------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content-Type:
text/plain
debian-devel-digest Digest Volume 2003 : Issue 1723
Today's Topics:
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental [ Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> ]
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental [ Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> ]
Re: Bug#224742: Related to this issu [ Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.n ]
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental [ Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> ]
Re: bug #151273: linneighborhood: pa [ Graham Wilson <bob@decoy.wox.org> ]
Bug#225366: ITP: libburn -- Disc bur [ Sean Harshbarger <harshy@dersoldat. ]
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental [ "Nathaniel W. Turner" <nate@houseof ]
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental [ Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.o ]
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental [ Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> ]
[Fwd: Bug in Linux kernel ext2 heade [ Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de> ]
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental [ Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschl ]
removing urlredir [ Chris Leishman <masklin@debian.org> ]
base-config depends on aptitude! [ wyo@users.sourceforge.net (Otto Wys ]
Re: base-config depends on aptitude! [ Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> ]
Re: [Fwd: Bug in Linux kernel ext2 h [ Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental
From:
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>
Date:
Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:41:31 -0800
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229034131.GI17472@alcor.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition:
inline
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 09:35:35PM -0500, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
On Sunday 28 December 2003 19:11, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
1. Use dists/<dist>/Release for both purposes (authentication and
pinning). This is trivial, and works fine for the Debian archive
(dists/<dist>/Release is more or less a superset of
dists/<dist>/<section>/<binary,source>/Release), but could have unknown
effects for third-party repositories which provide per-section Release
files.
After discussing this with Colin Walters, I've implemented (1.) in apt
0.6.4, which has been uploaded to experimental.
So, as a 3rd-party repository maintainer who wants to provide signed Release
files, I should (eventually) get rid of my dists/<dist>/<section>/
<binary,source>/Release files (since future versions of apt will ignore them)
and create dists/<dist>/Release files? Do I understand this correctly?
Presumably the Component and Architecture fields of the Release file will
become obsolete?
This is not a problem for me; I just want to be sure I understand things
correctly. =)
You will presumably want to keep the per-section Release files around,
because current versions of apt do not read dists/<dist>/Release.
"Component" and "Architecture" do not seem to be used in
dists/<dist>/Release, only "Components" and "Architectures". apt currently
does nothing with those fields; as far as apt is concerned, all fields are
optional except MD5Sum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental
From:
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>
Date:
Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:42:38 -0800
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229034238.GJ17472@alcor.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition:
inline
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 10:32:17PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
After discussing this with Colin Walters, I've implemented (1.) in apt
0.6.4, which has been uploaded to experimental.
Somewhat offtopic, but is there any documentation of the format and
fields in Release files anywhere at all? Or did they spring full-fledged
(and undocumented) from the sweaty brows of Aj and Jason? :-)
I am not aware of any; I have based my work on the existing code in apt and
the example Release files provided in the archive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: Bug#224742: Related to this issue...
From:
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>
Date:
Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:59:08 -0600
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229035907.GE14732@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net>
Content-Type:
multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W5WqUoFLvi1M7tJE"
Content-Disposition:
inline
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 02:13:19AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 11:34:37PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
How can a wishlist item be used to "bludgeon" in any way?
Reopening a bug report that the maintainer has closed, when it is clear
the maintainer disagrees with you (and isn't merely mistaken on
technical grounds) interferes with the maintainer's ability to manage
his package's open bug reports through the BTS,
How? Does it somehow stop the maintainer from closing items that are
genuinely resolved, or setting tags, or adjusting titles or severities?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It limits the effectiveness of the
package's BTS page as a tool for the maintainer, by requiring it to
include irrelevant (from the maintainer's POV) bugs that do not
represent outstanding issues (again from the maintainer's POV). This
constitutes an ultimatum to the maintainer: acquiesce to the submitter's
request, or put up with this degradation of the BTS's utility to you.
The principle is that of optimizing for the common case. I as
maintainer spend a lot more time referencing the BTS page for my package
than all the people interested in a particular wontfix-wishlist; so
given that all bug data are equally permanent additions to the BTS, why
should the submitter of a wishlist bug be allowed more control over the
default BTS view than the package maintainer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental
From:
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>
Date:
Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:48:52 -0800
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
CC:
aptitude@packages.debian.org, libapt-pkg-perl@packages.debian.org,
synaptic@packages.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229044851.GM17472@alcor.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition:
inline
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 03:44:44PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
For your convenience, a corresponding build of python-apt is also in
experimental. I have copied the maintainers of the various
libapt-pkg-dependent packages in the hopes that they will provide binaries
built against apt 0.6 for experimental. If any of you are unable to do
this, let me know what version number scheme I should use, and I can do the
recompiles for you.
I have now uploaded NMUs of aptitude (0.2.13-2.1), libapt-pkg-perl
(0.1.11.1) and synaptic (0.47-1.1) to experimental. None of these required
any code changes; these are only simple recompiles. Hopefully this will
lower the barrier even further, so that folks don't have to give up any
tools in order to test apt 0.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: bug #151273: linneighborhood: package name spelt wrong
From:
Graham Wilson <bob@decoy.wox.org>
Date:
Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:00:21 -0600
To:
Will Lowe <harpo@thebackrow.net>
To:
Will Lowe <harpo@thebackrow.net>
CC:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229050020.GA11812@quux.local>
Content-Type:
multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V"
Content-Disposition:
inline
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 06:05:37PM -0800, Will Lowe wrote:
Any opinions on the right way to deal with this? The submitter
searched for "linneighbourhood" but upstreem clearly spells it
"neighborhood".
Perhaps just a Provides: linneighbourhood? Or close the bug?
Just close the bug. I mean, we do spell it as upstream does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Bug#225366: ITP: libburn -- Disc burning library
From:
Sean Harshbarger <harshy@dersoldat.org>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:16:59 -0500
To:
Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
To:
Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 200312290517.hBT5H0L4008255@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Package name : libburn
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Sean Harshbarger <harshy@dersoldat.org>
* URL : http://icculus.org/burn/
* License : (GPL)
Description : Disc burning library
A common Linux library written to help GUI developers have more control
and capabilities over the burning of CDs.
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux EclipseGST 2.6.0-4g63 #5 Sat Oct 4 14:11:12 EST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/77jLd48jNcgo5zYRArN3AJ988dbtE3oRfPEzrCN7v42FpqqsTwCeI9tW
GNxCqjXgjy1/ejuwVvCtAMU=
=EzAR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental
From:
"Nathaniel W. Turner" <nate@houseofnate.net>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:15:24 -0500
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 200312290115.25061.nate@houseofnate.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Disposition:
inline
If this is off-topic, let me know.
I installed apt 0.6.4 from incoming and it seems to work fairly well until I
add my public key using apt-key. If I don't add my public key, I get a
warning, but "apt-get update" works fine. Once I add the key, I get the
following strange error when i apt-get update:
[...]
Get:2 http://debian.houseofnate.net experimental Release.gpg [189B]
[...]
Get:5 http://debian.houseofnate.net experimental Release [2395B]
[...]
Fetched 61.5kB in 1s (36.6kB/s)
Failed to fetch http://debian.houseofnate.net/dists/experimental/Release
Unable to find expected entry nwt/binary-i386/Packages in Meta-index file
(malformed Release file?)
Reading Package Lists... Done
W: Couldn't stat source package list http://debian.houseofnate.net
experimental/nwt Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/
debian.houseofnate.net_dists_experimental_nwt_binary-i386_Packages) - stat (2
No such file or directory)
W: Couldn't stat source package list http://debian.houseofnate.net
experimental/cdp Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/
debian.houseofnate.net_dists_experimental_cdp_binary-i386_Packages) - stat (2
No such file or directory)
W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems
E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones
used instead.
The file http://debian.houseofnate.net/dists/experimental/Release does exists
and is getting downloaded from my server with a 200 result, and AFAICT is a
valid Release file (based on an official one). Apt is, however, neglecting
to download any Packages files, according to my apache log.
The relevant source line is this:
deb http://debian.houseofnate.net/ experimental nwt cdp
This probably won't make sense without more information, but is this the right
place to report this (or should I file a bug report?), and what additional
info might be helpful? I'm a bit baffled and unable guess what is wrong
without looking at the source (which I may do later if I have time, but
haven't yet).
Cheers,
nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental
From:
Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 05:11:30 -0200
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229051130.6174f3ba.kov@debian.org>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Em Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:48:52 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> escreveu:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 03:44:44PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
For your convenience, a corresponding build of python-apt is also in
experimental. I have copied the maintainers of the various
libapt-pkg-dependent packages in the hopes that they will provide binaries
built against apt 0.6 for experimental. If any of you are unable to do
this, let me know what version number scheme I should use, and I can do the
recompiles for you.
I have now uploaded NMUs of aptitude (0.2.13-2.1), libapt-pkg-perl
(0.1.11.1) and synaptic (0.47-1.1) to experimental. None of these required
any code changes; these are only simple recompiles. Hopefully this will
lower the barrier even further, so that folks don't have to give up any
tools in order to test apt 0.6.
I've grabed apt 0.6.4, aptitude and synaptic from incoming.debian.org
but both aptitude and synaptic keep segfaulting...
I tried to rebuild aptitude myself but it didn't work either. It still segfaults
when reading cache at startup. Here's a backtrace:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 5786)]
0x402aae14 in mallopt () from /lib/libc.so.6
(gdb)
(gdb) bt full
#0 0x402aae14 in mallopt () from /lib/libc.so.6
No symbol table info available.
#1 0x402a9d33 in malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
No symbol table info available.
#2 0x401e692e in operator new(unsigned) () from /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5
No symbol table info available.
#3 0x401e6a5f in operator new[](unsigned) () from /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5
No symbol table info available.
#4 0x400bab18 in pkgTagFile::pkgTagFile(FileFd*, unsigned long) () from /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5.so.3.4
No symbol table info available.
#5 0x400f269a in debRecordParser::debRecordParser(std::string, pkgCache&) () from /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5.so.3.4
No symbol table info available.
#6 0x400fea2b in debIFTypePkg::CreatePkgParser(pkgCache::PkgFileIterator) const () from /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5.so.3.4
No symbol table info available.
#7 0x400c0fa4 in pkgRecords::pkgRecords(pkgCache&) () from /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5.so.3.4
No symbol table info available.
#8 0x080cc3d8 in apt_reload_cache(OpProgress*, bool, char const*) (progress_bar=0x81b0da8, do_initselections=true, status_fname=0x0)
at aptcache.h:351
open_failed = false
#9 0x0804fd0d in main (argc=1, argv=0xbffff664) at main.cc:360
status_fname = 0x0
display_format = {static npos = 4294967295, _M_dataplus = {<allocator<char>> = {<No data fields>},
_M_p = 0x816721c "%c%a%M %p# - %d#"}, static _S_empty_rep_storage = {0, 0, 0, 0}}
sort_policy = {static npos = 4294967295, _M_dataplus = {<allocator<char>> = {<No data fields>}, _M_p = 0x81674cc "name"},
static _S_empty_rep_storage = {0, 0, 0, 0}}
width = {static npos = 4294967295, _M_dataplus = {<allocator<char>> = {<No data fields>}, _M_p = 0x8162304 ""},
static _S_empty_rep_storage = {0, 0, 0, 0}}
simulate = false
download_only = false
update_only = false
install_only = false
assume_yes = false
fix_broken = false
showvers = false
showdeps = false
showsize = false
always_prompt = false
verbose = 0
curopt = 1077316864
p = (class vs_progress *) 0x81b0d58
__result = 1077316864
(gdb)
Thanks for the work, apt 0.6 looks impressive. I would suggest
taking Joey Hess' look into apt-rpm into account, mainly about
installing deb packages directly using apt, which many people
seem to miss.
[]s!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental
From:
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>
Date:
Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:38:21 -0800
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229073821.GO17472@alcor.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition:
inline
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 05:11:30AM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
Em Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:48:52 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> escreveu:
I have now uploaded NMUs of aptitude (0.2.13-2.1), libapt-pkg-perl
(0.1.11.1) and synaptic (0.47-1.1) to experimental. None of these required
any code changes; these are only simple recompiles. Hopefully this will
lower the barrier even further, so that folks don't have to give up any
tools in order to test apt 0.6.
I've grabed apt 0.6.4, aptitude and synaptic from incoming.debian.org
but both aptitude and synaptic keep segfaulting...
I tried to rebuild aptitude myself but it didn't work either. It still segfaults
when reading cache at startup. Here's a backtrace:
That combination works fine here (obivously; I tested the packages before
uploading them). Does apt-get work OK?
Thanks for the work, apt 0.6 looks impressive. I would suggest taking Joey
Hess' look into apt-rpm into account, mainly about installing deb packages
directly using apt, which many people seem to miss.
Read #207400 for the status of apt-rpm merging work, which already had a
significant amount of source-level analysis done at the time that Joey
posted that message. There is a lot of other apt work out there that
probably could be merged (see #212732, #212734, #213465, #222271, and
others), but these things need to be taken one at a time. Feel free to
follow up to the various bugs with any work that you do in these areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
[Fwd: Bug in Linux kernel ext2 headers]
From:
Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:21:31 +0100
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 1072693291.2228.5.camel@atari.antcom.de>
Content-Type:
multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-hPW1lBxStLV79UQcxHoc"
Hi,
for some time now, I wonder if Debian (sarge) should have Kernel 2.6
when using linux-kernel-headers from 2.6. Now that we got the message I
forward herewith, we should clarify this.
My apologies if this was discussed elsewhere. Then, please just reply
with a reference.
Thanks.
bye,
Roland
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Bug in Linux kernel ext2 headers
From:
Joerg Schilling <schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:48:22 +0100 (CET)
To:
223206@bugs.debian.org, daniel@frobnitz.ddts.net,
neroden@twcny.rr.com, schepler@math.berkeley.edu, stigge@antcom.de
To:
223206@bugs.debian.org, daniel@frobnitz.ddts.net,
neroden@twcny.rr.com, schepler@math.berkeley.edu, stigge@antcom.de
Return-path:
<schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Envelope-to:
ernie@localhost
Delivery-date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:02:14 +0100
Received:
from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=ernie) by atari.antcom.de with esmtp
(Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AauE2-0000ZU-00 for <ernie@localhost>;
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:02:14 +0100
Received:
from sigma.informatik.hu-berlin.de [141.20.20.51] by localhost with
POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.4) for ernie@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 29 Dec
2003 11:02:14 +0100 (CET)
Received:
from mail.informatik.hu-berlin.de (mail [141.20.20.50]) by
sigma.informatik.hu-berlin.de (8.12.10/8.12.9/INF-2.0-MA-SOLARIS-2.8)
with ESMTP id hBT0oFkI010040 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for
<stigge@sigma.informatik.hu-berlin.de>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:50:16
+0100 (MET)
Received:
from natmx00.rzone.de (natmx00.rzone.de [81.169.145.161]) by
mail.informatik.hu-berlin.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/INF-2.0-MA-SOLARIS-2.8)
with ESMTP id hBT0oFx7028597 for <stigge@informatik.hu-berlin.de>;
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:50:15 +0100 (MET)
Received:
from mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de (mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de
[193.174.154.14]) by mailin.webmailer.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP
id hBT0oFjK017455 for <stigge@antcom.de>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:50:15
+0100 (MET)
Received:
from burner.fokus.fraunhofer.de (burner [193.175.133.116]) by
mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
hBT0oDL08128; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:50:13 +0100 (MET)
Received:
(from jes@localhost) by burner.fokus.fraunhofer.de
(8.12.9+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id hBT0mMDM027464; Mon, 29 Dec 2003
01:48:22 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID:
<200312290048.hBT0mMDM027464@burner.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version:
SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on home
X-Spam-Status:
No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Hi,
I just did find this by chance....
It looks like you found a bug and are hit by the unwillingness of the Linux
kernel crew to keep kernel header constsistent.
But IMPORTANT: your "fix" is unacceptable for star in general as it prevents
star from compiling on older versions of Linux. There is _only_ the
include file that star uses...
Just another note: The Linux 2.6 kernel introduced incompatible
interface changes with major/minor mapping to previous Linux kernels. If Debian
continues to use it's broken method of compiling applications only only once
for different kernels you will end up in a broken star binary if star is run on
a kernel it has not been compiled for.
It is important to understand that the kernel and the core shell utilities
are a unitiy that may not be mixed between different releases.
Another hint: Forget what the Linux kernel crew says - they don't understand the
Linux kernel.... You need to compile applications that use kernel interfaces
by using the kernel include files for the kernel you like to compile for.
Doing what the Linux kernel crew says: "compile against the header files
libc has been compiled with" is wrong and creates broken binaries.
There are a lot of kernel interfaces that are out of the scope of libc.
Using the kernel interfaces may only be done correctly if you use the include
files the kernel did use.
If you have more questions feel free to ask, and please keep in contact with me
in future to avoid to introduce patches that may cause portability problems .
Jörg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: apt 0.6 in experimental
From:
Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:06:27 +0100
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229100628.60CB8E8F8@murphy.debian.org>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:43:27 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 05:23:04PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
There have no new Release files been generated and signed?
Parse error.
Sorry for not being a native speaker of English.
After the compromise, the keys used to sign the woody release files
have been revoked. The signatures are to be regarded void.
I would expect that the release files would have been verified, and
signed with the new Archive Signing Key, and frankly am astonished
that this has not yet been accomplished yet.
Greetings
Marc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
removing urlredir
From:
Chris Leishman <masklin@debian.org>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:38:17 +1100
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] BB4EC7C2-39E2-11D8-AD58-003065F97418@debian.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Apple-Mail-1--105782932"
As author and maintainer of the very rarely used urlredir package, I'm
thinking of requesting it's removal from the archive.
Anybody actually use it, or have any complaints about this?
Regards,
Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
base-config depends on aptitude!
From:
wyo@users.sourceforge.net (Otto Wyss)
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:45:31 +0100
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org (Debian-Devel)
To:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org (Debian-Devel)
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 1g6q5uu.1qm8dqbpth2v4M%wyo@users.sourceforge.net>
Why does base-config now depend aptitude! Can't base-config be used
without? IMO a recomends should be the outmost.
O. Wyss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: base-config depends on aptitude!
From:
Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:16:34 +0100
To:
Otto Wyss <wyo@users.sourceforge.net>
To:
Otto Wyss <wyo@users.sourceforge.net>
CC:
Debian-Devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229111634.GA15808@deprecation.cyrius.com>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition:
inline
* Otto Wyss <wyo@users.sourceforge.net> [2003-12-29 10:45]:
Why does base-config now depend aptitude! Can't base-config be used
without? IMO a recomends should be the outmost.
See http://bugs.debian.org/225344
Joey Hess wrote:
Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
Why does "base-config" depend on aptitude? I think that
"suggests" is more appropriate.
As a heavy-handed means to get debootstrap to install aptitude in
time for beta 2 of debian-installer.
I will try to come up with a better solution later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: [Fwd: Bug in Linux kernel ext2 headers]
From:
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:37:10 +0100
To:
Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
To:
Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
CC:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 223206@bugs.debian.org
Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20031229113710.GA13395@lst.de>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition:
inline
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:21:31AM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi,
for some time now, I wonder if Debian (sarge) should have Kernel 2.6
when using linux-kernel-headers from 2.6. Now that we got the message I
forward herewith, we should clarify this.
My apologies if this was discussed elsewhere. Then, please just reply
with a reference.
The patch is absolutely correct, and the precence of the ext2fs/ headers
has _nothing_ to do with the installed kernel, so it won't prevent
compilation with any kernel because you can install the headers on any
kernel, or even Windows, Solaris, or the Hurd.
The real problem is that Joerg doesn't quite like nor understand Linux
but likes to bash it whenever he can.
If he doesn't like the patch just apply it to the debian package.