On Wed January 24 2007 09:18, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote:
...
Removing all exim4 packages fixes the problem, however I would like
to ask:
* aptitudes says I have held broken packages. `dpkg
--get-selections` says I have no held packages at all. Is this a
(small) bug in aptitude?
* Why is my
On Tue December 5 2006 15:16, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I'm working on packaging the Alpine mail client, an Apache License
2.0 release of the popular PINE mail and news reader. I'm very happy
to see this great (both powerful and friendly) MUA be Free.
Upstream bundles an editor called PICO,
On Tue December 5 2006 16:08, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
Quick side question resulting from off-list discussions:
This package conflicts with (custom-built) pine packages many people
have been using. Okay if I make alpine Conflicts: pine and
Replaces: pine?
not necessarily custom-built, see:
On Tue December 5 2006 15:16, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
There's only one other significant change: The build system prompts
the user interactively if to enable IPv6 support, so I commented out
the question and enabled it.
something is amiss here...
ln -s ip6_unix.c ip_unix.c
ln: creating symbolic
On Sun November 5 2006 15:56, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote:
Hi,
I've posted an [0]RFS about 2 weeks ago, but the package has received
no attention from official developers.
What is the usual procedure in this case? Wait longer, re-post the
RFS or try to accept that the package will never be a
On Sun September 3 2006 08:10, Francesco Namuri wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 03:24:43PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
Just that I still don't get an icon in the menus anywhere. Perhaps
the desktop file needs to contain Categories=KDE;Network but I'm
not sure. Whether desktop files work or
On Mon August 21 2006 17:37, Charles Plessy wrote:
Last week-end I was told by a DD that the 4-clause BSD licence was
non-free... Do you have any link in the archives which proves the
contrary? This is very interesting for me as I am interested in
bringing to Debian an unofficial package whose
On Tue August 22 2006 15:47, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 8/23/06, Bruce Sass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon August 21 2006 17:37, Charles Plessy wrote:
Last week-end I was told by a DD that the 4-clause BSD licence
was non-free... Do you have any link in the archives which proves
On Thu June 8 2006 10:07, it was written:
Users who accept that they might need non-free software to use things have
contrib (and non-free) in their sources.list. Users who don't want it don't.
If this script is in contrib, it is very visible for people who have contrib
in sources.list (a
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Justin Pryzby wrote:
dh_make is a tool which is to be used precisely once for each package,
dh_make can be run multiple times on the same source tree if there is
need to customize the debianisation. See:
/usr/share/doc/dh-make/README.examples
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, skaller wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 11:22 -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
...
Can dpkg/apt/etc. be tweaked to automatically Provides: no-* ?
Two methods, one is not tenable:
(a) X conflicts with no-X implicitly
no-X doesn't really conflicts with X, there is an
exclusive
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
Recommends: no-udev | udev (= 0.060-1).
An elegant solution ;-)
I
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
Steve Greenland wrote:
On 12-Jun-05, 02:27 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to convince either git or GNU Interactive Tools
to change its name upstream then. Since git is the newcomer
and its name is already taken (by a GNU
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:24:47PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
Isn't this simply a case of,`too bad cogito guys, that filename is
already taken.'
I suppose other things being equal it'd make sense to give the older
package priority.
Though git
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Bruce Sass [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.03.0122 +0200]:
I would go with a) because it is more likely to result in consistency
between systems and across time; although b), with its bit more work
for the admin, would be more satisfying
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Sven Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.01.2133 +0200]:
way of registering UIDs to packages. And more often than not,
usernames are used across multiple packages (even though most are
used only by packages generated by the same source
How is this issue going to affect the users?
E.g.: Can one boot up a slink system then access a /home directory on a
potato built fs. Is there a documented right way and wrong way of
upgrading to the new filesystem features.
There will be people running every concievable combination of new and
17 matches
Mail list logo
