-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:08:33 -0700
Source: libnih
Binary: libnih1 libnih-dev libnih-dbus1 libnih-dbus-dev nih-dbus-tool
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.0.3-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant sc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:26:05 -0700
Source: libnih
Binary: libnih1 libnih-dev libnih-dbus1 libnih-dbus-dev nih-dbus-tool
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.0.3-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant sc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:33:39 -0700
Source: upstart
Binary: upstart
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.6.6-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant sc...@netsplit.com
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant sc
I have never rejected any SELinux patches for Upstart; I have simply
never been *sent* any.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543420#10
This pretty much proves my point. I was never sent these patches,
instead Debian kept them to itself and never attempted to get them
One of my concerns about upstart is that systems that want to
use SELinux and upstart _have_ to also use an initramfs, which is yet
another component of the system that has to be audited. There have
been patches proposed, and semi-rejected b the upstart folks, who are
of the opinions that
This does mean that when you use something like screen, the tty it was
connected to is from then on unusable, right? As the cgroup that
contains the screen process also contains the getty and it doesn't
kill one without the other as that is in no way reliable :-)
Yes.
I investigated using
OTOH, it is not obvious to me anymore that Debian should commit to
Upstart now that systemd has appeared and it has many compelling
features. I believe we should consider systemd's merits and wait and
see how it will work in the next Fedora release and if SUSE will
really adopt it.
I'm not
What is so bad about init scripts? Where am I supposed to put my init
script magic[1] in an upstart scenario?
Upstart job configs go in /etc/init
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a
It is still on the wishlist, but the needed pieces are not ready, so
it seem unlikely to happen this late in the release process. At the
moment, I believe it will happen shortly after Squeeze is released, if
the needed pieces are ready by then.
I will be at DebConf all week.
I'll be there
Or just have per-user cgroups that a process is moved into when
logging in, see libpam-cgroup for something that does this.
Then getty would respawn the second you login, stealing the controlling
terminal from bash.
In addition, killing all members in a cgroup when a service goes down is
.
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:01 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
1 TB is not rounded. It means precisely 1 × 10^12 bytes, no more and no
less.
No it doesn't.
The meaning of 1 TB depends on the context, and has always done so.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED
*
Ow! You broke my nose!
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:50 +0100, Alex Jones wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:24 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
The difference is a sufficiently small percentage, that most users will
not care.
No, like I said in my earlier post, the error grows quickly. As 1.024^x,
in fact.
x = 1
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 16:50 +0100, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote:
Actually bandwidth is mesured in bits per second and no bytes per second
On 6/12/07, Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bandwidth should be quoted in true SI units over a metric of time,
e.g. kilobytes-per
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:32 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
As some of you may have noticed, the patches.ubuntu.com website and
equivalent mailing of changes to the Debian PTS and ubuntu-patches
mailing list has been offline, or at least intermittent, for a few
weeks.
The hardware
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 23:30 -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On 4/2/07, Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As some of you may have noticed, the patches.ubuntu.com website and
equivalent mailing of changes to the Debian PTS and ubuntu-patches
mailing list has been offline, or at least
we were using being partially incomplete for a while.
The latter problem seems to have been fixed, and the Canonical sysadmins
are working on the former.
Sorry for any inconvenience,
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
Ubuntu Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
the Debian PTS ... when this isn't the case.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On 2006-07-17 20:39, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The Ubuntu distribution will be the first to make use of this new feature
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
everything works g)
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 19:37 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 19:11 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Scott James Remnant dropped me an email recently, interested in
improving the automake situation in Ubuntu and Debian[0
On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 19:11 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Scott James Remnant dropped me an email recently, interested in
improving the automake situation in Ubuntu and Debian[0].
[0] Their plan, which mirrors mine, is documented here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutomakeTransition
If you could
On 2/21/06, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You probably missed this question, which I also wanted to ask:
Frank forwarded it to me, and I replied to him in person -- here's the reply.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:55:23PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL
As a few people have noticed, the Ubuntu patches repository is
currently producing some unusual results; in particular the patches
seem to include Debian changes as well as Ubuntu ones.
The patches are produced by a tool we oh-so-amusingly call NDA
(Nightly Difference Analysis), which like the
On 2/21/06, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.02.21.1506 +0100]:
File a request here:
https://launchpad.net/products/nda/+addticket
This isn't a rant, but a serious wishlist request: if Canonical
wants more cooperation from
Hi guys,
For various personal reasons you've probably not seen me around much in
the last few months; and unfortunately, for the same reasons I've
decided to take a Sabbatical from working on Debian.
I've already arranged maintainership of both of my packages:
Matthias Klose will take over
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:56:49 +
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.11.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Dpkg Developers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott James
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 23:42 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't know if it's feasible, but my ideal vision for how the new
version tracking would handle bugs in stable would be that if the
version in stable is affected, the bug is left open if it's tagged
sarge or if it's of RC severity;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:44:44 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.11
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott James
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:27:01 +0100
Source: build-essential
Binary: build-essential
Architecture: source i386
Version: 11.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott James
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 17:01:26 +0100
Source: build-essential
Binary: build-essential
Architecture: source i386
Version: 11
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott James
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:19:06 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.10
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott James
On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 11:35 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
Debian packages just work has been a truism for *years*, and it's been
one of our key technical selling points. I don't want to see that fall
by the wayside. This thread is a perfect example of what will happen
if we don't worry about this
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 11:42 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Scott James Remnant wrote:
Walking up to a man on the street, if anything, you'll find Debian has
a far worse reputation than RPM and RedHat-derived distributions. The
general feeling is that third-party RPMs will almost always install
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:32 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system,
particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some
poking in this area about a year ago, which involved tracking when
individual symbols were added
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 16:19 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
If you have a package that depends on libselinux1-dev or if you intend
to upload such a package, please find below the correct way(tm) to add
SElinux support:
* debian/control or debian/control.in (or even debian.control.in.in)
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 00:32 +0200, Adeodato Sim wrote:
* Adam Heath [Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:47:39 -0500]:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
It was that such package versions could not be used *before* sarge
released,
not that they would be supported immediately *after* the
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 14:36 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:00:43AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
I just wanted to confirm my recollection that now that stable has been
released
with support for ~ in package versions in dpkg and apt, we can now use ~ in
[I am not subscribed to debian-devel, please Cc: me if you feel your
reply deserves my attention.]
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 10:10 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
The basics of the new format are:
* Multiple upstream tarballs are supported:
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 09:18 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think
it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear
katie) are prepared
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:20 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Historically we always wanted to be able to use all the source in the
archive with the tools available in stable. If that policy is still
true you would
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:50 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g.,
buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source
packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:52:43 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.9
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott James
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:39:44 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.8
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:12:56 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.7
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 05:34:21 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.5
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 05:58:36 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.6
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Scott
@lists.debian.org
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dpkg-doc - Dpkg Internals Documentation
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Closes: 295922 296407 296733 300646
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 17:40 +1000, Steve Kowalik wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:54:01 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen uttered
TTBOMK, he hasn't discussed this with the dpkg maintainer, nor has he
made his code public.
Er, Adam Heath has made plenty of uploads of dpkg,
Hasn't made any in the last
public.
|
| Er, Adam Heath has made plenty of uploads of dpkg, and is listed as an
| Uploader.
Yes, but (again, TTBOMK) he still hasn't discussed it with Scott James
Remnant who is the one doing most of the dpkg development those days.
He doesn't seem to have an arch repository listed
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:37 +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
To prepare the sourcecode for inspection and/or minor modifications an
additional argument for debian/rules would fit well into the current model.
Calling debian/rules prepare should leave the tree in a state where the
source is
]
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
libltdl3 - A system independent dlopen wrapper for GNU libtool
libltdl3-dev - A system independent dlopen wrapper for GNU libtool
libtool- Generic library support script
libtool-doc - Generic library support script
Changes
James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
libtool1.4 - Generic library support script (obsolete version)
libtool1.4-doc - Generic library support script (obsolete version)
Changes:
libtool1.4 (1.4.3-21) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Officially Orphan.
Files
-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Changes:
dpkg (1.13.4) experimental; urgency=low
.
The Or the Wabbit gets it Release
. It doesn't always get it right, in
fact it probably more often gets it wrong, but it can help a little.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant Ubuntu Down Under -- 25th - 30th April 2005
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vibe Rushcutters, Sydney, Australia
signature.asc
Description
-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Closes: 213577 219760 247313 262775 264904 267095 267505 270043 270486 274677
274800 275243
-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Closes: 957 6633 53376 77109 92263 95755 136110 143882 164595 173205 184635
193877 223381 237684
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
are currently two competing efforts for this port.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
My concern is the same as that of the Project Leader, that the existing
powerpc port is called powerpc -- and that we should
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
package name accordingly?
Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away.
However, I still do
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
that's a rather bold thing to do, and I think
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:43 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:52:22PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:25:02PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Sure that's good. It stops to be that good when they're obviously
trying hard to impose their employer's
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:04 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:32 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
| Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
| done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:49 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, let me be blunt about this.
It is a political problem, the dpkg/buildd/ftp-master admin have not the will
to implement such a solution, and thus block any attempt to implement this
kind of problem.
We would need at least a dpkg
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:10 +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:51 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +, Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
It does a significant number
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:34 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Thiemo Seufer
| For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
| requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter.
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 11:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:20AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Aurlien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-14 10:56]:
Would it be possible to have a list of such proposed architectures?
amd64, s390z, powerpc64, netbsd-i386 and
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:51 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +, Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
It does a significant number of other things, one of them being paying
a number of Debian developers
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:25 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One the one hand, we have the Ubuntu cabal at key positions in the
Project; on the other hand, we have Project Scud, which members are
currently employed by companies having interests in
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 12:05 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Paul Hampson wrote:
* timestamp skew means that the autobuilt makefiles will try
to rebuild configure from configure.in even if configure is patched by
dpkg-source at the same time as configure.in
* A
Unfortunately, this problem turns out to be not as trivial to solve as
first thought. Not from a code point of view, but from an acceptable
implementation point of view.
Having dpkg notice a certain style of postfix (I prefer the +b1 form)
in the Version of a package and strip that before
-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Changes:
dpkg (1.13.1.0.1) experimental; urgency=low
.
* Bin-MU; recompile against
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:12:26 +
Source: libtool
Binary: libtool-doc libltdl3 libtool libltdl3-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.5.6-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED
-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Closes: 118910 128388 164591 164889 256323 258051 280693 280710 281627 282335
282701 286898
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:13 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
| On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
| On 20050228T164806+, Andrew
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 09:59 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
Er, hardly. libdpkg will contain *extremely* low-level stuff.
Reading/writing debs(ar/tar/gzip/bzip/checksum stuff).
No, that's in libdeb (or libdpkg-deb, haven't quite decided the name of
it, yet).
If you'd bothered to pay any attention
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 23:06 -0600, Micah Anderson wrote:
#957: dpkg 957 802533782 open [EMAIL PROTECTED] wishlist
Do I get a medal when I fix this in the next week or two? :) I've been
working on an implementation over the weekend that's to my liking.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 22:24 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:04:17AM -0400, Maykel Moya wrote:
I'd recently adquire a little laptop (p3 900, 256 MB RAM). I'm been
thinking to install Ubuntu in it cause Ubuntu is optimized for desktop,
but I'd like to package some stuff
@lists.debian.org
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dpkg-doc - Dpkg Internals Documentation
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Changes:
dpkg (1.10.27) unstable
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 20:43 +, Jochen Voss wrote:
Is this problem known? What is the cause of this? I checked both the
dpkg and the gettext bug report pages but did not recognise anything similar.
*mutters something about Joey I steal namespaces Hess* :p
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever
On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 18:19 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 06:11:42PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
In my quest to log package installation, I wrote a wrapper script for
dpkg.
$ tail -1 /etc/apt/apt.conf
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs {logger -t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:17:59 +
Source: libtool
Binary: libtool-doc libltdl3 libtool libltdl3-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.5.6-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:03 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 14:45:52 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes. Debian packages are supposed to be able to be installed and
start working without requiring any reboots. We've made this work
pretty well for libc and all
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:21 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Frank Kster
| That's correct from the point of view of a buildd, or of a developer
| running a sid machine. But it is not correct for backporters: Imagine
| that packages are added to build-essential, or versioned dependencies in
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 18:44 +0100, Frank Kster wrote:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In effect, if you're building unstable packages on stable, the first
thing you should build is unstable's build-essential.
Are you kidding? Well, this is okay if we're talking only about
-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Closes: 206063 217946 229629 260568 260568 266995 282669 283640 284797 285086
288415
Changes
On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 17:06 +, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Scott James Remnant may or may not have written...
[snip]
And a far better solution to the a package on disk needs dependencies
solution is for a command-line tool that can grab the dependencies a
package needs
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 18:28 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's interesting is nobody has jumped in on this thread to point out
that dpkg *has* a dependency field for forcing checking of dependencies
before the package is unpacked
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:26 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:52 am, Scott James Remnant wrote:
It's breaking elegance to fix something I'm not convinced is a problem.
Just to be clear: you mean the elegance of the dpkg code, not its external
behavior, right
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:58 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:53:57AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:35 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
dpkg doesn't remove foo
@lists.debian.org
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dpkg-doc - Dpkg Internals Documentation
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Closes: 281103 281117 281122 281144
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
Adam Heath wrote:
Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
Ie, multiple input methods: .deb, .rpm, filesystem
filter
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 14:59 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
The main technical effect that I see would be that the names of some
dynamic libraries would change. And compatibility with the old names
could be maintained indefinitely if necessary.
?!??!?!?!?!?!?!PO!(*!$*_(!$*($*!(*$_*!*$(
That is
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 18:13 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
I needed a tool to change the version number of DEB files after
repacking them with dpkg-repack. So I wrote one. Very simple, does
not really warrant its own package, but devscripts is also not
really the place for it. It is unlikely
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 16:07 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Many packages are buggy and include the .pc file in the main package (not the
-dev).
Did you actually check whether any of these *had* -dev packages?! A lot
of them would be bogus bugs.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
1 - 100 of 235 matches
Mail list logo
