TIGER data

[Bruce Perens]

I have the TIGER data ready to mail to Dale. This is the U.S. street map
data which I am distributing under the GPL. It fit on 5 CDs rather than 6
after re-compression with bzip2.

Thanks

Bruce
--
The $70 Billion US "budget surplus" hardly offsets our $5 Trillion national
debt. The debt increased by $133 Billion in the same year we found a
"surplus".
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-620-3502 NCI-1001

Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 07:56:23PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> 
> 1) Ban suggestions from main to non-free or contrib
> 2) Implement enhances for the last set of examples
> 3) Ditch the rest (well, the rest above).
> 
> Lots of people aren't going to agree with me on this one...

Well, FWIW, actually I do. I have not seen one example which is actually
very useful and can't be done by Enhance.

Suggesting a package just ebcause two packages work together seems not to
make much sense to me. The relation between those packages should be close
to warrant a suggest. A good example is a library package and it's
documetation package. Even if the docs are non-free, this can be donme with
Enhance quite well.

If the relation is so loose that an Enhance sounds inappropriate, the
Suggest is probably already wrong.

Either 1,2,3 or 2,1,3 as Raul suggested is fine for me. 

Marcus

-- 
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann   http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/   PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

Re: what about Pine's license?

[Dale Scheetz]

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Bruce Sass wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > [1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt
> > 
> >  Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by
> >  mutual agreement:
> > 
> >(a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
> 
> This sounds like Debian and the ftp servers.
> 
> >(b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
> 
> Pine doesn't want a company making money from Pine/Pico/Pilot...
> 
> >(c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
> >non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
> >packaged distribution.
> 
> ... but it is ok to charge for a distribution if you are producing CD's.
> 
> > The above also makes it non-free.
> 
> ? If Pine is non-free, then it is non-free.
> 
> Why does non-free == no modified binaries?
> 
Because modifiability, specificly the right to distribute modified
binaries, is a DFSG requirement.

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Re: slink_cd v 1.02

[Tom Lees]

On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 11:56:09AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> One thing you _will_ need to do to use the symlink-farm is use a patched
> mkhybrid that flattens things as it makes the ISO images. I've separated
> this patch out of a larger one by Tom Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and the
> images I'm writing _right now_ are using this stuff. Grab the source and
> patch or the i386 binary from the above location.

The rest of this patch is the bootable stuff, right? Could you send me
the patch you made, so I can distribute the two features separately.
Thanks.

Anyway, I now have the ability to test my CD-images back, so I should be
able to get the bootable stuff sorted fairly soon.

-- 
Tom Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/
PGP Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/pgpkeys.asc.


pgpuktIu6u2Xz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian booth at LinuxTag '99?

[Gregor Hoffleit]

Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>   Because we, the organizers of LinuxTag '99, would like to invite the
>   Debian project to set up a booth at this year's event. Several major
>   Linux distributions will be there: SuSE, DLD, representatives for Red
>   Hat, etc. Last year quite a few visitors expressed their disap-
>   pointment about Debian's absence.

If time permits, I'd like to attend and help with a Debian booth. 
Kaiserslautern is just a stone throw away, still I didn't manage to 
attend last year.

Are there any other volunteers that would like to help setting up a booth 
there ? 

Gregor


---
|Gregor Hoffleit   Mathematisches Institut, Uni HD|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   INF 288, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany |
|   (NeXTmail, MIME)   (49)6221 54-5771fax  54-8312   |

looking for new italian translation coordinator

[James A. Treacy]

The current italian translation coordinator no longer has the time.
We are therefore looking for someone to replace him. Being fluent
in Italian would be an asset. :)

If you are interested, contact me.

To keep a translation project alive requires multiple people or
the interest fails. If you are willing to be a translator, you
should also send in your name.

Jay Treacy

Re: what about Pine's license?

[John Hasler]

>From the pine license:
>(c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
>non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
>packaged distribution.

Bruce writes:
> ... but it is ok to charge for a distribution if you are producing CD's.

Unless those CD's contain something which is neither free-of-charge,
shareware, nor non-proprietary software.

> Why does non-free == no modified binaries?

It doesn't.  There are many other reasons why a pacakge may be non-free.
-- 
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.

Debian booth at LinuxTag '99?

[Christian Weisgerber]

What's this LinuxTag thing?

  The largest German Linux user show. In fact, it is probably the
  largest Linux event in Europe. (If there is a larger one, we haven't
  heard of it.) Last year there were an estimated 1500 visitors.
  http://www.linuxtag.org/>.

When and where?

  June 26/27, 1999. University of Kaiserslautern, Germany.

Why is this idiot spamming the debian-devel list?

  Because we, the organizers of LinuxTag '99, would like to invite the
  Debian project to set up a booth at this year's event. Several major
  Linux distributions will be there: SuSE, DLD, representatives for Red
  Hat, etc. Last year quite a few visitors expressed their disap-
  pointment about Debian's absence.

What will it cost?

  LinuxTag is a non-profit event. There will be no charge for non-profit
  exhibitors such as Debian or KDE. Yes, the KDE crew will appear in
  strength and have a booth just like last year. You will have to pay
  your travel and hotel expenses yourselves, though.

Who'll be there?

  LinuxTag is geared towards users. Students. Private folk. Small
  companies. People who actually want to get work done with a computer,
  many of whom have never seen a Linux box before. It's not a
  developer's event. Nevertheless, if last year's turnout is any
  indication, most well-known names of the German Linux scene will show
  up. I already mentioned KDE and the various commercial distributions.
  The Trolls will come down all the way from Norway. We would dearly
  love to have official Debian participation. Please drop me a note.

Can I give a talk/submit a paper?

  Alas, all talks and accompanying papers will have to be in German.
  Actually, something on Debian (how to become a Debian developer, how
  to build a Debian package) would be very welcome. If you are
  interested and managed to miss our earlier CfPs, contact me ASAP.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  See another pointless homepage at http://home.pages.de/~naddy/>.

Re: Logo license update?

[James A. Treacy]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:27:50PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The Debian logo license is expired.  Is there a plan to update it or
> > automatically roll it over again?
> 
> Now that we have the constitution we can just vote on the license so we
> don't have to extend it every couple of months.
> 
Please do. Submit a proposal with the current license. Others can submit
their alternatives and within a month we should have this resolved.

We should probably do the same thing with the logo itself.

Jay Treacy

Re: Intent to package: daemontools (and cdb)

[Edward Betts]

On Mon, 18 Jan, 1999, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 09:34:43PM +1300, Carey Evans wrote:
> > According to the README in the CDB archive, the CDB C source is public
> > domain, so if you strip out the docs, etc. you could put it in main.
> 
>   Yes. But as that doesn't cover even the manpages,
>   or pedantically even the Makefile, I don't think
>   that's useful.

Well if it is only source code that is ok, the DFSG does not cover documentry
only source code, I don't know if that includes Makefiles, I guess it does. So
all you need to rewrite are the Makefiles, and then it could go into main. 

>   It's more of a "if you want to use this in your
>   own programs, go right ahead".

Could you contact the author and ask them to change the licence?

-- 
GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
-- The GNU Manifesto

Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation

[Raul Miller]

Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, MHO is:
> 
> 1) Ban suggestions from main to non-free or contrib
> 2) Implement enhances for the last set of examples
> 3) Ditch the rest (well, the rest above).
> 
> Lots of people aren't going to agree with me on this one...

Personally, I'd say implement Enhances: before banning such Suggests:

[And, I think that slink should go out "as-is" and hope that Enhances:
is ready for potato.]  

[But I do hope that for slink we at least will allow people to have an
"official debian cdrom set" which just contains main and not contrib --
in hamm you had to get contrib to get all the sources for main, or your
cdrom set couldn't be considered "official".]

I've a few more thoughts (on the level of collaberation which should
be present between maintainers for Suggests: Recommands: Enhances:
or Depends:), but I guess I should wait for attention on underlying
problems before running on about such things.

-- 
Raul

Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation

[Jules Bean]

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:

[Thanks to anthony for a concrete list]

> 
> Some of the other packages in this situation:
> 
>   rsync suggests ssh
> 
>   inn suggests pgp
>   kbackup suggests pgp
>   kbackup-doc suggests pgp (the documentation for KBackup)
>   tm suggests pgp (tm is a MIME package for Emacs)
>   elm-me+ suggests pgp
> 
> ...ie, things which don't have a free alternative just yet, but will RSN.

I wouldn't mind losing all of these.  Documentation is welcome to mention
that the software can use pgp.

>   mutt depends on gnupg or pgp or pgp5i
>   fvwm2-plus suggests xv or xloadimage
> 
> ...ie, things which /do/ have a satisfactory free alternative, and note it.
> (What will happen here, btw? Does it stay as an or, or does the non-free
> alternative get move to an Enhances? Even though it doesn't enhance mutt if
> you installed gnupg?)

I personally would just as soon see the non-free ones ditched here too.

> 
>   mikmod suggests unzip, lha and zoo
>   (ie, "If you like, I can deal with compressed stuff!")
> ...ie, a reasonably valid use, that would be annoying to move!! Woo! :)

I don't see any great value in this suggestion.  It can be documented.

> 
>   dpkg suggests developer-keyring (which is in contrib)
>   dpkg-dev suggests developer-keyring
>   these could probably be done the other way around
>   transfig suggests netpbm-nonfree
>   this could probably be done via netpbm-nonfree enhances netpbm
> 
> ...ie, ones that work just as well the other way around anyway.


Indeed.  I'd like to see Enhances: used for these.

So, MHO is:

1) Ban suggestions from main to non-free or contrib
2) Implement enhances for the last set of examples
3) Ditch the rest (well, the rest above).

Lots of people aren't going to agree with me on this one...

My 2c

Jules

/+---+-\
|  Jelibean aka  | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  6 Evelyn Rd|
|  Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  TW9 2TF *UK*   |
++---+-+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.  |
\--/

Re: what about Pine's license?

[Bruce Sass]

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:

> 
> > [1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt
> 
>  Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by
>  mutual agreement:
> 
>(a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;

This sounds like Debian and the ftp servers.

>(b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;

Pine doesn't want a company making money from Pine/Pico/Pilot...

>(c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
>non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
>packaged distribution.

... but it is ok to charge for a distribution if you are producing CD's.

> The above also makes it non-free.

? If Pine is non-free, then it is non-free.

Why does non-free == no modified binaries?


later,

Bruce

Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 12:27:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So our goals are:
> > 
> > * make a working, completely free system. ie, main.
> You're saying that the Suggests: links are not an official part
> of Debian?

I'm saying that the Suggests: links don't force you to have a non-free
system, nor do they make the system not work. They're an annoyance in
some cases, that's all.

Not that that's not something worth fixing -- it is. I use Debian
because it *doesn't* annoy me usually. But arguing that we're breaking
our social contract just because something's more annoying than it ought
to be seems to be going to far to me.

> > * add some support infrastructure for non-free software, to make
> >   it easy to use non-free software if our users want to.
> > We've done this.
> The current infrastructure requires that main contains links to stuff
> that's not in main.  A better (more in line with our social contract)
> infrastructure would allow those links to reside outside of main.  The
> technical side of this is being addressed by Ian Jackson.
> 
> The only problem is that some people are suggesting that the current
> solution is politically better.
> 
> ?

Really?

If so, I don't think I'm one of them, so I won't claim to know what `they'
want.

What /I/ want is to be able to continue seeing what non-free software
makes my computer work better. I'd also like this to be as easy to
maintain as it is now, if not more so.

> > Removing suggestions completely seems to go against that.
> That's a straw man.  We're talking about replacing some Suggests:
> with Enhances:

And this is probably why we're talking at cross-purposes. I thought,
in the message I replied to, that you were advocating removing the
suggestions rather than replacing them. My apologies.

> > Personally, I don't think moving solely to enhances: is the way to
> > go either -- it makes it too difficult for people to say `unzip is
> > helpful for making boot-floppies', and so on. Technical decisions are
> > meant to make life easier.
> Eh?  The only place where boot-floppies seems to use "unzip" is in
> /usr/src/boot-floppies/Makefile -- here it seems that, after the user
> is supposed to download some stuff from our ftp site, the makefile uses
> "unzip" to extract some things from a zip archive.
> 
> The real question is: why isn't that stuff also available in some
> alternative format?  Why have we chosen to distribute information only
> in a format that's not usable by people who only use DFSG Debian?

Some of the other packages in this situation:

rsync suggests ssh

inn suggests pgp
kbackup suggests pgp
kbackup-doc suggests pgp (the documentation for KBackup)
tm suggests pgp (tm is a MIME package for Emacs)
elm-me+ suggests pgp

...ie, things which don't have a free alternative just yet, but will RSN.

mutt depends on gnupg or pgp or pgp5i
fvwm2-plus suggests xv or xloadimage

...ie, things which /do/ have a satisfactory free alternative, and note it.
(What will happen here, btw? Does it stay as an or, or does the non-free
alternative get move to an Enhances? Even though it doesn't enhance mutt if
you installed gnupg?)

mikmod suggests unzip, lha and zoo
(ie, "If you like, I can deal with compressed stuff!")

...ie, a reasonably valid use, that would be annoying to move!! Woo! :)

dpkg suggests developer-keyring (which is in contrib)
dpkg-dev suggests developer-keyring
these could probably be done the other way around
transfig suggests netpbm-nonfree
this could probably be done via netpbm-nonfree enhances netpbm

...ie, ones that work just as well the other way around anyway.

The above is only a list of ones I noticed as being non-free suggestions,
but if it's at all indicative, it's certainly interesting. And while I
reserve the right to think you're all insane and enhances is clearly and
obviously the Wrong Thing, I can't see any reason why it would /actually/
be any worse than any other way of doing it.

Which I guess is my cue to say...

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''


pgpsCXBUu3Zqj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: non-free --> non-dfsg

[David Welton]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:13:09PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously David Welton wrote:
> > Well, even if RMS doesn't care for it, you can pull out the Open
> > Source definition, which is definitive and specific, and generally
> > used as the benchmark for what 'free' is.
> 
> You do know the OS definition is the same as the current DFSG, right?

Maybe I haven't been that vocal or active, but I have been around
since hrmm.. sometime mid '97 :-> So, of course I realize this, but
sometimes, saying Open Source is just more convenient - they just
can't argue with you (this thread ... :-) because their code is not
Open Source, period.  Given the value I place on my time, I dislike
wasting it arguing about what 'free' really is, whether it is right
that we appropriate it, etc.. (of course, I think Debian should
continue to use 'free' exactly as we have done.)

Ciao,
-- 
David Welton  http://www.efn.org/~davidw 

Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org

Re: libpng & gnome & slink

[Stephen Crowley]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 09:14:14AM -0500, Brian Almeida wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:03:26PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > and how the unfortunate of us who already have upgraded to 1.0.2 can 
> > downgrade,
> > i see the 1.0.1 package nowhere ...
>  !find libpng2 hamm
>  bma: um, dists/hamm/hamm/binary-i386/libs/libpng2_1.0.0-0.1.deb
> 
> > what about latest gnome packages ? (0.99.3), is nobody packaging them ?
> Stephen Crowley (aka Crow-) is.  
> 

Well, I was going to...but then jpick said just to wait til he's ready with
them. Who knows when that will be? For now you can get them from
http://master.debian.org/~crow/gnome but they aren't official so don't bug
me if they don't work ;) (sorry, i already erased the .diff.gz's)

-- 
Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key.  PGP#22714B25  *-



pgpUflkE57xF0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unmet Deps revisted

[Martin Schulze]

Santiago Vila wrote:
> > package foo needs to be priority extra since foo and bar conflict and are 
> > both optional.
> 
> Fine, but why should this be more quickly fixed than the same text sent to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] against ftp.debian.org?

Both should be fine, the bug report should be even better.  I got
the impression that you only wanted to file a meta bug report 'a la
"there are tons of unmet dependencies, packages with same prio conflict,
fix it".

> (Bug #29874 contains several like that, it is not a "generic" bug).

good.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
- Linus Torvalds

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Re: Unmet Deps revisted

[Santiago Vila]

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:

> > What do you mean with send "proper" mails...? Do you mean that the text of
> > Bug #29874 is improper in some way? I hope not.
> 
> With "proper" I thought about mails to overrides-change like
> 
> package foo needs to be priority extra since foo and bar conflict and are 
> both optional.
> 
> and similar.

Fine, but why should this be more quickly fixed than the same text sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] against ftp.debian.org?

(Bug #29874 contains several like that, it is not a "generic" bug).

-- 
 "1687ac44e456848335cb33994614b4f5" (a truly random sig)

RE: Logo license update?

[Darren Benham]

That was the next issue I wanted to tackle after the proposed DFSG update.

On 18-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Debian logo license is expired.  Is there a plan to update it or
> automatically roll it over again?
> 

-- 
=
* http://benham.net/index.html <><  *
*  * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---*
*Darren Benham * Version: 3.1   *
*  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++> P+++$ L++>*
*   KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS--   *
*   Debian Developer   * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++   *
*  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+*
*  * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---*
=


pgp1f2bTTvE9I.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unmet Deps revisted

[Martin Schulze]

Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > > > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution 
> > > > > > > screens. 
> > > > > > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report 
> > > > > > > them *all*,
> > > > > > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *serious*
> > > > > > > dependency/conflict check *before* the deep freeze?
> > 
> > > > Can you raise its severity and/or make an NMU?  I feel that such bugs
> > > > are old enough to justify an NMU.
> > > 
> > > Sure. Please tell me how do I do a NMU of ftp.debian.org ;-)
> > 
> > As far as I recall the list of bugs it is not (only) a matter of 
> > ftp.debian.org
> > but of the package maintainer.  (And the ftpmasters.)  Re ftp.debian.org,
> > please send proper mails to override-change(s)@debian.org with clear
> > requests.  Re packages, file bugs, do nmu's etc.
> 
> Joey, I don't understand what are you exactly trying to tell me.
> 
> I already filed some bugs, which have not been fixed yet, for which *no*
> fix other than modifying the override file is possible.
> 
> What do you mean with send "proper" mails...? Do you mean that the text of
> Bug #29874 is improper in some way? I hope not.

With "proper" I thought about mails to overrides-change like

package foo needs to be priority extra since foo and bar conflict and are both 
optional.

and similar.  If you just file a meta bug report it won't be done,
I'm sure.

I haven't read the bug report mentioned above so you might have done
it already.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
- Linus Torvalds

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation

[Raul Miller]

Anthony Towns  wrote:
> Bleh. Can we /please/ move this to -devel? 

Done.

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 12:00:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Also, in our social contract we say that packages in contrib are
> > not a part of Debian, but then we go ahead and create official links
> > in official packages which indicate that some contrib packages are
> > a part of Debian.
> > 
> > We should either get rid of Suggests: links from main to contrib, or
> > we should spell out that Suggests: links aren't really a part of Debian
> > (or some other sort of change to the social contract).

Anthony Towns  wrote:
> The relevant portions of our social contract are:
>   1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>   4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> and   5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards

Yes.

> So our goals are:
> 
>   * make a working, completely free system. ie, main.

You're saying that the Suggests: links are not an official part
of Debian?

>   * add some support infrastructure for non-free software, to make
> it easy to use non-free software if our users want to.
> 
> We've done this.

The current infrastructure requires that main contains links to stuff
that's not in main.  A better (more in line with our social contract)
infrastructure would allow those links to reside outside of main.  The
technical side of this is being addressed by Ian Jackson.

The only problem is that some people are suggesting that the current
solution is politically better.

?

> The only problem is that our completely free system can annoy some
> of our users who specifically never ever want to hear about non-free
> software ever again.

No, the problem is that when a user is selecting packages in our
completely free system it presents packages which are not a part
of Debian.  This is a technical flaw: we've already decided that the
system is supposed to be completely free, but the user interface isn't
informed of this decision.

> It seems to me, that what we want to do is give our users some way of
> Saying "I only want to be told about free software". We already come
> close to this, since we can remove non-free (and contrib) from our apt
> (or dpkg-foo) sources list.

Agreed.

> But one of the key points in our social contract is that while we're
> free-software fanatics, we're not free-software bigots, and while we
> don't want to encourage it, we *will* help our users get their jobs
> done, even if they have to use non-free software to do it. 

Agreed.

> Removing suggestions completely seems to go against that.

That's a straw man.  We're talking about replacing some Suggests:
with Enhances:

> Personally, I don't think moving solely to enhances: is the way to
> go either -- it makes it too difficult for people to say `unzip is
> helpful for making boot-floppies', and so on. Technical decisions are
> meant to make life easier.

Eh?  The only place where boot-floppies seems to use "unzip" is in
/usr/src/boot-floppies/Makefile -- here it seems that, after the user
is supposed to download some stuff from our ftp site, the makefile uses
"unzip" to extract some things from a zip archive.

The real question is: why isn't that stuff also available in some
alternative format?  Why have we chosen to distribute information only
in a format that's not usable by people who only use DFSG Debian?

-- 
Raul

Re: Unmet Deps revisted

[Santiago Vila]

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:

> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution 
> > > > > > screens. 
> > > > > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them 
> > > > > > *all*,
> > > > > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *serious*
> > > > > > dependency/conflict check *before* the deep freeze?
> 
> > > Can you raise its severity and/or make an NMU?  I feel that such bugs
> > > are old enough to justify an NMU.
> > 
> > Sure. Please tell me how do I do a NMU of ftp.debian.org ;-)
> 
> As far as I recall the list of bugs it is not (only) a matter of 
> ftp.debian.org
> but of the package maintainer.  (And the ftpmasters.)  Re ftp.debian.org,
> please send proper mails to override-change(s)@debian.org with clear
> requests.  Re packages, file bugs, do nmu's etc.

Joey, I don't understand what are you exactly trying to tell me.

I already filed some bugs, which have not been fixed yet, for which *no*
fix other than modifying the override file is possible.

What do you mean with send "proper" mails...? Do you mean that the text of
Bug #29874 is improper in some way? I hope not.

-- 
 "a1dba0cd786fd278597c02e87b59d24d" (a truly random sig)

Re: what about Pine's license?

[Peter S Galbraith]

> [1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt

 Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by
 mutual agreement:

   (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
   (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
   (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
   non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
   packaged distribution.
   

The above also makes it non-free.
-- 
Peter Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader

[Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho]

On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 08:57:07PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> The "de-facto standard Internet tab size" has always been 8 characters.

Always?  The 1982 standard for ARPANET¹ email (RFC 822) explicitly
states in Section 3.4.2 that there is no nework-wide standard tab size
and so the use of HTAB is discouraged.



Antti-Juhani

¹ ... known as Internet to us newbies ...
-- 
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%

EMACS, n.:   Emacs May Allow Customised Screwups
   (unknown origin)

Re: Intent to package: jikes

[J.H.M. Dassen]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 16:14:59 +0100, Ralf-Philipp Weinmann wrote:
> There's one package in particular that I'd like to see in future debian
> releases, namely jikes (a rather fast Java compiler by IBM which is
> written in C++

An intent to package Jikes by Mike Goldman was announce in December; see
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426659612

> and distributed by IBM in source form under an Open Source license
> agreement.

There are still problems with the Jikes license. See
http://www.nl.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-9812/threads.html

Ray
-- 
PATRIOTISM  A great British writer once said that if he had to choose 
between betraying his country and betraying a friend he hoped he would
have the decency to betray his country.  
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan 

Re: Debian appears to be ancient

[Ben Pfaff]

Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

   It appears Debian is older then we though :). Look at the contents of
   /usr/doc/debian/base:

   -rw-r--r--   1 root root 1197 Jan  1  1970 debian.README

No such file appears in my copy of Content-i386 from 28 Dec 1998.
Where are you getting it from?

Re: Logo license update?

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Debian logo license is expired.  Is there a plan to update it or
> automatically roll it over again?

Now that we have the constitution we can just vote on the license so we
don't have to extend it every couple of months.

Wichert.

-- 
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/


pgpHfUIVsFko7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: non-free --> non-dfsg

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously David Welton wrote:
> Well, even if RMS doesn't care for it, you can pull out the Open
> Source definition, which is definitive and specific, and generally
> used as the benchmark for what 'free' is.

You do know the OS definition is the same as the current DFSG, right?

Wichert.

-- 
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/


pgp0jB4HkvzDs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Debian appears to be ancient

[Wichert Akkerman]

It appears Debian is older then we though :). Look at the contents of
/usr/doc/debian/base:

-rw-r--r--   1 root root 1197 Jan  1  1970 debian.README

Wichert

-- 
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/


pgpvF0Eixrxjp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Intent to package: jikes

[Ralf-Philipp Weinmann]

Hello,
I've been watching the debian-.* mailing lists for a couple of weeks
now and would like to contribute something to the debian effort.
I have already debianized some packages for my own use when .deb's weren't
available and would like to give them back to the community.
There's one package in particular that I'd like to see in future debian
releases, namely jikes (a rather fast Java compiler by IBM which is
written in C++ and distributed by IBM in source form under an Open Source
license agreement. hint: rather fast means that it blasts your jdk javac
away :)).
What's the correct approach for getting this thing out of my door into the
debian archives (i.e. what issues need to be cleared beforehand ?)

-rpw

[PGP key available upon request] 

Re: Logo license update?

[Brandon Mitchell]

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> The Debian logo license is expired.  Is there a plan to update it or
> automatically roll it over again?

Why not change it to a constantly rolling over license.  The way I
understand it, we have this license to prevent bad things from being done
with the logo, and want to be able to add appropriate restrictions.  So we
say the licence you read is valid for 30 days from when you read it.  I.e.
if we change it, you have 30 days to comply.  If you plan on having a lot
of inventory with our logo, just check the license online and know that
you have at least 30 days to sell your inventory.

Just a thought from an uninformed user,
Brandon

+---  ---+
| Brandon Mitchell * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://bhmit1.home.ml.org/ |
| The above is a completely random sequence of bits, any relation to |
|   an actual message is purely accidental.  |

Re: Unmet Deps revisted

[Martin Schulze]

Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution 
> > > > > screens. 
> > > > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them 
> > > > > *all*,
> > > > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *serious*
> > > > > dependency/conflict check *before* the deep freeze?

> > Can you raise its severity and/or make an NMU?  I feel that such bugs
> > are old enough to justify an NMU.
> 
> Sure. Please tell me how do I do a NMU of ftp.debian.org ;-)

As far as I recall the list of bugs it is not (only) a matter of ftp.debian.org
but of the package maintainer.  (And the ftpmasters.)  Re ftp.debian.org,
please send proper mails to override-change(s)@debian.org with clear
requests.  Re packages, file bugs, do nmu's etc.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
- Linus Torvalds

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Re: Unmet Deps revisted

[Santiago Vila]

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:

> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution 
> > > > screens. 
> > > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them 
> > > > *all*,
> > > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *serious*
> > > > dependency/conflict check *before* the deep freeze?
> > > 
> > > If you want to get it fixed then you have to propose a solution or it 
> > > won't
> > > happen.  I thought you already noticed this.
> > > 
> > > So yes, please report them *all* or provide a script that checks for
> > > this. [...]
> > 
> > What for? I already reported a few of them in Bug #29874 and they have not
> > been fixed yet. This was nearly two months ago.
> 
> Can you raise its severity and/or make an NMU?  I feel that such bugs
> are old enough to justify an NMU.

Sure. Please tell me how do I do a NMU of ftp.debian.org ;-)

-- 
 "557ce567d052e8227521925bf9419cc8" (a truly random sig)

Bug#32068: multicd can't reinstall removed package

[Martin Schulze]

- Forwarded message from Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

Package: dpkg-multicd
Version: 0.11
Severity: important

I'm awfully sorry but apparently I have to file an important bug report
against this pkackage (or dpkg?).  It should be fixed before we release
slink.

First the symptoms:

  . You install package foo
  . You mark package foo for removal
  . You run dpkg --pending --remove
  . You mark package foo for installation
  . You try to install it
  . dselect/multicd/dpkg won't install it
  . You're lost until you re-run [U]pdate

Now the technical part:

If you install a package (using dpkg -i foo.deb or dselect) dpkg modifies
the record in the available file and replaces it with the proper record
from the status file (guessed or experienced by Ruud).  As a result of
this the available file lacks the fields Filename: MD5sum: and X-Medium:
which makes it impossible to install this package again since the
methods don't have a chance to find out where the package is located.

This doesn't happen with some other methods since they don't depend on
the filename being recorded in the available file.

Solution:

multicd has to copy the Packages files into $methdir/multicd/ and access
them directly instead of the available file.

Since this needs a redesign of the installation method and I'm somewhat
short with time I'd appreciate somebody sending me a proper patch.

Regards,

Joey

- End forwarded message -

-- 
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
- Linus Torvalds

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Re: Unmet Deps revisted

[Martin Schulze]

Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution screens. 
> > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them *all*,
> > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *serious*
> > > dependency/conflict check *before* the deep freeze?
> > 
> > If you want to get it fixed then you have to propose a solution or it won't
> > happen.  I thought you already noticed this.
> > 
> > So yes, please report them *all* or provide a script that checks for
> > this. [...]
> 
> What for? I already reported a few of them in Bug #29874 and they have not
> been fixed yet. This was nearly two months ago.

Can you raise its severity and/or make an NMU?  I feel that such bugs
are old enough to justify an NMU.

> You see, this is very encouraging to report a complete list...

I know.  I wish I could spend more time on Debian these days and fix
a lot of bugs, but unfortunately at the moment I can't.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
- Linus Torvalds

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Re: libpng & gnome & slink

[Brian Almeida]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:03:26PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> and how the unfortunate of us who already have upgraded to 1.0.2 can 
> downgrade,
> i see the 1.0.1 package nowhere ...
 !find libpng2 hamm
 bma: um, dists/hamm/hamm/binary-i386/libs/libpng2_1.0.0-0.1.deb

> what about latest gnome packages ? (0.99.3), is nobody packaging them ?
Stephen Crowley (aka Crow-) is.  

Not that this matters anymore. libpng2-1.0.2b fixed the black lines problem.
Just upgrade to the latest version in slink.

Re: non-free --> non-dfsg

[Brian Mays]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) wrote:

> Hm, non-debian does have its good points.

It has some potential problems, too.  It could imply that the packages
found there are not built by Debian volunteers, or that they do not
adhere to Debian's policy standards, or that they are not supported by
Debian's bug tracking system, all of which are false.

Finally, I find non-debian-free to be redundant.  This is a subdirectory
of the Debian's site.  Therefore, non-free immediately implies
non-debian-free.

Brian

Re: Unmet Deps revisted

[Santiago Vila]

On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:

> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > [...]
> > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution screens. 
> > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them *all*,
> > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *serious*
> > dependency/conflict check *before* the deep freeze?
> 
> If you want to get it fixed then you have to propose a solution or it won't
> happen.  I thought you already noticed this.
> 
> So yes, please report them *all* or provide a script that checks for
> this. [...]

What for? I already reported a few of them in Bug #29874 and they have not
been fixed yet. This was nearly two months ago.

You see, this is very encouraging to report a complete list...

-- 
 "136cf01b629039a4b0c6573ca77fbad2" (a truly random sig)

Re: libpng & gnome & slink

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 05:08:36PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Brian Almeida wrote:
> 
> > Because the Imlib maintainer (me) has a permanent hold on those packages
> > in dselect >:)
> Me too!!
>  
> > Yes. I second this.  RedHat and others have already moved back. Let's not
> > break all imlib and gnome apps :p
> Don't let all users set hold on the older versions and downgrade to
> a working version!

and how the unfortunate of us who already have upgraded to 1.0.2 can downgrade,
i see the 1.0.1 package nowhere ...

what about latest gnome packages ? (0.99.3), is nobody packaging them ?

same about X. i made a latest version of the X packages for personal usage
(3.3.3.1), but i cannot upload it still (still some problems ..., and also i am
not sure 3.3.3.1 got released already)

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: XFree86 hamm -> slink upgrade 'dummy' package

[Santiago Vila]

On 15 Jan 1999, Ben Gertzfield wrote:

> > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Ben> Simply use the 'xbase' package name as the dummy package,
> Ben> renaming what is currently 'xbase' in slink to xfree86-base.
> Ben> 
> Ben> Then, the xbase package will be an Optional package that will
> Ben> not have anything but a copyright in it which will Depend on
> Ben> all the packages xbase has been split up into.
> 
> Santiago> I have just noticed that this will only solve part of
> Santiago> the problem.
> 
> Santiago> In addition to this, additional (also empty and dummy)
> Santiago> packages should be created with the old names (xfntbase,
> Santiago> xfnt75, etc.) which depend on the new ones.
> 
> I believe this is not true.
> 
> If the new dummy xbase Depends: upon the renamed xfnt packages (which
> Provide:, Conflict:, and Replace: the old ones) then the old xfnt75 et
> cetera packages will be removed and replaced with the new ones.

Fine, but the new dummy xbase should not Depend on the renamed xfnt ones.
The upgrade should be done package-wise. If you had three of the old xfnt
packages installed, you should end up having three of the new fnt packages
installed, not all of them.

The only way I can think for this to happen is to have a dummy package for
each of the fnt packages.

If you know some other solution, please let me know.

Thanks.

-- 
 "d7a09dff8edeb7aa9761f9c4aa6db3d4" (a truly random sig)

Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jan 17, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
 >I would go for mutt, because it means people are actually using it and
 >finding the bugs.  (AND the bugs are going to be fixed, 12+3=15 resolved
 >bugs in the last 28 days).
And many of those bugs are feature requests.
After adopting mutt in september I inherited about 60 old bugs from the
previous maintainer and since then I've been able to close more than 40
of them with the help of the author (who uses debian).

Many of those bugs can't be reproduced and I don't know if the have been
fixed.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Re: Intent to package wmx

[Mark Ng]

> Mark Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > wmx is another window manager for X.  It is based on wm2 and provides
> > a similarly unusual style of window decoration; but in place of wm2's
> > minimal functionality, it offers many of the features of more
> > conventional managers in the most simplistic implementations
> > imaginable.  wmx is, however, still barely configurable except by
> > editing the source and recompiling the code.
> > 
> > 
> > the license is DSFG compliant.
> 
> I posted an intent to package wmx (wmx-4 to be more precise) on 25 Dec 1998

The latest version is wmx-5.


> 
> (For one reason or the other, it hasn't made it to the wnpp yet)


Looks like the wnpp team is really busy...


> I have the package ready, but without debian menus implemented, which is
> why I haven't uploaded it yet. If you want to take over it, I can provide
> you what I've done to it so far.
> 

Since, you have already done quite a bit of work on it, I think I will let you
continue with it.  Thanks for the offer anyway.



mark

Logo license update?

[servis]

The Debian logo license is expired.  Is there a plan to update it or
automatically roll it over again?

Just curious,
-- 
Brian Servis
-
"Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes,  
 because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes." 
   - unknown  

Mechanical Engineering[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Purdue University   http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis
-

Re: intent to package slashem

[Peter Makholm]

David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> But it is MUCH buggier.

Code under active development is always more buggier :)

> >A .tgz of the source with the real filenames:
> >ftp://chiark.greenend.org.uk/users/damerell/slashem/slamlinux042.tar.gz

> That is 2 versions out of date, and unlikely to be aggressively kept up to
> date, although I anticipate getting a 4E4 out, and tracking the releases
> which are primarily Kevin fixing bugs rather than Warren generating them.

I've got version 0.0.4E3 to compile pretty well. Tried to apply the
cursed patch[0] for version 4E4 but it didn't work out very well.

Using Warrens sources as *.orig is out of the question. Is it
acceptable if the *.orig only contains the files needed to compile
under an unix enviroment?

0) Mostly filename problems.

-- 
Peter er den mindst gamle af de gammeldags usenettere, og moderator på
den eneste modererede gruppe i dk.*, so there.
- citat RockBear

Re: what about Pine's license?

[Joseph Carter]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:05:54AM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > Go on, please.
> > 
> > It's non-free - you can't distribute modified binaries.
> 
> That is where Debian placed the Pine source - who says so?
> 
> > 'nuff said
> 
> No.

Yes.  Permission not given in a license is DENIED.  When UW was asked
about this, they indicated that binaries should either be built from
pristine source or patches must be accepted by them or they don't want
you distributing binaries and they would not change this practice.

Requiring such evil things as gaining permission to distribute a modified
binary makes the software non-free.  In fact, Debian can't even offer a
non-free package.  It must offer only source, as is required with qmail. 
Trust me, pine is in non-free for a reason.  If you don't like that
reason I suggest you take it up with UW since they're the only one who
can even begin to change anything.  =<

-- 
"I'm working in the dark here."  "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the dark."
   -- Earth: Final Conflict

autoconf/aclocal.m4/gtk-config issues - RF information

[Jules Bean]

Hi all,

I've seen the edges of a few flamewars associated with autoconf/configure
style scripts, and I'm wondering if anyone can point me to (or provide me
with) arguments covering the following points:

Given a 3rd-party library A, which includes header files, and a 3rd-party
program B, which uses headers from A, what is the canonical way for B to
discover the location of A?


Some programs seem to use macro files which they install in
/usr/share/aclocal.  Some programs supply 'config' programs
({gtk,gimp,imlib}-config) which report header and link flags.  Some
programs rely on a standard location (either /usr[/local]/include or
/usr[/local]/include/).

And I think I've seen people being disparaging of each of these methods..

Many debian programs provide /usr/share/aclocal files... but I've seen
people be fairly rude about the autoconf/automake/aclocal package too...

Any pointers to appropriate FMs appreciated..

Jules

/+---+-\
|  Jelibean aka  | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  6 Evelyn Rd|
|  Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  TW9 2TF *UK*   |
++---+-+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.  |
\--/

Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader

[Alexander N. Benner]

hi

Ship's Log, Lt. Bruce Sass, Stardate 170199.0055:
> number of bugs in ...elm-me+   pinemutt
>  ---   
[...]
>  --- --- ---
>   2   5   44
> 
> Which one(s) would you look at if you were going to stake your 
> reputation, or a portion thereof, by recommending a `standard' 
> piece of software?

So writing a bug report is an insult?

It just meens that mutt user are concerned in the development of the program.
Windows has also no outstanding bugs ... (or has it ? :)

IIRC dpkg is one of debian's most bugiest programs, but, that's only my
opinion, only because nearly everyone is interestenin developing it.

One has to relate numbers like this always to the nummber and kind of ppl
using a certain prg. That's always the problem with statistics.


Greetings
-- 
Alexander N. Benner - Christen im Internet - http://www.christen.net/
pgp : E7BCBEBD   53 5F 48 0A 0D 3E 4A 38  A8 11 B1 AF BE 08 C8 B0

MegaHAL: In John, Jesus is said to be Zerg.

Re: what about Pine's license?

[Bruce Sass]

On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > <...> Pine is simpler to use,
> > > but it's a pity about the license.
> > 
> > Go on, please.
> 
> It's non-free - you can't distribute modified binaries.

That is where Debian placed the Pine source - who says so?

> 'nuff said

No.

Clearly it is not the case that Debian prohibits the distribution of
modified binaries of non-free software, simply because there are lots of
non-free source + diffs with binary .debs in the package tree.

Granted that Pine's legal.txt[1] does not explicitly give one permission
to distribute modified binaries; it also does not explicitly say that one
can not; it does however, explicitly request how modifications should be
handled, without reference to any particular distribution scheme.

(If you are having problems with that last line, then I respectfully 
 suggest you double check the meaning of the word "local"[2].  Well, 
 it is the only bit that I can see as being a potential problem.)

It doesn't appear that anybody is restricting the distribution of 
"modified binaries".


later,

Bruce


[1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt

[2] as in "Local modification of this release is permitted..."

Re: help desired with interaction with inetd.conf

[Martin Bialasinski]

>> "S" == Shaleh  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

S> If all this is documented somewhere, please let me know.  I
S> understand the basics of "add this to inetd" or "disable this", but
S> switching foo out for bar I am not seeing.

Check the *inst script of the ftp packages. They activate their daemon 
in favor of the standard one.

Ciao,
Martin

Re: Intent to package: daemontools (and cdb)

[Tommi Virtanen]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 10:45:34AM +0200, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> > Also, Exim uses a GPL'ed CDB.  From spec.txt.gz:
> >  .  Support for the cdb (Constant DataBase) lookup method is
> >  provided by code contributed by Nigel Metheringham of Planet Online
> >  Ltd. which contains the following statements:
>   I'll search for that. Thank you for the hint.

After a quick look at
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-2.00/doc/html/spec_2.html#SEC9
it seems like the CDB code in Exim is just some of
the functions of cdb grabbed from the source; that is,
no command-line-utils and no docs.

It might be interesting to write GPL'ed docs and manpages
for CDB.
-- 
foo | +358505486010 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mknod /dev/trash c 1 3

Re: Intent to package: daemontools (and cdb)

[Tommi Virtanen]

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 09:34:43PM +1300, Carey Evans wrote:
> According to the README in the CDB archive, the CDB C source is public
> domain, so if you strip out the docs, etc. you could put it in main.

Yes. But as that doesn't cover even the manpages,
or pedantically even the Makefile, I don't think
that's useful.

It's more of a "if you want to use this in your
own programs, go right ahead".

> Also, Exim uses a GPL'ed CDB.  From spec.txt.gz:
> 
>  .  Support for the cdb (Constant DataBase) lookup method is
>  provided by code contributed by Nigel Metheringham of Planet Online
>  Ltd. which contains the following statements:

I'll search for that. Thank you for the hint.
-- 
foo | +358505486010 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mknod /dev/trash c 1 3

Re: Intent to package: daemontools (and cdb)

[Carey Evans]

Tommi Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   I already packaged cdb as cdb-src (like qmail-src):
> 
> Package: cdb
> Status: install ok installed
> Priority: optional
> Section: non-free/utils

According to the README in the CDB archive, the CDB C source is public
domain, so if you strip out the docs, etc. you could put it in main.

Also, Exim uses a GPL'ed CDB.  From spec.txt.gz:

 .   Support for the cdb (Constant DataBase) lookup method is provided by code
 contributed by Nigel Metheringham of Planet Online Ltd. which contains
 the following statements:
 _

 Copyright (c) 1998 Nigel Metheringham, Planet Online Ltd

 [GPL]

 This code implements Dan Bernstein's Constant DataBase (cdb) spec.
 Information, the spec and sample code for cdb can be obtained from
 http://www.pobox.com/~djb/cdb.html. This implementation borrows some code
 from Dan Bernstein's implementation (which has no license restrictions
 applied to it).

-- 
 Carey Evans  http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/

pending normal debian bugs for debian-devel@lists.debian.org

[Nag]

Maintainer: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Severity:   normal
Status: pending

This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug reports have been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months).  Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.

#20099  general   /etc/environment  
   http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/20/20099.html
#20567  general   logo license outdated 
   http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/20/20567.html
#20734  general   autoup.sh 
   http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/20/20734.html
#20743  general   autoup.sh: wtmp, utmp and btmp
   http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/20/20743.html
#21170  general   dpkg malfunction-unable to upgrade Debian 
   http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/21/21170.html
#21464  general   bo -> hamm upgrade problems
   http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/21/21464.html


For more information on the bug reporting system, visit:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/


If you feel the bug should not be marked with a severity of "normal" or a
state of "pending", instructions on changing this can be found on the
above web site.

If you no longer maintain a package, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and ask to have the "overrides" file updated to point to the new maintainer.
Please provide the name and address of the new maintainer if you know who
it is.

Please do not reply to the "nag" address unless there is a problem with the
actual messages being generated.  There is no need to copy "nag" when
altering or closing bugs since the web pages are checked each time for
the current list of outstanding bugs.

Intent to Package

[Vaidhyanathan G Mayilrangam]

Hi All,
   I intent to maintain the webmagick (currently maintained by netgod), and 
ckermit (orphaned by Debian-QA). I have to apply to become a maintainer. Let me 
know if anyone else is working on these.

Regards,
Vaidhy