On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
AFAIK pdftotext is included in xpdf - it's not part of gs 5.5. The
differences
between 5.10 and 5.50 are not that big and I do not want to risk a stable
package just for being up to date.
Eh? There would be no real code changes at all.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
Eh? There would be no real code changes at all. As I understand it, the
license on 5.5 is all that has changed. So why not move it from non-free
to main for potato?
Hi Branden,
if you look at the mail below, you can see that this discussion is
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
IMHO, leaving out 2.4 is a bad idea. there were problems with 2.0 - 2.2.
there was an incompatible build of lsof, as well as some networking
problems. i feel the same way about xf86
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Alexander N. Benner wrote:
Hi
I just updated my potato system, so except of 9 Packages who got updated in
the last 3 hours :-} I should have a system as it is represented by
ftp.de.debian.org.
I still have 4 unmet dependencies:
python-base (interpret) depends on
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:49:54PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
During the slink freeze there was some discussion of the wasted
bandwidth due to -devel-announce and -announce listing all packages
installed/uploaded to all architectures.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
...
Package: libgd-graph-perl (debian/contrib).
Maintainer: Piotr Roszatycki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
59442 libgd-graph-perl: Missing files, missing dependencies
...
This also takes out rmagic.
cu,
Adrian
--
A No uttered from deepest conviction is
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
Package: gap4-doc-dvi (debian/non-free)
Maintainer: Markus Hetzmannseder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
60695 gap4-doc-dvi depends on nonexistent package
Package: gap4-doc-html (debian/non-free)
Maintainer: Markus Hetzmannseder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 10:13:38AM -0800, esoR ocsirF wrote:
Caution, IANAD. Just tring to help
Package: cricket (debian/main)
Maintainer: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
56948 cricket depends on non-existant package
Package:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:52:16PM -0400, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Description:
black-box - Find the crystals
Changes:
black-box (1.3-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Initial Release.
* Upload sponsored by Tony Mancill [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
For your amusement: (it's actually been a year or two since I last posted
this now too... The comments are probably pretty outdated)
Bugs Over Two Years Old
...
Package: emacs19
Maintainer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark
My suggestion for the Packages file is:
There's a Packages.bz2 additionally to the Packages.gz . apt downloads by
default the Packages.bz2, but you can tell apt to fetch the Packages.gz
instead if you do have a slow machine. This solution has the advantage
that there are no problems with old
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Hi,
Hi Marcelo,
...
Regarding the severity of the ftp.debian.org bug: important.
Rationale: in the general case, packages that managed to get to this
state are non-interesting (otherwise they would have been adopted
already). That means
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Bart Schuller wrote:
The problem is not patents, it's that this particular patent also
applies in Germany, meaning we can't distribute from non-us either.
Yes we can, but not to or from Germany. Non-US is in The Netherlands,
which doesn't have software patents.
The
appear in woody in the near future or the one in http
site is completely independent package from Debian itself?
On this site is my package that is in woody since at about 2 months:
$ apt-cache show mfm
Package: mfm
Version: 1.5-2
Priority: optional
Section: otherosfs
Maintainer: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL
wnpp didn't forward this, so I send it manually:
What is Source-Navigator?
Source-Navigator is a source code analysis tool. With it, you can edit
your source code, display relationships between classes and functions
and members, and display call trees. You can also build your
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Eray Ozkural wrote:
I ITP'd this before, hands off :) Why don't you check the list BTW?
And the wnpp? That's why the BTS is being used, right?
Here are the bug report numbers for your reference
#68583: ITP: Insight
#68584: ITP: sourcenav
Argl!
I searched
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
Hi,
Hi Christian,
we currently have a really huge list of packages that are orphaned and
so I looked at them to see if we can drop some of them. Here are some
suggestion and my comments. Any comment from you is appreciated:
...
|fnlib (104 days
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
for package in dpkg apt libc gpg bplay etc ; do
sed [...] bug.template | mail ;
done
You'd better use [EMAIL PROTECTED], else you need a very
good asbestos suit ...
Too late. }:)
...
Grrr...
He filed them:
- without subject
- with
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
...
Take another look at where we are now. If 6 people fix one package a
day until woody is frozen, we might just manage to convert all packages
that do not yet use /usr/share/doc. If that is done, we only have to wait 2
more releases of debian until the
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Marek Habersack wrote:
Same for me... My application was accepted in September, I applied in June -
the only thing missing is the account. I have 8 packages waiting to be
uploaded, one more to overtake from the current maintainer (he could/would
sponsor it, but I prefer to
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
...
5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on
unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable.
...
Tou want to forbid that:
- I run unstable on a production server even if I know what I'm doing
- I tell my
Hi,
I think we have a new problem with the closing of bugs since there is
testing: Currently, bugs get closed when a package goes into unstable.
When we'll freeze testing we'll have to check whether the packages that
closed the bugs made it into testing or not. This isn't very good. As a
solution
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 03:11:41AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Hi,
I think we have a new problem with the closing of bugs since there is
testing: Currently, bugs get closed when a package goes into unstable.
When we'll freeze testing we'll have
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
libglade and some other packages still depend on the very old libxml1.
i just compiled libglade0 (and libglade-gnome0) by simply installing
libxml2-dev and rebuilding. anyway, porting a package from libxml1 to
libxml2 is quite easy, so i am
On 23 Apr 2001, John Goerzen wrote:
...
Heed the advice therein:
* Don't fix something that's not broken.
* E-mail the maintianer.
...
In general I do totally agree with you, but I want to add a small
addition: A Debian bug-squashing party may involve your packages mail
sent some time
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:27:42PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
In any case, binary modules are a fact of life I'm afraid.
Bull. We are Debian, not fucking RedHat or Mandrake. We strive to
exist without non-free software and using its existance as an
* Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010426 21:40]:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:28:51PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
If I try a ./configure or a make xconfig with a new Kernel, I get this
error-msg:
/lib/libc.so.6: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
/lib/libc.so.6: undefined
I have prepared the packages needed to run kernels up to 2.4.4 on a Debian
2.2r3 (potato) system. Please read [1] for more information.
The most important change in this release are the new kernel-* packages
(as always made by Herbert Xu) that include an important netfilter
security fix.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
...
Of course there are no packages in Debian which use Gnome Basic either,
since this is its first packaging.
You can compile gnumeric with support for Gnome Basic.
Ben.
cu
Adrian
--
Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern
On Tue, 1 May 2001, David Whedon wrote:
...
In that case it would be that fact that perl-base is 'priority required' that
allows you to avoid a dependancy on perl rather than the fact that you are
using
...
It's not the 'priority required' but the Essential: yes of perl-base
that makes sure
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
Just wanted to let people know that I'm going to hijack the
pilot-manager package. The current maintainer seems to be completely
MIA; he hasn't uploaded a version in over a year. I emailed him and
He seems to be MIA: How often did you try to contact
I have prepared the packages needed to run kernels up to 2.4.4 on a Debian
2.2r3 (potato) system. Please read [1] for more information.
Changes since the last release:
+ added: isdnutils
Binary packages:
o ipppd
o isdnactivecards
Hi,
it seems to be a trend that maintainers try to change their packages to be
Debian native. Policy says about native packages (in the chapter about
version numbering):
-- snip --
debian_revision
This part of the version number specifies the version of the
Debian
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
...
the package not building with the changed kernel or not working after
being installed at x*1000 machines?
What is better is a sane local header that works with all kernels.
I maintain util-linux that is a user space package that needs many kernel
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
I maintain util-linux that is a user space package that needs many kernel
headers (and the package in unstable compiles only with 2.4 kernel
headers). I do currently use the kernel haeaders libc6-dev ships. Would
it be the right solution to copy the
Hi,
I want to suggest to finish the FHS transition. This includes the
following steps:
- Packages with Standards-Version = 3.0 must follow the FHS.
Policy version 3.0.0.0 was released 30 Jun 1999 and I consider this
enough time for every maintainer to switch to at least this
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
Oliver Elphick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) libpgsql
This package is obsolete and should not be included in any release.
Please ask the ftp admins to remove the package from unstable (file a bug
against ftp.debian.org
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
I want to suggest to finish the FHS transition. This includes the
following steps:
- Packages with Standards-Version = 3.0 must follow the FHS.
Didn't we already have this discussion? The Standards-Version field
is not a reliable indication of
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 11:27:13PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
Is there any reason why libggi2 from unstable is not in testing? All
architectures have now been compiled, being all present and up-to-date in
the pool, but update-excuses gives no hints
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
What do you suggest in my specific case with util-linux?
Which specific program in util-linux and what specific headers?
...
(I tried my best but I can't garuantee this is 100% complete...)
fdisk:
linux/unistd.h
linux/hdreg.h
linux/blkpg.h
linux/types.h
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
Didn't we already have this discussion? The Standards-Version field
is not a reliable indication of much of anything. I strongly object
Policy says:
Policy says doesn't make the packages comply. And you can file all
the bugs reports you want,
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
...
Standards-Versions aren't release critical. You can put it as
Standards-Version: 526.7.8.9.13-Foo.6 if you want. And no matter what
I will practice your suggestion and upload my packages with
Standards-Version: 526.7.8.9.13-Foo.6.
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:53:50AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Package: gsfonts
Maintainer: Torsten Landschoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
91489 Package gsfonts still has at least one file in /usr/doc
Package is ready so far and installed
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
...
There are four ports, any of which may want to try for a woody release:
hurd-i386, mips, hppa and ia64. If they do, they need to ensure that
...
I did perhaps only miss it: You did post some weeks ago a list how much
each architecture is keeping up
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
...
Jérôme, could you please file a ITO (intent to orphan) or maybe even a O:
...
s/ITO/RFA/
(Request for adoption)
cu
Adrian
--
Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Roland Bauerschmidt wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
I did perhaps only miss it: You did post some weeks ago a list how much
each architecture is keeping up with unstable (how many % of the packages
in unstable are compiled on this architecture). Is there a website
Several packages in Debian depend on another package and symlink their
/usr/share/doc/package to the directory of this other package.
Section 13.5. of your policy says:
-- snip --
13.5. Copyright information
---
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:32:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't see any objection to symlinking if both packages are created of
the same sourcepackage, the second one depends on =first-package-version
and (naturally)
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:52:13AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
From a user's point of view it doesn't matter whether the lack of
security updates is due to technical problems
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 12:37:30PM -0800, Britton wrote:
How hard or unreasonable would it be to make it easy for users to sign up
for some sort of automated notification system which would keep them
informed about the status of packages they use? If I were a completely
pragmatic user, I
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:05:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
...
high-quality 2D (Matrox have gone over to the dark side - the Perhalia
and G550 have closed drivers, and you need closed drivers to get
reasonable functionality out of the G450)
I use have a G550 that works fine with the
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 09:31:51AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Most device driver issues relate solely to the kernel, which at present is
very easy to upgrade from source in woody. The most prominent exception is
XFree86, which is not so easy to upgrade.
gphoto2 and SANE are other examples
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 02:48:01PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
...
- you want a graphics cards with DVI output
I don't have a display which needs one, and neither does anyone that I know
at this point. This is not yet common hardware.
...
I bought a 17 TFT display with DVI input some
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:51:51PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 09:36:34PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Instead in continuing this discussion, let's agree on some points:
- you can find hardware that works with Debian 3.0
- much new hardware doesn't work with Debian
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:24:09AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
...
... said that your points are good, it may be useful to define a forum for the
discussion of cases like phpgroupware or snort. In the end i whould say that
there must be a general behaviour, but we should leave
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:41:50AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
...
I accept your observation on my proposal, but i would more appreciate other
ideas and/or solutions.
If there was a stable release of Debian once a year Debian 3.1 was
already released.
ciao,
cu
Adrian
--
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:08:30PM +0200, Frank Lenaerts wrote:
...
As base is quite small, it could be released more frequently. The not
base part could evolve independent from the base part.
Consider e.g. a g++ transition or a transition to a new version of perl:
There is no simple way to
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:30:28PM +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you start asking you will likely find more than thousand packages
where someone will have a good reason for an update of the package
in Debian 3.0. If only every 10th
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:17:57PM +0200, Frank Lenaerts wrote:
...
The not base part could be split further into parts. These parts could
be things related to mailservers, things related to webservers,
database servers, IDS, end-user workstations, ... Because each of
these not base
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:17:14AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If there was a stable release of Debian once a year Debian 3.1 was
already released.
hehe, i knew you would have came to that suggestion sooner
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:26:24AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:58:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:51:51PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I don't think you'll find much argument with those points. It is a matter
of determining what
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:27:59PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:13:39PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not convinced that establishing release goals will and deadlines
speed the release process. For example, a
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:27:59PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:02:59PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:17:29PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
Why should you redo this work?
http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/
The package (1) does not
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:48:58PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:24:19PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
So you agree on having a bounce of personal archives on p.d.o rather than
a
way of getting them in stable trough oficial channels?
If you use only stable
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 07:16:14PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 24, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nobody volunteeers to make the crap ready,
Umm, using that word puts your mail firmly into the flame category,
especially for readers who actually care about Debian
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 02:23:30PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
Now you're assuming that I have access to the Debian machines. TMK,
these machines are *not* public access machines, but instead are
accessible to full DDs only. This excludes all new maintainer
applicants, myself included.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:45:01AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
...
There are at least two ways how you can get an account on a machine in
such a situation:
- ask the Debian admins for a guest account on a machine of this
architecture
I was not aware that this was an option. Is
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:45:56AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
db2:
This is pretty old... who still uses it, anyway? More specifically,
does anyone use libdb2++, and if so, are they only things which
aren't supposed to be transitioned?
OK, this is an odd list:
Package:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 10:13:09PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
The 'standard process' that I know of is this:
* On other side some people on #d-d says that the standard way is to add
.1 to the number.
Thus, a package with a version number '1.5' will be versioned
'1.5.1'
Then,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 07:57:46PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:42:37PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
...
I contacted the SRM about the possibility of inclusion of gimp-print
4.2.5-1woody0 in a point release, but I've not had any
Hi Chris,
while reading throuch debian-devel archives I read your libraries being
removed from the archive mail.
There's at least one good reason why having several so-versions of a
library in unstable is usually a bad idea:
Inter-library dependencies open a _big_ range of sometimes hard to
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Adrian Bunk
[...]
| If libd1 is uploaded and only one of proga and libv0 is recompiled with
| libd1 this results in proga linked with both so-versions of the library.
| I remember problems with two so-versions
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:04:05PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi Adrian,
if 'boot-loader' was not a real package (not sure if it requires a new
catagory or if it fits under meta or virtual) and then when you did:
apt-get install boot-loader
it (dpkg or apt -- not sure) checked your ARCH and
As an ex-Debian-developer I'd like to introduce a tool only few Debian
maintainers seem to know about:
lintian
It's e.g. described in Chapter 7 of the Debian New Maintainers' Guide
[1] and there's a server that runs daily lintian over all (i386)
packages [2].
lintian does not catch all
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:39:44PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
There are more serious lintian errors like missing-depends-line (nine
packages - nine RC bugs). If the maintainer would have used lintian
these bugs would have never existed.
...
A small correction:
While preparing the bug
Hi,
below are some subjective opservations and opinions regarding the
progress towards Debian 3.1 .
Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where
I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues
or if you don't agree with everything below.
This
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
During the last months, the number of RC bugs of packages in unstable
was constant at 700 bugs including 500 RC bugs in packages that are in
testing [2].
Yes
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:34:27AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
For testing to work good, it's required to have unstable in a good
state. Often new so-versions
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:48:04PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where
I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues
or if you don't agree
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:51:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:35:57AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The problem with your pragmatic approach is that every of your users has
other packages he cares about. A package you care zero about might be
the killer
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Today, it's only 17 days until the officially announced aggressive goal
for the release of Debian 3.1 [1]. That's a date many users know about,
but I don't see any
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:28:41PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
So instead, we have a system where people take individual (or small
group) responsibility for a particular piece of software, to take care
of it and fix its bugs. This way, we distribute the effort over a large
number of
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:57:41AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:28:41PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:49AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I'm not saying this would be immoral or something like that, but e.g. a
major release without
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
Joey wrote:
Packages in unstable have dependencies in unstable which may not be
met in testing, hence they cannot simply be included in testing.
Unfortunately we need to take care of this.
I've come up at least once with a
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:14:29PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
...
[1] As I make it, the following packages in testing depend on a specific
version of mozilla in such a way as to cause problems when upgrading
mozilla. If you can back up your about two dozen with an expanded
list,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:54:00PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
There are some good suggestions in your proposal, e.g. you suggest to
check whether the build dependencies are fulfilled. The lack of checking
for build dependencies
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
...
That could be done either by a rebuild, or, less costly, by a simple
unpack/edit-changelog/repack.
Repacking breaks with every
Depends: somepackage (= ${Source-Version})
In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing,
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 04:10:56PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
...
* it isn't consistent in all respects; e.g. although the package
dependencies might have been fulfilled, it contained for some time a
strange mixture of GNOME 1 and GNOME 2
I'm pretty sure that was because of hinting.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:06:28PM -0700, Thomas E. Vaughan wrote:
...
I downloaded the source code and compiled Mozilla 1.6b
myself. Unfortunately, the configure script required that I
install libgtk1.2-dev, and no anti-aliasing joy whatsoever
was apparent. I have been assuming that
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2001-09-09
Severity: normal
I offer gv (and if you want xaw3dg, too) for someone who has more
knowledge in both gs and C to fix some of the bugs (upstream is dead
since four years).
I do not intend to give this package to the first one who says I want to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
I'm unable to find out why this command actuall doesn't work :
mpg123 -s audio/01_Birdland.mp3 | sox -r 44100 -s -w -c2 - \
audio/01_Birdland.wav
The idea is basically to convert a .mp3 to a .wav
Has anyone a hint ?
What does this have to
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tag 126700 + fixed
Bug#126700: tkstep8.0: never removes alternative
Tags added: fixed
Why on earth do you make a NMU for my package less than 24 hours after the
original bug report and
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
...
In fact, I would consider it acceptable in general to move everything in
contrib to main as long as it each package was forced to be priority
extra until it was suitable for general-purpose use as packaged in main
(including any dependencies,
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
...
We actually need a Debian-wide (well, probably a LSB-wide) fix for the
problem. The same kind of breakage is expected to hit us again and again
until we do that.
This kind of problem does only occur if we ship several versions of a
Hi,
I had several discussions with people on Debian lists that became very
emotional. They thought that they were right in a discussion and I thought
that I was right and nothing but anger resulted from these discussions.
Several times the opponents in these discussions are people that are
longer
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
This kind of problem does only occur if we ship several versions of a
shared library at the same time (in this case libpng2 and libpng3). As
Or if the user needs to have different versions of said library because of
some closed-source
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:47:08PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Closed-source programs and libraries are not a problem if the library we
are talking about is copyrighted under the terms of the GPL (like libpng).
My reading of /usr/share/doc/libpng2
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Steve Greenland wrote:
If every system had up-to-date, standards-conforming
ctype.h support, we wouldn't have to worry much at all.
But even these days, pretty many systems with buggy macros
are still in use.
Then fix those systems. Pull the necessary stuff out of
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Egon Willighagen wrote:
...
That makes me wonder: is it possible that i am imagening things, and that the
upgrade went well, even though my HD was full? Did it actually install files
then, or did it not overwrite, because of the HD being full, and my files are
basically
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Adam Majer wrote:
Hey, buddy!! I ITA those packages a while back - I'll be uploading them in
the next day!!! PLEASE CHECK THE O LIST
__BEFORE__ YOU RETITLE A BUG!
Hi Adam,
it seems you misunderstood what Uwe was doing: He did only add the package
descriptions to the WNPP
1 - 100 of 1145 matches
Mail list logo
