Re: Help with menu (Was: Bug#389932: wish: gnumed --debug should open terminal window)

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:33:03PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > The solution that was suggested by you and Philipp Benner seems to be not > aware to lintian > > W: gnumed-client-debug: menu-command-not-in-package > /usr/share/menu/gnumed-client-debug:5 x-terminal-emulator > > Shouldn't a > >

Re: Help with menu (Was: Bug#389932: wish: gnumed --debug should open terminal window)

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:24:37PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 07:37:24AM +0200, Andreas Tille a ?crit : > > >3. File bugs against all packages that provide > > x-terminal-emulator but do not show the -hold feature > > (would this be reasonable) > > > >

Re: Help with piuparts?

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:25:28AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > I'm not going to be able to work much on piuparts in the coming months. > This includes both improving the code, and processing log files and > reporting bugs found by piuparts. > > It might be a good idea if someone else, or severa

Re: Help with menu (Was: Bug#389932: wish: gnumed --debug should open terminal window)

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > Andreas Tille wrote: > > 3. File bugs against all packages that provide > > x-terminal-emulator but do not show the -hold feature > > (would this be reasonable) It would not, to few x-terminal-emulator provide -hold. > >

Re: Help with menu (Was: Bug#389932: wish: gnumed --debug should open terminal window)

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 04:37:58PM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > Hi! > > * Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060928 16:09]: > > > is there any relieable way to force opening a terminal from a menu > > entry and call a programm from this terminal to make sure that > > console output will be v

Re: Policy process (was: [Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?)

On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:43:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't think policy changes need to be seconded. We have a policy team > > that should decide on what comes in policy and what not. Although, it > > more looks like it's just 1 person d

Re: transitioning config files between two packages

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:40:12PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Bill Allombert > > | On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > | > I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the > Conflicts: > | > is no longer required whe

Re: lilypond and thanks to Rob Browning

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:30:17AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > It is my hope that #359855 will not exist in the new lilypond. > However, this is just a hope. If ghostscript continues to have such a > bug, then solving it will become of critical priority for getting > lilypond into the rele

Re: transitioning config files between two packages

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the Conflicts: > is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's possible to use Replaces: > by itself. I wonder if a versioned depend on dpkg can ensure the new dpkg is

Re: Linking a static library with -fPIC for flex

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 04:50:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > Starting with version 2.5.31-18 of flex we have started > providing a static library compiled with position independent code, > namely, libfl_pic.a, in addition to the normal libfl.a library. This > is my mail,

Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Dear Debian developers, Here the list of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by maintainers. This list is also available at (update daily, courtesy of Robert Lemmen). A list of dependencies including dependency graphs is avail

Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:32:30PM -0400, Bdale Garbee wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:36 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > In addition, I would suggest we reinstate the previous behaviour, but > > display a warning when wildcards are used but --wildcards is not set. > > The

Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > In that case just reverting the Debian change isn't the right way. If > you think that the change is wrong, then you should make upstream fix > it: changing behaviour of tar is one thing, but having different > behaviour of a basic

Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:02:15AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge. > > We cannot blindly break users scripts. > > Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for > users script, ie things not under

Re: Is OSS only support to be considered a bug?

On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 09:20:34PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote: > With the 2.6 kernel programs using OSS for sound are not working > anymore. Sound that is. One *may* use aoss, but then the user needs to > open a terminal and write: > > aoss program-name > > because launching from the menu it won

Re: dak changes (names, version control, mail headers)

On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 03:48:02PM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Hi, > > I've just updated ftp-master.debian.org to use a new version of dak > which no longer uses the silly names at all. > > This is something I've wanted to do for a long time now (I remember > discussing it with people at least

Re: Who can make binding legal agreements

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > And hi to everyone from /.! > > http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing along > at home. If you wanted to avoid publicity, not announcing the inclusion of 'Sun Java' on debian-devel-announce would hav

Re: Renaming a package

On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:42:30PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote: > Daniel Kobras wrote: > > > Method B > > > > Package: oldpkg > > Depends: newpkg > > Files: > > /usr/share/doc/oldpkg -> /usr/share/doc/newpkg > > (and nothing else) > > Does not this hit another bug in dpkg ? > > I

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:44:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: > > As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply > > is none. > > The issue at question is whether Sun has given ad

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:43:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers > of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive > are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of > authority is

Re: NMU procedure and /usr/bin/nmudiff defaults

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:11:15AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.05.0036 +0200]: > > I don't think there is much harm in opening a new NMU bug. > > Isn't an NMU by definition bound to an existing bug? Or at least > should be? So then I'd sa

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the > > problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least > > damaging route to go for, imho. > > You can say that if you like, but please be aware tha

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner. > > ...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the > archive with the broken license. I think we should set a strict > deadline for pulling it, if not im

Bug#369933: RFA: flwm -- Fast Light Window Manager

Package: wnpp Severity: normal Dear developers, I request an adopter for the flwm package, that would spend more time wit this package than I do. I am still using flwm though. FLWM is a lightweight window-manager using the FLTK library. There is no major issue with this package, upstream is aliv

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the > upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't... The Debian developer reference states in section 5.1. "New packages" the process to add new packag

Re: Bug#368371: ITP: gp2c -- PARI/GP GP to C compiler

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 10:18:19PM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote: > > * Package name: gp2c > > Version : 0.0.4pl5 > > Upstream Author : Your truly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/ > > * License : GPL > > Programming Lang: C

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:09:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > At least so far as I understand it, the ftp-masters (i.e., the people who > did this check) are the people responsible for verifying and checking > licenses in uploaded packages and debian-legal exists as an advisory body > for the ftp

Bug#368371: ITP: gp2c -- PARI/GP GP to C compiler

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: gp2c Version : 0.0.4pl5 Upstream Author : Your truly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C

Re: Intent to hijack Bacula (Heads up, Get The Facts!) (long)

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:44:14PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > Quoting Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > * Turbo Fredriksson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> But regarding the build system, I REALLY object to any major changes! > >> Fixes yes, > >> but not REPLACEMENT!! > > > > Uhh, o

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:20:14AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Official packages of Sun Java are now available from the non-free > section of Debian unstable, thanks to Sun releasing[11 Java under a new > license: the Operating System Distributor License for Java (DLJ)[2][3]. > This licen

Re: multiarch status update

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:19:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Henning Makholm wrote: > > >In multiarch, the right approach to this particular problem is to > >arrange for /usr/bin/python to be a symlink to /usr/bin/$arch/python > >with $arch chosen (somehow) appropriately for a default python

Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Hello Debian people, I am proposing a new version of the new Debian menu structure proposal incorporating changes that have been proposed. Here the change from the previous draft: - change 'HAM Radio' to 'Amateur Radio'. - revert change 'Educational' -> 'Education'. - add 'Electronics' in place

Re: PDF files and dh_compress

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:15:54PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > Dear Developers, > > I've raised this discussion at -mentors first [1] but I think it is worth > asking on a devel list since no definite decision was reached and I > could not find similar discussion in the archives. > > I've

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:41:56PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2006 09:04:14 -0400, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:32:53AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: > >> Hmm... alsaplayer-common Depends: on "alsaplayer-alsa | > >> alsaplayer-output" and "alsa

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:40:32PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:49:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > >Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by > >maintainers. > > > > perl > > perl-modules &

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 05:23:34AM +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > Hello, > > > > antlr > > gjdoc > > Somehow these seem to be false positives to me because the packages > depend on a java runtime environment which can but does not have to > depend on. The dependency involve the following

Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

Hello Debian developers, Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by maintainers. This list is also available at (update daily, courtesy of Robert Lemmen). A list of dependencies including dependency graphs is avai

Re: Bug#364319: base-files: PS1 setting for *ksh (PROPOSAL: /etc/profile.d/)

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:53:01PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Sunday 23 April 2006 20:26, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > What we need and what should have been done a long time ago, is to > > > modularize profile to /etc/profile.d/ where e

Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:13:53AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > At 1145044383 past the epoch, Linas ??virblis wrote: > > Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > > > Amateur radio is the dumb name, for people who > > > are confused by what the practioners call it -- > > > HAM radio. >

Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:25:14AM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > The pkg-games project has discussed in the past that "Arcade" is a poor > category, and yet it is preserved in this new menu proposal. > > The thread starts here: > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-Jan

Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 01:56:50AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include > * Bill Allombert [Tue, Apr 11 2006, 12:34:45AM]: > > Yep. WRT you said above, what abot renaming "WindowManagers/Modules" to > "$wm Modules" (one level above WM starters and indicating

Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:22:53AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include > * Bill Allombert [Mon, Apr 10 2006, 11:57:48PM]: > > > I would like to stress that modules menu entries use window-managers > > specific 'needs' fields and as such are not bound by the D

Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.6.2.2 Severity: wishlist Background: -- The menu structure define the list of sections and subsections of the Debian menu system (which are displayed in window-managers menus). The official list is part of the Debian menu subpolicy. This list is a bit out

Re: When to drop/split/summ changelog files

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 08:13:24PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Sunday 26 March 2006 20:18, Nico Golde wrote: > > Hi, > > what would be the appropriate way to handle large and old > > debian changelog files. > > Rather arbitrarily, just feels more or less safe: cut everything from > befo

Re: Delayed ldconfig execution in postinst step

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:56:14PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include > * Eduard Bloch [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:52:53PM]: > > #include > > * Bill Allombert [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 02:56:27PM]: > > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > >

Re: Delayed ldconfig execution in postinst step

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Hi people, > > I just wondered why exactly my laptop uses that much time for updates > and I think that calling ldconfig is a main problem. In theory, it > should not cost much time because VFS cache has the relevant file parts. > How

Re: Delayed ldconfig execution in postinst step

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Hi people, > > I just wondered why exactly my laptop uses that much time for updates > and I think that calling ldconfig is a main problem. In theory, it > should not cost much time because VFS cache has the relevant file parts. > How

Re: ./configure in debian/rules

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote: > Yes, but the point was that mainteners get a warning from the > regular build system that their package is not cross-compile friendly. > That needs to hook into dpkg-buildpackage then, I'm afraid... Why not add a lintian check inst

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:26:31AM +0100, Emilio Jes??s Gallego Arias wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when > > compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability > >

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:51:44PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Or maybe it's just there's nothing to argue about for haskell and > scheme. Show me an administration script written in haskell or scheme, > and we can include the language in the discussion. Actually I would advocate to rewrite _

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:46:38AM +1100, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: > > dpkg (1.10.15) unstable; urgency=low > > > * Fix detection of va_copy. > > * Back out debian/rules build-arch detection. It is *not* possible *at > > all* to detect available targets in a rules file. Period. > > >

Re: emacs 21.4, Chinese and utf-8

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:26:03PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 08:28:40PM +0100, Stefan M?ller wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am a grammar developer and I started to work on Chinese. We use a > > development system that needs utf-8 input. I managed to set up > > everything for e

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:08:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal, > which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-indep in > your debian/control file, you must also implement build-arch and/or > build-indep. > >

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > > > > To summarize the proposal

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:45:07PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > There have been various proposals on that matter, and it always boils > down to the same chicken-and-egg problem: > > - policy documents existing practice, which is to invoke "build". > - the existing practice cannot be changed be

Re: For those who care about the GR

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed > works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of > fact. Fact 1: The GFDL include this: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct

Re: Bug#349064: ITP: flash-plugin -- installer for Macromedia Flash Plugin

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:30:26PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 07:01 -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:00:52PM +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > [snip] > > Well, but flashplugin-nonfree at least make the users feel how painful > >

Re: Bug#349064: ITP: flash-plugin -- installer for Macromedia Flash Plugin

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:00:52PM +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > The Debian package flash-plugin is meant as an alternative or as a > replacement for flashplugin-nonfree. > > Similarities: Both Debian packages are GPL, and download the .tar.gz > from the Macromedia website to comply to the Macromed

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from > apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an > "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are > arguing on abstract phi

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then > > that Ubuntu does recompile every package. > > To clarify explicitly: > > - Ubuntu does

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > &

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we > > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different >

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > for

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion. > > Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess: > > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in > > Ubuntu and is not bit-i

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:27:31PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such &g

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share the values that found Debian. The Ubuntu people are certainly free to use our softwares, that

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:57:57PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Although sarge's aptitude did.. > > > > I don't know, there were no ways to upgrade to sarge's aptitude. > > The bug log contains a log of astronut doing the upg

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

> What does aptitude give as the breakdown between unused packages being > automatically removed, and packages being removed that you actually > requested installed? Well I did not install any packages through aptitude. The numbers of packages below the lines The following packages will be automa

Re: Trivial bug on apt-file (Was : Re: Development standards for unstable)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:03:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Of course, this is trivial, but fixing this bug (251 days old) is > > also trivial. Then why complain ? I feel that it gives a bad image of > > debian, when it

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:34:27PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to > > be a problem, no. > > However I can point you to bug #310490 which show a woody system that > > could not be upgraded to sarge without removing most of KDE. > >

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:26:26AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 12 janvier 2006 ? 01:49 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a ?crit : > > > At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with > > > a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular > > > depe

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:15:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by > > maintainers. > > > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > debconf > > debconf-engli

Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

Hello Debian developers, Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by maintainers. This list is also available as (update daily, courtesy of Robert Lemmen). I reported around 1/3 to the BTS. I simply hope I won't n

Re: debian-menu vs. .desktop

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:51:13PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Thomas Viehmann wrote: > >P.S.: Could someone give me a pointer about moving to .desktop and why > >it is/was considered a bad idea? (Or if it's just a not worth it/noone > >has time issue...) > > I believe it was considered a goo

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:03:27AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 04:48:24PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Which is great as a statement of principle, but it doesn't seem to offer > much as a practical recommendation; you don't get to be a buildd m

Re: Debian and the desktop

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:02:03PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > >> ... generic menu entries ... SuSE ... > > > What is needed at this point is a draft policy defining what will be > > the new layout and what will be the generic titles

Re: Debian and the desktop

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:28:28AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Christian Perrier wrote: > > And, anyway, the KDE/Gnome thing is only one of the points I meant > > about the "usability" of our default desktop system, when we target > > our dear Bob User. > > This is beyond tasksel, but Bob U

Re: eidviewer menu entry

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Hi, > > Since eidviewer is an interactive application, I want to add it to the > Debian menu, but I'm having problems finding the right place to put it; > none of the categories really fit. The 'Apps/Viewers' category is listed > i

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Heiko M?ller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality > > within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t. > > compilation time and memory co

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:14:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Saying "that's the buildd admin's job" about tasks that don't *need* to be > done by the buildd admin is a pretty effective way of encouraging the > problems that the Vancouver proposal sought to address, where two or three > people

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:22:29PM +, Vincent Sanders wrote: > Greetings, > > 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

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:15:50PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:48:53AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > Aparently yes. Menu seems to be smart enough for that, see other > > mails. Bad example, sorry. But manpages certainly aren't. > > Well, being able to read t

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:35:31PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:26:34PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 2

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:06:49PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:01:54PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > However much of the > > grief come from the | xlibs (>> 4.1.0) which is meant to handle upgrade > > from woody which have a monolithic

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:36:41PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > If package foo-data is useless when foo is not installed, foo-data > should depend on package foo. This follows from policy manual 7.2: "The > Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required for > the depending p

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 2

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:05:02AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Probably I should do a massive bug report ? > > Sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks for working on this! I started the bug filling, see the res

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:47:18AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > 4. Also IMHO one should at the very least suggest the main package from the >-data package. This helps the users of non-crappy apt frontends to >track the main package starting from the -data package. Relying o

Re: Conffiles and possible conffiles

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > Hi, > > on the debian-tetex-maint mailing list we often have problems to decide > which of the thousands of TeX input files should be treated as > configuration files - in principle, each of them can be changed in order > to change th

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > 5) Of course move /usr/share/pkg to pkg-data. I meant move /usr/share/pkg to the data package, do not rename it. > 6) Do not make pkg-data to Depends on pkg. > > 7) Try to do it correctly the first time: if you move

Re: Advices for an su transition

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 05:44:46PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:26:20PM +0100, Nicolas Fran?ois wrote: > > IIRC people from debian-audit have some tools to perform such grep on the > > source package with some heuristics to extract and patch the sour

Re: Advices for an su transition

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:26:20PM +0100, Nicolas Fran?ois wrote: > IIRC people from debian-audit have some tools to perform such grep on the > source package with some heuristics to extract and patch the sources > (dpatch, cdbs, ...), and ignore the documentation files (e.g. "su" is a > common wor

Re: Uploading amd64 packages

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:23:37PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: > would assume that it was fairly ovbious that the binary upload would need > to be > for an offical arcitecture, which amd64 is not (yet). In fact, it is > probably not reccomended > to be developing under a system that is not offically

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:26:37PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello Debian developers, > > > > When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages > > that are split between

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:03:33PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 20-Nov-05, 05:13 (CST), Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages > > that are split between a binary package and a data packag

Debian menu system request for help

Dear Debian developers and future developers, I am been struggling with Debian menu since 3 years now. I would like some help with checking the overall menu quality. (menu entries and menu methods) If you love the Debian menu system, accept it as it is, are _very_ patient, don't mind messing wit

Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

Hello Debian developers, When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages that are split between a binary package and a data package. This is a good thing since this reduce the total siez of the archive, however there are simple rules that should be followed: 1) Make sure pk

Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 2

Dear Debian developers, There are some developpement with the circular dependencies problems: The GNOME team has reduced the number of circular dependencies in the GNOME suite. Thanks! Robert Lemmen has made a script that show the circular dependencies in the 3 distribution and publishes the res

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:23:43PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > I wouldn't recommend to compile new code with 2.95 just because it is > faster. It doesn't do standard C and misses many broken constructs which > are caught by newer compilers. The real advantage of gcc-2.95 is that we start to know

Re: Resignation and uploads

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:22:39PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There are around 1000 developers out there. At the very least I am > > sure you would find several of them willing to sponsor your upload. > > That's

Re: Shall Debian's su conform to other implementations

On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 11:14:39PM +0100, Nicolas Fran?ois wrote: > Hi, > > In #276419, the bug submitter complained that when a command and some > arguments were passed to su, all these arguments were concatenated, and > provided to the shell -c option. > > This behavior differs from su on other

<    1   2   3   4   5   >