linux.debian.devel Google Group

Re: gnat-4.4 is blocking most big transitions atm

2009-11-28T11:20:02Z

cmake is currently building on my ancient mipsel box.
/Sune

Re: gnat-4.4 is blocking most big transitions atm

2009-11-28T10:50:02Z

The build failure for gnat-4.4 is filed as an RC bug (#558146), the ones
of cmake and xulrunner could be temporary (happened on the buildds
without a log unfortunately), trying to reproduce them should shed more
light on them.
Cheers
Luk

Re: gnat-4.4 is blocking most big transitions atm

2009-11-28T10:30:01Z

It would probably be nice if you could tell what build failures those are in
case somebody know what they are and how to fix them.
Would be nice if you could attach them here.

gnat-4.4 is blocking most big transitions atm

2009-11-28T08:50:01Z

Hi
gnat-4.4 FTBFS on mipsel which is blocking gcc-defaults from migrating
to testing which is blocking at least the poppler and gnome related
transitions. xulrunner was reuploaded again and needs to be built
everywhere first before we can reconsider forcing it in.
cmake and xulrunner had some strange build failure when generating the

Bug#558345: ITP: libfreehep-export-java -- FreeHEP Export and Save As Library

2009-11-28T03:50:02Z

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gabriele Giacone <losga...@libero.it>
* Package name : libfreehep-export-java
Version : 2.1.1
Upstream Author : FreeHEP team
* URL : [link]
* License : LGPL-2.1+
Programming Lang: java
Description : FreeHEP Export and Save As Library

Bug#558344: ITP: libjas-plotter-java -- JAS(2) Plotter

2009-11-28T03:40:02Z

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gabriele Giacone <losga...@libero.it>
* Package name : libjas-plotter-java
Version : 2.2.6
Upstream Author : FreeHEP team
* URL : [link]
* License : LGPL-2.1+
Programming Lang: java
Description : JAS(2) Plotter

Re: New source package formats now available

2009-11-28T02:10:02Z

Le Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :

Le Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 02:49:39PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
I think that this is a monopolist point of view:
- You have two different softwares (a packaging software and a patch
management software) and you bundle them together so that people who would

Bug#558330: ITP: libmaven-exec-plugin-java -- A plugin to allow execution of system and Java programs

2009-11-27T22:20:02Z

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gabriele Giacone <losga...@libero.it>
* Package name : libmaven-exec-plugin-java
Version : 1.1.1
Upstream Author : Jerome Lacoste <jer...@coffeebreaks.org>, Kaare Nilsen <kaare.nil...@gmail.com>
* URL : [link]

Bug#558322: ITP: seahaventowers -- seahaven towers solitaire game

2009-11-27T21:30:02Z

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: nils <loh...@debian.org>
* Package name : seahaventowers
Version : 1.50
Upstream Author : Bill Spitzak spit...@d2.com
* URL : [link]
* License : other
Programming Lang: C++
Description : seahaven towers solitaire game

Re: Package formats and software distribution on Linux

2009-11-27T20:10:03Z

I don't believe the distinction that you're apparently drawing between
system and non-system packages really exists in any meaningful way. The
dpkg format is well-suited for managing any software that one would like
to install on the system, and I suspect Red Hat users would say the same
thing about RPM. Both of them are general package formats with a slightly

Re: Re: Package formats and software distribution on Linux

2009-11-27T20:00:02Z

Sorry for the delay, I've been very busy last week.
[link]
or
b28b6cf70907310348x5d233eebgf7 433398fd7f3...@mail.gmail.com
Thanks for the hint. I've posted the specification on the
distributions mailing list. The spec can be found here:
[link]

Re: Re: Package formats and software distribution on Linux

2009-11-27T19:50:02Z

I believe RPM is not suited well enough for this job, it tries to do
everything rather than doing one thing and doing it well. The package
format I'm proposing has a few features rpm does not.

Re: Re: Package formats and software distribution on Linux

2009-11-27T19:50:02Z

No, on the contrary, I'm suggesting to have an additional format for
software that is not system-specific and leaving the system-specific
formats to do what they were designed for (i.e. manage system
packages) rather than reducing the number of formats.

Re: Re: Package formats and software distribution on Linux

2009-11-27T19:50:01Z

I aggree, and I'm hoping to resolve this issue
Because not all distributions are redhat or debian based. There are many others.

Bug#558274: ITP: dracut -- A new initramfs infrastructure

2009-11-27T15:20:02Z

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philippe Seewer <philippe.see...@bfh.ch>
* Package name : dracut
Version : 3.0
Upstream Author : Harald Hoyer <har...@redhat.com>
* URL : [link]
* License : GPLv2
Programming Lang: Shell
Description : A new initramfs infrastructure