Nice work, Wookey! If experience cross-building for armhf is any guide,
all you need for NSS is a host build of shlibsign; see
https://github.com/mkedwards/crosstool-ng/blob/master/patches/nss/3.12.10/0001-Modify-shlibsign-wrapper-for-cross-compilation.patch.
There's also scriptage in that repo
On 8/2/05, Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unsolicited Commercial Email. Please pay the standard $2000 fee for
advertisments on Debian mailing lists.
Adam, I'm kind of curious what you mean by that. What, if any, actual
or proposed statutory standard for UCE did you have in mind when you
On 7/19/05, Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:21 +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
Heyho,
why is mentors.debian.net powered by Ubuntu?
http://mentors.debian.net/
About this repository
Welcome to the debian-mentors public software repository.
On 7/17/05, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Upstream developers should get a clue and either properly license their
software, stop using libcurl or adding gnutls support to it.
Upstream developers (and a lot of other people) should stop believing
the FSF's FUD about how it's not legal to
On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cranky but funny stuff]
If there ever is a blackball commitee, Manoj of all people belongs on it. :-)
Cheers,
- Michael
On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's with the recent push to get every little things written
down into policy, so the developer no longer is required to have an
ability to think, or exercise any judgement whatsoever?
Welcome to the software industry
On 7/15/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:30:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
An alternate solution is to have a database for that kind of thing,
but I forsee that it requires effort to maintain and keep up-to-date.
Like the database I just queried
On 7/15/05, Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's with the recent push to get every little things written
down into policy, so the developer no longer is required
On 7/15/05, Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am having a hard time reading this as anything but a non sequitur.
Umm; it follows more from Manoj's comment than yours.
Ah. OK.
Personally, I prefer for a solution to be demonstrated to work, both
socially and technically, before it
On 7/15/05, Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(As a practicing SubGenius, I like to think of the ornery, cussing
Debian, up there with the Two-Fisted Jesus, and the Butting
Buddha. Others may have other views)
As a practicing Episcopatheist, I like to murmur, There is no God,
and
On 7/14/05, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In sum. Maybe it's time to create additional positions in Debian project?
Maybe something like Packager (with knowledge about Bash and Debian
Policy), Translator (with knowledge about some particular language and
English), Helper
Added debian-legal; please drop debian-devel on follow-ups.
On 7/9/05, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is still using a copyrighted/trademarked (don't know which) name
There is no such thing as a copyrighted name. The name does appear to have
been a trademark at one time, but if
On 7/3/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
These are two very different cases, though
On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the
security of those users, and they
On 6/27/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
Presumably isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they
would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone,
based on the quality criteria that is
On 6/20/05, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, Ubuntu packages aren't Debian packages any more than
Mandrake packages are Red Hat packages.
If Ubuntu sees itself to Debian as Mandrake was to Red Hat
On 6/18/05, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Practically speaking, the differences in compatibility between Ubuntu and
Debian is of as much concern as those between Debian stable and Debian
unstable. New interfaces are added in unstable constantly, and software is
On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of 596 lib packages in woody (loosely identified), 325 are still
present in sarge. That's after three years of more or less constant
development. Where did you come up with this absurd idea that all binary
packages of any great complexity
On 6/19/05, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I wouldn't say accept it, I would say acknowledge the safety zone
offered unilaterally by the Mozilla Foundation, and as a courtesy to
them make some effort to stay comfortably within it while
On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 01:41:47AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The examples that come to mind immediately are those with substantial
components in both native code and an interpreted or bytecode
language, such as Perl XSUBs and Python
On 6/17/05, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users.
And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not
put us in a privileged position with respect to
On 6/18/05, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm more worried about the future; and I still haven't seen anyone
address my initial question, which is why Ubuntu is tracking sid on core
things like libc in the first place. The value you add is around
the edges with stuff like X.org and
On 6/18/05, Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're skipping the crucial point here. Under the publicly available
licenses/policies, we *cannot* call it Firefox. The MoFo is offering
us an agreement that allows us to use the mark. I think agreeing to
this is against the spirit of DFSG #8,
On 6/17/05, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking as someone with no Ubuntu affiliation (and IANADD either), I
think that statement is based on a somewhat shallow analysis of how
glibc is handled. [...]
I don't doubt
On 6/17/05, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Sack writes:
In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product
name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it
is used in the help menu, the about box, the
On 6/17/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you'll find that porn is the majority industry on the internet.
The Internet is, to zeroth order, useful only for the same four things
that interactive TV is well suited for: video games, gambling,
pornography, and pornographic
On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:54:08PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
Daniel Stone wrote:
libc6 added interfaces between 2.3.2 and 2.3.5 and made several other
major changes, so all packages built with .5 depend on .5 or above,
in case you use
On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
incompatibilities.
Speaking as someone with no Ubuntu affiliation (and IANADD either), I
think that statement is based
On 6/16/05, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python is basic for Ubuntu. Given the long freeze of sarge, Debian had
to support 2.1 (jython), 2.2 (for zope 2.6) and 2.3 for sarge. I'm
happy we did have a possibility to ship 2.4.1 with sarge. Maybe not
with the best packaging, but it's
On 6/16/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 04:03:32PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On the Ubuntu side, divergences from the last Debian glibc drop that
was merged into hoary (2.3.2.ds1-20) include subtle but important
fixes to NPTL/TLS (with particular
On 6/6/05, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Eh, to achieve Total World Domination, we need to support every
architecture out of there. Looks like a step in the wrong direction ;)
Well, frankly speaking, Julien, last time I checked most
On 6/5/05, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michael K. Edwards
| So either Debian collectively is
| willing to labor to maintain a high standard of portability and
| stability, or we need to focus on a few arches and ignore
| bugs-in-principle that don't happen to break on those
On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can either step up and make sure the
architectures you care about are in good shape for etch, or you can be a
whiny brat expecting everything to be handed to you on a silver platter and
accusing people of being members of a
On 5/31/05, Stephen Birch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay - you have my attention. If you are right etch will be as
beautiful as Hoary within a few weeks of the sarge release.
I think it's been so long since Debian started having pre-sarge
freeze-spasms that we've all forgotten what it's like
On 5/31/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, when Ubuntu makes improvements to packages how do those
improvements flow back to Debian?
They generally don't. Ubuntu considers it more effective to spend
their time on PR to make people think they are giving stuff back, than
to
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip arguments that might have been worthy of rebuttal on
debian-legal five months ago]
I'm not trying to be snotty about this, but if you want to engage in
the debate about the proper legal framework in which to understand the
GPL, I
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At this point, there seem to be quite a
few people who agree that the FSF's stance (copyright-based license)
and the far-from-novel one that you advance (unilateral license /
donee
On 5/20/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry about that; I skipped a step or two. Your unilateral grant of
permission is not in fact a recognized mechanism under law for the
conveyance of a non-exclusive copyright license
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in
section 6:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree
is merely
an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than
professional advice).
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FAQ is not merely an interesting commentary -- it is the
published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
inquiries
On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip Raul's honest and polite response]
I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been
making. In other words, I see you asserting that things which are
sometimes true must always be true.
In the case of the contract
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An action for copyright
infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
through the lens
On 5/18/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really don't care. If somebody can't be bothered to write a mail in
comprehensible English, they shouldn't expect anybody else to bother
to read it. Most won't even bother to say why they didn't bother to
read it. He's lucky that I did,
On 5/18/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, well. But he's still right. This once.
Is there some reason why eat a dictionary had to be copied to all of
debian-devel in order to inform bluefuture of his linguistic
difficulties? (I ask this knowing full well that my own pot has
On 5/18/05, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. And this list subscribers deserve some apologies for myself
being annoyed enough to be impolite to them and write ununderstandable
prose hereeven if obviously on purpose.
Well, I enjoyed it immensely, despite my execrable French.
On 5/18/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:41:34PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/18/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, well. But he's still right. This once.
Is there some reason why eat a dictionary had to be copied to all
On 5/18/05, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
this is grounded on the
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
for any serious deployment. Note, however, that but it *can't*
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[an argument, much of which would make sense in a parallel universe
where the GPL is on the law books as 17 USC 666]
I am not a lawyer (or a fortiori a judge), so all that I can do to
explain why this isn't valid legal reasoning is to point you at
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
terms of the law that is actually applicable, not as if the court were
obliged to construe the GPL so that every word
Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm disputing an argument which seems to require a number of such fine points.
It is difficult for me to raise such disputes without mentioning the the
points
themselves.
However, I
I haven't replied in detail to Batist yet because I am still digesting
the hash that Babelfish makes out of his Dutch article. And I don't
entirely agree that the GPL is horribly drafted, by comparison with
the kind of dog's breakfast that is the typical license contract. In
the past, I have
On 5/7/05, Batist Paklons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
It's really cool to have an actual lawyer weigh in, even if TINLAIAJ. :-)
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument
On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of this discussion of legal minutia misses (and perhaps supports)
what, to my mind, is the most compelling argument for accepting the
FSF's position on the subject. The fact is that the question does
depend on a lot of legal minutia that
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Second sentence in Section 0: The Program, below, refers to any
such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either
the Program or any derivative work under
On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You may not be qualified (as I am not) to offer legal advice. But
you're certainly qualified to have an opinion.
Sure. But it's not relevant to this discussion -- despite what many
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're objecting to the that is to say phrase, which restates
what
work based on the Program: means.
Attempts to, anyway
I don't, except insofar as C - the Program attempts to paraphrase E
- the Program (= D).
Oh for Pete's sake, (E - the Program) (= D). What a great place for
a word wrap.
- Michael
On 5/2/05, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the same (to
retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary package maintainer
during the build (to reflect that it is a different build, and also display
a more appropriate
On 5/4/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this. But that's where
this discussion is actually happening now, and I'm afraid I
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches offload
work onto the release team is
3) chasing down, or just waiting on (which means, taking time to poll the
package's status to find out
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:58:33 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh, not particularly. This inspection can be done on any machine, and
there's no reason not to just use the fastest one available to you (whether
that's by CPU, or network); what's needed here is to first identify
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keeping up
right now.
Precisely. And four is already pushing the point of
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:07:32 +0100, Simon Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sounds more like a case of too-loose build-dependencies to me
rather than architecture specific problems. This can also hit i386, the
fact that it hit ARM this time is sheer coincidence.
Should the uim maintainer
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:14:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
have had to are, in no discernable order:
1) processing new RC bug
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:02:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Uh. Most porting bugs that require attention fall in one of the
following areas:
* Toolchain problems (Internal Compiler Errors, mostly)
* Mistakes made by the packager. Quite easy to fix, usually.
* Incorrect
AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat
short-term perspective. Just because a full Debian doesn't usually
fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's,
and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are
probably the best
AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat
short-term perspective. Just because a full Debian doesn't usually
fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's,
and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are
probably the best
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:09:18 +0100, Helmut Wollmersdorfer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
My few attempts to step into debian as a contributor ended after some
hours of senseless discussions or waste of time against unnecessary
barriers. Compared against average OSS, or OSS where I contribute,
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:01:52 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not enough to say that you *could* create free firmware files. As a
user of xpdf, I can unequivocally say that there are pdfs that I have full
rights to, because *I created them*. I cannot say that about firmware
Hopefully this continues to be interesting to debian-devel readers.
Perhaps replies should go to debian-legal; GMail doesn't seem to let
me set Followup-To, but feel free to do so if you think best.
I have copied Eben Moglen (General Counsel to the FSF) at Bruce's
suggestion. Mr. Moglen, I am
On re-reading the sequence of events, it looks like I was the one who
switched the context of the hypothetical reproducible build tools
obligation from GPL to LGPL. Bruce, my apologies for implying that
you were the one who switched contexts. So we seem to agree that the
support for this
I'll try to address the Specht case and summarize, and we can call
this an end to the discussion if that's what you want.
Bruce You can read a case on the nature of consent such as Specht v. Netscape,
Bruce which might convince you that we don't necessarily get
sufficient consent on
Bruce the
me binutils and modutils both depend on it.
Bruce On flex? No. At least not in unstable.
sorry, I meant to write Build-Depend.
me Or is the LCC proposing to standardize on a set of binaries without
me specifying the toolchain that's used to reproduce them?
Bruce Linking and calling conventions
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:25:38 +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Well, frankly, I don't care what [ISVs] think is 'viable'.
I do care. Apparently some ISVs think a common binary core is
viable. I think they might change their minds if the argument against
golden binaries is
This probably belongs on debian-legal, but let's go one more round on
debian-devel given the scope of the LCC's potential impact on Debian.
(Personally, I'm more interested in the question of whether agreeing
to consecrate particular binaries contravenes a distro's commitment to
the Four Freedoms
Bruce
Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are attempting
to get to use Linux as the core of their products.
core (software architecture) != core (customer value).
Also, please make sure to tell the upstream maintainers that we aren't
going to use their code any longer,
Whoops, I guess that's what I get for trying to be concise for once.
I'll try again.
Bruce Well, please don't tell this [i. e., outsourcing your core is
a bad idea]
Bruce to all of the people who we are attempting to get to use Linux
Bruce as the core of their products.
me core (software
Bruce Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what
Bruce version of libc, etc., it'll make more sense.
Flex isn't in the problem space if we're talking core ABIs. But it
certainly is if we're talking core implementations, as binutils and
modutils both depend on it. Or is
me
Ian Murdock (quotes out of order)
If the LSB only attempts to certify things that haven't forked, then
it's a no-op. Well, that's not quite fair; I have found it useful to
bootstrap a porting effort using lsb-rpm. But for it to be a software
operating environment and not just a
Name changes are a superficial design flaw that obscures the
fundamental design flaw in this proposal -- sharing binaries between
Linux distributions is a bad idea to begin with.
Fixing ABI forks, and articulating best known practices about managing
ABI evolution going forward, that's a good
If ISVs want exactly the same, they are free to install a chroot
environment containing the binaries they certify against and to supply
a kernel that they expect their customers to use. That's the approach
I've had to take when bundling third-party binaries built by people
who were under the
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:20:00 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
libfoo 1.7 fixes a non-security bug in v1.6. bar segfaults when
running libfoo 1.6. But libfoo 1.6 is in Sarge, and the bug won't
be fixed because it's not a security bug.
Having a formal GNU/Linux Distro Test Kit
Steve Langasek
It is not correct. At the time testing freezes for sarge, there are likely
to be many packages in unstable which either have no version in testing, or
have older versions in testing. The list of such packages is always visible
at
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:04:41 +0200, Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As soon as testing is strictly equal to unstable regarding package
versions, testing is roughly ready for release.
I think this observation is acute -- as applied to the _current_
testing mechanism.
Personally, I view
]
Changed-By: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
libcryptokit-ocaml - cryptographic algorithm library for OCaml - runtime
libcryptokit-ocaml-dev - cryptographic algorithm library for OCaml - development
Closes: 203256
Changes:
cryptokit (1.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* First
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:44:53 -0800
Source: libimager-perl
Binary: libimager-perl
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 0.42-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Michael K
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:21:28 -0800
Source: libobject-multitype-perl
Binary: libobject-multitype-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.04-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:36:14 -0800
Source: libxml-smart-perl
Binary: libxml-smart-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.5-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Michael K
OCaml Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
libcnumx0 - Numerix big integer library for C - runtime
libcnumx0-dev - Numerix big integer library for C - runtime
libnumerix-ocaml - Numerix big integer library for OCaml - runtime
libnumerix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:41:30 -0800
Source: libxml-sax-writer-perl
Binary: libxml-sax-writer-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.44-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:28:59 -0800
Source: libxml-libxml-perl
Binary: libxml-libxml-perl
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 1.56-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:18:25 -0800
Source: libghttp
Binary: libghttp1 libghttp-dev
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 1.0.9-15
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Michael K
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:50:51 -0800
Source: libxml-filter-xslt-perl
Binary: libxml-filter-xslt-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.03-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:44:24 -0800
Source: libxml-libxslt-perl
Binary: libxml-libxslt-perl
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 1.53-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:58:42 -0800
Source: libhttp-ghttp-perl
Binary: libhttp-ghttp-perl
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 1.07-7
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:21:18 -0800
Source: libxml-libxml-perl
Binary: libxml-libxml-perl
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.56-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael K. Edwards (in Debian context) [EMAIL PROTECTED
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
