-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:10:32AM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
> Perhaps I'm simply mistaken, but I don't believe the "default" method
> would scale. From what I can see, it would only address one instance of
> package upgrade incompatibility. If ano
Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:31:13 -0800
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe I should stop worry about users who don't notice suggests, they
> > clearly know what they're doing. :-P
>
> Or make a suggests/recommends which break a package a requires?
All of my sugges
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:10:32 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming that the "default" option was instituted, any packages without
> this indication would be on even footing WRT what constitutes and
> upgrade, right? It is possible then that to non-default versions of a
> packag
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:31:13 -0800
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I should stop worry about users who don't notice suggests, they
> clearly know what they're doing. :-P
Or make a suggests/recommends which break a package a requires? I
certainly haven't run into any problems with
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:49:48PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:31:13AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > packages since users ignore suggests and recommends. Or at how many
> > developers have probably added too-tight dependencies because they got
> > tired of their users igno
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:53:14PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 07:26:50AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > > The Debian packaging system only understands progress and not
> > > necissarily the ramifications of such. This could very easily be
> > > fixed and allow for mul
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:02:29AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Wow, you mean like the one in experimental already? That's quite some
> daring proposal. :-)
I _never_ claimed that it was original, or daring. I simply indicated
that it was a means of getting the new version in that would work with
t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 07:26:50AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > The Debian packaging system only understands progress and not
> > necissarily the ramifications of such. This could very easily be
> > fixed and allow for multiple versions of the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:31:13AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> packages since users ignore suggests and recommends. Or at how many
> developers have probably added too-tight dependencies because they got
> tired of their users ignoring suggests and recom
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Quite the contrary. I use front-ends and turn those blasted suggests and
> recommends off. How does the maintainer know what works better "for me"?
> They don't. If I want something I'll include it, thank-you-very-much, not
> stop trying to add more bloat to my system.
Colin Watson wrote:
> Please go and understand why shared libraries need to include the soname
> version in their package name, and then come back. If the version is
> removed from the package name upgrades (certainly partial upgrades)
> *will* break badly. And no, it's not particularly a hack: all
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200303/msg04053.html
>
> It basically boils down to packaging v4 of exim as a different package
> name (exim4). It can then Provide "exim" for packages that require the
> "exim" package, but would not be an automatic u
Rob Weir wrote:
> Not to interdict in this rather pointless discussion, but package names
> basically serve as the 'primary key' within the Debian archive. If you
> start uploading packages with the exact same name, but have some other
> header that differs, you need to modify most everything that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:31:06PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt waxed eloquent and said:
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 15:36, Pigeon wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:08:40PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
> > > Windows 5 (XP, 2000) is based on the "now" 32-bit ker
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 15:36, Pigeon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:08:40PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
> > Windows 5 (XP, 2000) is based on the "now" 32-bit kernel (morphed
> > from a mix of Windows 3, OS/2 and Vax code.)
>
> The so-called NT kernel? *Vax* code? Does that mean the jokes
> con
It is a fact that MS hired the VMS architect to design Windows NT.
However, IMHO, it doesn't show. There are so many things that VMS did
right that either don't appear at all in WinNT, or are done wrong.
Just my $0.02USD,
Jeffrey
Quoting Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12
Thus spake Pigeon:
> The so-called NT kernel? *Vax* code? Does that mean the jokes
> concerning "Windows NT - WNT - one shift along from VMS" have
> some substance? I thought they were based on the cyberspace version of
> a urban legend. (Would that be "cyberpolitan legend"?)
See
http://www.winntm
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:08:40PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
> Windows 5 (XP, 2000) is based on the "now" 32-bit kernel (morphed
> from a mix of Windows 3, OS/2 and Vax code.)
The so-called NT kernel? *Vax* code? Does that mean the jokes
concerning "Windows NT - WNT - one shift along from VMS" h
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 07:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Just because a package moves from 1.x to 2.x or 3.x gives no indication
> > of any major changes. They are just version numbers.
>
> Actually, when the major number changes, that's generally an
> indication that something big has changed.
>
I
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 04:30:09PM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:46:16PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> > Nevermind that my "change X" or "rework X" is at the exact same level
> > of the explanation you've given your solution. Difference is, it is
> > already coded. I've
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:21:09AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 07:26:50AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:40:41AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > If version numbers don't describe precisely that, what does?
>
> [ snip, etc. ]
>
> I have n
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 07:26:50AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:40:41AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:26:38AM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
> > > No it's not. Version number indicate a progression of an
> > > application, they have no indica
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:40:41AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:26:38AM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
> > No it's not. Version number indicate a progression of an
> > application, they have no indication of "major differences between
> > two releases".
>
> If version numb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:26:38AM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
> No it's not. Version number indicate a progression of an application,
> they have no indication of "major differences between two releases".
If version numbers don't describe precisely
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:58:25AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:04:04 +
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a manifestly clear policy on shared libraries. Shared library
> > packages must include the soname's version number, for good reasons.
>
> Whi
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:10:19PM -0800, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:26:38AM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
>
> > So, make a proposal already. I have, and it will work if used.
>
> Where can I find a description of your proposal? I'd like to consider
> these issues in a less
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:26:38AM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
> [snip]
>
> So, make a proposal already. I have, and it will work if used.
>
Where can I find a description of your proposal? I'd like to consider
these issues in a less adversarial setting. I bet I'm not alone in
this.
> [snip]
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:16:37PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Last post on this.
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:24:24 -0600 Jamin Collins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just as I have never claimed that the example you've given doesn't
> happen. You gave an example of why a resolution is needed.
Last post on this.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:24:24 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Epochs currently serve a different purpose, one that is needed. Doing
> what you propose would remove that functionality.
Bleck, you're right, brain fart.
> > > Actually, it was. You seemed to
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:46:16PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Nevermind that my "change X" or "rework X" is at the exact same level
> of the explanation you've given your solution. Difference is, it is
> already coded. I've thrown out several ideas.
>
> Modify the behavior of epoch.
> Inclu
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:43:19PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:35:34 -0600 Jamin Collins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because epoch's already have a use, which is different from what you
> > describe. You're suggesting tacking new functionality on to them
> > that is comp
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:35:34 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far, you're the only user I'm aware of that has become "frustrated"
> by it. Sure, there are probably more out there, but I hardly think it's
> a problem of the magnitude you claim it to be.
Well, it's hard to tell
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:35:34 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because epoch's already have a use, which is different from what you
> describe. You're suggesting tacking new functionality on to them that
> is completely different from their existing use. Thus, existing
> packages u
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:30:44AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:36:29 -0600
> Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Great, I'll get right on that. Oh wait, there no indication of how.
> > Sure, we can just "change" the packaging system. However, there's a
> > *lot* mor
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:28:41AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:26:38 -0600 Jamin Collins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No it's not. Version number indicate a progression of an
> > application, they have no indication of "major differences between
> > two releases". Just b
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:36:29 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great, I'll get right on that. Oh wait, there no indication of how.
> Sure, we can just "change" the packaging system. However, there's a
> *lot* more to it than just waiving a magic wand or hacking a few lines
> of cod
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:26:38 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it's not. Version number indicate a progression of an application,
> they have no indication of "major differences between two releases".
> Just because a package moves from 1.x to 2.x or 3.x gives no indication
> of
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:16:05 -0800
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, but 'man apt-cache' followed by 'apt-cache search ...' is.
Ya know it was years of using apt before I learned about apt-cache. Darn
that dselect, deity, aptitude, et al. Point stands; it isn't sensible.
--
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:15:56AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:37:54 -0600 Jamin Collins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you've got another viable option, I'm sure we'd love to hear it.
>
> U, update the packaging system to handle this not uncommon
> problem.
Gre
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 08:14:28AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:35:17 -0600 Jamin Collins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is not just about version numbers, it's about handling major
> > differences between two releases, regardless of the change in
> > version numbers
* Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030324 08:47 PST]:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:35:17 -0600
> Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It is already a mess. We don't need more of the same.
>
> > Could have fooled me, seems to be working pretty well.
>
> Says the man who has been using
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:04:04 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a manifestly clear policy on shared libraries. Shared library
> packages must include the soname's version number, for good reasons.
Which is about the only package I would say that it is needed for multiple
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:35:17 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My beef is that we already have a place for version numbers.
> This is not just about version numbers, it's about handling major
> differences between two releases, regardless of the change in version
> numbers.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:37:54 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe anyone in this thread has stated that placing the
> version number in the package name was the *only appropriate behavior*.
> I merely provided it as a viable option.
> If you've got another viable optio
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 04:36:17AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:49:43 -0600
> "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matter of preference. There are a number of packages in Debian with
> > their version (or some other indication of their version) in their name
> > a
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 04:36:17AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Yes, it is a matter of preference. However, since when was preference
> a matter of /policy/. I am pointing out that there appears to be no
> policy in regards to when a version number is attached to the name of
> the package.
And th
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 04:39:40AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> The question at hand is why people believe the only appropriate
> behavior is to place the version number into the package name and not
> to figure out a way to handle it with the version field or some other
> field so that it is transp
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:49:43 -0600
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not what you *stated*, but it was rater effectively implied. The
> indication was (at least to me) that you were saying the notices were
> ignored and therefor rather useless.
Which they are. That does not tra
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:29:28 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a naive view. It would be nice if packages were always
> indefinitely forward- and backward-compatible, but that doesn't happen
> in the real world.
No, it doesn't. I don't think anyone here would even think t
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 04:15:23AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 11:47:58PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
> > Just a quick interjection - the situation would appear comparable to
> > that of Bind (version 8) and Bind9 (not version 8) - a relatively clear
> > and apparently broa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 11:47:58PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
> Just a quick interjection - the situation would appear comparable to
> that of Bind (version 8) and Bind9 (not version 8) - a relatively clear
> and apparently broadly accepted solution t
On Sat, 2003-03-22 at 21:49, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:11:18 -0600 "Jamin W. Collins"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Not so. "exim" is a base package. That doesn't mean that "exim4"
> > > would have to
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 06:05:54PM -0600, Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
> The package name is just that "a name" It shouldnt contain a version
> number. If there is a need to be able to manipulate multiple versions
> of the same package then the functionality needs to come from the
> package manager. Pe
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:11:18 -0600 "Jamin W. Collins"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:08:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > Problem is a lot of people ignore those warnings. That's because
> > > most of the
The package name is just that "a name" It shouldnt contain a version
number. If there is a need to be able to manipulate multiple versions
of the same package then the functionality needs to come from the
package manager. Perhaps no version specified = most current.
Steve Lamb wrote:
On Sat,
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:11:18 -0600
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:08:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Problem is a lot of people ignore those warnings. That's because most
> > of the time the warning is meaningless in that they warn people of a
> > conf
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:29:54 -0800
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These people need to turn up thier debconf priority to get fewer
> warnings so they only get the more critical ones.
Define critical. AFAIK there is no difference in the verbage or level for
configuration file change
>
> Why isn't there just a exim4 package that provides "mail-transport-agent",
> so that it could be used like any other alternative MTA???
>
> Exim 4 has been in release almost a year. The lack of an "official" exim
> 4 package (even in testing
;mail-transport-agent",
so that it could be used like any other alternative MTA???
Exim 4 has been in release almost a year. The lack of an "official" exim
4 package (even in testing or unstable) prevents me from converting a
number of servers to debian.
The most important question
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:08:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:47:35 -0600 Jamin Collins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Couldn't they just package 4.x as exim4 and leave 3.x as is for
> > those already using it? Then if someone installs 4.x, display
> > several warnings abo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:08:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Problem is a lot of people ignore those warnings. That's because most of
> the time the warning is meaningless in that they warn people of a config file
> change that could cause proble
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:47:35 -0600
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Couldn't they just package 4.x as exim4 and leave 3.x as is for those
> already using it? Then if someone installs 4.x, display several
> warnings about config file compatibility and such.
Problem is a lot of people
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:50:16PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I think the main reason why Debian is still on the 3.x series is
> because it is the default mailer for Debian and with the 4.x series
> Exim broke config file compatibility. I remember reading somewhere
> that because of that combinat
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:37:08 -0500
Derrick 'dman' Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The software is very stable. I can't speak for the (experiement or
> unofficial) package(s). The first exim 4.x stable release was
> released around February 2002. It is unfortunate that the debian
> packaging
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:54:20PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
| On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 09:41:02AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
| > On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 08:05:38 + (GMT), Rus Foster wrote:
| >
| > >I'm trying to find an exim 4 package for woody. Googling turned up
| >
| > Fetch yourself the sour
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 09:41:02AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 08:05:38 + (GMT), Rus Foster wrote:
>
> >I'm trying to find an exim 4 package for woody. Googling turned up
>
> Fetch yourself the source of one of the Exim 4.x packages from here:
>
> >http://packages.de
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 08:05:38 + (GMT), Rus Foster wrote:
>I'm trying to find an exim 4 package for woody. Googling turned up
Fetch yourself the source of one of the Exim 4.x packages from here:
>http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?
keywords=exim&searchon=names&subword=1&vers
Hi All,
I'm trying to find an exim 4 package for woody. Googling turned up
http://marc.merlins.org/linux/exim/exim4-debian.html but the exim packages
haven't been updated in 9 months. If there an offical exim4 pkg? I've
tried pulling the source for sid but that still looks like 3.*
Cheers
Rus
--
68 matches
Mail list logo
