Alejandro De Leon | 1 May 04:56 2009
Picon

Fwd: Help!!!!


-Hello!!! please i have one laptop HP Pavilion dv5-1250us amd turion x2 ultra but i install  debian linux KDE and i have drivers problems, sound, video, wireless, etc. please i need help!!!



--
Himinglæva, Dúfa, Blódughadda, Hefring, Udr, Hrönn, Bylgja, Dröfn, y Kólga,nueve doncellas, todas hermanas, lo dieron a luz como un hijo. Ese hijo es: Heimdall guardian del puente Byfrost.
Tapio Lehtonen | 1 May 06:28 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: Fwd: Help!!!!

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:56:19PM -0400, Alejandro De Leon wrote:
> > -Hello!!! please i have one *laptop HP Pavilion dv5-1250us amd turion x2
> > ultra* but i install  debian linux *KDE* and i have drivers problems,
> > sound, video, wireless, etc. please i need help!!!
> >
> >

Send Your question to mailing list debian-user <at> lists.debian.org.
Change subject to describe Your problem. Mailing list debian-project
is for "Discussion about non-technical topics related to the Debian
Project. ".

> 
> -- 
> Himinglæva, Dúfa, Blódughadda, Hefring, Udr, Hrönn, Bylgja, Dröfn, y
> Kólga,nueve doncellas, todas hermanas, lo dieron a luz como un hijo. Ese
> hijo es: Heimdall guardian del puente Byfrost.

There are also debian-user mailing lists for other languages in
addition to english. See http://lists.debian.org/users.html

--

-- 
Tapio Lehtonen
tapio.lehtonen <at> iki.fi
http://www.iki.fi/tapio.lehtonen
Matthew Johnson | 1 May 23:49 2009
Picon

Draft vote on constitutional issues

As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.

I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure that
there is an option for everyone on here. I'm trying to clarify our
current situation. Resolving the vote without such a clarification does
not help this. You should all see an option below which you think is the
Status quo, but I'm certain that not everyone agrees with which one, so,
if you want the status quo, please vote for the option which describes
it, not for further discussion. If you _can't_ see what you think is the
status quo below, now is the time to point this out. (note, I'm not
formally proposing this as a vote yet, but would like to fairly soon)

Option 1 - No Supermajority

We do not believe that we should require anything more than a simple
majority for any changes to the constitution or foundation documents.

   - replace Constitution 4.1 point 2 with "Amend this constitution"
   - in Constitution 4.1 point 5, point 3, remove "A Foundation Document
      requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. "

This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.

Option 2 - All conflicting GR options require a Supermajority

We believe that any GR which has an option which overrides some or all
of a foundation document, even temporarily, implicitly modifies it to
contain this exception and thus requires a 3:1 majority

   - replace Constitution 4.1 point 5 with "Issue, supersede,
      withdraw, amend and add exceptions to nontechnical policy 
      documents and statements."
   - in Constitution 4.1 point 5 add point 4: "All GR options which 
      provide exceptions to a foundation document (temporary or
      permanent) implicitly modify the document to contain that
      exception and require a 3:1 majority"

This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.

Option 4 - Balancing issues between users and freedom

We believe that there will be cases where the project must balance
between our priorities of our users and of Debian remaining 100% free.
Project decisions which make such a balance do not require a
Supermajority, but all others do

   - Add Social Contract 6:

   6. Works that our not 100% free but are required by our users.

   We acknowledge that there may be occasions where it is not possible
   to place the interests of our users first with purely free software.
   As such, we may on occasion provide software which does not meet our
   normal standards of freedom if it is necessary in the interests of
   our users. In all cases we will work towards a free system where such
   compromises are not necessary

   - replace Constitution 4.1 point 5 with "Issue, supersede,
      withdraw, amend and add exceptions to nontechnical policy 
      documents and statements."
   - in Constitution 4.1 point 5 add point 4: "All GR options which 
      provide exceptions to a foundation document (temporary or
      permanent) implicitly modify the document to contain that
      exception and require a 3:1 majority"

This option amends the constitution and social contract and hence
requires a 3:1 majority.

Option 5 - Temporary overrides without Supermajority

We believe that GRs may temporarily override foundation documents
without requiring a 3:1 majority. Resolutions which are in conflict with
a foundation document and make a permanent change must modify the
foundation document and require a 3:1 majority

   - replace Constitution 4.1 point 5 with "Issue, supersede,
      withdraw, amend and add exceptions to nontechnical policy 
      documents and statements."
   - in Constitution 4.1 point 5 add point 4: "All GR options which 
      provide permanent exceptions to a foundation document implicitly
      modify the document to contain that exception and require
      a 3:1 majority"
   - in Constitution 4.1 point 5 add point 5: "All GR options which 
      provide temporary exceptions to a foundation document only require
      a simple majority to pass.

This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.

Option 6 - Votes may modify or be a position statement, but must be explicit

We believe that any vote which overrides a Foundation Document modifies
it to contain that exception and must explicitly say so in the proposal
before the vote proceeds.  Such overrides require a 3:1 majority.

A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that Foundation
Document does not modify the document and therefore only requires a
simple majority.  This is true even if the Secretary disagrees with the
interpretation.  However, such interpretations are not binding on the
project.

In the event that it's unclear whether a particular GR falls into the
first group or the second group, the vote should not proceed until this
has been clarified in the GR.

   - replace Constitution 4.1 point 5 with "Issue, supersede,
      withdraw, amend and add exceptions to nontechnical policy 
      documents and statements."
   - in Constitution 4.1 point 5 add point 4: "All GR options which 
      provide exceptions to a foundation document (temporary or
      permanent) implicitly modify the document to contain that
      exception and require a 3:1 majority"
   - in Constitution 4.1 add a point between 5 and 6, renumbering
     subsequent points:
     "Clarify and provide interpretations of Foundation Documents, such
     interpretations being non-binding."
   - in Constitution A.3 add point 5: "Options which the Secretary deems
      to in some way conflict with one of the Foundation Documents must
      either explicitly amend the Foundation Document (in which case
      they require a 3:1 majority) or they must explicitly say that this
      is an interpretation and they do not conflict. Any vote which
      contains an ambiguous option will not be run until it is clarified"

This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.

0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/05/msg00003.html

Matt
--

-- 
Matthew Johnson
Luk Claes | 2 May 00:32 2009
Picon

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

Matthew Johnson wrote:
> As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
> votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.
> 
> I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
> would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure that
> there is an option for everyone on here. I'm trying to clarify our
> current situation. Resolving the vote without such a clarification does
> not help this. You should all see an option below which you think is the
> Status quo, but I'm certain that not everyone agrees with which one, so,
> if you want the status quo, please vote for the option which describes
> it, not for further discussion. If you _can't_ see what you think is the
> status quo below, now is the time to point this out. (note, I'm not
> formally proposing this as a vote yet, but would like to fairly soon)

I think trying to propose many options together is very wrong as you are 
very probably not objective for all the options nor will you be able to 
word it properly for the ones that do care about an option you don't 
really care about.

The other risk you take by proposing many options at once is to mix 
unrelated things in the same vote IMHO.

> Option 1 - No Supermajority
> 
> We do not believe that we should require anything more than a simple
> majority for any changes to the constitution or foundation documents.
> 
>    - replace Constitution 4.1 point 2 with "Amend this constitution"
>    - in Constitution 4.1 point 5, point 3, remove "A Foundation Document
>       requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. "
> 
> This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.

I would be very surprised if this option would get enough seconds if you 
would propose it.

> Option 2 - All conflicting GR options require a Supermajority
> 
> We believe that any GR which has an option which overrides some or all
> of a foundation document, even temporarily, implicitly modifies it to
> contain this exception and thus requires a 3:1 majority

This all boils down to the definition of override which I tried to state 
in the other thread. If you go by my definition, this is really a 
non-option IMHO.

> Option 4 - Balancing issues between users and freedom
> 
> We believe that there will be cases where the project must balance
> between our priorities of our users and of Debian remaining 100% free.
> Project decisions which make such a balance do not require a
> Supermajority, but all others do
> 
>    - Add Social Contract 6:
> 
>    6. Works that our not 100% free but are required by our users.
> 
>    We acknowledge that there may be occasions where it is not possible
>    to place the interests of our users first with purely free software.
>    As such, we may on occasion provide software which does not meet our
>    normal standards of freedom if it is necessary in the interests of
>    our users. In all cases we will work towards a free system where such
>    compromises are not necessary
> 
>    - replace Constitution 4.1 point 5 with "Issue, supersede,
>       withdraw, amend and add exceptions to nontechnical policy 
>       documents and statements."
>    - in Constitution 4.1 point 5 add point 4: "All GR options which 
>       provide exceptions to a foundation document (temporary or
>       permanent) implicitly modify the document to contain that
>       exception and require a 3:1 majority"

Same remark as above.

> This option amends the constitution and social contract and hence
> requires a 3:1 majority.

This option does not look related to supermajority requirements to me.

> Option 5 - Temporary overrides without Supermajority
> 
> We believe that GRs may temporarily override foundation documents
> without requiring a 3:1 majority. Resolutions which are in conflict with
> a foundation document and make a permanent change must modify the
> foundation document and require a 3:1 majority
> 
>    - replace Constitution 4.1 point 5 with "Issue, supersede,
>       withdraw, amend and add exceptions to nontechnical policy 
>       documents and statements."
>    - in Constitution 4.1 point 5 add point 4: "All GR options which 
>       provide permanent exceptions to a foundation document implicitly
>       modify the document to contain that exception and require
>       a 3:1 majority"
>    - in Constitution 4.1 point 5 add point 5: "All GR options which 
>       provide temporary exceptions to a foundation document only require
>       a simple majority to pass.
> 
> This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.

This boils down to the definition of override again...

> Option 6 - Votes may modify or be a position statement, but must be explicit
> 
> We believe that any vote which overrides a Foundation Document modifies
> it to contain that exception and must explicitly say so in the proposal
> before the vote proceeds.  Such overrides require a 3:1 majority.

This is already the case AFAICS

> A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
> Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that Foundation
> Document does not modify the document and therefore only requires a
> simple majority.  This is true even if the Secretary disagrees with the
> interpretation.  However, such interpretations are not binding on the
> project.

This again boils down to the definition of override...

Cheers

Luk

PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the 
terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it.

Matthew Johnson | 2 May 00:51 2009
Picon

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
> I think trying to propose many options together is very wrong as you are 
> very probably not objective for all the options nor will you be able to 
> word it properly for the ones that do care about an option you don't really 
> care about.

I would vote all of these above Further Discussion, so I think it is
legitimate for me to propose and second them. Further more, in this
specific case I do not believe that Debian would be well served by a
vote which does not list all those options. I am trying very hard to
make sure that people are not voting FD first.

> The other risk you take by proposing many options at once is to mix 
> unrelated things in the same vote IMHO.

I am trying to be careful not to do this, I definitely believe that all
of the below are legitimate alternative options which very definitely
should be on the same ballot, as they address the same thing: making it
clear what options require a supermajority.

>> Option 1 - No Supermajority
>>
> I would be very surprised if this option would get enough seconds if you 
> would propose it.

Then fine, it can be removed. I have seen, I think, at least 3 mails to
the lists explicitly suggesting this, however.

>> Option 2 - All conflicting GR options require a Supermajority
>>
>> We believe that any GR which has an option which overrides some or all
>> of a foundation document, even temporarily, implicitly modifies it to
>> contain this exception and thus requires a 3:1 majority
>
> This all boils down to the definition of override which I tried to state in 
> the other thread. If you go by my definition, this is really a non-option 
> IMHO.

I'll address that below

>> This option amends the constitution and social contract and hence
>> requires a 3:1 majority.
>
> This option does not look related to supermajority requirements to me.

I just had to clarify this on IRC too. This option is "all conflicting
options need supermajority even if temporary", but then amending the SC
so that balancing SC1 and SC4 isn't conflicting with the SC. Sorry if
that wasn't clear.

>> Option 6 - Votes may modify or be a position statement, but must be explicit
>>
>> We believe that any vote which overrides a Foundation Document modifies
>> it to contain that exception and must explicitly say so in the proposal
>> before the vote proceeds.  Such overrides require a 3:1 majority.
>
> This is already the case AFAICS

The entire point of this vote is that opinions vary on what is already
the case. You think that option 6 is already the case. I think that
option 2 is already the case and some people think that option 5  is
already the case. All of use are absolutely convinced it's the only way
to read the constitution. I'm fed up of having arguments about what it
means, whether a particular reading is consistent, or what the spirit of
the constitution is. I want it to be explicit, hence this vote to
clarify it.

> PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the 
> terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it.

I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some
examlpes. I'm maybe not using the terminology you'd like, but I hope
you can see what I mean. Here they are again:

1. Option X conforms to a foundation document (clearly not 3:1)
2. Option X changes a foundation document (clearly 3:1)
3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?)
5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't
   want to override the FD (?)
6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say
   which of 2-5 it is.

1. and 2. are what we wish every vote were like.

3. is things like "we agree that the kernel modules aren't free, but
we'll ship them anyway" or "we'll ship them for this release".

4. is things like "we think that firmware can be its own source, so
shipping blobs is fine"

5. is something like "Allow Lenny to release with  firmware blobs.  This
does not override the DFSG", which I don't think makes any sense.

Now, I understand you don't like the use of 'override' when describing
option 3, I'm happy to describe it as something else, but _I_ think that
the constitution at the moment requires 3:1 majority for this sort of
vote. I know other people are equally certain it does not, but this is
why I want to clarify it one way or another, to avoid future upset.

Incidentally my point of view is that 3 requires supermajority, 4 does
not and that 5 and 6 should be rejected by the secretary as invalid.

I hope that has explained things better and you can see where I'm coming
from,
Matt

0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg00091.html
--

-- 
Matthew Johnson
Charles Plessy | 2 May 11:48 2009
Picon

Let’s not make GRs with mixtures of 3:1 and 1:1 majority options anymore. (was: Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues)

Le Fri, May 01, 2009 at 10:49:48PM +0100, Matthew Johnson a écrit :
> As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
> votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.
> 
> I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
> would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure that
> there is an option for everyone on here. I'm trying to clarify our
> current situation. Resolving the vote without such a clarification does
> not help this. You should all see an option below which you think is the
> Status quo, but I'm certain that not everyone agrees with which one, so,
> if you want the status quo, please vote for the option which describes
> it, not for further discussion. If you _can't_ see what you think is the
> status quo below, now is the time to point this out. (note, I'm not
> formally proposing this as a vote yet, but would like to fairly soon)
> 
> Option 1 - No Supermajority
> 
> Option 2 - All conflicting GR options require a Supermajority

[I lost the option 3]

> Option 4 - Balancing issues between users and freedom
> 
> Option 5 - Temporary overrides without Supermajority
> 
> Option 6 - Votes may modify or be a position statement, but must be explicit

Hi Matthew,

I think that it was a good idea (and a lot of work, thank you for that) to
prepare options that reflect the different opinion expressed in the previous
discussion, but I would recommend that each of them should be sponsored
separately, so that there is a chance to reduce the complexity of the ballot if
some do not manage to attract enough sponsors.

The biggest problem of the “Lenny release” vote – in my opinion – was the
mixture of supermajority and simple majority options. I am tempted to propose
another option, that would change the constitution so that supermajority
applies to whole votes and is decided at the beginning of the process. In short:

 - When proposing a GR, a DD announces if his proposition falls under §4.1.2 or
   §4.1.5.3, and in that case the GR is a supermajority GR. His analysis can be
   challenged by other DDs, in which case the Secretary makes the final decision.

 - All options except FD need a 3:1 majority in supermajority GRs.

 - Amendments that fall under §4.1.2 or §4.1.5.3 can not be added to simple
   majority GRs (final decision to the Secretary in case of disagreements).

The rationale is the following:

 - If in a supermajority GR one option that does not fall under §4.1.2 or
   §4.1.5.3 gets most votes but the quorum is not reached, it is possible to
   run another GR.

 - If in a normal GR some DDs think that they have good chances to convince the
   other DDs that the problem can be solved by changing the Constitution of a
   Foundation Document, then they should be at least able to drive people voting
   FD for the non-supermajority GR, or better: convince the proposers to retract
   their GR and start a supermajority GR instead.

The obvious inconvenience is the risk of running two GRs instead of one, but
this has to be balanced with the benefit of never having a “Lenny GR” again,
where voting becomes very tactical. Note that in both scenarios above, the
first GR is a failure due to the lack of support to at least the original
option, and that it would be expected that GR proposers avoid to put themselves
in that embarassing situation.

If others are interested in the idea, I can draft a patch to the Constitution.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

Matthew Johnson | 2 May 18:13 2009
Picon

Re: Let’s not make GRs with mixtures of 3:1 and 1:1 majority options anymore. (was: Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues)

On Sat May 02 18:48, Charles Plessy wrote:
> [I lost the option 3]

As many people have spotted, there was no option 3

> I think that it was a good idea (and a lot of work, thank you for that) to
> prepare options that reflect the different opinion expressed in the previous
> discussion, but I would recommend that each of them should be sponsored
> separately, so that there is a chance to reduce the complexity of the ballot if
> some do not manage to attract enough sponsors.

Well, I was trying mainly to reduce mails. People should certainly be
able to second options independently, I hope kurt will allow people to
reply to the whole mail seconding only subsets of the ballot.

> The biggest problem of the “Lenny release” vote – in my opinion – was the
> mixture of supermajority and simple majority options. I am tempted to propose
> another option, that would change the constitution so that supermajority
> applies to whole votes and is decided at the beginning of the process. In short:

I think this is quite a good idea, but I think orthogonal to the items
in this ballot.

Matt

--

-- 
Matthew Johnson
Anibal Monsalve Salazar | 5 May 08:47 2009
Picon

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.57, the following
changes to the keyring have been made:

angel <at> grupoikusnet.com
    Full name: Angel Abad
    Added key: EBF6080D59D4008ADF4700D4098DAE47EE3BC279

jan <at> beathovn.de
    Full name: Jan Beyer
    Added key: 0896F05999C906DBB3BCD04BF1E30FE50CA6B4AA

ludovico.cavedon <at> gmail.com
    Full name: Ludovico Cavedon
    Added key: 002421CD1ED4ADD1C4569DDF0A275AB6B4BCA5D7

malat <at> users.sourceforge.net
    Full name: Mathieu Malaterre
    Added key: E1FAED1FA75C1DA7FD9F14F812914ABD0EA23F2B

michael <at> stapelberg.de
    Full name: Michael Stapelberg
    Added key: F1D654AECB4454252C0DF8D7F6CBB99D65B790C2

rusconi-debian <at> laposte.net
    Full name: Filippo Rusconi
    Added key: 528627B1F2030DDB90BB37C54D33ACE4C78F687C

A summary of all the changes in this upload follows.

Debian distribution maintenance software,
on behalf of,
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal <at> debian.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 15:46:47 +1000
Source: debian-maintainers
Binary: debian-maintainers
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.57
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Maintainer Keyring Team <d-m-team <at> lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal <at> debian.org>
Description: 
 debian-maintainers - GPG keys of Debian maintainers
Closes: 522081 522443 523893 524654 525491 526044
Changes: 
 debian-maintainers (1.57) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Add Debian maintainer Angel Abad. Closes: #522081
   * Add Debian maintainer Filippo Rusconi. Closes: #522443
   * Add Debian maintainer Michael Stapelberg. Closes: #523893
   * Add Debian maintainer Mathieu Malaterre. Closes: #524654
   * Add Debian maintainer Ludovico Cavedon. Closes: #525491
   * Add Debian maintainer Jan Beyer. Closes: #526044
Checksums-Sha1: 
 90e76f6b6282513d450d20e5105927723e48fafd 1392 debian-maintainers_1.57.dsc
 859a6a429102a9900cb0df478eacf869aa47d8c5 1175831 debian-maintainers_1.57.tar.gz
 454e743c17bfa89b49796ab3fe9e45e4fc74f6ae 498042 debian-maintainers_1.57_all.deb
 32359ad808a89a768950323b83f162c7041f1bda 597983 debian-maintainers_1.57_all.gpg
Checksums-Sha256: 
 48113b3efb66d912af6d09739d8e62870ee6f754068f624c757b9e4f7e05ed7d 1392 debian-maintainers_1.57.dsc
 21a63e13d47403847096eac3b567d0ce647ff6d0e1a6b53344074a91438562c6 1175831 debian-maintainers_1.57.tar.gz
 5e582432a3dfe1232f7a9e0b9ac3ea374ce1112fe88b60e4940359583613b2de 498042 debian-maintainers_1.57_all.deb
 b3f3911659714b2c16561a60169719d4cacc007bffce145c32ffdfd22c1356eb 597983 debian-maintainers_1.57_all.gpg
Files: 
 0feb6a404868b5208dbd66f55e5b2d76 1392 misc extra debian-maintainers_1.57.dsc
 618e935b2c40259053467ac6a7273394 1175831 misc extra debian-maintainers_1.57.tar.gz
 b75738bb3eef28e11a78eb9403eef020 498042 misc extra debian-maintainers_1.57_all.deb
 1ef5a32d92f7c66e33b19b10b5936184 597983 raw-keyring - debian-maintainers_1.57_all.gpg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkn/3pUACgkQgY5NIXPNpFVxsQCdGXS3PrN1OmMZEeYeVqEKGJcM
IWYAn1JVNFD0v5L7H5zOqldoZsEh2mdB
=uhyy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Beldin Kerekes | 5 May 17:57 2009
Picon

Top 3 Kama Sutra Love Makinng Positions

Anibal Monsalve Salazar | 6 May 08:17 2009
Picon

Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring

With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.58, the following
changes to the keyring have been made:

marcot <at> riseup.net
    Full name: Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva
    Added key: AF9DA0A7A7549CA8EB221E3F840C0E9A45754E44

sven.eckelmann <at> gmx.de
    Full name: Sven Eckelmann
    Added key: 85766D242570192A284BE775A901B029594CA03B

A summary of all the changes in this upload follows.

Debian distribution maintenance software,
on behalf of,
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal <at> debian.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 15:43:35 +1000
Source: debian-maintainers
Binary: debian-maintainers
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.58
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Maintainer Keyring Team <d-m-team <at> lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal <at> debian.org>
Description: 
 debian-maintainers - GPG keys of Debian maintainers
Closes: 525541 526484
Changes: 
 debian-maintainers (1.58) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Add Debian maintainer Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva. Closes: #525541
   * Add Debian maintainer Sven Eckelmann. Closes: #526484
Checksums-Sha1: 
 6f778ab7da62060920ca68093ba1665c0c6ba623 1392 debian-maintainers_1.58.dsc
 59e4fca2de7756eaaf22a10b42abd3f146730979 1220504 debian-maintainers_1.58.tar.gz
 e7d60beab0fc7a76f254afdd0a193d0af2b5baaf 537602 debian-maintainers_1.58_all.deb
 b5b0f715091e9f34724ba2fb57f6be079d50cb93 648668 debian-maintainers_1.58_all.gpg
Checksums-Sha256: 
 0a8be92a426b15c3b612746a4ca73fb833da0c6a544fc64fdbae077914b7c301 1392 debian-maintainers_1.58.dsc
 e1ff6df78f3270d1817e096e673ac1b7ff9faf7094bcaface09fd7a62b69aac3 1220504 debian-maintainers_1.58.tar.gz
 e25c80ba39dcde9487606ac0e5d2423bf94b1f2eebfd76609d4afc510e84c193 537602 debian-maintainers_1.58_all.deb
 b2380268c90bd1370c65246525f998a30d1b7a6b5c79cbc57a0697f716acf9c0 648668 debian-maintainers_1.58_all.gpg
Files: 
 dcab80efc4006cbeaddbab5582564c00 1392 misc extra debian-maintainers_1.58.dsc
 89d9e5b0b0e3b35721d77f698cf02fd9 1220504 misc extra debian-maintainers_1.58.tar.gz
 fdc2ba1ccd3babc315afec23e4ca6ebd 537602 misc extra debian-maintainers_1.58_all.deb
 d8be72054b2a4b6dc38254485290cc71 648668 raw-keyring - debian-maintainers_1.58_all.gpg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkoBKUcACgkQgY5NIXPNpFUxEwCghTF/LZT10Pd+f83uYSv6utxf
ynMAnjMoTBpHbZJQxA8yjticgWgPUQbz
=lVFl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Gmane