Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Michael Banck]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:58:03AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Robert Lemmen:
> > still: can we make this a policy item?
> 
> The GPL version 2 permits it to display copyright notices and warranty
> disclaimers, without being allowed to patch them away.  This can be made
> more obnoxious than one-time click-through EULAs, I fear.

That doesn't mean we should accept those in our distribution.  We can
make a policy decision that end-users should not have to deal with
those.

Just saying, I'm not decided either way.


Michael


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

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Fri, September 19, 2008 11:25, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:58:03AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Robert Lemmen:
>>
>>> still: can we make this a policy item?

>> The GPL version 2 permits it to display copyright notices and warranty
>> disclaimers, without being allowed to patch them away.  This can be made
>>  more obnoxious than one-time click-through EULAs, I fear.
>
> That doesn't mean we should accept those in our distribution.  We can
> make a policy decision that end-users should not have to deal with those.

In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start to
make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our time
fixing RC bugs meanwhile?


Thijs


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

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Miriam Ruiz]

2008/9/19 Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>> The GPL version 2 permits it to display copyright notices and warranty
>> disclaimers, without being allowed to patch them away.  This can be made
>> more obnoxious than one-time click-through EULAs, I fear.
>
> That doesn't mean we should accept those in our distribution.  We can
> make a policy decision that end-users should not have to deal with
> those.

It makes sense. The same way that we're not allowing GFDL packages
with invariant sections, we might not want this feature/bug of GPL to
be used for that either. I would support making such a decision.

Greetings,
Miry


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

Processed: this sounds like a nice problem to be solved with UDD :)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> reassign 60810 qa.debian.org
Bug#60810: check for packages with the same files
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `qa.debian.org'.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


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

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Florian Weimer]

* Miriam Ruiz:

> 2008/9/19 Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> The GPL version 2 permits it to display copyright notices and warranty
>>> disclaimers, without being allowed to patch them away.  This can be made
>>> more obnoxious than one-time click-through EULAs, I fear.
>>
>> That doesn't mean we should accept those in our distribution.  We can
>> make a policy decision that end-users should not have to deal with
>> those.
>
> It makes sense. The same way that we're not allowing GFDL packages
> with invariant sections, we might not want this feature/bug of GPL to
> be used for that either. I would support making such a decision.

I would support it too, provided that it's tied to a policy decision not
to accept works licensed under the AGPL into main.


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

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Robert Lemmen]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:27:44AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start to
> make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our time
> fixing RC bugs meanwhile?

of course, but the issue came up because of the mozilla change, and
making such a policy decision at a time when it does not mean reverting
some big package back to an older version. think of it as a
regression...

cu  robert

-- 
Robert Lemmen   http://www.semistable.com 


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

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Robert Lemmen]

about click-through EULAs:

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:16:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > It makes sense. The same way that we're not allowing GFDL packages
> > with invariant sections, we might not want this feature/bug of GPL to
> > be used for that either. I would support making such a decision.
> 
> I would support it too, provided that it's tied to a policy decision not
> to accept works licensed under the AGPL into main.

please forgive my ignorance, but i don't understand what the AGPL has to
do with click-through license agreements. could you explain?

cu  robert

-- 
Robert Lemmen   http://www.semistable.com 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Mike Hommey]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:41:57AM +0100, Robert Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:27:44AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start to
> > make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our time
> > fixing RC bugs meanwhile?
> 
> of course, but the issue came up because of the mozilla change, and
> making such a policy decision at a time when it does not mean reverting
> some big package back to an older version. think of it as a
> regression...

Except the mozilla change has been caught early in Debian and the EULA
never showed up to users, with or without mozilla reverting their change.

Mike


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

Re: Xen status in lenny?

[Teodor]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This kernel have a critical problem:
>
> | Bad pte = 11764060, process = vsftpd, vm_flags = 100071, vaddr = b7f85000
> | Pid: 8129, comm: vsftpd Not tainted 2.6.26-1-xen-686 #1
> |  [] handle_mm_fault+0x61b/0xe78
> |  [] mprotect_fixup+0x6d3/0x735
> |  [] do_page_fault+0x684/0xbd6
> |  [] sys_mprotect+0x17a/0x1df
> |  [] sys_mprotect+0x1cc/0x1df
> |  [] do_page_fault+0x0/0xbd6
> |  [] error_code+0x35/0x3c
> |  ===
> | VM: killing process vsftpd
>
> The pte have bit 6 set: PAGE_DIRTY aka PAGE_FILE. But the vm flags lacks
> the marker for a nonlinear (file based) mapping.

Here it is another one:

| Bad pte = 5e164060, process = BORGChat.exe, vm_flags = 100075, vaddr = 34
| Pid: 8575, comm: BORGChat.exe Not tainted 2.6.26-1-xen-686 #1
|  [handle_mm_fault+0x61b/0xe78
|  [do_sync_read+0xbf/0xfe
|  [autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2d
|  [do_page_fault+0x684/0xbd6
|  [audit_syscall_exit+0x2a1/0x2bd
|  [do_syscall_trace+0x62/0x165
|  [do_page_fault+0x0/0xbd6
|  [error_code+0x35/0x3c
|  ===
| VM: killing process BORGChat.exe

Cheers


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

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Johannes Wiedersich]

On 2008-09-18 19:19, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> while the EULA topic is already being discussed: 

Where is it already discussed? At least not on d-d, as far as I can
see/find...

Thanks,

Johannes

NB: Google finds only some ubuntu discussions for me...



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#499537: ITP: iw -- tool for configuring Linux wireless devices

[Kel Modderman]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kel Modderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: iw
  Upstream Author : Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Documentation/iw
* License : BSD-3
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : tool for configuring Linux wireless devices

 This package contains the `iw' tool which allows you to
 configure and show information about wireless networking.
 The tool is currently mainly used for drivers based on
 the mac80211 stack but work is under way to make it useful
 for other drivers as well.

This package will be maintained by the Debian/Ubuntu wpasupplicant Maintainers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at:
 svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-wpa/iw/trunk
 http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-wpa/iw/trunk/



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

Re: Bug#489132: Still relevant?

[Wolf Wiegand]

Hi,

Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > Is it still correct that dpkg needs to be upgraded first before doing a
> > dist-upgrade from Etch?  With perl-base 5.10.0-14 pre-depending on a
> > fixed version of dpkg, that should not be the case anymore, AFAICS.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> But we should still recommend an upgrade of apt/aptitude first.

I cannot tell whether this is a related issue, but I tested an upgrade a
couple of days ago. A clean upgrade was not possible without upgrading
apt beforehand. See #498800 for details.


Cheers,

Wolf
-- 
I hope that when I die, people say about me, 'Boy, that guy sure owed me
a lot of money.' (Jack Handey)


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

Danish developers *do* care about Debian being installable in their language

[Christian Perrier]

Thanks to Sune who relayed my noise in his blog,  Jesper Dahl Nyerup
and Henrik Christian Grove complete Debian Installer translations for
Danish very quickly and even reviewed the existing translations.

I think they deserve big kudos from Danish native speakers and D-I
developers.

Thanks as well to Frank Damgaard who also volunteered and even did
some early translation work.





signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, Sep 19 2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote:

> 2008/9/19 Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> The GPL version 2 permits it to display copyright notices and warranty
>>> disclaimers, without being allowed to patch them away.  This can be made
>>> more obnoxious than one-time click-through EULAs, I fear.
>>
>> That doesn't mean we should accept those in our distribution.  We can
>> make a policy decision that end-users should not have to deal with
>> those.
>
> It makes sense. The same way that we're not allowing GFDL packages
> with invariant sections, we might not want this feature/bug of GPL to
> be used for that either. I would support making such a decision.

Except that policy says nothing about actual licenses. It refers
 to the DFSG, and tells people to ask debian-legal (heh). The policy
 document is "technical" policy,  and leaves non-technical stuff like
 what is free or not to foundation documents (and debian-legal).

For example, it mentions nothing about gfdl and invariant bits.

manoj
-- 
You may my glories and my state dispose, But not my griefs; still am I
king of those.-- William Shakespeare, "Richard II"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Headsup: ncurses soname bump 5 to 6

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 18 septembre 2008 à 17:29 -0400, Thomas Dickey a écrit :
> agree - I don't know how to guarantee that five years from now there'd
> be no ABI change - the best I can do is maintain API compatibility.

You can maintain ABI compatibility by using opaque structures by using
constructor/getter/setter/destructor functions, from the very beginning.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  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

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Russ Allbery]

"Thijs Kinkhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, September 19, 2008 11:25, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:58:03AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>>> The GPL version 2 permits it to display copyright notices and warranty
>>> disclaimers, without being allowed to patch them away.  This can be
>>> made more obnoxious than one-time click-through EULAs, I fear.

>> That doesn't mean we should accept those in our distribution.  We can
>> make a policy decision that end-users should not have to deal with
>> those.

> In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start
> to make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our
> time fixing RC bugs meanwhile?

Uh, I can name several that use that aspect of the GPL just off the top of
my head.  (bc and Emacs, for example.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: EULA as well: xsane

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Friday 19 September 2008 20:31, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > In lenny we have none such packages that I know of. How about we start
> > to make policy when there's a real problem to be solved, and spend our
> > time fixing RC bugs meanwhile?
>
> Uh, I can name several that use that aspect of the GPL just off the top of
> my head.  (bc and Emacs, for example.)

Perhaps I interpreted the original posters different than you did, namely 
something that needs explicit action to acknowledge.


Thijs


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

Re: Headsup: ncurses soname bump 5 to 6

[Thomas Dickey]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:


Le jeudi 18 septembre 2008 ? 17:29 -0400, Thomas Dickey a ?crit :

agree - I don't know how to guarantee that five years from now there'd
be no ABI change - the best I can do is maintain API compatibility.


You can maintain ABI compatibility by using opaque structures by using
constructor/getter/setter/destructor functions, from the very beginning.


(a) the details under discussion don't fall into that category

(b) ncurses-current provides a feature for opaque WINDOW struct,
whose default could be made part of the Debian flags, but has the
potential for breaking existing code.

(c) the beginning of ncurses is well before the current thread...

--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

[RFC] How should rsyslog handle .0 logfiles from sysklogd

[Michael Biebl]

Hi,

as rsyslog will be our default syslogd for lenny, I'd like to fix bug
#491672 [1], I'm just undecided about which solution is best.

rsyslog, in contrast to sysklogd, uses logrotate to rotate the default
log files. Unfortunately sysklogd uses a custom log rotate mechanism,
which starts the log rotate cycle at .0
The default logrotate configuration starts the log rotate cyle at .1.

This leaves .0 files around when you switch from sysklogd to rsyslog [2]
which will never be rotated.

Afaics I have the following options.
1.) Do nothing and simply document this fact in README.Debian, telling
the admin that he can safely delete this files if he no longer needs them.

2.) Try to log rotate the .0 files for the default Debian log files in
postinst. I feel a bit uneasy about this approach, for several reasons:
- It adds fairly reasonable complexity to the maintainer scripts, if you
 want to consider all corner cases.
E.g. if you switch from syslog-ng to rsyslog, it is very likely that you
have old .0 files lying around (from a sysklogd->syslog-ng switch), so
syslog.1 would be older than syslog.2 which would be very confusing.

3.) Delete the .0 files in postinst. Is this covered by the policy?

4.) Use start 0 in /etc/logrotate.d/rsyslog, which would retain old
sysklogd behaviour. This would mean, that it would still be incompatible
with all other syslog alternatives [2] besides old sysklogd. That's why
I'd keep the logrotate standard configuration.


I'm leaning towards 1.) or 3.), although the latter would mean deleting
a log file and I'm not sure everyone would be happy about that (on the
other hand 2.) would simply mean I have to delete .6.gz/3.gz instead of .0)

Is there anything else to consider, did I miss another option?

I'd be very thankful for your comments and feedback.


Cheers,
Michael


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=491672
[2] Or to any other syslog alternative, like syslog-ng, dsyslog or
inetutils-syklogd, as they also use the standard logrotate configuration.
-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [RFC] How should rsyslog handle .0 logfiles from sysklogd

[Faidon Liambotis]

Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2.) Try to log rotate the .0 files for the default Debian log files in
> postinst. I feel a bit uneasy about this approach, for several reasons:
> - It adds fairly reasonable complexity to the maintainer scripts, if you
>  want to consider all corner cases.
> E.g. if you switch from syslog-ng to rsyslog, it is very likely that you
> have old .0 files lying around (from a sysklogd->syslog-ng switch), so
> syslog.1 would be older than syslog.2 which would be very confusing.
Well, you could rely on ctime for this, even though this would make
postinst even more complex; any other reasons?

> 3.) Delete the .0 files in postinst. Is this covered by the policy?
I think that deleting logfiles without warning is totally unacceptable.

Regards,
Faidon


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