainers have ha
Am Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2006 04:20 schrieb Luc Verhaegen:
> Imho there should be an X implementation of this:
> * driver side should be possible entirely from within the ddc module:
> the ddc module could probe and initialise the ddci slave address for the
> driver when handed the I2C bus for ddc and
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:48:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Then there's the issue of tracing who did an actual upload into the real
> world. A name on a GPG key is not, by any means, an effective way to do
> that, since it does not contain enough information to get out the black
> helicopte
On 30 May 2006, Theodore Tso stated:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> What Martin Krafft showed you was,
>>
>> How do I know that person actually was Martin Krafft?
>
> So if you have no idea whether or not someone was Martin Krafft, how
> can you ask everyo
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:05:13PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > > Steve Langasek schrieb:
>> > > >>Package: oldpkg
Since monday, I have a server. I'm working on creating a basic process to
import files via ftp upload.
I created the Alioth group apt-pixmap and imported already created scripts on
its CVS.
Regards,
Gonéri
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:05:13PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > > >>Package: oldpkg
> > > >>Depends: newpkg
> > > >>Description: tran
> Since m68k pretty much depends on the gcc-4.1 transition to make it in
> again, I would suggest that we (as in, the m68k port) make the switch to
> GCC4.1 as the default already. This will allow us to verify that stuff
> actually builds and works, and to catch up with building those that fail
> w
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> > http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> > heading in the wrong direction again for being a release candidate. I see
> > 12 buildds activel
also sprach A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.31.1706 +0200]:
> I have completed a reasonably working version of 'debdelta', a package
> suite to compute differences between Debian packages.
Nice. I assume you saw
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg02676.html ?
> Unfortunately m
Henning Makholm dijo [Wed, May 31, 2006 at 04:10:51AM +0200]:
> Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I do agree with Manoj that this was *not* a legitimate experiment (i.e.
> > not a "red team" test) and that Martin *did* abuse our [0] trust [1]
>
> A KSP that depends
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bonjour Thomas!
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> >> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Goirand said:
> >>> Hello!
> >>>
> >>> Is there somebody in Shanghai from Debian able to check my ID
> >>> and sign my key? If there is none, is there
Dear Debian people,
I have completed a reasonably working version of 'debdelta', a package
suite to compute differences between Debian packages.
For sake of clarity, let's call '.debdelta' a file that encodes
the differences between Debian packages, and '.deb' a Debian package.
The command 'debd
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:35:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [You had removed m68k-build from the Cc list. Was that on purpose?]
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> > http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-qu
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a package ready at the moment. However, it only cleanly builds
> with the version of gcc in Sarge. I have been assured by upstream that
> a new release is forthcoming which fixes the build issues with gcc 4.x.
> Once it is out, the packa
Pedro Macanas wrote:
> There is no XFCE version (see http://live.debian.net/wiki/Download ).
> Previously there was a XFCE version.
There will be one as soon as Xfce is installable in sid again.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROT
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> is it possible for a 'building' package to send a mail to the buildd
> admin of the current buildd machine (i.e. something like
> [EMAIL PROTECTED])?
Usually (at least for most m68k buildds) the buildd runs under *surprise*
the use "
Hi,
is it possible for a 'building' package to send a mail to the buildd
admin of the current buildd machine (i.e. something like
[EMAIL PROTECTED])?
Reason: somewhere around Sep-Nov 2005, an alternative symlink was left
by the octave2.1 package in state 'manual'. This means that packages
build-
Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > Steve Langasek schrieb:
>> > >>Package: oldpkg
>> > >>Depends: newpkg
>> > >>Description: transitional dummy package
>>
Hi,
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 01:08, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> The current ITP is not frozen :-)
>
> I have a package ready at the moment. However, it only cleanly builds
> with the version of gcc in Sarge. I have been assured by upstream that
> a new release is forthcoming which fixes the buil
[You had removed m68k-build from the Cc list. Was that on purpose?]
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> heading in the wrong direction again
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> heading in the wrong direction again for being a release candidate. I see
> 12 buildds actively uploadi
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > >>Package: oldpkg
> > >>Depends: newpkg
> > >>Description: transitional dummy package
>
> > >>Package: newpkg
> > >>Replaces: oldpkg
> >
> Doubtful. Several things might cause this behavior (slow slapd timing
> out, nscd caching bad information, group queries set up wrong), but it's
Nscd's off since it *WILL* cache up the wrong info every now and then
without a clear indication of why. This I thought might be ldap timeout
issue, b
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
This one time, at band camp, Juha Jäykkä said:
> > The issue is with pam_group and /etc/security/group.conf.
> How can I debug this further? I don't know how the kernel checks the
> permissions, since apparently the output of "id" and what groups the
> kernel thinks the user belongs to, differ. Per
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 05:52:43PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> akire:/build/glibc/glibc-2.3.6# dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot | tee
>> ../glibc-build-2006-05-30.log
>> dpkg-source: building glibc in glibc_2.3.6-7+gcc41.diff.gz
>> ...
>> So, it's
> The issue is with pam_group and /etc/security/group.conf.
I doubt that: /etc/security/group.conf is empty (apart from comments).
I have been tinkering with this every now and then and the problem won't
go away. It even seems to manifest itself at random!
For example, I created a user "testuser
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 322762
Bug#322762: /usr/doc still exists (transition tracking bug)
'reopen' is deprecated when a bug has been closed with a version;
use 'found' or 'submitter' as appropriate instead.
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks [EMAIL PROTECT
You can run this script, it won't mess up your dpkg/apt state.
run "perl apt-update-stat.pl" for help.
Because indirect circular dependence is not handled properly, libc gets a
rdepends_score -1000, I don't know why there is circular dependence
and how to deal with it. Can anybody give an exp
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 05:52:43PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> > >I tried it on akire, but was interrupted by real world issues.
> > >When you could give a more detailed HowTo (sbuild, dpkg-buildpackage,
> > >whatever) I would retry...
> > Very easy:
> > dget http://people.debian.org/~au
"Liu Yubao" writes...
> The little Perl script can calculate how heavy a package depends on other
> packages and is depended by other packages, they are depicted by
> depends_score and rdepends_score.
With the help of Brendan O'Dea I wrote something similar a while back as a way
of determining
45 matches
Mail list logo
