Bug#447841: keyboard layout changed in X, mod keys not working

[Norbert Preining]

Package: hal
Version: 0.5.10-1
Severity: critical

Hi!

This is related to #447813, but I guess it is a hal problem since on my
computer only hal was updated and not xorg.

There are in fact several problems:

Content:
* kbd layout
* modifier keys
* xmodmap format changes


* kbd layout


So today when I tried to log on using gdm I suddenly have the following
problem: I had 
Section "InputDevice"
Identifier  "Generic Keyboard"
Driver  "kbd"
Option  "CoreKeyboard"
Option  "XkbRules"  "xorg"
Option  "XkbModel"  "pc105"
Option  "XkbLayout" "de"
Option  "XkbVariant""nodeadkeys"
EndSection
and suddenly I have a different kbd layout, namely US layout (qwerty).


* modifier keys are hosed
==
it is even IMPOSSIBLE to switch to the text console:
Ctrl-Alt-F1 etc does not work.

Now that is *REALLY* grave because I cannot switch to text console and
check the situation (ok, log on as user, change kbd properties in gnome,
call switchvt, ...).

I assume that this is about the newly included kbd hotplug stuff.

* xmodmap format change


On a different computer with an italian kbd I didn't realize this
immediately at login time, since italian have qwerty, too, only the
'right' corner is different. But logging into gnome hosed everything
because the layout was again US. After changing it back to italian I was
settled at least for that.

BUT: Normally I load a 3-line .Xmodmap file to get german umlauts with
RAlt-a etc. Loading this suddenly made even my NORMAL 'a' an 'ä'.

By calling xmodmap -pke I found that the format change, before I had
keycode NNN = a A adiaeresis Adiareses ...
now I need
keycode NNN = a A a A adiaeresis Adiaeresis ...

This again is a grave bug: If .Xmodmap is loaded you suddenly have only
Umlauts to type and cannot enter a/u/o which is really stupid.

=

Please FIX this soon, it is a pain


Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
WROOT (n.)
A short little berk who thinks that by pulling on his pipe and gazing
shrewdly at you he will give the impression that he is infinitely wise
and 5 ft 11 in.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:42:07PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 17:04 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
> > > The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
> > > the  
> > > conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge  
> > > University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV  
> > > (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
> > 
> > Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
> > the package therefore be problematic?
> 
> Not to mention the dire sanctions against derivative works of the
> Revelation (from chapter 22):
> 
>   18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
> this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
> plagues that are written in this book:
>   19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
> prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
> holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Damn, I was just about to submit a bunch of bugfixes for the some of the
more blatantly obviously fuckups, such as the homophobia and misogynism.


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - madeeasy

[Philippe Cloutier]

I don't see why users in countries where software is not patentable 
should be forced to jump through hoops to get access to multimedia 
software. If this repository is not added to the user's sources.list file 
by default then there is no advantage in setting up yet another 
repository for such software.
  
There would be the advantage that the software is distributed by Debian, 
and it should be easier to add/enable the repository.
I think the Debian project needs to seek legal advice on the subject. We 
need to know who actually becomes liable for patent infringement if we 
set up a repository in a country where software cannot be patented. I 
would guess the answer would be anyone who distributes the software; 
therefore it would be up to each mirror to decide whether to mirror this 
archive.
I suppose that both distributors and users are liable. Otherwise, it 
would be good to ask on debian-legal.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Out-of-tree kernel module popularity

[Paul Wise]

On 10/20/07, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It seems like it would be useful to
> aggregate statistics for out-of-tree kernel module packages

Interestingly, Fedora has a new policy that kernel module packages
must be merged with kernel.org or removed from Fedora:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal

I don't think this would be an option for Debian, but it certainly is
a gutsy move.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Out-of-tree kernel module popularity

[Faidon Liambotis]

Philippe Cloutier wrote:
>> >   4 ipw3945 897
>> Replaced by (free) iwlwifi which will be present in 2.6.24.
>>   
> iwlwifi is "contrib", like ipw3945.
iwlwifi needs non-free firmware, ipw3945 needs non-free firmware and
non-free userspace daemon.

The "free" above was mainline's defintion, not Debian's.
ipw3945 was never merged mainly because of the non-free userspace part,
while iwlwifi is already merged on wireless-2.6.

>> > 132 rtl8180   1
>> > 130 rtl8180-sa24001
>> Merged.
>>   
> You must be thinking about rtl8187. These look like unofficial packages
> anyway.
Right, I got confused because rtl8180 (the driver) is actually for
rtl8185 chipsets (rtl8180 chipsets are not yet supported).

Thanks,
Faidon



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Out-of-tree kernel module popularity

[Paul Wise]

> According to that page "We work with the manufacturers of the specific
> device to specify, develop, submit to the main kernel, and maintain the
> kernel drivers."

You missed this page:

http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Out-of-tree kernel module popularity

[Philippe Cloutier]

If anyone has some time, it would be valuable to work through
the list and check, which of these have been merged into Linux mainline
by now (e.g. several of the wifi drivers have) and report the missing
ones to Greg Kroah-H's driver project:
http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view
According to that page "We work with the manufacturers of the specific 
device to specify, develop, submit to the main kernel, and maintain the 
kernel drivers."



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Out-of-tree kernel module popularity

[Philippe Cloutier]

WiFi

>   4 ipw3945 897
Replaced by (free) iwlwifi which will be present in 2.6.24.
  

iwlwifi is "contrib", like ipw3945.


>  25 ieee80211   109
>  61 ieee80211softmac 14
>  31 ipw2100  71
>  18 ipw2200 169
>  36 hostap   51
Merged.

Already removed.


> 132 rtl8180   1
> 130 rtl8180-sa24001
Merged.
  
You must be thinking about rtl8187. These look like unofficial packages 
anyway.

>  53 pcmcia   17
>  30 kernel-pcmcia79
2.4 material, not needed on 2.6.
  

Removed long ago.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Warnings on shutdown (Debian Etch and Kernel 2.6.22.9)

[Jim Paris]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Ehh... I meant something along the line of...
> 
> "Info for Debian VERSION users : if you see this warning there are
> several solutions... blah blah".

For Debian, I don't think there are any complete solutions yet.
The related bug is 
  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=426224

-jim


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Firefox bugs mass-closed.

[jidanni]

I dutifully re-checked each bug.
Today I got another pile in my mailbox to recheck.
I did not check if they were the ones I had just rechecked.
I instead just gave up.

This is the Bank. You have 60 days to respond that you still want the
money in your account.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Out-of-tree kernel module popularity

[Faidon Liambotis]

Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I didn't know that table existed!  It seems like it would be useful to
> aggregate statistics for out-of-tree kernel module packages by stripping
> off the kernel version suffix.  Here's what I came up with:

OK, here's a preliminary analysis of your results. There are quite a few
of TODOs, so if anyone wants to step-in, be my guest ;-)

WiFi

>   1 madwifi1666
>  51 madwifi-ng   18
non-free/deprecated, in favor of ath5k, currently present in
wireless-2.6 and pending kernel inclusion.

>   4 ipw3945 897
Replaced by (free) iwlwifi which will be present in 2.6.24.

>   5 alsa715
Merged on all 2.6 kernels (this was a sarge package)

>  73 rt61  8
> 157 rt73  1
>  39 rt2400   46
>   7 rt2500  590
>  26 rt2570  100
> 123 rt2x00-cvs2
>  19 rt2x00  154
All replaced by the latter, which will be present in 2.6.24.

>  25 ieee80211   109
>  61 ieee80211softmac 14
>  31 ipw2100  71
>  18 ipw2200 169
>  36 hostap   51
Merged.

>  78 bcm43xx   6
Merged as bcm43xx and now (2.6.24) b43/b43legacy.

> 132 rtl8180   1
> 130 rtl8180-sa24001
Merged.

> 154 p54   1
Merged.

>  97 adm8211   3
Merged.

>  23 linux-wlan-ng   123
Not going to be merged since hostap (already present) does the job better.

VoIP

>  50 misdn20
Created by the i4l team, I think they're considering for inclusion.

>  14 zaptel  295
Not really considered for inclusion by upstream, yet.

> 155 sangoma-wanpipe   1
Binary blob, IIRC.

proprietary/non-free


>  29 vmware-kernel79
>  42 vmware   39
>  43 vmware-server-kernel 37
>  47 vmware-any-any-kernel26
>  96 vmware-any-any-player-1.0.2   3
> 111 vmware4   2
> 117 vmware-any-any-player-1.0.3   2
> 119 vmware-player-kernel  2
> 125 vmware-tools-kernel   1
> 128 kernel-vmware 1

> 107 cisco-vpnc3
> 143 cisco-vpnclient   1
(free replacement exists)

>  93 fritz-classic 3
>  98 fritz-pci 3
> 100 fritz-pnp 3
> 109 fritz-xusb3
> 129 avm   1

False positives
---
>  11 linux   391
>  62 linux-ubuntu 12
>  63 kernel   12
>  65 linux-restricted 12
>  85 kernel-nonfree5
>  95 linux-backports   3
> 153 dummy-linux   1

> 145 ext3  1
> 147 usb   1
> 150 scsi-core 1
(d-i module packages)


Rest

>   2 ndiswrapper1484
Present in Debian, not considered by mainline for inclusion.

>   3 kqemu   898
Distributed by Debian (recently moved to main from non-free)
I don't think upstream intends to submit it anytime soon.

>  12 kvm 337
Already present in mainline but lags a bit hence the need for a -source
package.

>  22 unionfs 124
>  91 unionfs-knoppix   4
In the process of merging (under some discussion).

>  53 pcmcia   17
>  30 kernel-pcmcia79
2.4 material, not needed on 2.6.

>  20 ivtv149
>  94 ivtv0.3   3
>  60 ivtv0.4  14
>  66 ivtv0.6  12
>  55 ivtv0.7  16
>  59 ivtv0.8  15
> 102 ivtv0.9   3
>  37 ivtv0.10 49
Merged.

>  28 fuse 82
Merged.

> 151 lzma  1
Merged.

>  67 eagle-usb11
>  69 sony-acpi 9
Merged.

>  72 freeswan  8
Deprecated in favor of openswan

>  74 rtai  7
Rejected from inclusion, -rt is the way to go.

>  75 drbd  7
Proposed for inclusion, under review.

>  76 btsco 7
> 148 bluetooth-alsa1
Deprecated in favor of userspace alsa plugin.


TODO

>   6 openafs 614
>   8 lirc475
>   9 gspca   461
>  10 

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Ben Hutchings]

On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 17:04 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
> > The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
> > the  
> > conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge  
> > University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV  
> > (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
> 
> Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
> the package therefore be problematic?

Not to mention the dire sanctions against derivative works of the
Revelation (from chapter 22):

  18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book:
  19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Life is like a sewer:
what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Out-of-tree kernel module popularity

[Moritz Muehlenhoff]

Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> Nevertheless on the user's side there is a demand for those=20
>> codecs which can be whitnessed by the broad acceptance of unofficial=20
>> repositories [see: http://popcon.debian.org/unknown/by_inst ].=20
>
>
> I didn't know that table existed!  It seems like it would be useful to
> aggregate statistics for out-of-tree kernel module packages by stripping
> off the kernel version suffix.  Here's what I came up with:

Nice list! If anyone has some time, it would be valuable to work through
the list and check, which of these have been merged into Linux mainline
by now (e.g. several of the wifi drivers have) and report the missing
ones to Greg Kroah-H's driver project:
http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view

He has 310 developers at hand, who are eager to merge potential out-of-
tree drivers and such: http://www.kroah.com/log/ 

Cheers,
Moritz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

[Kevin Mark]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 03:44:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:15:42AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> [...]
> > I suggest that, if such a repository will be created for patented
> > codecs, that e.g. sponsored uploads will not be allowed to this
> > archive. I know that most of you will hate this idea, but I
> > believe it is necessary to keep the original purpose of such an
> > archive.
> 
> As a sponsoree myself, I'm not entirely certain I understand why
> it's any more likely that a sponsoring DD will overlook and upload a
> package with the wrong section, than that a DD will upload a
> similarly incorrect package he or she directly maintains. And either
> way, wouldn't verifying that a package is appropriate for some new
> patent-problems section fall on the ftpmasters and their delegates
> to police? And further, if this became canonized in policy as a must
> or required directive, wouldn't such a problem warrant a bug of
> severity serious, potentially release-critical even?

Here's an idea. Would it be useful to translate the legal issues of a
package into a technical one by marking packages with one of these
package tags:
-
Patent_issue: yes/no
Patent_issue: de,us,...
-
Thus whoever uploads it, it will be followed more closely and similary
would such a tag be useful to aptitude/dpkg so as to signal upgrades
that may contain patent or similar issues. I would expect the user to
set a location setting in dpkg so that the messages would be a warning
in certain locales and informational in others.
This of course then leads to who will make the determination?
(-legal,ftpmasters,DD)
There is also P-A-S which is not maintained by DD but my ftpmaster,iirc.
This may be a similar situation.
And the issues of how often it will be reviewed to keep up with legal issues?
And since all distros have these issues, maybe a joint effort to
maintain a legal issue list.

-K
-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
|  my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
|join the new debian-community.org to help Debian!  |
|___  Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: VCSs on Alioth and personal repositories

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Luca Capello said:
> 
> 2) I think we should be consistent also about how to store personal
>repositories, at least for web access.  AFAIK the general structure
>for project repositories is
> 
>VCS.d.o/VCS/$GROUP/$REPO

I don't really mind what layout we use, but just note that this isn't
how the centralized repos (cvs, svn) are set up - it's just $GROUP, for
the most part.
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Isabel Drost wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> Mere local law shouldn't make a package DFSG non-free. I'd bet there are
>> many packages in Debian whose distribution or use violates local law
>> somewhere in the world.
> 
> Just a tiny example: I guess, Debian still contains many packages that 
> contain 
> software that might be considered "hacker tools" in German courts and thus 
> might be forbidden under German law:

... as long as most of those tools are also contained on a CD which is
distributed by the BSI[1], I wouldn't think much about taking any action
here in Germany

Cheers,

Bernd


[1]: http://www.bsi.de/produkte/boss/index.htm
-- 
Bernd Zeimetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

VCSs on Alioth and personal repositories

[Luca Capello]

Hello,

soon after darcs.d.o became a reality [1], Zack asked me about
including the support for it in debcheckout and I did it as bug
#445714 [2], arising some discrepancies in how the personal
repositories are managed:

- git.d.o uses $HOME/public_git, which is then visible at [3]

- darcs.d.o uses $HOME/public_darcs, but this is visible as [4]

- {arch,bzr,svn}.d.o uses /$VCS/private, visible as {[5],[6],[7]}

Now some points, which are not really problems, but annoyances:

1) all the VCS servers but darcs store the repositories as

   VCS.d.o/VCS/...

   Is the subfolder VCS really needed?  In that case we should have it
   for darcs.d.o, too.

2) I think we should be consistent also about how to store personal
   repositories, at least for web access.  AFAIK the general structure
   for project repositories is

   VCS.d.o/VCS/$GROUP/$REPO

   I'd suggest to choose one of "private" (already used by 3 VCSs) or
   "users" (2) as $GROUP for personal repositories, being the latter
   my preference.

   Moreover, I'd prefer also to have personal repositories as
   public_$VCS folders, which as I already wrote is how git and darcs
   manage them ATM.

3) the second point is more important WRT debcheckout authentication
   mode: this because in order to fix bug #447791 [8] the check should
   be as more general as possible.

I propose to help moving all the necessary repositories once a common
solution is found ;-)

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes: 
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/10/msg2.html
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=445714
[3] http://git.debian.org/git/users/gismo/test.git
or
git://git.debian.org/git/users/gismo/test.git
[4] http://darcs.debian.org/~gismo/test.darcs/
[5] http://arch.debian.org/arch/private/chewie/debian/
[6] http://bzr.debian.org/private/hertzog/
as well as
http://bzr.debian.org/bzr/private/hertzog/
[7] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/private/rafael
or
svn://svn.debian.org/private/sho/
[8] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=447791


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/23/07 09:36, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> 
> On 23 Oct 2007, at 15:04, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> 
>> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
>>> The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
>>> the
>>> conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge
>>> University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV
>>> (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
>>
>> Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
>> the package therefore be problematic?
> 
> It's not quite that simple. You can't print and sell Bibles in the UK
> (unless you are CUP or OUP). Would a bomb-making text in Debian be
> non-free because the UK forbids you to print and sell it?

Importantly (maybe?), the right is to *print* the AV.  Is there a
mention, or assumption, that downloading as electronic file is the
same as printing it?

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHHk60S9HxQb37XmcRAjy5AKCDm1TSPXvrzRVNXIgTuMMcw3QOOACffnYG
GxC4x7TCKTABf6BCxX0c40U=
=83UA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Isabel Drost]

On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Mere local law shouldn't make a package DFSG non-free. I'd bet there are
> many packages in Debian whose distribution or use violates local law
> somewhere in the world.

Just a tiny example: I guess, Debian still contains many packages that contain 
software that might be considered "hacker tools" in German courts and thus 
might be forbidden under German law:

http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/90255

[...] It becomes an offence to create, sell, distribute or even aquire so 
called Hacker Tools that are built to conduct criminal acts like aquiring 
illegal access to protected data. It is feared by many that this might keep 
administrators and security experts from doing their job – i.e. from properly 
testing applications or networks to enhance security while on the other hand 
the blackhats don't really care that their choosen tool has been made illegal 
now. [...]

Isabel

-- 
Heisenberg might have been here.
  |\  _,,,---,,_   Web:   
  /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_
 |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) (fL)  IM:  


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - madeeasy

[Fabian Greffrath]

Jeremy Stanley:
> As a sponsoree myself, I'm not entirely certain I understand why
> it's any more likely that a sponsoring DD will overlook and upload a
> package with the wrong section, than that a DD will upload a
> similarly incorrect package he or she directly maintains. 

Hm, that's true... silly idea! Sorry. :/

> And either
> way, wouldn't verifying that a package is appropriate for some new
> patent-problems section fall on the ftpmasters and their delegates
> to police?

Well, definitely. Indeed, my initial motivation was to get into discussion with 
ftp-masters about how such a new section may be put into practice.

Cheers,
Fabian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Lars Wirzenius]

ti, 2007-10-23 kello 09:44 -0500, Steve Greenland kirjoitti:
> But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.

If I have understood things correctly, in England (and the rest of the
UK?) the copyright is owned by the crown and therefore it is the crown
that sets the license. In the rest of the world, the work is in the
public domain. This is, to me, a different thing than local law saying,
for instance, that the Bible as a work is banned.

But don't trust me on this, I am merely speculating.

-- 
That which does not kill us makes us stranger


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

[Jeremy Stanley]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:15:42AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
[...]
> I suggest that, if such a repository will be created for patented
> codecs, that e.g. sponsored uploads will not be allowed to this
> archive. I know that most of you will hate this idea, but I
> believe it is necessary to keep the original purpose of such an
> archive.

As a sponsoree myself, I'm not entirely certain I understand why
it's any more likely that a sponsoring DD will overlook and upload a
package with the wrong section, than that a DD will upload a
similarly incorrect package he or she directly maintains. And either
way, wouldn't verifying that a package is appropriate for some new
patent-problems section fall on the ftpmasters and their delegates
to police? And further, if this became canonized in policy as a must
or required directive, wouldn't such a problem warrant a bug of
severity serious, potentially release-critical even?
-- 
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP([EMAIL PROTECTED]); IRC([EMAIL PROTECTED]); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
MUD([EMAIL PROTECTED]:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#447745: ITP: liboglappth -- A library for creating portable OpenGL applications with easy-to-code scene setup and selection operations.

[LI Daobing]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: LI Daobing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: liboglappth
  Version : 0.96
  Upstream Author : Tommi Hassinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bioinformatics.org/ghemical/ghemical/
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C++
  Description : A library for creating portable OpenGL applications with 
easy-to-code scene setup and selection operations.

This library is required by ghemical 0.95.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-14-generic (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Matthew Vernon]

On 23 Oct 2007, at 15:04, Lars Wirzenius wrote:


ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:

The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
the
conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge
University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV
(and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England


Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the  
DFSG, and

the package therefore be problematic?


It's not quite that simple. You can't print and sell Bibles in the UK  
(unless you are CUP or OUP). Would a bomb-making text in Debian be  
non-free because the UK forbids you to print and sell it?


Matthew

--
Matthew Vernon MA VetMB LGSM MRCVS
Farm Animal Epidemiology and Informatics Unit
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~mcv21/




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:44:51AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> 
> But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.
> Mere local law shouldn't make a package DFSG non-free. I'd bet there are
> many packages in Debian whose distribution or use violates local law
> somewhere in the world.
> 
Good point.  There are probably some clipart packages (or icons in some
packages) that show images which would be considered objectionable or in
violation of some local law somewhere (think of some Muslim countries
and the files in /usr/share/openclipart/png/food/beverages/alcohol/*).

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Steve Greenland]

On 23-Oct-07, 09:04 (CDT), Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
> > The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
> > the  
> > conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge  
> > University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV  
> > (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England
> 
> Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
> the package therefore be problematic?

But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.
Mere local law shouldn't make a package DFSG non-free. I'd bet there are
many packages in Debian whose distribution or use violates local law
somewhere in the world.

Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447514: ITP: apt-cacher-ng -- Caching proxy for distribution of software packages

[Steve Greenland]

On 21-Oct-07, 14:43 (CDT), Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> 
> * Package name: apt-cacher-ng
>   Version : 0.0.8
>   Upstream Author : myself
> * URL : http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~bloch/acng/
> * License : BSD, original
  ^

"Original", as in the 4-clause anti-advertising version? It's your code,
your license choice, of course, but it's so rarely used these days, I
kind of wondered...

Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Lars Wirzenius]

ti, 2007-10-23 kello 12:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon kirjoitti:
> The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in
> the  
> conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge  
> University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV  
> (and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England

Would not a restriction on commercial use still be against the DFSG, and
the package therefore be problematic?

-- 
Fundamental truth #4: Typing URLs always introduces errors. Always copy
+paste.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Warnings on shutdown (Debian Etch and Kernel 2.6.22.9)

[Tejun Heo]

Renato S. Yamane wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Renato S. Yamane wrote:
>>> Tejun Heo wrote:
 Renato S. Yamane wrote:
> Fixed. Patch is attached. Thanks!

 Can you write up something for other debian users so that it can be
 included in the linux-ata page && cc Jeff Garzik?
>>>
>>> Sorry my friend, but I don't have e-mail from Jeff Garzik.
>>
>> cc'd.
> 
> Jeff, patch is attached.
> When I shutdown my laptop, I receive some warnings about linux-ata.
> Tejun suggest remove -h option on halt script and this work fine.

Ehh... I meant something along the line of...

"Info for Debian VERSION users : if you see this warning there are
several solutions... blah blah".

-- 
tejun


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Matthew Vernon]

Hi,

On 23 Oct 2007, at 11:52, Enrico Zini wrote:


On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:16:13AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:

Since I'm not at all familiar with the legacy of copyright laws  
around

the British Royal Family, I'm setting the severity to normal, using
'could' in the subject and Cc-ing debian-devel.  But I thought the  
issue

was worth raising.


[it may be worth noting that I am "upstream" for this package, as  
well as Debian maintainer]


The Authorized Version of the Bible isn't covered by Copyright in the  
conventional sense. The Queen's Printer (currently Cambridge  
University Press) has an exclusive commercial right to print the AV  
(and the BCP, but that's not relevant here) in England; the  
University Presses of Cambridge and Oxford University separately have  
the privilege to print the Bible[1]; Collins are probably not meant  
to print and sell Bibles in England, but no action has been taken  
against them. It's not at all clear whether electronic copies are  
covered.


Matthew

[1] http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/75cass1b.html
--
Matthew Vernon MA VetMB LGSM MRCVS
Farm Animal Epidemiology and Informatics Unit
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~mcv21/




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Warnings on shutdown (Debian Etch and Kernel 2.6.22.9)

[Renato S. Yamane]

Tejun Heo wrote:

Renato S. Yamane wrote:

Tejun Heo wrote:

Renato S. Yamane wrote:

Fixed. Patch is attached. Thanks!


Can you write up something for other debian users so that it can be
included in the linux-ata page && cc Jeff Garzik?


Sorry my friend, but I don't have e-mail from Jeff Garzik.


cc'd.


Jeff, patch is attached.
When I shutdown my laptop, I receive some warnings about linux-ata.
Tejun suggest remove -h option on halt script and this work fine.

Regards,
Renato
--- /etc/init.d/halt	2007-10-23 08:33:25.0 -0200
+++ /etc/init.d/halt2	2007-10-23 08:31:47.0 -0200
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ do_stop () {
 	hddown=""
 	if grep -qs '^md.*active' /proc/mdstat
 	then
-		hddown="-h"
+		hddown=""
 	fi
 
 	# If INIT_HALT=HALT don't poweroff.

Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Enrico Zini]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:16:13AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:

> Since I'm not at all familiar with the legacy of copyright laws around
> the British Royal Family, I'm setting the severity to normal, using
> 'could' in the subject and Cc-ing debian-devel.  But I thought the issue
> was worth raising.

I've been told in #debian-devel that this has been reported before:

  http://bugs.debian.org/338077

The discussion didn't seem to reach a conclusive argument, and seemed to
have been closed somehow because of that:

  Tags set to: unreproducible, fixed Request was from MJ Ray <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Full text and rfc822 format available.

Probably this bug should be merged with 338077.

Could contacting http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/contact-us/index.htm or
http://www.tso.co.uk/contact/ be a good idea to get the information
that was missing in the previous discussion?


Ciao,

Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom

[Enrico Zini]

Package: bible-kjv-text
Severity: normal

Hello,

I was browsing Wikipedia after visiting a special exibition about the
history of the Bible in the United Kingdom and I stumbled on this:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status

  "The terms of the letters patent prohibit those other than the
  holders, or those authorized by the holders from printing, publishing
  or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom."

Since I'm not at all familiar with the legacy of copyright laws around
the British Royal Family, I'm setting the severity to normal, using
'could' in the subject and Cc-ing debian-devel.  But I thought the issue
was worth raising.


Ciao,

Enrico

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - madeeasy

[Fabian Greffrath]

Sam Morris:
> I don't see why users in countries where software is not patentable
> should be forced to jump through hoops to get access to multimedia
> software. If this repository is not added to the user's sources.list file
> by default then there is no advantage in setting up yet another
> repository for such software.

AFAICT the non-free repository isn't added either. Only main and contrib 
are.


> I think the Debian project needs to seek legal advice on the subject. We
> need to know who actually becomes liable for patent infringement if we
> set up a repository in a country where software cannot be patented. I
> would guess the answer would be anyone who distributes the software;
> therefore it would be up to each mirror to decide whether to mirror this
> archive.

Very good idea, this should be made clear ASAP!

> If this is the case, and if end users are not liable for downloading
> patentable software, then I don't see why d-i can't enable the source by
> default.

For the same reason non-free ist disabled by default, I guess. It's not 
in main, i.e. it's not Debian.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

[Sam Morris]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:15:42 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:

> Yes, we will need a separate archive for these packages which will be
> hosted outside the US. I am not sure if d-i should offer to add these
> sources (not sure if it's worth another question during installation),
> but the URI could be included in the default sources.list but commented
> out with a disclaimer.

I don't see why users in countries where software is not patentable 
should be forced to jump through hoops to get access to multimedia 
software. If this repository is not added to the user's sources.list file 
by default then there is no advantage in setting up yet another 
repository for such software.

I think the Debian project needs to seek legal advice on the subject. We 
need to know who actually becomes liable for patent infringement if we 
set up a repository in a country where software cannot be patented. I 
would guess the answer would be anyone who distributes the software; 
therefore it would be up to each mirror to decide whether to mirror this 
archive.

If this is the case, and if end users are not liable for downloading 
patentable software, then I don't see why d-i can't enable the source by 
default.

-- 
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
 
PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078
3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B  C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Updating software-properties in testing

[Bas Zoetekouw]

Hi André!

You wrote:

> The "new bug" is #435246  which is
> resolved since July 31. I think it's time to update software-properties
> and update-manager in testing.

I think there was something wrong with the versioning in the bts (the
bug was maked as found and fixed in the same version).  Should be fixed
now.

Bets regards,
Bas.

-- 
++
| Bas Zoetekouw  | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
++ 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#439389: Changes in the xine-lib package require changes in xine-frontends

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lundi 22 octobre 2007 à 18:11 +0200, Reinhard Tartler a écrit :
> libxine1-plugins will depend on libxine1-x and libxine1-console until
> lenny. after lenny is released, these two dependencies will be
> dropped. For that reason my initial announcement mail still stands
> unchanged.

Thanks, this will make things much easier for frontend maintainers.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Updating software-properties in testing

[André Wendt]

Hi,

I just checked the version of update-manager in testing and noticed on


# update-manager is waiting for software-properties
* python-software-properties (i386, alpha, amd64, arm, hppa, ia64,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) has new bugs!

The "new bug" is #435246  which is
resolved since July 31. I think it's time to update software-properties
and update-manager in testing.

Regards,
André

P.S.: If this is not the right place for the question, please forward it
-- or drop me a line and I'll do it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

[Fabian Greffrath]

Thank you very much for your replies to my concern. However I'd like to 
comment on some of them until the thread dies acknowledged and forgotten...


Daniel Baumann:
> It's not actually dead, but in a kryogenic freeze. [...]

Thanks for your answer. I hope you don't mind if I take over (active) 
maintainership for all those packages in the meantime... ;)


Moritz Muehlenhoff:
> We should just create a separate archive like non-us, e.g. non-pat,
> which's primary host would reside somewhere where multimedia software
> patents are moot. (I suppose france would be alright, since debian-
> multimedia is hosted there). d-i should offer to add these sources.

Yes, we will need a separate archive for these packages which will be 
hosted outside the US. I am not sure if d-i should offer to add these 
sources (not sure if it's worth another question during installation), 
but the URI could be included in the default sources.list but commented 
out with a disclaimer.


Reinhard Tartler:
> How about just using non-free for that? In the past, patented packages
> like gif encoders have been hosted there, so why can't we just use them
> for mpeg encoders as well?

I don't think that non-free ist the right place, beacuse (a) the 
non-free archive is hosted on nearly every mirror, even in the US and 
(b) the software isn't non-free. It's perfectly free from a license POV. 
As Clint Adams suggested I also think you're thinking of non-us.


Joe Smith:
> Please note though that non-us was hosted outside of the US,
> but was supposed to contain packages that were legal in the US,
> but simply could not be exported from the US (cypto software).
> Because of its name, people started putting other things there
> were not legal in the US, but that is very different than its 
original purpose.


This need to be avoided! I suggest that, if such a repository will be 
created for patented codecs, that e.g. sponsored uploads will not be 
allowed to this archive. I know that most of you will hate this idea, 
but I believe it is necessary to keep the original purpose of such an 
archive.


Nice greetings,
Fabian


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]