Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)

[Mark Eichin]

> How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
> a file?

Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter.
my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast
proportion of the content will be literal text for output.  See Andrew
Greene's BASiX (BASIC interpreter in TeX) or the discussions of TeX
viruses from the same era if you're still unclear on this...


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[David Starner]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.

Why do we need to pull gcc from main? We just need to pull gcc's
documenation from main. 
 
-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?

> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free by our community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
> > is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.

> Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A strictly
> literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant Sections. Any
> body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is free is
> basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the readings or
> scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want to change the
> status quo.

Don't forget that section 3 of the DFSG is modified by section 4, 
"Integrity of the Author's Source Code".  If documentation is software 
(and some have argued that it must be, or the Social Contract doesn't 
allow us to ship it), then I believe it is source code; and if it's 
source code, section 4 of the DFSG describes a method by which we permit 
authors to protect the integrity of their work while still being 
considered free.  Since the DFSG does not define "patch files" as being 
in any particular format (or even specify that they must be patches as 
used by patch(1)), I would be interested to hear if anyone thinks 
documentation must be treated as software, but cannot reasonably make 
use of the exemption in section 4.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgprGuBx2fwon.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: problem with gvd

[Mark Eichin]

This is probably the same "missing build-depends for makeinfo" that
id-utils was having trouble with...


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

Re: Release notes

[Mark Eichin]

> I don't see any harm in making up jigdo files for DVDs --- I don't see

Ooh, yes, please - I'd love to be able to make bootable dvds to pass
around here [MIT area.]

> Of course, if loads of people with DVD writers mail me, I'm likely to be

metoo :)


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

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Craig Brozefsky]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> ilisp
> 
> These packages will get a brief chance to be reconsidered in the
> next few days, but don't bet too heavily on them making it. From
> this point on, packages that are still in testing that have serious,
> grave or critical bugs that get removed probably won't get any
> second chances.

As Will newton pointed out, this is a simple issue of a bug not
getting closed out due to stupidity of the maintainer, which would be
me.  I did not intend to use the Closed: syntax in the changelog, but
instead sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with close BUGID as
described in my copy of bug-maint-mailcontrol.txt which I guess is out
of date and I should have paid closer attention.  I now know the
correct interface for closing those bugs and have closed them.  This
should not happen again.

I ask that ilisp be returned, if it has already been removed, because
in fact the bug was fixed very quickly after it was reported and the
bug only remained open due to my mistake, not due too any real
instability the package introduced into woody.

The CL community uses ILISP quite a bit and Debian is becoming a very
popular platform for CL development so it would be pity if ILISP were
not in woody because of my mistake dealing witht e bug database, and I
would feel really bad 8^(


-- 
Craig Brozefsky   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Free Software Sociopath(tm) http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Ask me about Common Lisp Enterprise Eggplants at Red Bean!


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:49, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > 
> > So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
> > clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
> > doesn't violate the DFSG.
> 
> Where "clarification" reads as "redefinition".  You can't do that without
> a supermajority GR, as determined by the Debian Project Secretary the last
> time an attempt to modify the Social Contract/DFSG document was made.

No, I meant "clarification".  Several people (including an original
author of the DFSG) have weighed in that there is no conflict between
the DFSG and the GFDL.

They may be wrong, but there's no consensus on that either.  So, the
possibility cannot be dismissed outright.

"Redefinition" amounts to "change" in my list of options, IMHO.


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:40, Joseph Carter wrote:
> 
> This should have been dealt with sooner.  But the past three times the FDL
> has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached.  The only thing
> we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent
> any consensus.
> 
> Call me a pessimist if you like, but I suspect that we'll get no different
> results this time.  Nobody wants to bear the fallout of a conclusion
> against the FDL, and no attempt to revise the DFSG has ever succeeded.

I don't know.  Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
consensus.

What we as a project need to do, I think, is clarify this distinction
between "software" and "non-software" somehow.  Once that's done, I
think that everyone seems to be agreed that "free non-software" can have
some licensing limitations that are unacceptable for "free software",
and that the GFDL is a "free non-software license".

Indeed, the problem seems to be rooted in the question "is there
anything besides software?" more than in the question "what is software
and what isn't".

> I expect the issue will eventually be dropped (again) without resolution
> and either Debian will continue to cover its ears and hum real loud,
> unless someone is foolish enough to believe that they can gather a
> supermajority of the project to modify the DFSG.

I think we're guaranteed to not resolve it this time around; solving
this would be too much of a distraction from woody.

I think, though, that this should be the first order of business around,
say, May 7 or so.  (See?  I really am an optimist. :-)


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
> 
> Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.
> 
> So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
> clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
> doesn't violate the DFSG.

Where "clarification" reads as "redefinition".  You can't do that without
a supermajority GR, as determined by the Debian Project Secretary the last
time an attempt to modify the Social Contract/DFSG document was made.

(Personally, I think that was a very unwise precedent to set..  Who has
the authority to change it?  Does Manoj, as the current secretary?)

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  You're entitled to my opinion
 
 those apparently-bacteria-like multicolor worms coming out of
  microsoft's backorifice
 that's the backoffice logo



pgpolb8NRMfaQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > > are under the GNU FDL.
> > 
> > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> 
> No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> considered free by our community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
> is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.

This has been done already.  Several threads have been referenced in which
no consensus was ever reached that the license is free.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  glDisable (DX8_CRAP);
 
 you don't have to be insane to work hereoh wait, yes you do!
:)



pgpUN5zjhhOpm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: perl getpwnam returns x

[Stephen Zander]

> "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> getpwnam.passwd = x as it is written in /etc/passwd.
Martin> getspwnam.passwd = encrypted password.

Perl doesn't supoprt getspnam().  It used to do a getspnam under the
covers in the getpwnam call in 5.00404 (I wrote the original patch).
IIRC, that patch was removed in 5.00503 (either upstream or by Darren)
due to complaints about its impact on performance.

-- 
Stephen

"Farcical aquatic ceremonies are no basis for a system of government!"


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > > > 
> > > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to 
> > > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example : 
> > > > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> > > 
> > > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > > are under the GNU FDL.
> > 
> > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> 
> I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free
> license, then we will need to redefine "free" or watch our project
> splinter into uselessness.

This should have been dealt with sooner.  But the past three times the FDL
has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached.  The only thing
we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent
any consensus.

Call me a pessimist if you like, but I suspect that we'll get no different
results this time.  Nobody wants to bear the fallout of a conclusion
against the FDL, and no attempt to revise the DFSG has ever succeeded.

I expect the issue will eventually be dropped (again) without resolution
and either Debian will continue to cover its ears and hum real loud,
unless someone is foolish enough to believe that they can gather a
supermajority of the project to modify the DFSG.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sanity is counterproductive
 
* HomeySan waits for the papa john's pizza to show up
 mm. papa john's.
 hopefully they send the cute delivery driver
 they dont have that here.
 why? you gonna eat the driver instead?



pgpQpczfrRADP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:08, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> > 
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free by our community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
> > is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.
> 
> Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A strictly
> literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant Sections. Any
> body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is free is
> basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the readings or
> scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want to change the
> status quo.

Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.

Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.

So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
doesn't violate the DFSG.


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[David Starner]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> 
> No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> considered free by our community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
> is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.

Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A strictly
literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant Sections. Any
body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is free is
basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the readings or
scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want to change the
status quo.

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[mdanish]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:39:12PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Whatcha mean "becoming"?  Lispers have been blurring the line between
> > data and code for the last half-century.
> 
> Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through "On Lisp" while my
> classes ruin my brain with Java), I'm well aware of this. But aside from
> DSSSL, it never became very popular with software documentation writers,
> who preferred troff, HTML, TeX, etc, and either the capabilities didn't
> exist, or they weren't used. Count the number of DSSSL stylesheets in
> Debian, and then the number of XML documents. Or the number of
> LISP-generated documents versus the number of static documents.

Well one of my friends likens TeX to a "wannabe Lisp", and is currently
dabbling in creating a Common Lisp-based document typesetter.
Certainly such programs have existed in the past, I have heard of several
typesetting systems mentioned in passing; most likely in connection with
Lisp machines.

But a document typesetting system wasn't my real point, which was:
Lisp code is data, and the data is often code.  This principle is
key to several features of Lisps, such as macros (which indubitably
you must have been bombarded with in "On Lisp") and program-writing
programs, not to mention symbolic programming.  This and a number of
other features of modern Lisps have created a number of issues with
licenses, such as the GPL, that are rather C-centric.  I know there
are many Lisp programmers who are not very comfortable with the GPL
and stick to BSD-like or public domain (CMUCL is one major project
like so).

> 
> I was actually wondering when I wrote my first message if any package in
> Debian was using LISP for document creation, but I couldn't think of any
> offhand. Thanks. :)

Just don't take the code from that source as a stellar example of macro
programming, if you can ever read it. ;) 
It's a really horribly convoluted macro, which shouldn't have been a macro,
which I wrote in a very short time a long time ago when I didn't know
anything anyhow.  But it does work...

If you consider generation of HTML to be document creation, there's a
number of systems which do so in Lisp; I have used one for web-app
development.  See http://ww.telent.net/cliki/Web

I think that Manuel Serrano (upstream for Bigloo) now has a system
called Scribe that is written in Bigloo scheme.  You might want to take
a look at that as well.  It's now used for Bigloo docs.

-- 
; Matthew Danish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."


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

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Adam Heath]

On 7 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> > So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> > and therefore it can't be a big problem.

Btw, thanks for this very good analysis.  It's going to be very helpful when I
implement all this.


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

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Adam Heath]

On 7 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> > So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> > and therefore it can't be a big problem.
>
> Here are some experiments, and a mathematical analysis of different
> approaches.  The only missing piece of data that I had to fudge is: how
> often do people run apt-get update?  If anyone can give me server logs
> containing If-Modified-Since fields, that would be great.
>
> Quick Summary:
> --
> Diffs compressed with bzip2 generated the smallest difference files, and
> hence the smallest downloads.  Using the scheme described below, I
> estimate that mirrors retaining 20 days worth of diffs will need about
> 159K of disk space per Packages file and the average 'apt-get update'
> will transfer about 24.2K per changed Packages file.

54 days with of Packages(sid/main/i386) gives 900k of xdeltas.

> xdelta would have slightly higher bandwidth and disk space requirements,
> but would be applicable to binary files (such as debs).  rsync has no
> disk space requirements, but uses 10 times as much bandwidth and
> requires more memory, cpu power, etc, on the server.  rsync also has the
> advantage of already being implemented, but managing a series of diffs
> seems like a trivial shell script.

xdelta would not work with debs.  It doesn't understand archives.

xdelta does understand already compressed files, and will actually decompres
the files first, before generating the diff.

The problem with xdelta tho, is that it requires both old and new version to
be available on the same side of the link, to do it's magic.

Is someone interested in modifying xdelta to read archives(ar, tar, cpio)?


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

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Nathan E Norman]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:11:27PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 13:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > > A large mirror in Australia does provide an rsync server to access debian
> > > packages. When redhat 7.0 came out so many people tried to rsync it at the
> > > same time, the machine promptly fell over. 
> > > 
> > What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> > So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> > and therefore it can't be a big problem. 
> 
> ...or, more likely, they are too busy maintaining their rsync servers to
> respond (or even follow the traffic on a list like this one).
> 
> The rest of us are trying to impress upon you the possibility that it
> might be a big problem, as we've heard that it is in the past.  As
> flimsy as anecdotal evidence is, it certainly beats proof by assertion.

Agreed.  I used to run debian.midco.net (which sadly no longer exists
now that I no longer work at midco.net).  That machine was a dual
processor PII with 70 GB of RAID disk; it was a news server for a
while before it was pressed into service as a mirror.  IOW, it was a
decent machine in its day.  d.m.n was a primary push mirror and
provided anon rsync access to the world, but with a 15 connection
limit.  Any more than that and apache became resource starved, and
when you're trying to act as a primary HTTP mirror for apt, that's not
good.

I don't have stats as d.m.n has been dead for almost two years now,
but I can assure you that rsync, while quite cool, can be dangerous
in large doses.

Regards,

-- 
Nathan Norman - Micromuse Ltd.  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gil-galad was an Elven-king.|  The Fellowship
Of him the harpers sadly sing:  |of
the last whose realm was fair and free  | the Ring
between the Mountains and the Sea.  |  J.R.R. Tolkien


pgpfIRoHg9Q1J.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Colin Walters]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > > 
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to 
> > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example : 
> > > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> > 
> > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > are under the GNU FDL.
> 
> So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?

No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free by our community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.



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

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 13:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > A large mirror in Australia does provide an rsync server to access debian
> > packages. When redhat 7.0 came out so many people tried to rsync it at the
> > same time, the machine promptly fell over. 
> > 
> What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> and therefore it can't be a big problem. 

...or, more likely, they are too busy maintaining their rsync servers to
respond (or even follow the traffic on a list like this one).

The rest of us are trying to impress upon you the possibility that it
might be a big problem, as we've heard that it is in the past.  As
flimsy as anecdotal evidence is, it certainly beats proof by assertion.


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 19:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > > 
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to 
> > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example : 
> > > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> > 
> > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > are under the GNU FDL.
> 
> So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?

I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free
license, then we will need to redefine "free" or watch our project
splinter into uselessness.


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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Whatcha mean "becoming"?  Lispers have been blurring the line between
> data and code for the last half-century.

Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through "On Lisp" while my
classes ruin my brain with Java), I'm well aware of this. But aside from
DSSSL, it never became very popular with software documentation writers,
who preferred troff, HTML, TeX, etc, and either the capabilities didn't
exist, or they weren't used. Count the number of DSSSL stylesheets in
Debian, and then the number of XML documents. Or the number of
LISP-generated documents versus the number of static documents.

I was actually wondering when I wrote my first message if any package in
Debian was using LISP for document creation, but I couldn't think of any
offhand. Thanks. :)
-- 
 - Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  -  http://www.sacredchao.net
  "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
   okay to be different, to not conform to society."
   -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese


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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[mdanish]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
> 
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for

Whatcha mean "becoming"?  Lispers have been blurring the line between
data and code for the last half-century.  My package, apt-dpkg-ref, is
a document written in Common Lisp that outputs LaTeX and HTML.  It's
released under the GPL currently, but I briefly considered the FDL and
decided that I really couldn't call it entirely a document.  (Also I
wanted to avoid all the hairy license issues that seem to be arising
now).

> content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

-- 
; Matthew Danish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 07:30:48PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> It's also probably worth pointing out, as you seem to see yourself as
> "the Dutch RMS", that the Free Software Foundation also accepts
> donations from proprietary software companies: 
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/thankgnus/2002supporters.html

Yes, GNU lists the supporters on that web page if they don't say that they
want to remain anonymous.  This is well defined and happens under certain
circumstances (eg if you donate a certain amount of money, you get listed as
a Patron and get a luxury CD Rom and a T-Shirt or whatever).  Debian also
lists sponsors on the web page etc.

I think this issue is not so much about that sponsors are credited at all,
or where those sponsors come from and what they do otherwise, but about the
conditions.  If you define up-front what happens if somebody sponsors
something, then there can be less confusion about it and it is more clear
when something "inacceptable" happens.

Anyway, this said, I am not sure how official the relationship between the
Debian conference and Debian is anyway.  I have not even looked at the
lindows registration page to see what people are complaining about.  But I
thought that this difference is worth noting and might explain some of the
heat here.

Thanks,
Marcus

-- 
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcus Brinkmann  GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de


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

Dependencies on libpgsql2.1

[Colin Watson]

update_output.txt says:

trying: postgresql 
skipped: postgresql (134+2)
got: 46+0: a-46
* alpha: courier-authpostgresql, dbf2pg, ddt-server, gda-postgres,
  gphotocoll, gtksql, guile-pg, libapache-mod-auth-pgsql, libch,
  libch-dev, libdbd-pg-perl, libgql0-driver-pg,
  libgtrans-postgresql-6-5-3, libnss-pgsql1, libpam-pgsql,
  mnogosearch-pgsql, netsaint-plugins-extra, netsaint-plugins-pgsql,
  perdition-postgresql, php3-cgi-pgsql, php3-pgsql, php4-pgsql,
  pike7-pg, proftpd-pgsql, python-pgsql, python-popy,
  python-psycopg, python1.5-popy, python1.5-psycopg,
  python2.1-pgsql, python2.1-popy, python2.1-psycopg,
  python2.2-pgsql, python2.2-popy, python2.2-psycopg, qttudo,
  trafstats, www-pgsql

I'm currently in the process of filing bugs on those packages in
unstable that still depend on libpgsql2.1 rather than libpgsql2, or
upgrading bugs to grave where they'd already been filed. Since the
versions in woody all appear to be fine, I'm making sure all these bugs
get tagged 'sid' so that they don't affect the release.

I hope this will help the new postgresql to get into testing a little
more quickly.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)

[Adam Olsen]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:22:51AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> > explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> > The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well
> > as documents.
> 
> Blackbird:~$ ./index.html
> bash: ./index.html: Permission denied
> 
> hmm, doesn't work here :-/

echo '#!/usr/bin/lynx' > newindex.html
cat index.html >> newindex.html
chmod +x newindex.html
./newindex.html

Seems to work for me :)

(although the fact that the shebang gets displayed on the page shows
either a glaring oversight in the design of html, or that linux needs
to recognise  tags)

-- 
Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus


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

Re: gmetadom failure on HPPA never reported in update_excuses

[Randolph Chung]

> BTW, why this problem manifest itself only on hppa? Is the c++ compiler
> somewhat different or is only a chain of #ifdef and/or configure
> switches that behaves differently on that arch?

In woody, hppa is the only architecture that is using gcc-3.0 compilers.
The other architectures are all using 2.x compilers.

The "problem" is that there are a lot of broken C++ code out there, and
gcc-3.0/libstdc++ is a lot stricter, so many things that used to build
will now fail.

randolph


pgpZT4fzYAJAR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:34:45PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> the DFSG or not.  However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
> parts are.

There was no such consensus.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  You live and learn.
Debian GNU/Linux   |  Or you don't live long.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgp5aff0ebGpc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>   3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
>  that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
>  non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.
> 
>   4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
>  can make demands for "good" documentation.

As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.

Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.

In a nutshell:

1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if
there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections.  Note that your
license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover
Texts and Invariant Sections.

2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially
DFSG-free when none of the "license options" are exercised.

Read the archives of debian-legal for supporting references.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|One man's theology is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux   |belly laugh.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpD6SM16B1ml.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > 
> > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to 
> > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example : 
> > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> 
> We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> are under the GNU FDL.

So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  If this sig were funny...
 
* bma wonders if this will make the Knghtbrd .sig



pgpGrkKV5UqCr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[bdale@gag.com: Bug#141688: FTBFS: config.sub/guess out of date]

[Branden Robinson]

Sending this bug report to debian-devel so that hopefully the maintainer
of this package will see it.

Please rename your package.

- Forwarded message from Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bdale Garbee)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bug#141688: FTBFS: config.sub/guess out of date
Date: Sun,  7 Apr 2002 16:24:17 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=4.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_FOUND,SENT_BY_BTS 
version=2.11

Package: xbase
Version: 2.0.0-1
Severity: important

This package fails to build from source on ia64 because the config.sub/guess
files are out of date.  See the autotools-dev package for a good solution.

Bdale


- End forwarded message -

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|   The only way to get rid of a
Debian GNU/Linux   |   temptation is to yield to it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   -- Oscar Wilde
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpIec1KE4BNA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#141686: xbase: name clash with old XFree86 package

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:59:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Package: xbase
> Version: 2.0.0-1
> Severity: normal
> 
>  xbase |2.0.0-1 |  unstable | source
>  xbase | 3.3.6-11potato32 |stable | all
> 
> This seems pretty broken to me ... it's a source package, so the lower
> version number doesn't cause the upgrade troubles it might otherwise do,
> but it *is* confusing the BTS into thinking Branden is the maintainer of
> the source package currently in unstable (hence the X-Debbugs-Cc:).
> Wouldn't it be better to rename the current xbase?

The BTS is brain damaged about this, too.  Very convenient for the
maintainer of this new "xbase" package, I will see all his bug reports.
:-P

FWIW, I no longer ship any package called "xbase" post-woody.  However I
agree that this package should change its name.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux   |that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm.  This is not that .sig.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgp2OQdD9O08h.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards)

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.
> 
> The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.

By the definitions we have given "non-free", it is exactly that.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sooner or later, BOOM!
 
 knightbrd: from knightbrd.brain import * :)
 Oh gods if it were that easy ..
 from carmack.brain import OpenGL



pgpD4L0uq6yvW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > > into the common reference area?
> > > 
> > > Who should I talk to about this?
> > 
> > Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?
> 
> You clearly have an opinion on this issue ;-)
> 
> I suppose this stems from the "invarient section" clause in the GFDL?

I'm more concerned with the additional publisher requirements.  They have
been relaxed a little with 1.1 and reworded slightly in the draft for
1.2, but I feel it's still a problem.

I don't like the invariant sections much, but the draft of 1.2 seems to
resolve the major concerns I had.


> While this declaration is "broader" than the same feature in the GPL, I
> don't see the problem.
> 
> The GPL allows the license and the copyright statements to be both
> required, and invarient. The GFDL simply recognizes that documents often
> have historical, philosophical, or political statements that should, yes
> need, to be protected from modification. These sections, such as the
> history section of my book, writen by Ian M., deserve protection if truely
> "free speech" is to continue to be protected. The technical material can
> then be left "modifiable" as is needed and useful to such matherial.

History reads as ChangeLog in most programs and is not invariant, but
AFAIK it can be cut off at a certain point for brevity if you like.


> What would be a more suitable "Free Documentation License" in your view?

I would certainly be less eager to argue over the 1.2 version if the FDL
when it's released since it applies a sanity check to section 3 and
clarifies a little the named sections which may deserve special treatment.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Have chainsaw will travel
 
 Overfiend - BTW, after we've discovered X takes all of 1.4 GIGS
   to build, are you willing admit that X is bloatware?  =>
 KB: there is a 16 1/2 minute gap in my answer
 knghtbrd: evidence exists that X is only the *2nd* worst windowing
  system ;)



pgpptnllsl6vb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Orphaned packages in testing which were never in stable

[Mark Brown]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:05:07PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:

> Chris Cheney indends to adopt the package, yes, but he only mailed
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of properly renaming the bug to ITA.

I have this sneaking suspicion that we need a tool more appropriate than
the BTS to handle the WNPP.  The BTS seems rather fragile for this
purpose - the format for bug titles and to a greater extent the way
followups for bug reports are handled (not going to the bug sumbitter)
both seem rather fragile and aren't really handled all that well by the
mechanisms normally used when interacting with the BTS.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


pgpetdnL4m3Hq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Python module for debconf

[Joey Hess]

Jérôme Marant wrote:
>   I guess that the package will have to predepend on python, right?
>   So, unlike the current debconf usage, a debconf dependency is no
>   longer sufficient.   

No, pre-depending on python will not ensure that your package's
config script has python available at preconfgiuration time.

-- 
see shy jo


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

Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)

[Colin Watson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> > "Transparant copy" is for example.
> 
> Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In
> fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as
> documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing
> familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too.

nroff/troff, the language in which our manual pages are written, is
certainly Turing-complete. Of course, I think one would have to make a
judgement call and say that the primary purpose of most *roff files is
as documentation; if somebody produced a program using *roff, we would
then call that software.

I think we have to judge based on the primary content of the files, not
their format, although there are obviously large grey areas.

(Likewise, consider literate programming, where invariant sections could
conceivably be included as part of C source files.)

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: gmetadom failure on HPPA never reported in update_excuses

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:45:39AM -0700, Randolph Chung wrote:
> it needs some c++ work. For one thing it references internal libstdc++
> symbols (__STL_BEGIN_NAMESPACE, etc). Instead you should use "namespace std;",
> etc. 

In fact I noticed the problem and I already forwarder it to the upstream
author along with a tarball of the faulty build tree obtained when
building on sarti.debian.org.

BTW, why this problem manifest itself only on hppa? Is the c++ compiler
somewhat different or is only a chain of #ifdef and/or configure
switches that behaves differently on that arch?

Thanks,
Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney


pgpkiKapCzaVi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Scripts in /etc/init.d Question and Comment.

[JPS]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:35:57PM -0400, jpstewart wrote:
>   if [ ! $EUID == 0 ]; then
>   echo "Sorry, this script must run with root privileges."
>   if
Oops. I forget to add the `exit 69' or whatever error code.
-- 
Jean-Paul Stewart


pgpnpQJPMuk43.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Scripts in /etc/init.d Question and Comment.

[JPS]

There is something that has always bothered me about the scripts in
`/etc/init.d'. Every once in a while I attempt to execute one of these
scripts while logged in as a non-root user. For example, I might type
`/etc/init.d/foobar restart' while having the privileges of user `jps'
(uid=1000). Normally, as the administrator, I would preface the
previous text with the `sudo' command. Sometimes I forget, and as a
result, I get all kinds of bogus garbage printed to my error channel;
and it takes me a confused moment to figure out what went wrong. Try
it with your favorite init.d script today! I have a simple suggested
solution that might help alleviate this awkwardness (without obliging
me to raise my awareness!). How about prefacing the scripts in
`/etc/init.d' with something along the lines of:

if [ ! $EUID == 0 ]; then
echo "Sorry, this script must run with root privileges."
if

I am not sure why the script writers do not include something like
this in all of the init.d scripts. Unless I am overlooking something
obvious, maybe we can include this type of thing in debian policy?
-- 
Jean-Paul Stewart


pgpPQhlVbl7TS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Richard Atterer]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:16:28PM +0200, Otto Wyss wrote:
> What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any
> figures. So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in
> this subject and therefore it can't be a big problem.

It is a problem on cdimage.d.o, which is also ftp.uk.d.o. A single CD
image rsync means a load of 1 for >10 minutes, and once 5 people or so
rsync in parallel, the machine gets quite sluggish.

Using rsync just for the Packages file would probably work, but forget
about also using it for the packages.

Cheers,

  Richard

-- 
  __   _
  |_) /|  Richard Atterer |  CS student at the Technische  |  GnuPG key:
  | \/¯|  http://atterer.net  |  Universität München, Germany  |  0x888354F7
  ¯ '` ¯


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

Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)

[Michael Banck]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well
> as documents.

Blackbird:~$ ./index.html
bash: ./index.html: Permission denied

hmm, doesn't work here :-/

> I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing
> familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. What is a
> document, and what is a program? 

How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
a file?

OK, perhaps you can summon up all kind of voodoo in .tex-files, but
common sense tells me that you can tell quite easily a .tex document
from a .tex program.

Michael


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Richard Braakman]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:53:07PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> IMHO the non-free section should be removed.

Well, go for it.  In the meantime, stop antagonizing people who do nice
things for us.

-- 
Richard Braakman
"I sense a disturbance in the force"
"As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get."
  (Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)


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

Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il lun, 2002-04-08 alle 00:15, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > > sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> > > included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> > > outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> > > drawn? Is it possible to draw one?
> > 
> > It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> > "Transparant copy" is for example.
> 
> Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In
> fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as
> documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing
> familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. What is a
> document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin to
> distinguish what makes free documentation different from free software
> when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of data is software
> or documentation in the first place?

TeX is turing complete. apart from that, i'd say that

a program is mainly intended to be run on a computer
documentation is mainly intended to be run on a brain

even with such strange documents as literate programs (cfr. the WEB
system), the program and the documentation are easily distinguishable
(and they are in the *same* document!)
 
-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Viviamo in un mondo reale, Ciccio. -- Lucy


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Torsten Landschoff]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>   * gs-common's license issues need to be resolved

Just to keep people from wasting their time to fix this: My local 
gs-common edition has the following changes: 

  * debian/control: Add dependency on gsfonts. Rationale: gs is quite
useless to most people without the fonts and in comparison to the
gs package they are not really that big. If you really don't want 
them to be installed, please use the equivs package to tell dpkg 
that a missing gsfonts package is okay.
+ libdb2 should build with this change as it was only missing the
  gsfonts build dependency (closes: #126475)
+ Follows the request by Tim Hull to pull gsfonts with gs
  (closes: #65594)
  * Acknowledge the NMU by LaMont Jones (closes: #133902).
  * debian/control: Clean up some obsolete stuff:
+ Does not conflict with gs_x, gs_svga, gs_both anymore. Those 
  packages are long gone now and the package names violate policy
  (closes: #137430).
  * scripts/*: Copy those scripts from the gs source package instead of
gs-aladdin as we want gs-common in main (closes: #141206).
  * scripts/dvipdf: Add from the gs source (closes: #117442).
  * man/*: Copy from gs source.
  * debian/links: Install symlinks for the manpages of ps2pdf1[234] 
which are documented in the ps2pdf manpage.
  * debian/rules: Run dh_installmanpages to get the stuff those 
installed (closes: #116144).
  * debian/copyright: Add (lintian).

There are only a few minor things I want to sort out before uploading 
and I guess this is my last chance to fix something :) Basically I
want to get rid of the debconf support in gs-common since the only 
question asked does not make any sense to me (was brought in by the 
defoma patch by Yasuhiro Take) and therefore I am going to eliminate 
that. 

That question selects if you want defoma to substitute unavailable 
printer fonts when displaying Postscript files. I am going to turn 
that off for now. I don't think we really need it for woody.

Thanks

Torsten


pgpnH4c69FHSO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joel Baker]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> 
> > The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things
> > which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness
> > which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next?
> 
> The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say "All software
> in Debian will remain 100% free", it says "Debian will remain 100% Free
> Software."  Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
> Free Software, even if it's documentation.  Now, this may be an 
> oversight in the original phrasing, but this is the Social Contract that 
> we've all agreed to uphold as Debian developers -- unless and until it's 
> clarified to address the various issues that arise with other forms of 
> data, we really don't have anything else we can point to when judging 
> the license on documentation.

Pardon me, but I feel the need for a quote coming on.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Take it tongue in cheek, please, it's not a flame. But it *is* meant to
point out that there is 'free' as in beer, 'free' as in software - and
'free' as in publication. If the Social Contract says that we are 100% Free
Software, then we have *no place* distributing documentation which isn't
software, do we?

Yes, it's hyperbole, but it also points out what I consider to be a really
glaring schism between what our social goals are, what we've written down
as our social goals (the codified form), and what we expect to meet them.
It happens. But it's also something that we need to address, or we're going
to end up in a very untenable position.

As for the social contract... it might be an oversight, but I think, as I
noted above, that it's a question, really, of what 'Free' means in this
context - and whether 'Free' as we apply it to code is really the right
definition to apply to something which isn't code; I would call it 'speech'
except that that could cause confusion with the traditional concepts that
come to mind when anyone in the US says 'free speech'.

> > I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and
> > the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in
> > which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us
> > saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these
> > types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we
> > want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow
> > itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom
> > large numbers of people ignore.
> 
> I'm intrigued by this idea, and think it does indeed have a lot of
> merit.  Documentation, after all, is akin to source code in the sense 
> that both are intended as human-readable content, not as obscure 
> instructions to be delivered directly to a computer.  If we allow an 
> author to place restrictions on how we can modify some kinds of source 
> code while still considering the code free, why should the same not be 
> allowed for other types of source code, like documentation?

Exactly - though the 'mapping' isn't precise, it seemed like a worthy
place to start. I can think of at least 3 commonly used methods of "make
a new document while preserving the old" (annotation, commentary, and
bibliographical reference). I wonder if perhaps someone who has more
familiarity with publishing "open" standards documents, white papers, and
the like could weigh in on what the community standard for "freedom" in
such things really means, and how that might map to what Debian now expects
of software to meet the DFSG.

I'll also note that, having read over the discussion on Debian-Legal, I
fail to see why we couldn't accept the GFDL as intended by the FSF, and
just file a bug against any package which disobeyed the intent of the
license as being non-free, just like we can do if an author mistakenly uses
code which can't be under the GPL or linked to it, and uses a GPL license.

[ Yes, this also goes well beyond the GFDL, but that is the most clear 
  example that comes to hand easily. ]
-- 
***
Joel Baker   System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/


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

Re: New Packages (i18n version of APT)

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Michael Piefel wrote:

> You, Jason, did not add full i18n support to APT, and were not willing
> to accept my patches for woody. This is OK, as APT is a very central
> package and has been in different shades of freeze for quite some time.

Bzzt, I accepted the parts of your patches that met my criterea and asked
you to rework the rest, you never did, so big surprise that it is
incomplete.

> Don't say I didn't make the patch to your likings when you are not
> willing (or able) to tell others what exactly your likings are.

Seems to me you re-iterated what I wanted pretty well in your email.

Jason


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

Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal

[Thomas Hood]

For those interested in the status of the GNU Free
Documentation License issue: Please read the interesting thread
"The old DFSG-lemma again" on debian-legal from Nov. 2001.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg6.html

In the thread, Branden Robinson expressed concerns about
ensuring DFSG-compliance of GFDLed documents.  RMS cleared
up several questions and argued convincingly (IMHO) that the GFDL
is DFSG compliant. (Let the need formally to extend the Debian
Free "Software" Guidelines to cover "Documenation" be duly noted.)
Documents that aren't DFSG compliant are also not correctly
licensed according to the terms of the GFDL.  Nevertheless, it
may remain appropriate to write up some instructions for making
sure that the GFDL is correctly used; and the GFDL might perhaps
be clarified a bit too.

Were there any other important debates about the GFDL that should
be read?

--
Thomas Hood


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

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Robert Tiberius Johnson]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> and therefore it can't be a big problem. 

Here are some experiments, and a mathematical analysis of different
approaches.  The only missing piece of data that I had to fudge is: how
often do people run apt-get update?  If anyone can give me server logs
containing If-Modified-Since fields, that would be great.

Quick Summary:
--
Diffs compressed with bzip2 generated the smallest difference files, and
hence the smallest downloads.  Using the scheme described below, I
estimate that mirrors retaining 20 days worth of diffs will need about
159K of disk space per Packages file and the average 'apt-get update'
will transfer about 24.2K per changed Packages file.

xdelta would have slightly higher bandwidth and disk space requirements,
but would be applicable to binary files (such as debs).  rsync has no
disk space requirements, but uses 10 times as much bandwidth and
requires more memory, cpu power, etc, on the server.  rsync also has the
advantage of already being implemented, but managing a series of diffs
seems like a trivial shell script.

So in my opinion, diff/bzip2 or xdelta looks like the way.

Example: Diffs between unstable main Packages file from Apr 6 and 7:
---
diff+bzip2: 12987 bytes
diff+gzip:  13890 bytes
xdelta: 15176 bytes
rsync: 163989 bytes (*)
(*) rsyncing uncompressed Packages files with 
rsync -a --no-whole-file --stats -z -e ssh

The Scheme (proposed earlier by others)
--
Assuming debian admins tend to update relatively frequently, the
following diff-based scheme seems to offer the best compromise on mirror
disk space and download bandwidth:

For the 20 most recent Packages files, the server stores the diff
between each pair of consecutive Packages files.  apt-get then simply
does:

do
{
  m = md5sum of my Packages file
  d = fetch Packages_diff_${md5}.bz2
  if (d does not exist)
  {
fetch Packages.gz
break;
  }
  patch my Packages file with d
} while (d is not an empty file)

This scheme easily allows mirrors to tweak the parameters to best suite
their own disk space and bandwidth limitations, and they are not
required to have any cgi-scripts or extra services running.  For
example, a mirror that's tight on disk space can just delete some of the
older diffs, but it will incur a slight bandwidth penalty as a result.

The only disadvantage to using diffs (compared to rsync or some other
dynamic scheme) is the additional disk space requirement.  The disk
space requirement is very small, and disk space is cheaper than cpu
time, memory, and bandwidth.

Analysis:
-

The anlysis uses gp, a great math tool that's available in debian.

I. Diff vs. xdelta
--
By looking at debian-devel-changes, I figured that between Feb. 1 and
April 1, an average of 75 packages were uploaded each day.  There are
around 8000 packages listed in testing main, so the probability that any
given package changes on any given day is p=75/8000.  Thus the expected
number of packages that change in s days is (1-(1-p)^s)*8000.  For
example, the expected number of changed packages in 60 days is 3453. 
Comparing the Packages files from Feb. 7 and April 7 shows 3884 changed
packages, so the model seems reasonably accurate.

My experiments with diff, xdelta, bzip2, etc. concluded that if you diff
two Packages files with 75 changed packages between them, and then
compress the diff with bzip2 -9, the resulting file is about 7936 bytes,
or roughly 106 bytes per changed package.  Thus the average size of a
compressed diff between Packages files seperated by s days is

diffsize(s)=(1-(1-p)^s)*8000*106

The xdelta of the same files is about 25% larger.  If this scheme is
extended to all deb files, not just Packages files, it may just be more
convenient to use xdelta, though.

II. Successive diffs vs. all-at-once diffs
--
This analysis applies to either diff or xdelta; it doesn't matter.

A. Disk space
The next question is, should we diff consecutive Packages files, or
should we compute diffs between the last 20 Packages files and today's
Packages file?  The latter will allow apt-get to fetch just one diff and
be done with it.  However, it uses more disk space on the mirrors.  The
former may require apt-get to fetch several patches in order to update
its Packages file, but will use less disk space on the mirrors.

There is actually a spectrum of choices here.  A mirror may store diffs
between every 3, 4, 5, etc. Packages files.  So, if a client has the
Packages file from 14 days ago, it will first be given a patch bringing
its Packages file to 9 days ago, then 4, and then to the current
Packages file.  If a server stores diffs between Packages files
seperated by s days, and stores d days back, then it will need 

dspa

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 16:08, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet
> should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT
> is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way.

What about inline stylesheets? What about XSLFOs in an XML document?

> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.
> 
> IYO. IMHO they *are* free. i explain why: if i write a 300 pages book
> about something and 2 pages about my motivations, greetings to people
> that helped me, etc. i want you to fix the 300 pages of technical stuff
> but i don't see why you should the 'feelings' i put in that 2 pages.
> you're *free* to adapt the document to your liking and even add some
> comments (invariant) criticizing my own, but litterature (even technical
> one) is much different from code.

I agree. The needs of nontechnical writing are not the same as the needs
of technical writing. However, say I want to take a 10 page chapter out
of your book and, e.g., strip it down into a 4 page quick reference
guide. The FDL says I have to preserve your 2 pages of greetings and
thanks. I believe invariant sections (in the general sense) are a good
idea, and necessary for nontechnical writing. However, I believe
Invariant Sections (as in the FDL) impose restrictions that are
non-free.

-- 
 - Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  -  http://www.sacredchao.net
  "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
   okay to be different, to not conform to society."
   -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:14:08PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
> > Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > 
> > I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> > the DFSG or not.  However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> > released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> > probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
> > parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.
> 
> i can be wrong but the new fdl specifies that invariant sections should
> be off-topic. 

The funny thing is that this is made clear in the thread he pointed
at. That thread is a really interested read BTW (it makes me subscribe
to debian-legal :-).

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpVu28cB1yzE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> > included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> > outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> > drawn? Is it possible to draw one?
> 
> It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> "Transparant copy" is for example.

Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In
fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as
documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing
familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. What is a
document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin to
distinguish what makes free documentation different from free software
when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of data is software
or documentation in the first place?

...

> The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.

I agree. I'm sure someone could show me a non DFSG compliant license I
consider free. But that wasn't what I said. I said I consider a document
with invariant sections non-free, which is my own personal judgement,
and not the FSF's or DFSG's. It just happens that, right now, the DFSG
agrees with my point of view.

-- 
 - Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  -  http://www.sacredchao.net
  "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
   okay to be different, to not conform to society."
   -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese


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

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Thomas Hood]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 16:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2002, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb was built on "kullervo".  
> > Is it fscked up to?
> 
> Not sure. Roman Hodek is kullervo's buildd admin; you'll have to ask him
> (or wait for his reaction ;-)

Well, powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb has just appeared in
the archive.  Perhaps that's his answer.  :)

--
Thomas Hood


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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software

> > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> > included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> > outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> > drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.

> As noted - that will mean most of the GNU stuff goes right out the window.
> Perhaps Woody+1 will no longer be "Debian GNU/Linux"?

> I've said it before, but once again: the world of "writing" (that is, the
> various forms of documentation, RFCs - many of which are 'non-free' under
> the DFSG, and similar things does *not* have the same baseline of what it
> means to be 'free', because it comes from a vastly different world. One in
> which 'open distribution of work' is the primary goal, and the basic means
> of 'modifying' a work all preserve the origional document intact (that is,
> annotation, commentary, and bibliographical reference).

> The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things
> which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness
> which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next?

The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say "All software
in Debian will remain 100% free", it says "Debian will remain 100% Free
Software."  Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
Free Software, even if it's documentation.  Now, this may be an 
oversight in the original phrasing, but this is the Social Contract that 
we've all agreed to uphold as Debian developers -- unless and until it's 
clarified to address the various issues that arise with other forms of 
data, we really don't have anything else we can point to when judging 
the license on documentation.

> I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and
> the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in
> which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us
> saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these
> types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we
> want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow
> itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom
> large numbers of people ignore.

I'm intrigued by this idea, and think it does indeed have a lot of
merit.  Documentation, after all, is akin to source code in the sense 
that both are intended as human-readable content, not as obscure 
instructions to be delivered directly to a computer.  If we allow an 
author to place restrictions on how we can modify some kinds of source 
code while still considering the code free, why should the same not be 
allowed for other types of source code, like documentation?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpHCnjfvImQi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> > > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > > Severity: serious
> > > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > > >
> > > > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
> > > > one of which meets the DFSG.
> > > >
> > > > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
> > > > of the DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim
> > > > distribution, changes are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> > > >
> > > > Please move this package to non-free.
> > 
> > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> 
> I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> the DFSG or not.  However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
> parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.

i can be wrong but the new fdl specifies that invariant sections should
be off-topic. 

--8<
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject
(or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly
within that overall subject. (For example, if the Document is in part a
textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are
designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that
says that the Document is released under this License. 


-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Viviamo in un mondo reale, Ciccio. -- Lucy


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Woody now more installable than potato

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


 Josip> You seem be able to blatantly maliciously misinterpret what I said.

I was presenting the flip side of the coin, yes. Malice was
 not the intent.

manoj
-- 
 "All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda
 system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are
 helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and
 to consume." Noam Chomsky
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
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: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Dale> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
 Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
 Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?

 >> Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use
 >> a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this
 >> license, then? 

 Dale> I can't answer any of your questions ;-)

Well, since there are these other issues being raised
 (specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen
 to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we
 should wait for the dust to settle down before moving things into an
 area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think?

manoj
-- 
 "Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can*
 you believe?!"  Bullwinkle J. Moose
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
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: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 19:12, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
> 
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet
should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT
is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way.

> IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> if I'm only using packages from main.

IYO. IMHO they *are* free. i explain why: if i write a 300 pages book
about something and 2 pages about my motivations, greetings to people
that helped me, etc. i want you to fix the 300 pages of technical stuff
but i don't see why you should the 'feelings' i put in that 2 pages.
you're *free* to adapt the document to your liking and even add some
comments (invariant) criticizing my own, but litterature (even technical
one) is much different from code.

federico

-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  99.% still isn't 100% but sometimes suffice. -- Me


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Paul Slootman]

On Sat 06 Apr 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 
> Over the past few weeks most of the following packages have been removed
> from the upcoming release due to bugs and such [0].
[...]
> dnrd   logtrend-consolidation  pptp-linux

Could someone give a pointer where I can found out why pptp-linux has
been removed? Its BTS page shows only a single unresolved bug, and a
minor one at that (spelling mistake in README.Reference). No RC-bugs,
fixed or unfixed.

Alternatively, what needs to be done to have this package in woody?
Recently, ADSL (MXstream as the dutch telco KPN calls it) has taken
quite a flight here in the Netherlands, and for that pptp-linux is
needed...


Paul Slootman


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

Re: g++-3.0 library support?

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

> 
> So if I wanna link an programm with the gcc-3.0 version, -lfoo-gcc3 has
> to be used and for gcc-2.9x, -lfoo.
> 
> Are there any better ideas?
> 

unfortunately not, the ABI is different between the two.


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Joe Drew]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 15:30, Martin Schulze wrote:
> However, I still cannot find a request for help with setting up a
> registration site/form on this list, neither including nor excluding
> specs, searching from November 2001 until now.

You were looking in the wrong spot. Check Message-Id:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, my initial mail to
debian-devel-announce on DebConf 2:
"As well, all those who are willing or able to help administrate (for
example, by getting some sort of web application up where people can
sign up for rooms), contact me as well."

As I said, a couple of people contacted me (1 to code a web application,
and more than one person offered hosting, I believe) and I specifically
sent the person who was willing to code the web application the LSM's
registration software, which they were kind enough to supply me, but
nobody ever actually *did* anything. When Lindows.com came to me with a
fully completed and functioning (albeit simple; I just get an e-mail for
every registration) web page, I decided to use it.

However, no apologies from anybody are needed. As I said, I'm very
concerned about Free Software, and Debian's use of it, and I completely
understand that this is a very big deal for many people. It's just that
I'm more concerned about getting the job done at this point in time than
how it's being done.
 
-- 
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Please encrypt email sent to me.


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

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Wouter Verhelst]

On 7 Apr 2002, Thomas Hood wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Ditto powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb :
> >http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=powermgmt-base&ver=1.3&arch=m68k&file=log
> 
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you look very closely, you'll find that these both
> > have been built by 'arrakis', a box of which I am the
> > buildd admin. This was a result of a f[s]cked mail setup
> > at my side. I'm uploading everything as I type this.
> 
> powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb was built on "kullervo".  
> Is it fscked up to?

Not sure. Roman Hodek is kullervo's buildd admin; you'll have to ask him
(or wait for his reaction ;-)

Note that m68k-builders are *not* on debian-68k (that's a users'
forum) but on [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be

"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
  -- From the movie "Antitrust"


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dim 07/04/2002 à 20:50, Joey Hess a écrit :

> > Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
> 
> Um, I can include a language binding in debconf w/o making it depend on
> that language.

But that won't solve the problem ; if a package using the python module
is preconfigured when the interpreter is not installed, the config
script will fail.

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Martin Schulze]

Joe Drew wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 04:54, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > To the best of my knowledge, no. But I didn't have time to learn how and
> > > do it, and Lindows.com decided that they wanted to pay one of their
> > > engineers to do it. It's quite simple: nobody else did it, so I took
> > > Lindows.com up on their offer.
> > 
> > This is rather unfair, since nobody asked for this type of help.
> 
> Actually, I asked for help with specifically this. Nobody actually did
> anything except for Lindows.com.

Hmm, I don't remember any such question but that doesn't have to imply
that there wasn't.  Hence, if you've asked and haven't received any
help, I will apologize for calling your behaviour unfair.

However, I still cannot find a request for help with setting up a
registration site/form on this list, neither including nor excluding
specs, searching from November 2001 until now.

Here's the thread listing from the mailbox, extracted via
'grepmail Drew', which is also available at



Mutt 1.3.25i   luonnotar:/tmp/x [27/27 msgs, 4 new, 57K bytes]   (threads)
   1 N   Dec 04 Joe Drew39 Debconf in Toronto, or lack thereof
   2 N   Dec 04 Jaime E. Villate22 +->
   3 Ns  Dec 04 Eric Dorland58 | +->
   4 N   Dec 04 Adam Majer  13 +->
   5 O   Feb 25 Tollef Fog Heen 20 Re: Debconf 2?
   6 O   Feb 25 Joe Drew21 +->
   7 O   Feb 27 Joe Drew22   +->
   8 O   Feb 28 Russell Coker   32 +->
   9 O   Feb 28 Joe Drew23   +->
  10 Mar 01 James A. Treacy 30 Re: Debconf 2 in Toronto: July 6-8th, 
2002
  11 O   Mar 03 Matt Zimmerman  19 +->
  12 O   Mar 04 Joe Drew27   +->
  13 O   Mar 05 Matt Zimmerman  20   | +->
  14 O   Mar 05 Martin Schulze  29   +->
  15 O   Apr 06 Martin Schulze  81 Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration
  16 O   Apr 06 Joe Drew55 +->
  17 O   Apr 06 Sean 'Shaleh' Per   14   +->
  18 O   Apr 06 Martin Schulze  26   +->
  19 O   Apr 06 Joe Drew28   | +->
  20 Os  Apr 06 Jeroen Dekkers  70   +->
  21 O   Apr 06 Joe Drew58 +->
  22 Os  Apr 07 Jeroen Dekkers 102   +->
  23 O   Apr 06 Joe Drew35   | +->
  24 Os  Apr 07 Jeroen Dekkers  59   |   +->
  25 Os  Apr 06 Nathan E Norman 64   | +->
  26 O   Apr 07 Martin Schulze  63   +->
  27 O   Apr 07 Joe Drew46 +->

None of your mails contain a request for help, so I'm wondering where
you sent your request for help.

> Yes, we're Debian. Yes, we're dedicated to Free Software. No, nobody
> else did anything for this. No, I didn't have time to waste. Yes, I care
> about Free Software: but Yes, I care a lot more about getting the job
> done. If having this done on a free software platform was so vitally
> important (as it appears now), it seems to me that someone would have
> stepped forward in this entire discussion to say "Here's a working
> alternative" or even "I would have done it if I were asked." Nobody has.
> Nobody's even suggested they might have done it.

I'd be glad to provide a working alternative, but not earlier than in
three weeks if that's sufficient.  I would have been able to provide
one four weeks ago as well, if you had asked.

> Frankly, this is tiring me out. In reference to nobody in particular, if
> all we're going to do is flame on about Free vs proprietary software for
> the rest of this thread, let's just drop it.

Before dropping, please send clarification to the observation from
above, so I know if I shall apologize or not.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

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


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Martin Schulze]

Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > Severity: serious
> > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > >
> > > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
> > > one of which meets the DFSG.
> > >
> > > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
> > > of the DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim
> > > distribution, changes are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> > >
> > > Please move this package to non-free.
> 
> The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?

I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
the DFSG or not.  However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.

This article may be helpful:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0111/msg6.html

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

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


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

Re: how-to push a package in testing ?

[christophe barbé]

Thank you for taking care of sane.

Christophe

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:13:18PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hi *,
> 
> > The sane problem is apparently solved and gphoto2 2.0final-3 is build on
> > arm.
> 
> Not exactly. I uploaded another NMU, now sane-backends should build on
> SPARC (and hopefully HPPA but it's not critical). It will be installed
> today, we can expect to have all arches in at most 2 days...
> 
> I uploaded with urgency=high, so chances are the libusb-dependent
> packages will enter Woody next week (around wednesday, sane-frontends
> needs another 2 or 3 days from now on).
> 
> Hopefully.
> 
> Thanks to Julien LEMOINE for his help on SANE.
> 
> JB.
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8  F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E

Cats seem go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for
what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch


pgp5klSUxX2rk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: g++-3.0 library support?

[Matthias Klose]

King "Leo (Martin Oberzalek)" writes:
> Hello,
> 
> it's not possible linking a C++ library compiled with g++-2.9x to a C++
> application compiled with g++-3.0.
> 
> We all no the reasons...
> 
> My question is how I should handle this, on debian distributions that
> are based on gcc-2.9x?

use only gcc-2.95.

> I have a C++ library. And I wan't to create debs for g++.2.9x and
> g++-3.0. Technically this is no problem. 
> 
> I created 4 debs. 
> 
> 1) libfoo  => shared g++-2.9x library
> 2) libfoo-dev  => development files (includes, .a, docu)
> 3) libfoo-gcc3 => shared g++3.0 library
> 4) libfoo-gcc3-dev => development files (.a only, since
>include files and docu are the same)
> 
> the g++-2.9x library files are called libfoo.so
> for g++-3.0  libfoo-gcc3.so
> 
> The files of both packages are located in /usr/lib

how about compatibility of sonames across distributions?

> So if I wanna link an programm with the gcc-3.0 version, -lfoo-gcc3 has
> to be used and for gcc-2.9x, -lfoo.
> 
> Are there any better ideas?

yes, use only one version. Which package does require this setup?


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Jérôme Marant]

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
>> > after woody is released. It looks nice.
>> 
>> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
>
> Um, I can include a language binding in debconf w/o making it depend on
> that language.

  I guess that the package will have to predepend on python, right?
  So, unlike the current debconf usage, a debconf dependency is no
  longer sufficient.   

-- 
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org
  


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

The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
> 
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
"Transparant copy" is for example.

> IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> if I'm only using packages from main.

The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free. IMHO
a FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is free documentation,
just as GPL-licensed software is free software. It places additional
restriction, but those restriction aren't really harmful. IMHO the
restrictions of the FDL are less harmful than those of the GPL, as the
FDL doesn't limit from doing useful things. The GPL does, you can't
link GPL'd code with code under the BSD license with advertisement
clause. So if we are going to move all FDL'd documentation to non-free
we can better move all GPL'd software to non-free at same time.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgp0gjaoQS6XZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ilisp debian package

[Craig Brozefsky]

Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 3:20 pm, David Starner wrote:
> 
> > Why? Considering how close to the release we are, and how easy it is,
> > why not do it now? It certainly won't interfer with the maintainer
> > closing them.
> 
> OK, done. I just don't want to step on anyone's toes.

My sincerest apologies for the delay.  I have had hard time keeping up
with devel and devel-announce for reasons of my own stupidty in
configuring gnus and since I had done the [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body
containing closes BUGID in it, which apparently is not supported
anymore (I was going from docs) I assumed the bugs were all closed
out properly.

-- 
Craig Brozefsky   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Free Software Sociopath(tm) http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Ask me about Common Lisp Enterprise Eggplants at Red Bean!


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

Re: iptables_1.2.6a-3_m68k missing

[Matthias Klose]

Laurence J. Lane writes:
> iptables 1.2.6a-3 is being held back because it's out of date
> on m68k.
> 
>http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html.gz#iptables
> 
> iptables_1.2.6a-3_m68k was built, according to the buildd log,
> but package does not appear to have been uploaded.
> 
> Who can look into this problem?

can this safely be built on Mac (2.2 kernel)?


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Martin Schulze]

Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:54:06 +0200:
> >  You may not aware of the discussion we had last year, when VMware
> >  offered to donate five (or another amount, not sure anymore) licenses
> >  of their vmware product to Debian in order to help us develop
> >  boot-floppies.
> >  
> Just wondering, is your computer free or non-free? Did you get all the
> blueprints of your CPU/chipset/VGA/etc? Nahh.. Probably not. Will
> someone give them to you if you want them? Probably not.
> 
> Your computer's non-free.. A virtual computer can be non-free too, and
> until Plex86 becomes usable I'll have to use it.. It runs a non-free OS
> as well (as long as someone pays me for doing stuff with Windows, that
> is).

This is your personal decision which is fine and nobody can misaccept
it.  You are free not only to switch between different pieces of Free
Software but also between Free and non-free software.  As long as this
is your personal system and decision and it doesn't affect third
projects badly.

However, if the Debian project would embrace such software (too much),
it would place the wrong signals into the software world and would
make the project lose their creditability.  Just think about the fact
that we refused to put KDE in potato's non-free directory but would
use/embrace/depend on non-free, proprietary software that we may not
even distribute?  Does that sound sane to you?  I hope not.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

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


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

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into the common reference area?
> > 
> > Who should I talk to about this?
> 
> Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?

You clearly have an opinion on this issue ;-)

I suppose this stems from the "invarient section" clause in the GFDL?

While this declaration is "broader" than the same feature in the GPL, I
don't see the problem.

The GPL allows the license and the copyright statements to be both
required, and invarient. The GFDL simply recognizes that documents often
have historical, philosophical, or political statements that should, yes
need, to be protected from modification. These sections, such as the
history section of my book, writen by Ian M., deserve protection if truely
"free speech" is to continue to be protected. The technical material can
then be left "modifiable" as is needed and useful to such matherial.

What would be a more suitable "Free Documentation License" in your view?

Waiting is,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_-   Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road  _-
_-   e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
  available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Joey Hess]

Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
> > after woody is released. It looks nice.
> 
> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?

Um, I can include a language binding in debconf w/o making it depend on
that language.


-- 
see shy jo


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

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>  Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
>  Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
>  Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?
> 
>   Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use
>  a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this
>  license, then? 

I can't answer any of your questions ;-)

What I do know is:

  1. The GFDL is a published license of the FSF, intended for use by
 documentation.

  2. The documentation provided by gmp-4.0.1 is now GFDL. This indicates a
 move by GNU to use this license more broadly.

  3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
 that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
 non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.

  4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
 can make demands for "good" documentation.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_-   Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road  _-
_-   e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
  available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Chris Lawrence]

On Apr 07, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?

Why would debconf have to depend on python?  You stick the module in
and only bytecompile if python is installed.

(This is the same silly attitude that has lead to a lot of unnecessary
-elisp packages.)


Chris
-- 
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/


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

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Otto Wyss]

> A large mirror in Australia does provide an rsync server to access debian
> packages. When redhat 7.0 came out so many people tried to rsync it at the
> same time, the machine promptly fell over. 
> 
What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
and therefore it can't be a big problem. 

I'm asking any provider of an ftp/rsync Debian server if any comparable
figures could be extracted from the server log. Or if anyone could
measure how much CPU load the download of the Packages/Packages.gz files
really reads.

O. Wyss

-- 
Author of "Debian partial mirror synch script"
("http://dpartialmirror.sourceforge.net/";)


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

g++-3.0 library support?

[Leo \(Martin Oberzalek\)]

Hello,

it's not possible linking a C++ library compiled with g++-2.9x to a C++
application compiled with g++-3.0.

We all no the reasons...

My question is how I should handle this, on debian distributions that
are based on gcc-2.9x?

I have a C++ library. And I wan't to create debs for g++.2.9x and
g++-3.0. Technically this is no problem. 

I created 4 debs. 

1) libfoo  => shared g++-2.9x library
2) libfoo-dev  => development files (includes, .a, docu)
3) libfoo-gcc3 => shared g++3.0 library
4) libfoo-gcc3-dev => development files (.a only, since
   include files and docu are the same)

the g++-2.9x library files are called libfoo.so
for g++-3.0  libfoo-gcc3.so

The files of both packages are located in /usr/lib

So if I wanna link an programm with the gcc-3.0 version, -lfoo-gcc3 has
to be used and for gcc-2.9x, -lfoo.

Are there any better ideas?

Martin

-- 
Perhaps today IS a good day to die!



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

Re: please rebuild gtkmathview 0.3.0-4 on hppa, m68k and arm

[Rick Younie]

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> Package gtkmathview (version: 0.3.0-4) hasn't been rebuilt on hppa since
> Wed 13 March and on m68k since Wed 27 March, could someone please
> trigger the rebuilt of it on these archs?

On m68k it's waiting on gmetadom.  It's easier to see what's
going on at bruno.fmepnet.org.

Rick
-- 


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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joel Baker]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
> 
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> drawn? Is it possible to draw one?
> 
> IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> if I'm only using packages from main.

As noted - that will mean most of the GNU stuff goes right out the window.
Perhaps Woody+1 will no longer be "Debian GNU/Linux"?

I've said it before, but once again: the world of "writing" (that is, the
various forms of documentation, RFCs - many of which are 'non-free' under
the DFSG, and similar things does *not* have the same baseline of what it
means to be 'free', because it comes from a vastly different world. One in
which 'open distribution of work' is the primary goal, and the basic means
of 'modifying' a work all preserve the origional document intact (that is,
annotation, commentary, and bibliographical reference).

The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things
which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness
which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next?

Folks, if RMS - who I think most folks will acknowlege is a zealot, whether
they agree with his zealotry or not - is not only willing to put up with,
but actively encourages, the use of a core license which Debian considers
to be non-free, then I think it's time to take a step back and seriously
consider *how* we ended up with the world on it's ear.

I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and
the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in
which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us
saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these
types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we
want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow
itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom
large numbers of people ignore.

(Sort of like some folks ignore Jerodan for his Hurd cheerleading, or me
for the *BSD cheerleading, for example...)
-- 
***
Joel Baker   System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/


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

Re: gmetadom failure on HPPA never reported in update_excuses

[Randolph Chung]

In reference to a message from Stefano Zacchiroli, dated Apr 07:
> I noticed that another package of mine, which is needed to build
> gtkmathview, wasn't successfully rebuilt on hppa, namely package
> "gmetadom".

it needs some c++ work. For one thing it references internal libstdc++
symbols (__STL_BEGIN_NAMESPACE, etc). Instead you should use "namespace std;",
etc. 

You can try building your package on paer.debian.org (when it comes back up) 
or sarti.debian.org, which are both hppa machines.

randolph
-- 
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.TauSq.org/


pgpGBM4Pepcxu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Python module for debconf

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dim 07/04/2002 à 17:54, Joey Hess a écrit :

> What's worse, you can really only safley use essential and base packages
> in debconf config scripts. You can of course depend on python and use
> this python module in your postinst, after dependencies are met, but
> depednencies (and even pre-dependencies!) will not be guaranteed to be
> met when a package is preconfigured.

That's what I was afraid of.

> Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
> after woody is released. It looks nice.

Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: ilisp debian package

[Will Newton]

On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 3:20 pm, David Starner wrote:

> Why? Considering how close to the release we are, and how easy it is,
> why not do it now? It certainly won't interfer with the maintainer
> closing them.

OK, done. I just don't want to step on anyone's toes.


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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software

Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
if I'm only using packages from main.
-- 
 - Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  -  http://www.sacredchao.net
  "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
   okay to be different, to not conform to society."
   -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese


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

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Thomas Hood]

I wrote:
> Ditto powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb :
>http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=powermgmt-base&ver=1.3&arch=m68k&file=log

Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If you look very closely, you'll find that these both
> have been built by 'arrakis', a box of which I am the
> buildd admin. This was a result of a f[s]cked mail setup
> at my side. I'm uploading everything as I type this.

powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb was built on "kullervo".  
Is it fscked up to?

--
Thomas


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

Re: please rebuild gtkmathview 0.3.0-4 on hppa, m68k and arm

[Philip Blundell]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 09:08, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> BTW, on arm the package has been successfull rebuilt on April 2 and
> April 6, but the package is still reported as out of date on arm in
> update_excuses.html, anybody knows the reason?

Dunno, just some or other random delay.  It's showing as uploaded now,
see http://auric.debian.org/~pb/shame/arm.html.  Update_excuses only
cares about packages that have actually been installed in the archive,
and it can take a day or so for this to happen following a successful
build.

p.


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Joey Hess]

Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Being tired of the shell, and not knowing perl enough, I have written a
> > little python module for debconf.
> >
> > I haven't tested it thouroughly, but it seems to work fine. Of course, I
> > intend to use it, but if people are interested, it can be found at :
> > http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~jmouette/debian/
> 
> I personaly prefer to use Python rather than Perl.
> However, there is a drawback in using a python-debconf:
> as long as python is not essential, you will force people
> to install python in order to be able to install other
> packages (since there will be a dependency on python-debconf).
> 
> Currently, the advantage of using the shell or the perl
> interfaçe to debconf is that perl-base is essential, so
> it will necessarily be installed on your system.

What's worse, you can really only safley use essential and base packages
in debconf config scripts. You can of course depend on python and use
this python module in your postinst, after dependencies are met, but
depednencies (and even pre-dependencies!) will not be guaranteed to be
met when a package is preconfigured.

Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
after woody is released. It looks nice.

-- 
see shy jo


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

Re: problem with gvd

[Jérôme Marant]

"Carl B. Constantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


> I did read the BTS and saw the bug listed there which is why I didn't
> report it again. At the time I didn't see any mention of a patch but I
> may have overlooked something.

  Probably. There are patch tags and the bug is in the "pending upload"
  section.

-- 
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org
  


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Jérôme Marant]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Being tired of the shell, and not knowing perl enough, I have written a
> little python module for debconf.
>
> I haven't tested it thouroughly, but it seems to work fine. Of course, I
> intend to use it, but if people are interested, it can be found at :
> http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~jmouette/debian/

  Hi,

I personaly prefer to use Python rather than Perl.
However, there is a drawback in using a python-debconf:
as long as python is not essential, you will force people
to install python in order to be able to install other
packages (since there will be a dependency on python-debconf).

Currently, the advantage of using the shell or the perl
interfaçe to debconf is that perl-base is essential, so
it will necessarily be installed on your system.

I think that this can be discussed though.

Cheers,

-- 
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org
  


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

Re: problem with gvd

[Carl B. Constantine]

* J?r?me Marant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Carl B. Constantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I've had the following problem while trying to do a dist-upgrade this
> > morning:
> ...
> > ideas on a fix?
> 
>   Please read the BTS. I've already sent a patch and the maintainer will
>   upload soon.
> 

I did read the BTS and saw the bug listed there which is why I didn't
report it again. At the time I didn't see any mention of a patch but I
may have overlooked something.

-- 

__   _   Carl B. Constantine
   / /  (_)__  __   __  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /  (2.4.17)  http://www.duckwing.ca 
 //_/_//_/\_ _/ /_/\_\  Stormix 2000
PGP key available on request


  Up the line - out the server- past the firewall - nothing but Net!!


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

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Wouter Verhelst]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:

> El día 07 Apr 2002, Mark Purcell escribía:
> > 
> > According to 
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=openh323gk&ver=2.0b4-1&arch=m68k&stamp=1017326211&file=log&as=raw
> >  
> > openh323gk-2.0.b4-1 was built for m68k on 28 Mar, however this package 
> > doesn't seem to of been uploaded to the archives which is why this package 
> > hasn't been released to testing.
> > 
>   Almost the same happens with gpgme, only that it has been compiled on
>   1 Apr. I think that some m68k uploads are being missed or not uploaded
>   even.

If you look very closely, you'll find that these both have been built by
'arrakis', a box of which I am the buildd admin. This was a result of a
fucked mail setup at my side. I'm uploading everything as I type this.

- -- 
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be

"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
  -- From the movie "Antitrust"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6

iD8DBQE8sGJOWgZ1HEtaPf0RAv1wAJ0QKM+FGzetXIGn8Nx1TapF4Mha4gCeK/IO
OLnfyGwC7tiNwc+fGfAxwYQ=
=Nsh7
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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

Re: New Packages (i18n version of APT)

[Michael Piefel]

Am  6.04.02 um 21:52:03 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> Because it is a bad idea?

As Steve pointed out, good or bad idea is not really a good reason for
delaying packages, at least it has not been so far. Furthermore I don't
think it is a bad idea, for the following reason:

You, Jason, did not add full i18n support to APT, and were not willing
to accept my patches for woody. This is OK, as APT is a very central
package and has been in different shades of freeze for quite some time.
Thus the only way to get i18n support for APT into woody was to create a
new package. I am very willing to throw it away once it's not needed
anymore.

> The people who made it still have not produced a complete patch
> against normal APT, so instead of doing that they just opted to try
> and force their work into the archive.

What is this? Face it, it's a lie. I have produced a complete patch -
otherwise apt-i18n would not be possible. The patch is complete insofar
as it works reliantly and fits nicely into the build process.

You did not quite like it? That's OK with me. But what's not OK is that
you do not provide any meaningful feedback. You said you want different
domains for the utilities and the library; I asked why, you didn't
answer. I provided another patch adding >200 newly marked translatable
string, you said some of them weren't appropriate; I asked which, you
didn't answer.

Don't say I didn't make the patch to your likings when you are not
willing (or able) to tell others what exactly your likings are.

Bye,
Mike

-- 
|=| Michael Piefel
|=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
|=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Joe Drew]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 04:54, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > To the best of my knowledge, no. But I didn't have time to learn how and
> > do it, and Lindows.com decided that they wanted to pay one of their
> > engineers to do it. It's quite simple: nobody else did it, so I took
> > Lindows.com up on their offer.
> 
> This is rather unfair, since nobody asked for this type of help.

Actually, I asked for help with specifically this. Nobody actually did
anything except for Lindows.com.
 
> I know that there are several people in our project who do speak PHP,
> which would be a proper language to do so, it's also enabled on auric,
> klecker and pandora.  If that's not good enough, there's still perl
> and python run through /cgi-bin/ just like it is on master.  We also
> have databases in use on several hosts.

Yep - and I _could have_ spent the time to do it with PHP or perl or
whatever, too. The fact is, these people didn't step up, and I didn't
have the time, and Lindows.com just did it. What am I going to say to
them: "I know you have spent time and effort on this, but just on
general pragmatic reasons I'm going to refuse you. By the way, can we
have some more money?"

Yes, we're Debian. Yes, we're dedicated to Free Software. No, nobody
else did anything for this. No, I didn't have time to waste. Yes, I care
about Free Software: but Yes, I care a lot more about getting the job
done. If having this done on a free software platform was so vitally
important (as it appears now), it seems to me that someone would have
stepped forward in this entire discussion to say "Here's a working
alternative" or even "I would have done it if I were asked." Nobody has.
Nobody's even suggested they might have done it.

Frankly, this is tiring me out. In reference to nobody in particular, if
all we're going to do is flame on about Free vs proprietary software for
the rest of this thread, let's just drop it.

-- 
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Please encrypt email sent to me.


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

Re: ilisp debian package

[David Starner]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:04:43PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 2:44 pm, Josip Rodin wrote:
> 
> > Since you're not a maintainer, you shouldn't close them. However, you can
> > tag them "fixed", by sending 'tag  fixed' commands to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> OK, if Craig hasn't done it by the end of today I will do that.

Why? Considering how close to the release we are, and how easy it is,
why not do it now? It certainly won't interfer with the maintainer
closing them.

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


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

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Erich Schubert]

> IIRC galeon is not moved to woody just because it depends on mozilla
> which has an RC bug. Since mozilla is not removed but will be fixed
> before the release (at least that's how I understood Anthony's mail) I
> wonder if galeon then can make it back in. Or did you just removev
> galeon 1.0.3 and 1.2.0 (which depends on mozilla) is not affected at
> all?

Galeon 1.0.3 (depending on mozilla 0.9.8) was removed because I did not
tag the serious bug reports against galeon 1.2.0 "+ sid".
Galeon 1.2.0 needs mozilla 0.9.9 and can thus not enter testing right
now (and i've been changing some packaging things lately, so there have
been a few recent uploads anyway)

So when mozilla 0.9.9 is fixed, both moz 0.9.9 and galeon 1.2.0 will
hopefully be allowed into woody by aj. Time will tell ;)

Greetings,
Erich


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

Re: how-to push a package in testing ?

[Julien BLACHE]

christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi *,

> The sane problem is apparently solved and gphoto2 2.0final-3 is build on
> arm.

Not exactly. I uploaded another NMU, now sane-backends should build on
SPARC (and hopefully HPPA but it's not critical). It will be installed
today, we can expect to have all arches in at most 2 days...

I uploaded with urgency=high, so chances are the libusb-dependent
packages will enter Woody next week (around wednesday, sane-frontends
needs another 2 or 3 days from now on).

Hopefully.

Thanks to Julien LEMOINE for his help on SANE.

JB.


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

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Thomas Hood]

On 07 Apr 2002 Mark Purcell wrote:
> According to 
>
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=openh323gk&ver=2.0b4-1&arch=m68k&stamp=1017326211&file=log&as=raw
 > openh323gk-2.0.b4-1 was built for m68k on 28 Mar, however this
> package doesn't seem to of been uploaded to the archives which
> is why this package hasn't been released to testing.

Ditto powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb :
 
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=powermgmt-base&ver=1.3&arch=m68k&file=log

This is keeping powermgmt-base and apmd updates out of woody.

Someone plug the AppleTalk cable back into the Mac Classic.

--
Thomas


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

Re: gmetadom failure on HPPA never reported in update_excuses

[Mark Brown]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:24:40AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> I'm wondering why the hell "gmetadom" isn't mention as out of data on
> hppa in update_excuses which reports only:

It's only out of date if it was previously built for an architecture.
AFAICT from madison it has never been built for HPPA.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


pgpHWQ3dseanZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ilisp debian package

[Will Newton]

On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 2:44 pm, Josip Rodin wrote:

> Since you're not a maintainer, you shouldn't close them. However, you can
> tag them "fixed", by sending 'tag  fixed' commands to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OK, if Craig hasn't done it by the end of today I will do that.


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

iptables_1.2.6a-3_m68k missing

[Laurence J. Lane]

iptables 1.2.6a-3 is being held back because it's out of date
on m68k.

   http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html.gz#iptables

iptables_1.2.6a-3_m68k was built, according to the buildd log,
but package does not appear to have been uploaded.

Who can look into this problem?


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