Is there an easy way to have both libgtk-dev and libgtk1.1-dev
available? I have trouble with yagirc and libgtk1.1. It
compiles but I get a sigsegv when I try to run it. I was
hoping that linking with libgtk (stable) would fix it, but I
need gtk-1.1 for balsa.
--
The only way tcsh rocks is when
Hi.
Some people mentioned last month that it would be nice to have the
automatic removal of automatically selected packages (i.e., packages
selected by dselect or apt in order to satisfy dependencies) as it
would fit in nicely with meta-packages implemented using (otherwise
empty) .debs with
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
[snip]
This GPL argument if taken to it's logical conclusion would
prevent all GPL'ed code from running on any non-GPL'ed OS, as the
applications have to link with the platform libraries, and are
resultantly dependant on the non-GPL'ed OS.
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:42:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray wrote:
I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with
2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine
with 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).
A little tiny line in
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely a lot of
work, since there are a lot of new drivers.
It works like a charm with 2.1.x kernels. (Kudos to Manoj!)
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:09:56PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:42:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray wrote:
I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with
2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine
with
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:28:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
various compilation of programs.
I thought that was part of the idea of the glibc 2 header stuff..
Yes and no. There are some programs that depend on actual kernel headers.
I agree with Joey, kernel 2.2 should not go as
Ole == Ole J Tetlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ole Is there an easy way to have both libgtk-dev and
Ole libgtk1.1-dev available? I have trouble with yagirc and
Ole libgtk1.1. It compiles but I get a sigsegv when I try to run
Ole it. I was hoping that linking with libgtk (stable)
On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
: Roberto Lumbreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Package: dpkg-dev
: Version: 1.4.0.30
:
: $ dpkg-shlibdeps src/fortify; cat debian/substvars
: shlibs:Depends=libc6 (= 2.0.7u)
:
: $ fakeroot dpkg-shlibdeps src/fortify; cat
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:59:37AM +0200, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
and enduser support, not for discussing home-brewed licensing problems of
niche distributions.
Enough said, I think.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Latest Debian packages at
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:58:58PM -0500, Jeff Noxon wrote:
I'd prefer a new logo as well (with no offense intended toward the kind
person who created the current one!)
But I can't draw, so I guess I should shut up. :-)
I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
We should run a
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 05:16:37PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
Ben Just wondering, Dale, but why didn't you announce this to the
Ben Debian lists as well as the c.o.linux.announce?
Because this is a commercial, and there is a $1000 charge to advertise
on debian lists (to discourage spam).
reassign 27663 linuxconf
thanks
Runo Førrisdahl wrote:
Farris: ~/install# dpkg -i linuxconf_1.10r34-1_i386.deb
(Reading database ... 62852 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking linuxconf (from linuxconf_1.10r34-1_i386.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 27663 linuxconf
Bug#27663: project: installing linuxconf on my maschine running Debian slink
Bug reassigned from package `project' to `linuxconf'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
Hello,
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
debian-porting
alternative names:
debian-ports
debian-porter
debian-porters
or sim.
Purpose of the list would be problems with porting to new architectures,
either package
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Purpose of the list would be problems with porting to new architectures,
either package specific or general. Problems with bootstrapping a new
architecture. Cross compilation of Debian packages. Maybe setting up some
documents or entries in the FAQ-O-MATIC.
Do you
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Ole Is there an easy way to have both libgtk-dev and
Ole libgtk1.1-dev available? I have trouble with yagirc and
Ole libgtk1.1. It compiles but I get a sigsegv when I try to run
Ole it. I was hoping that linking with libgtk (stable) would fix
Ole it,
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the GPL explicitly makes an exception for libraries which are included
with the operating system itself.
Not quite so - it makes an exception for binaries that are NOT
included with that operating system itself.
Debian ships a large number of GPL'd binaries that
Martin == Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben You cannot have libgtk-dev and libgtk1.1-dev installed at the
Ben same time, but you don't need to.
Martin gnotepad+ does not work with gtk 1.1 while many
Martin application that come with Debian are linked against 1.1.
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Martin == Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben You cannot have libgtk-dev and libgtk1.1-dev installed at the
Ben same time, but you don't need to.
Martin gnotepad+ does not work with gtk 1.1 while many
Martin application that come with Debian
Martin == Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin gnotepad+ does not work with gtk 1.1 while many
Martin application that come with Debian are linked against 1.1.
Martin Thus you can't compile gnotepad+ on that machine.
Ben Sure, but you can always remove libgtk1.1-dev
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Martin == Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin gnotepad+ does not work with gtk 1.1 while many
Martin application that come with Debian are linked against 1.1.
Martin Thus you can't compile gnotepad+ on that machine.
Ben Sure, but you can
Martin == Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Hmm, so I have 1.1 installed as well as 1.0-dev. Now if I
Martin compile, I compile against 1.0. So it's dynamically
Martin linked against 1.0. But 1.0 is not installed and even
Martin conflicts with 1.1.
libgtk 1.0
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Martin == Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Hmm, so I have 1.1 installed as well as 1.0-dev. Now if I
Martin compile, I compile against 1.0. So it's dynamically
Martin linked against 1.0. But 1.0 is not installed and even
Martin
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the GPL explicitly makes an exception for libraries which are included
with the operating system itself.
Not quite so - it makes an exception for binaries that are NOT
included with that operating system itself.
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
special exception? :)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says.
from clause 3 of the GPL:
I've read clause three, thank you. I'll upper-case the bit you
must have missed:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the
work for making
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
special exception? :)
That's what he says. That still, however, would not permit
applications distributed with the OS to use Qt. In other words, if
thar paragraph were the big issue, you
Hi,
I've got g++ 2.9.29-0.6, the egcs compiler, and libstdc++2.8dev
2.9.29-0.6 installed. I was playing around with some STL stuff when I
tried to declare a wstring. No luck.
Examining the file /usr/include/g++/string yields:
// Main header for the -*- C++ -*- string classes.
#ifndef
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:58:58PM -0500, Jeff Noxon wrote:
I'd prefer a new logo as well (with no offense intended toward the kind
person who created the current one!)
I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
We should run a
Is there an easy way to have both libgtk-dev and libgtk1.1-dev
available? I have trouble with yagirc and libgtk1.1. It
compiles but I get a sigsegv when I try to run it. I was
hoping that linking with libgtk (stable) would fix it, but I
need gtk-1.1 for balsa.
Yes, you can. I have gtk-1.1
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under
the special exception? :)
yes.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:25:07PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
We should run a gimp contest. They produced the Gnome logo, and there are
artists as well as designer. They'll come up with a
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
Whenever you start a program running under X11, the windows created
usually have the little 'X' logo in the upper left hand corner. If
you are running RedHat linux however, the upper left hand corner of
the windows contains
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
its terms, to apply to Qt.
if you link a
Matthias Ettrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Indeed. If you read the GPL word for word you will find that a binary
distribution requires ALL libraries to be distributed under the GPL.
Interesting that you do not even quote the GPL to try and back up your
non-arguments.
Martin.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:45:35PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is what
is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
license? How does it hurt them to do that? it's not difficult to do,
and it would solve the
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is
derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL
as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work
without additional permission being granted by the
This just came up on the #Debian IRC channel: a growing number of
folks have cable modems and wish to install Debian over them. However,
as it stands, they cannot get on the net from the base floppies,
because they require a DHCP client to get their IP.
I believe this is adequate need to get
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is what
is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
license? How does it hurt them to do that?
Is that really not obvious to you?
Craig Sanders and some
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked together. Does that mean that you
think Debian should convert libc
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is
derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL
as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work
without
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked together. Does that
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 02:43:05AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
We should run a gimp contest. They produced the Gnome logo, and there are
artists as well as designer. They'll come up with a good, inspiring logo,
I'm sure. We should vote
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
under the terms of the GPL.
No. It's stricter, it requires that the distribution of the whole
must be on the terms of this License. That is, distribut_ed_, not
distribut_able_. Big
Arnt Gulbrandsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says.
from clause 3 of the GPL:
I've read clause three, thank you. I'll upper-case the bit you
must have missed:
The source code for a work means
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as mentioned at least once before, glibc is distributed with the operating
system. therefore the special exception applies.
It applies to applications that are not distributed with the operating
system (and to other applications that are distributed along with,
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
under the terms of the GPL. Do you think that means that I have to
re-license the individual parts?
Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp server?
According to
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:33:07PM -0700, David Welton wrote:
I'm here, working on 0.66 as we speak. This might be a good time to ask
a question. yagirc can now be built with gnome interface or
text interface. Should I make two packages, include both in one
package or just drop the
Simple (conceptually) problem:
I'm working on packaging the pm3 Modula 3 distribution for
Debian, and have run into a problem. There are two tarballs
that are available for this: the bootstrap compiler, and the
sources for the rest of the system. Once M3 is up and running,
you can generate a
Martin == Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp
Martin server? According to several Debian developers Motif is
Martin not a part of the OS.
No. We don't link xemacs with Motif. Besides, since lesstif is a part
of the
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:40:04AM -0700, David Welton wrote:
Slashdot has posted an article about the decision to remove the KDE
binaries
right now.
Could someone please post the article or at least the complete URL?
http://slashdot.org - it's a pretty good source of Linux news.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:56:06PM +1000, Stuart Lamble wrote:
The bootstrap compiler is distributed (mostly) as assembler
source, so they're clearly platform dependant. The sources
for the rest of the system are distributed as Modula 3 source
code, so they're clearly platform _in_dependant.
On 9 Oct 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
cheThis is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distribution of
cheDebian, which technically makes it not part of the operating
chesystem. I'm not sure how that interacts with the GPL.
People keep telling me that you can distribute it with the
Le Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:29:27AM -0400, Michael Alan Dorman écrivait:
I think you should read the docs or follow the last couple of years of
the perl5 development mailing list, as I have, before you suggest you
know better than I. From doc/perldelta.pod:
I apologise, I did not want to
Lyx is currently in contrib.
Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least)
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
special exception? :)
Some people argue that it would. RMS argues
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote:
Lyx is currently in contrib.
Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
statement, this means we should
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:56:23AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Let me try to make some qualified guess about this:
If KDE would add the permission note, they would admit that there is a
license problem, and they had to stop sucking in GPL'ed third party code
without explicit permission by
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
casnope. sounds right to me (but i haven't looked at the licenses
casconcerned, just going from memory of libxforms being no-source and
casnon-free).
libforms is definitely no-source (so its not GPL'd !)
/usr/doc/lyx/copyright
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:14:19AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is what
is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
license? How does it hurt them to do
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
On 10-Oct-98 Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote:
Lyx is currently in contrib.
Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
That doesn't mean everyone else ise sensible. I've seen many people DEMAND
Troll Tech
This was forwarded to me by a freeamp developer. He said that mpg123
contains GPL'd code, but its license prohibits non-free use.
Anyone know what the legal status of mpg123 is?
Ben
--
Brought to you by the letters T and W and the number 2.
You forgot Uranus. Goodnight everybody! --
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
That doesn't mean everyone else ise
FWIW, I think having McAfee .debs, even in non-free, would be a win.
However, another thought occurred to me. Stephen, could you ask them
to clarify the licensing of their DAT files? If they are indeed free,
as URL:http://www.nai.com/download/updates/whatdat.asp seems to
imply, someone oughta
Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp
server?
I don't believe that Debian *has* a Motif-linked XEmacs on their ftp
server, but if they do, then all it should take to get it removed is to
file a bug report. That's what happened to KDE.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked
Now, I won't install Qt even for the parts of KDE I like.
This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
the refusal of the KDE developers to FIX THE KDE LICENSE PROBLEMS, a lot
of people are being turned
I've essentially come to the opinion that the GPL has no control over
dynamic linking b/c it's something a user does in the privacy of his own
home.
Besides, what if I create a binary that links to a non-existant library. I
build the ELF structures by hand (?). Could you distribute a binary
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Darren Benham wrote:
geckoHas it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
I haven't tried. But I read the fltk docs on the subject last
week, and the upshot was that most large packages would take a good deal
of work to port. eg, there is no canvas
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:56:30PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Martin Will Debian remove LyX from their ftp server? According to
Martin several Debian developers Xforms is not a DFSG compatible
Martin library.
This is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distribution of
I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I
was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the
signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message
and what the contents were when it was signed?
Thanks.
Zephaniah E, Hull.
On Sat, Oct
Roberto Lumbreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
: Look at fakeroot's shlibs file. This is not a bug (or certainly not
: the one you're claiming it is).
Ok. Of course, you are right ;) I've added (= 2.0.7u) to
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:29:26PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Now, I won't install Qt even for the parts of KDE I like.
This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
the refusal of the KDE developers
Ideally, we need a version of the logo that can be reproduced in one
or two colors. That way it can go directly on a CD or be printed
inexpensively. Full-color printing can be rather expensive.
And it should scale well, from fairly large to quite small. This means
lines and *simple* curves,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I
was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the
signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Zed Pobre wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 02:36:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as
I was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match
the signature, would someone care to varify who
On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 14:35:51 +0200 (CEST), Igor Mozetic wrote:
:
:
However, a tool like that, [ a general configuration tool ] with
Debian support (eg, all packages with config files
should register with it, like menu system) would certainly bring
Debian much closer to non-experienced users.
Now
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 10:31:08PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
This was forwarded to me by a freeamp developer. He said that mpg123
contains GPL'd code, but its license prohibits non-free use.
Anyone know what the legal status of mpg123 is?
mpg123 is non-free all right. No commercial use.
Adam P. Harris wrote:
Ok. Of course, you are right ;) I've added (= 2.0.7u) to
/var/lib/dpkg/info/fakeroot.shlibs and now it works, but I think
dpkg-shlibdeps should know that libc6, libc6 (= 2.0.7u) should
be libc6 (= 2.0.7u). Anyway, I don't know much about how shlibs
stuff works...
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:25:07PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
We should run a gimp contest. They produced the Gnome logo, and there are
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone
working on a gtk
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:35:19PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
Lyx is currently in contrib.
Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
statement,
This just came up on the #Debian IRC channel: a growing number of
folks have cable modems and wish to install Debian over them. However,
as it stands, they cannot get on the net from the base floppies,
because they require a DHCP client to get their IP.
I believe this is adequate need to
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 07:22:07PM -0700, Jeff McWilliams wrote:
Hi,
I've got g++ 2.9.29-0.6, the egcs compiler, and libstdc++2.8dev
2.9.29-0.6 installed. I was playing around with some STL stuff when I
tried to declare a wstring. No luck.
Examining the file /usr/include/g++/string
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Brian White, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
Perl 5.005 will be replaced in Slink with 5.004. The new version will
remain in the next unstable.
Correct?
Definitely. Sorry for the slow reply but my root disk started spewing
scsi errors about 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ian Jackson, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
A whole .deb for such a simple problem seems overkill. The
file/manpage below is what I use. It was in the Perl4 distribution.
Presumably perl5 comes with it too in the source. I have it as
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:42:53AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
under the terms of the GPL.
No. It's stricter, it requires that the distribution of the whole
must be on the terms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
Roberto Lumbreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
: Look at fakeroot's shlibs file. This is not a bug (or certainly not
: the one you're claiming it is).
Ok. Of course, you are right ;)
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter) I disagree; I've often wanted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Zephaniah E. Hull, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
Rename perl to perl5.005, version 02-2 or such..
Then use the alternatives setup to decide which perl gets run when you
try to use just 'perl'..
That's possible but I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Craig Sanders wrote:
imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the
request or choose not to change their license then we have to
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
the refusal of the KDE developers to FIX THE KDE LICENSE PROBLEMS, a
lot of people are being turned off of Qt! Qt doesn't
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
The key is in an earleir paragraph.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then
James Troup wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter)
Hi,
I wonder if there will be a new gtop in slink now that it has
been moved out of gnome-core (or another core Gnome module).
Regards,
Joey
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only pain I had to face was that I had to upgrade my libc6 and
that upgrade broke sendmail, so I had to upgrade sendmail as well.
Uh - oh .. please check out this bug:
#27334: libc6: breaks sendmail, probably problem in resolver
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
