Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Joe Drew]

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think it would be fair to tar mpg321 with the brush of "non-free" when
 ^un?
> that clearly wasn't your intent when you wrote it.  Having a giant
> corporation smash your First Amendmendment[1] right to express yourself

I, personally, am glad you exercised your first amendment right to write
that word.

> via computer code is quite punishment enough.

I have to admit that I'm considering just dropping development of mpg321
altogether, particularly if it's our judgement that we can't ship it. I
can't say that I'd be overly sad in that case - the only mp3s I acquire
these days are illegal ones my friends send me, as I encode all my CDs
to Ogg now - but it's still a sign that we are just so utterly
unimportant in a society ruled by the megacorps.
 
> [1] Okay, so you're Canadian, UDHR or whatever.  I'm perfectly happy to
 ??

No amendments are needed; it's right in the Canadian Constitution.

> stand up for the First Amendment rights even of people who aren't
> governed by the U.S. Constitution.  That makes me doubly-damned
> according to the Republican Party, I think.  "*FREE SPEECH* for
> *FOREIGNERS*!?!???  WHAT KIND OF GODLESS HEATHEN COMMONIST[sic] CRAP IS
> THIS?"

Thank God for multi-party systems.

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

"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

[Anthony Towns]

Heh. What part of "There's no need to Cc me" is so unclear, I wonder?

On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:01:29PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Using http range transfers its possible to only download a portion of the
> packages file if its uncompressed, this method could have been used along
> with a package "index" file to vastly reduce the bandwidth used to update
> the Packages file.

It could've been, but it wasn't, so it's not an issue worth wasting time
over. What you're reinventing badly has already been done better at:

http://ftp-master.debian.org/~bjb/pdiffs

> (sorry going away for 2 weeks, aj's witty yet insulting reply will have to
> wait, cc'ing just to provoke him :-P )

Go fuck yourself.

Cheers,
aj

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

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpItcpTlHyGW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why is /usr/sbin/install-info a perl script!!!

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:09:04PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>I am trying to get the glibc debian cvs for 2.2.92 to
> package (it builds and passes make check fine on debian
> ppc sid with the new gcc 3.2.1pre). However the buggy
> perl 5.80 in sid has broken install-info. I looked at 
> a Yellow Dog Linux machine and noticed, however, that they
> had a texinfo 4.2 source package that builds an info
> package with a binary /usr/sbin/install-info instead of
> the perl version we have. Why is that and why don't we 
> just NMU texinfo in sid to start building a binary
> install-info until perl 5.80's regex stops leaking 
> memory like a sieve?

Debian install-info is NOT the same program as Texinfo's install-info.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

[Adam Heath]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:

> If its compressed its all or nothing.

nope.  you can append compressed data to the end of a gzip file, and gunzip
will cope.

Re: why is /usr/sbin/install-info a perl script!!!

[Adam Heath]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:

>I am trying to get the glibc debian cvs for 2.2.92 to
> package (it builds and passes make check fine on debian
> ppc sid with the new gcc 3.2.1pre). However the buggy
> perl 5.80 in sid has broken install-info. I looked at
> a Yellow Dog Linux machine and noticed, however, that they
> had a texinfo 4.2 source package that builds an info
> package with a binary /usr/sbin/install-info instead of
> the perl version we have. Why is that and why don't we
> just NMU texinfo in sid to start building a binary
> install-info until perl 5.80's regex stops leaking
> memory like a sieve?

unstable is as unstable does.

Get a clue.

why is /usr/sbin/install-info a perl script!!!

[Jack Howarth]

   I am trying to get the glibc debian cvs for 2.2.92 to
package (it builds and passes make check fine on debian
ppc sid with the new gcc 3.2.1pre). However the buggy
perl 5.80 in sid has broken install-info. I looked at 
a Yellow Dog Linux machine and noticed, however, that they
had a texinfo 4.2 source package that builds an info
package with a binary /usr/sbin/install-info instead of
the perl version we have. Why is that and why don't we 
just NMU texinfo in sid to start building a binary
install-info until perl 5.80's regex stops leaking 
memory like a sieve?
   Jack

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

[Goswin Brederlow]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Hello world,
> 
> In a couple of days uncompressed Packages files for unstable will cease
> to be generated, and bzip2'ed Packages files will be generated in their

That will also break rsyncing them, which saves a lot.
Packages, Sources and Contents files only have minimal changes from
day to day, so downloading them again and again is a waste.

MfG
Goswin

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

[Glenn McGrath]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, it was written:
> 
> > Hello world,
> >
> > In a couple of days uncompressed Packages files for unstable will
> > cease to be generated, and bzip2'ed Packages files will be generated
> > in their place (actually, if you look carefully, they're already being
> > generated). Sources.bz2 files are being added too. If you have any
> > scripts looking at the uncompressed Packages files, you should change
> > them to look at either the gzip or bzip2 versions now.
> >
> > Presuming things continue to work in unstable, the same change will be
> > made to testing in a few weeks. Similarly, the Contents-*.gz files for
> > unstable will probably be switching to .bz2 in the not too distant
> > future.
> >
> > (Yes, this is as previously discussed in March 2001...)
>

Using http range transfers its possible to only download a portion of the
packages file if its uncompressed, this method could have been used along
with a package "index" file to vastly reduce the bandwidth used to update
the Packages file.

If its compressed its all or nothing.

I did generate code to create the "index" file, however to would have
needed to be integrated into katie (or whatever the program is that
generates Packages file) to keep in sync with the Packages file, i never
got around to finishing it from there.

Whilst that method would have bene better than the status quo gzip or
bzip), it would be better if metadata were by design retrievable
individually, thats more radical proposition.

(sorry going away for 2 weeks, aj's witty yet insulting reply will have to
wait, cc'ing just to provoke him :-P )



Glenn

Re: "Bug of the month", or how to get people fixing bugs

[Vikki Roemer]

Andrew Suffield wrote:
[Obey M-F-T or die]
Here's the basic idea: turn bug-fixing into a game (a counterbalance
to the huge quantities of time which moon-buggy and frozen-bubble have
taken away from Debian development).
People register to play, and each month, all the players are given
three randomly selected bugs to tackle. Points are awarded to those
whose assigned bugs get fixed during that month, with the idea being
that people would endeavour to ensure their bugs get fixed swiftly, by
whatever means they can (closing spurious bug reports, sending patches
to the BTS, making NMUs, harassing the maintainer, or whatever).
Clearly some assigned bugs will be simpler than others, but difficulty
should average out over time. Also, players with more time to spend on
bugs can improve their position the next month by closing all the
non-bugs they can find, so that less dedicated players are less likely
to get easy bugs and thusly will score less. ;)
This is far from a full set of rules; far more details were covered in
the IRC discussion which spawned this. Lots of possible abuses were
discussed, and solutions found, so please refrain from responding
along those lines for now.
The interface should be extremely simple - once you've signed up, all
you have to do is to fix the bugs you get assigned, and a scoreboard
will get posted to some mailing list on a regular basis.
But, before I go implementing any of this, I want to know if people
are interested. So, if you think you'd like to try it, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (From: addresses will be fed
into the subscription system once it's set up; if you change your mind
later, just ignore the confirmation message you get and it'll be the
last you hear about it). If I get enough responses over the next few
days, I'll write the formal rules and set up the scripts.
If you have ideas for a better name, send them to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Kudos to Richard Braakman for coming up with the idea and helping
sketch out most of the details]
 

Sounds cool!  Not that I've done any *serious* programming (yet ;) ; or 
at least, nothing that I think is worth packaging up and submitting-- 
although my alarm clock has possibilities, I think...  Anyway, I would 
consider joining the 'Bug of the Month Club' once my classes settle down 
a mite and once I get a mite more programming experience-- say, in a few 
monthes.  One quick question, though-- can the players choose which 
languages they would prefer to work with, or don't they have a choice? 
Or, if you don't know the language well, is that what the upstream 
developers are for? :)

BTW, I love the name-- 'Bug of the Month Club' *grin*  Just wanted to 
let you know.

--
Vikki Roemer
Registered Linux user #2880021   http://linuxcounter.li.org/
"Quod scripsi, scripsi." [Latin, "What I have written, I have written."]
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GAT d-(?) s: a--- C(++) UL 
P+> L+++> E>++ W+ N+ o? 
K- w--() O? M? V?(-) PS+(+++) 
PE++(+++) Y+ PGP->++ t+@ 5 X-() 
R*(?) tv-- b+++(++) DI+ D--(?) 
G e->+(*) h! r--(-) x?
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:34:48PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > This will break apt, as it doesn't look for compressed versions when using
> > file uris.
> 
> Then apt, or debian-cd, needs to be fixed. *shrug*

Huh. debian-cd can just uncompress them, but file: uris are a bit of a
pickle.

Jason

Re: RFC: Handling of certificates in Debian

[Andrew McDonald]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:57:12PM -0700, Neil Spring wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Andrew McDonald wrote:
> > On a similar subject, there seem to be more than a few applications
> > that have had "SSL/TLS support" added, but don't do any hostname
> > checking against the certificate - leaving you open to
> > man-in-the-middle attacks.
> 
> (speaking as an offender)

ditto at times - if someone who knows more about GNOME than me wants
to look at libgnomevfs2 please do, the code there was a quick
replacement of the existing openssl implementation to solve the licence
issues - it fails to do any checking.

> Why is it that TLS libraries don't handle a lot of this
> simple validation on behalf of applications?
> 
> Why is it that the sample gnutls code doesn't seem to
> include this check?

Some sample code, based on my implementation for mutt, is now included
in the documentation for gnutls in CVS, as of earlier today. ;-)

> It seems like you've contributed a lot of mutt-specific code
> to handle certificate validation in the-right-way, but that
> the procedure is both generally useful and error-prone so
> should be centralized.

One of the problems of automating the complete set of certificate
checking (hostname on cert, expiration date, validity of signatures,
etc) is that it often requires user interaction.

Users are likely to complain if they can't access their POP3 server
because the certificate expired yesterday, but they should be warned
about it so they can make the choice (inevitably they'll probably just
click 'accept'...)

Even the hostname check can be problematic - does the user really need
to accept the certificate every time because the name doesn't match?
(I've solved this for mutt by using a cache where I save the hostname
against the certificate fingerprint, mozilla does something similar.)

You also have to be careful with STARTTLS (upgrading to TLS on a
connection) if you want to rely on using TLS through this method.
(e.g. see http://bugs.guug.de/db/12/1284.html).

I'm still missing CRL checking in my mutt/gnutls patch (that's
something that very few people seem to implement, or have enabled when
it is available).

I'm not sure what the summary of this e-mail is, probably that it's
not as easy as it might first look.

-- 
Andrew McDonald
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mcdonald.org.uk/andrew/

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Richard Braakman]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:36:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In other words, if you write some free software, it's not your fault if
> some company decides 15 minutes or 15 years later that they had a patent
> on an algorithm you used, and sent packs of lawyers out to eradicate
> your software from the planet.

It might still be appropriate to move it to non-free, though.
We did that for GIF, in order to discourage use of the format, while
still allowing users who desperately needed it to install the packages.
This case seems similar, with the alleged patent-holder allowing
non-commercial use.

(I say "alleged" because I have not yet seen any basis for their claim
that decoding is patented.  The FAQ at
http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html implicitly makes this
claim, but gives no details.)

Richard Braakman

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:34:48PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> This will break apt, as it doesn't look for compressed versions when using
> file uris.

Then apt, or debian-cd, needs to be fixed. *shrug*

There's no need to Cc me, even when I bounce things and possibly lose
my M-F-T header.

Cheers,
aj

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

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

[Adam Heath]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, it was written:

> Hello world,
>
> In a couple of days uncompressed Packages files for unstable will cease
> to be generated, and bzip2'ed Packages files will be generated in their
> place (actually, if you look carefully, they're already being generated).
> Sources.bz2 files are being added too. If you have any scripts looking
> at the uncompressed Packages files, you should change them to look at
> either the gzip or bzip2 versions now.
>
> Presuming things continue to work in unstable, the same change will be
> made to testing in a few weeks. Similarly, the Contents-*.gz files for
> unstable will probably be switching to .bz2 in the not too distant future.
>
> (Yes, this is as previously discussed in March 2001...)

This will break apt, as it doesn't look for compressed versions when using
file uris.

Re: RFC: Handling of certificates in Debian

[Neil Spring]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Andrew McDonald wrote:
> On a similar subject, there seem to be more than a few applications
> that have had "SSL/TLS support" added, but don't do any hostname
> checking against the certificate - leaving you open to
> man-in-the-middle attacks.

(speaking as an offender)

Why is it that TLS libraries don't handle a lot of this
simple validation on behalf of applications?

Why is it that the sample gnutls code doesn't seem to
include this check?

Can you report bugs against broken packages with patches?

It seems like you've contributed a lot of mutt-specific code
to handle certificate validation in the-right-way, but that
the procedure is both generally useful and error-prone so
should be centralized.

thanks,
-neil

Re: Work-needing packages report for Aug 30, 2002

[Rodrigo Henriquez]

I don't know if this is the place to send this mail, so
sorry if i'm wrong.


I like contribute in some of the following projects :

emelfm (#158150), orphaned 119 days ago
 Description: file manager for X/gtk

gadfly (#113080), orphaned 342 days ago
 Description: SQL database and parser generator in Python


gide (#138039), orphaned 170 days ago
 Description: Gnome Integrated Develoment Environment

gtkfind (#138075), offered 170 days ago
 Description: Graphical File Finder


Kind Regards.


- Ro

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Colin Walters]

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:55, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:

> I also agree.  There was a moment of "bah we are not a company" but in the 
> end, I think a little help in giving our users a good looking default would 
> go a long way.  Of course not being a KDE or GNOME user I would also like to 
> see this extended to the simple window managers as well.

Personally, I really like that background that comes with the wmaker
package.  How about we move that to, say, base-files, and use it for the
default background for everything?

Re: graphical installer?

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:37:50AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
> > > Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/
> >
> > It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why
> > it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have You got
> > any other  plans ? Or maybe you want to use text installer
> > for ever?
> 
> It is currently ia32 (x86) only.

Bzzzt.  PGI supports IA-64 (ia64) as well.  A PowerPC port is also
underway, though testing and development is limited to NewWorld
PowerMacs at this point.  There has even been a successful PowerPC
install performed, though it was clunky and partitioning could not be
done.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|To Republicans, limited government
Debian GNU/Linux   |means not assisting people they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |would sooner see shoveled into mass
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |graves.  -- Kenneth R. Kahn


pgp5SuZ1jkTRB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Please compile treetool on alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, powerpc and s390

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:15:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:59:36AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > unfortunately treetool is non-free because there is neigther a
> > > license nor any upstream author available.
> >
> > Uh, if there's no license we have no business shipping it at all.
> >
> > Even in non-free.
> >
> > Please ask debian-legal if you need clarification of this.
> We have explicite permission:
> 
> Thanks for your interest in treetool.  While treetool is "free"; some
> portions are copyright the University of Illlinois.  I am currently working
> on getting permission from them to obtain clear rights to the package; in
> the meantime, I cannot place the program under the GNU license (which is my
> desire).  I do have permission to distribute the program, so you are
> welcome to include it under the "non-free" area of Debian Linux.
> 
> When these issues are cleared up, I will place the package under the GNU
> license and let you know.

Okay.  What you have is a license, then; it's just a very informal one.

Email from a person granting you permission to do things not ordinarily
permitted by copyright law is a "license", when that person has
appropriate legal standing to grant such permission.  Such
communications are just as valid as the GNU GPL or BSD licenses, if less
formal.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the
Debian GNU/Linux   |best of all possible worlds.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists are afraid the optimists
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |are right.


pgpQ84hLV184e.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:23AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> If fraunhofer say that you are allowed to distribute mp3 players for
> free (but not for cost), then they must be put in non-free. And since
> they have patents all around the world, they can't be put in non-us.

It's my interpretation of the DSFG, which I have offered on debian-legal
many times in the past without controversy (notable in itself), that we
do not hold DFSG-nonfreeness imposed by a patent as rendering a package
DFSG-nonfree if the package maintainer or upstream author is not in
cahoots with the patent holder in enforcing a DFSG-violating patent
license.

In other words, if you write some free software, it's not your fault if
some company decides 15 minutes or 15 years later that they had a patent
on an algorithm you used, and sent packs of lawyers out to eradicate
your software from the planet.

So, the issue for Debian is not -- as long as it's honestly licensed
DFSG-freely by the author -- "do we move it into non-free?" but "can we
ship it at all?"

I think it would be fair to tar mpg321 with the brush of "non-free" when
that clearly wasn't your intent when you wrote it.  Having a giant
corporation smash your First Amendmendment[1] right to express yourself
via computer code is quite punishment enough.

[1] Okay, so you're Canadian, UDHR or whatever.  I'm perfectly happy to
stand up for the First Amendment rights even of people who aren't
governed by the U.S. Constitution.  That makes me doubly-damned
according to the Republican Party, I think.  "*FREE SPEECH* for
*FOREIGNERS*!?!???  WHAT KIND OF GODLESS HEATHEN COMMONIST[sic] CRAP IS
THIS?"

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion.
Debian GNU/Linux   | Set fire to a church of your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgp4kHEsqFOwP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Large file support?

[Torsten Landschoff]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
 
> Its not. glibc takes care of it since like forever.
> 
> Otherwise ls, dd, cat, tar,  all would be broken.

Thanks. That was what I would have expected, but anyway, better be
sure what you are doing.

Greetings

Torsten


pgpWeo1PRamaY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFC: Handling of certificates in Debian

[Andrew McDonald]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:40:11AM +0200,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 
> Right now, every TLS-enabled package tries to screw it up in new and
> never-before-tried ways.

One commonly missing feature is that the certificate should contain a
subjectAltName extension of type dNSName containing the hostname of the
machine (or, at least, put the hostname in the Common Name). See
RFC2818 and RFC2595.

Should a "recommended contents for X.509 certificates for TLS" be added
to Debian Policy?

On a similar subject, there seem to be more than a few applications
that have had "SSL/TLS support" added, but don't do any hostname
checking against the certificate - leaving you open to
man-in-the-middle attacks.


Andrew
-- 
Andrew McDonald
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mcdonald.org.uk/andrew/

Re: dpkg bug #156463: second opinions?

[Jérôme Marant]

Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   Greetings,
>
> Just writing to request a "second opinion" on this bug.
>
> Current dpkg behavior does not allow a package to replace a directory
> with a symlink during upgrade.  This broke a libc6-dev upgrade when I
> made an unstable chroot from a potato tarball on an ARM system a
> couple of months ago.  See bug 151669 and the debian-arm thread I
> started a while ago (URL below) for details.

  I already raised the issue one year ago, and I realized dpkg
  should behave that way. In order to save you time:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200107/msg01666.html

  Cheers,

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org

Re: Large file support?

[Goswin Brederlow]

Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:42:04PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>  
> > This does not solve the issue, LFS requires 2.4 or a patched 2.2
> > Kernel.
> > http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html
> 
> But with a standard 2.2 kernel it should still work for files < 2GB 
> I hope? I built openldap2 with lfs support and I am only running 2.4
> kernels. Can somebody tell me if it is going to break on 2.2?
> 
> Greetings
> 
>   Torsten

Its not. glibc takes care of it since like forever.

Otherwise ls, dd, cat, tar,  all would be broken.

MfG
Goswin

Re: RFD: Architecture field being retarded? [was: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?]

[Goswin Brederlow]

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Brian May wrote:
> 
> > This proposal would also allow, say bochs, to provide i386 too (although
> > I think more work might be needed here).
> 
> No, it wouldn't.
> 
> Say you install bochs on alpha.  If bochs provides i386, then this would tell
> dpkg that it is ok to install i386 binaries in the host.

Theres also a more suitable project under way. Instead of emulating a
complete system it just translates the assembler code and transaltes
syscalls to your architecture.

I don't know its name because I only heart from it. Falk Hueffner is
trying to get his Mathematica(i386) running on his alpha with it.

>From what he told me its way faster than bochs and transperent. Could
probably made into a binary_misc style module so the kernel supports
i386 elf binaries.

MfG
Goswin

Re: Is there a limitation on swap parition size linux can use?

[Goswin Brederlow]

Walter Tautz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I heard that 2Gb is the limit. If so I would have
> to create distinct swap partitions if I wanted to
> have more than 2Gb swap? Just wondering...

The older blends of kernels only allowed swap partitions up to 128MB.
The newer kernels allow 2GB per swap partiton or file.

Nobody said you can only have one partition. :)


In fact its faster to spread the swap over several disks, having a
small partition on each all with the same priority. Linux will then
automatically "raid0" them for greater speed.

If you need even more swap than 2GB per disk you can have multiple
swap partitions or files on one disk. But then better keep them at
different priorities (default) so they don't get used in parallel.

MfG
Goswin

Re: RFD: Architecture field being retarded? [was: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?]

[Goswin Brederlow]

Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Russell> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35, Geert Stappers wrote:
> >> When the cause of the buildproblem is in the package, fix the
> >> problem there. The package maintainer hasn't to do it by
> >> himself, he can/must/should cooperate with people of other
> >> architectures.  A sign like "!hurd-i386" looks to me like "No
> >> niggers allowed", it is not an invitation to cooperation.
> 
> Russell> So you think I should keep my selinux packages as
> Russell> architecture any, even though they will never run on on
> Russell> HURD or BSD?
> 
> Thanks, Russell, you are making my point. It is similiar with radvd,
> which was designed for Linux/BSD and won't work on the HURD, since it
> simply isn't supported upstream. I am not in the position to port
> radvd to the HURD, altough this would be the ideal way to go.

What about setting !hurd-i386 and file a bug regarding it with the tag
"Help needed".

That should encourage people to help and prevent autobuilders to send
build-failed mails for every release.

Just a random thought.
Goswin

Re: dpkg bug #156463: second opinions?

[Adam Heath]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

>   Greetings,
>
> Just writing to request a "second opinion" on this bug.
>
> Current dpkg behavior does not allow a package to replace a directory
> with a symlink during upgrade.  This broke a libc6-dev upgrade when I
> made an unstable chroot from a potato tarball on an ARM system a couple
> of months ago.  See bug 151669 and the debian-arm thread I started a
> while ago (URL below) for details.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2002/debian-arm-200208/msg00017.html
>
> Wichert promptly closed my bug reporting this, #156463, saying "this is
> the way it's supposed to be".
>
> IMHO, this is broken behavior, as it creates a limitation on package
> upgrading which has nothing whatsoever to do with policy, or with any
> sound reason for that matter.  Furthermore, that upgrade behaves
> differently in this regard from remove then install (which works just
> fine) sounds bizarre.  Is there something I'm overlooking such that
> things should be this way?
>
> Please cc me in replies as I'm not subscribed.

So, what happens when someone does this:

==
mkfs.ext2 /dev/sda5
mount /dev/sda5 /mount/sda5/
cp -a /usr /mount/sda5/usr
cp -a /var /mount/sda5/var
rm -rf /usr
rm -rf /var
ln -s mount/sda5/usr usr
ln -s mount/sda5/var var
==

dpkg bug #156463: second opinions?

[Adam C Powell IV]

 Greetings,
Just writing to request a "second opinion" on this bug.
Current dpkg behavior does not allow a package to replace a directory 
with a symlink during upgrade.  This broke a libc6-dev upgrade when I 
made an unstable chroot from a potato tarball on an ARM system a couple 
of months ago.  See bug 151669 and the debian-arm thread I started a 
while ago (URL below) for details.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2002/debian-arm-200208/msg00017.html
Wichert promptly closed my bug reporting this, #156463, saying "this is 
the way it's supposed to be".

IMHO, this is broken behavior, as it creates a limitation on package 
upgrading which has nothing whatsoever to do with policy, or with any 
sound reason for that matter.  Furthermore, that upgrade behaves 
differently in this regard from remove then install (which works just 
fine) sounds bizarre.  Is there something I'm overlooking such that 
things should be this way?

Please cc me in replies as I'm not subscribed.
Zeen,
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 

Re: graphical installer?

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Mateusz Papiernik 

| Is there any plans for the graphical installer?

yes.  look at the debian-installer module in debian-boot cvs.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are  : :' :
  `. `' 
`-  

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Erich Schubert]

> Because some admins, unlike the rest of us, thinks users want's to have
> software in their local language and use local keyboard layout, then we
> indeed want's to have our software in english and us keyboard layout
> with local as an switchable option, right?

Which means *everbody* needs to answer these questions once at their
first login, instead of just changing them in the control center, like
all other options, when we actually DO disagree with our admins
preferences?

There is no NEED to force the user to confirm these settings, as they
can be changed at any time in the control center.
Language is indeed quite special, but i prefer there the gnome way -
selecting a different language in the login manager is nicer.
Because i don't have to select my language...

Greetings,
Erich

Re: graphical installer?

[Mateusz Papiernik]

> Being able to automatically search and install modules or having easy
> configuration for printers, has nothing to do with using a graphical
> interface or not.
sorry - I meant not that. I meant about extending install-system
capability with adding graphical interface to it :-)



-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

Re: graphical installer?

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le ven 30/08/2002 à 17:37, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry a écrit :
> > On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
> > > > Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/
> > >
> > > It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why
> > > it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have You got
> > > any other  plans ? Or maybe you want to use text installer
> > > for ever?
> >
> > It is currently ia32 (x86) only.  There is also some integration work. 
> > By the next release there will likely be several options available.
>
> And correct me if I wrong, but it doesn't support internationalization.

I believe that is the case or at least was (it may hve been updated recently).

Re: graphical installer?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le ven 30/08/2002 à 17:37, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry a écrit :
> On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
> > > Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/
> >
> > It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why
> > it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have You got
> > any other  plans ? Or maybe you want to use text installer
> > for ever?
> 
> It is currently ia32 (x86) only.  There is also some integration work.  By 
> the 
> next release there will likely be several options available.

And correct me if I wrong, but it doesn't support internationalization.

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: graphical installer?

[Chris Hagar]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:22:50 +0200
Mateusz Papiernik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> beginners - for example automatically search and install
> modules for ethernet/whatever - or easy configuration 
> for printer :-P Of course I'm not a beginner :-P

Being able to automatically search and install modules or having easy
configuration for printers, has nothing to do with using a graphical
interface or not.

Re: graphical installer?

[Josh McKinney]

On approximately Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:22:50PM +0200, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Is there any plans for the graphical installer? I know,
> it isn't needed, but I think it would be nice step for
> beginners - for example automatically search and install
> modules for ethernet/whatever - or easy configuration 
> for printer :-P Of course I'm not a beginner :-P
> 

There was an article posted yesterday on www.debianplanet.org about the 
progress of the
graphical installer.  Looks like we will be seeing something soon.

-- 
Linux, the choice| All articles that coruscate with
of a GNU generation -o)  | resplendence are not truly auriferous. 
Kernel 2.4.20-pre4-ac2   /\  | 
on a Athlon-XP  _\_v | 
 | 

Re: existing debian themes

[Mateusz Papiernik]

> However, a quick look at the file reveals that the debian logo is
> actually a large jpeg. If someone could find a vector source of the
look at it:
http://gnuart.onshore.com/svg/openVertColor.svg


p.s. http://www.debian.org/logos (EPS)
-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

Re: existing debian themes

[Mateusz Papiernik]

> However, a quick look at the file reveals that the debian logo is
> actually a large jpeg. If someone could find a vector source of the
> Debian logo (I'm sure there is one somewhere) which could be converted
it's on debian.org site - I'll find it within seconds :-)



-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

Re: existing debian themes

[Ross Burton]

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 16:16, Erich Schubert wrote:
> And sunshineinabag.co.uk already has a Debian GDM2 login screen
> http://sunshineinabag.co.uk/
> which (when one replace the ridiculous apples ;) could be a nice default
> for gdm2 (when it gets packaged, i can't await it ;)
> 
> The "Debian color" should be used for HighLight only, that is for the
> active window bar, marked text and hover effects maybe. IMHO.

It does look good, apart from the apples.. :)

However, a quick look at the file reveals that the debian logo is
actually a large jpeg. If someone could find a vector source of the
Debian logo (I'm sure there is one somewhere) which could be converted
into a SVG (2 seconds work with Illustrator), GDM2 could display that
instead.  Instant eye candy and people with large monitors love you, for
the clear edges and lack of JPEG artifacts.

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF


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

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Vince Mulhollon]

On 08/30/2002 10:34:18 AM Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
>> > If I like the look of ratpoison, and someone themes it to look like
W95,
>> > I'm not going to like it when I'm "surprised" with Debian's themed
version.
>> so maybe debconf should ask (when installing windowmanager) which theme
>> do you like - original from wm, or this debian theme ?

That is an excellent idea.
However, a new can of worms opens.

If you thought vi vs emacs was a good flame-fest, how will we come up with
an "artistic standard" that all will agree to?
Redhat has it easy, boss says "either you like the theme I pick or you find
new job"

I predict this will get just about as far as requiring emacs to start up in
VI emulation mode, "to make it more consistent for the users".

For example:
I can't stand KDE's "redmond" theme, and I'm quite a fan of the B-II window
decorations and the QT-SGI style.
Then again, I'm weird enough to keep my panel on the right side of the
screen (next to my konsole scrollbars) which has the annoying side effect
of making all the "ticks" on the K menu point the wrong direction when I
open the K menu.  And I like running xplanet -sun in the root.

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
>
> The problem is, I experiment with and chose window managers by going to the
> website and look at the pretty screenshots.
> If I like the screenshot, then it's a quick apt-get install somethingwm.  I
> expect to get what I saw on upstream's screenshots.
> If I like the look of ratpoison, and someone themes it to look like W95,
> I'm not going to like it when I'm "surprised" with Debian's themed version.
>

More often than not the screen shots you see are not what the wm looks like by 
default either.

Re: graphical installer?

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
> > Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/
>
> It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why
> it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have You got
> any other  plans ? Or maybe you want to use text installer
> for ever?

It is currently ia32 (x86) only.  There is also some integration work.  By the 
next release there will likely be several options available.

apt-get does not do what dselect says

[Florian Hinzmann]

Hello!


Problem: apt is removing some packages when started from dselect within
prior notice inside dselect.

(this might be related to bug#151662, #157210, but I am
not sure it is the same currently -- maybe discussion makes
it more clear to me, I can tighten up my report and send it 
to the BTS)


I didn't upgrade my system due to the libpng/libgtk dependency problems
for some time. And only some partial upgrades for even some more days.


Today I tried again and it looks good inside dselect. Only about
twenty lines shown at the dependency resolution screen.

One of the lines is libsnmp-perl which depends on perlapi-5.6.1
which is not available. One return to leave this page, another to
start [I]nstallation.

After that apt is kindly informing me which packages it is going
to remove. One of that packages is tkmib which had not been deselected
within dselect.


Why does dselect not try to resolve this conflict before letting me
quit out of dselect? perl-base 5.6.1-7 is still installed, satisfying (sp?)
the dependency of libsnmp-perl. 

Until now I was under the impression if I leave the dependency resolution
screen of dselect without using "Q" everything is fine. "Fine" meaning,
some packages might not be updated/installed due to dependency problems.

And why does dselect think perlapi-5.6.1 isn't available? perl-base 5.6.1-7
provides it, which is currently installed.

Perl is on hold now which is a possible solution dselect did not offer.

Another example: I had to set perlmagick on hold, too, to prevent webmagick
from being deinstalled. But neither perlmagick nor webmagick appeared
within the dependency resolution screen. If I would just be pressing enter
webmagick would have been deinstalled without prior notice _inside_ 
dselect. (apt does list it correctly as a package to be removed.


I am a bit lost here as I don't understand the logic inside dselect fully. 
With earlier versions of dselect one had to press "Q" to get out of dselect's 
dependency screen when there was nothing dselect or you could do about it
(i.e. some dependency which is simply not available). I appreciate the new
behavior where dselect quits by pressing return.


But packages which are set to be updated and will be removed instead
should be listed IMHO (i.e. webmagick and tkmib, see above).


I will try to understand this better and file a proper bug report.
But I wanted to write this mail now nevertheless. Maybe some discussion
speeds it up, maybe someone already thought about this and likes
to share his thoughts.

  
  Regards
   Florian



--
  Florian Hinzmann private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key / ID: 1024D/B4071A65
Fingerprint : F9AB 00C1 3E3A 8125 DD3F  DF1C DF79 A374 B407 1A65

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Peter Mathiasson]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:26:03PM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
> Because some admins, unlike the rest of us, thinks users want's to have
s/want's/wants
> software in their local language and use local keyboard layout, then we
> indeed want's to have our software in english and us keyboard layout
s/want's/wants
> with local as an switchable option, right?

-- 
Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu
GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228


pgp4tQBjTHveo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Mateusz Papiernik]

> If I like the look of ratpoison, and someone themes it to look like W95,
> I'm not going to like it when I'm "surprised" with Debian's themed version.
so maybe debconf should ask (when installing windowmanager) which theme
do you like - original from wm, or this debian theme ?

> 
> 


-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Peter Mathiasson]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:02:46PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> (But i HATE that druid of KDE... why do i have to select the language
> and keyboard again? my admin already configured these...)

Because some admins, unlike the rest of us, thinks users want's to have
software in their local language and use local keyboard layout, then we
indeed want's to have our software in english and us keyboard layout
with local as an switchable option, right?

-- 
Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu
GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228


pgpmuzJjwXWL7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Vince Mulhollon]

On 08/30/2002 08:43:32 AM Erich Schubert wrote:
>> It's one of the things Apple proved: desktop and apps that look smooth
>> do make their users feel comfortable with them ;)

No, they proved if you do not give users a choice of "nothing" or "Apple's
theme" the users prefer to use their theme rather than an abacus or count
on their fingers.

The problem is, I experiment with and chose window managers by going to the
website and look at the pretty screenshots.
If I like the screenshot, then it's a quick apt-get install somethingwm.  I
expect to get what I saw on upstream's screenshots.
If I like the look of ratpoison, and someone themes it to look like W95,
I'm not going to like it when I'm "surprised" with Debian's themed version.

This is different from integrating the Debian menu system into the WM,
because that is a utility thing that does not damage the artistic-ness of
the WM.
For example, modifying a work of art so the frame can hang up using "Coca
Cola" brand picture hanging nails or sticking a little plaque on the frame
saying "this painting donated to the museum by Coca Cola"  is perfectly
acceptable because it (more or less) doesn't damage the artistic impact the
artist tried to make.
However, if Coke painted over the "Mona Lisa" so she was drinking a coke,
before they donated it to the museum, that would be totally hideous from an
artistic integrity standpoint, immoral even if it is perfectly legal.

Re: graphical installer?

[Mateusz Papiernik]

> Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/
It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why
it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have You got
any other  plans ? Or maybe you want to use text installer
for ever? 




-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

Re: graphical installer?

[Paul]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> Is there any plans for the graphical installer? I know,
> it isn't needed, but I think it would be nice step for
> beginners - for example automatically search and install
> modules for ethernet/whatever - or easy configuration 
> for printer :-P Of course I'm not a beginner :-P


Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/


 Paul.

Re: existing debian themes

[Mateusz Papiernik]

> And sunshineinabag.co.uk already has a Debian GDM2 login screen
> http://sunshineinabag.co.uk/
> which (when one replace the ridiculous apples ;) could be a nice default
> for gdm2 (when it gets packaged, i can't await it ;)
It's nice, but I think that this white color is too absorbing,
maybe some texture, or whatever? This picture is too "cold" in
my opinion.

> The "Debian color" should be used for HighLight only, that is for the
> active window bar, marked text and hover effects maybe. IMHO.
IMHO too.


Greetings,
-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

graphical installer?

[Mateusz Papiernik]

Hello!

Is there any plans for the graphical installer? I know,
it isn't needed, but I think it would be nice step for
beginners - for example automatically search and install
modules for ethernet/whatever - or easy configuration 
for printer :-P Of course I'm not a beginner :-P


-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

existing debian themes

[Erich Schubert]

On themes.freshmeat.net there are a few Debian themes, some nice
backgrounds etc.
For example this one could go for a futuristic aqua-like look
(GnuBubbles for GTK2 for example?)
http://themes.freshmeat.net/screenshots/28071/

And sunshineinabag.co.uk already has a Debian GDM2 login screen
http://sunshineinabag.co.uk/
which (when one replace the ridiculous apples ;) could be a nice default
for gdm2 (when it gets packaged, i can't await it ;)

The "Debian color" should be used for HighLight only, that is for the
active window bar, marked text and hover effects maybe. IMHO.

Greetings,
Erich

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

On Friday 30 August 2002 08:05, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > Provided we *ONLY* muck with things like colors, icons, and root images
> > this should be fine.  Actually changing code like RH did to remove the
> > About box would not be good.
>
> I never look at about boxes anyway, so why remove them? ;)
> This has nothing to do with common look, and all Interface Guidelines
> include an about box in the Help menu.
>
> I didn't follow the discussion why KDE is angry about RedHat, if it was
> for the removal of about boxes i think KDE is right to be angry...
>

There was an "About KDE" box which was removed/hidden/had its text changed, I 
did not follow closely.

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Mateusz Papiernik]

>  But AFAIR in the Window Maker theme it's used for the active (?) title
>  bar.  That's a very good use because it's the one element in the
>  desktop which your are using, but you don't actually look at the title
>  bar, you look at the window's content.
yes - you're right. Never mind :-) I absolutely agree to create
debian-common-themes :-)




-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

On Friday 30 August 2002 09:03, Yenar Calentaure wrote:
>
> Please, please, please, do not change the default without asking user
> first. Debian users tend to know what they want.
>

And the clueful user almost never uses the default anyways.  But even if they 
do want to we just provide an option in the theme chooser "Default KDE Look" 
or somesuch.

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

>> Mateusz Papiernik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 > why? In my windowmaker I'm using default debian-theme, and I like it
 > very much :-)

 But AFAIR in the Window Maker theme it's used for the active (?) title
 bar.  That's a very good use because it's the one element in the
 desktop which your are using, but you don't actually look at the title
 bar, you look at the window's content.

-- 
Marcelo | "It's a god-eat-god world."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Erich Schubert]

> Provided we *ONLY* muck with things like colors, icons, and root images this 
> should be fine.  Actually changing code like RH did to remove the About box 
> would not be good.

I never look at about boxes anyway, so why remove them? ;)
This has nothing to do with common look, and all Interface Guidelines
include an about box in the Help menu.

I didn't follow the discussion why KDE is angry about RedHat, if it was
for the removal of about boxes i think KDE is right to be angry...

Greetings,
Erich

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Erich Schubert]

>  No, seriously, it would be less confusing for novice users.  More
>  experienced ones already know how to change themes and perhaps make
>  everything look consistent, but it's a considerable ammount of work.

Especially since KDE asks at the beginning which style they want to use
anyway... If we add a Debian Theme that is the default selection, users
accustomed to KDE could always select the KDE default look at the first
login...
(But i HATE that druid of KDE... why do i have to select the language
and keyboard again? my admin already configured these...)

>  are things which are visibly different.  If they like the KDE XP-like
>  eye candy, then get someone to make a matching engine for GTK+.
>  Personally it makes me puke... I have this prejudice that a desktop
>  that I'm going to be looking at 8 hours a day has to make a very well
>  reasoned use of color and contrast.

Yep, the only useable KDE Themes i know are the "light" ones ;)
I prefer Gnome2 for the very same reasons, that it hasn't got much eye
candy (except icons with nice shadows ;)

>  > It could be as simple things as using the debian color
> 
>  that reddish tone?  Please no; it's a very nice color, but I don't
>  think people want to look at it for more than 5 seconds at a time.

Yep, it's a major drawback we don't have a discrete color - well, ok,
that SuSE Green would be even uglier, but i remember having seen KDE
Themes using that very color ;)

Thats why i considered it for highlight uses only. Marking text with
that ugly color is ok imho ;)

Any better suggestion? I'd like to use dark red, but red is... redhat?
Well, their screenshots doesn't suggest they use it for themes though...

* Maybe we should put out a call for Artwork?

Greetings,
Erich

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Yenar Calentaure]

Jérôme Marant wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:

I don't have a real opinion, but i do thing that looks begin to matter
for linux apps and desktops...

  I agree with you. I think that the default Distribution theme really
  matters; RH and MDK have very nice default desktop themes but Debian
  doesn't have any. I know that they hired graphic artists.
  AFAIK, we don't have any. I'm sure we could find volonteers.
Why the need of distribution theme? Every other major distribution 
having its own look, Debian can differentiate itself by sticking with 
the upstream look :>. KDE3.1 look nice out of the box (and GNOME2 
probably too, haven't seen that).

Enough rambling, i have some real proposal for the situation, though (:
We can provide debian wallpaper/logo/icon etc. (it is already done 
AFAIK). Probably packages like kde-gnome-theme and gnome-kde-theme 
providing look of gnome to kde and vice versa is good idea. Also, 
gnome-debian-theme and kde-debian-theme are good idea, if there is 
someone with skill and time to create them.

Packaging gnome icons for use with kde (and the other way around, too), 
should be times easier than creating new set from the ground up. 
Remaking color schemes should be quite easy, too. The widget styles are 
the hard part... This could use some help from KDE and GNOME developers, 
but i'm not very optimistic about that.

These can be part of respective kde/gnome metapackages. The metapackage 
can then provide debconf question about default look (eg. for KDE: KDE 
native look&feel, GNOME look&feel, Debian look&feel (if someone created 
such a package)). You can even make the Debian entry default ;).

As of the menu, there is already infrastructure in place. With the 
ongoing menu system rewrite, this will get even better. The KDE and 
GNOME packagers can back up the default menu somewhere (to make it 
available for ones who like it better) and make debian menu default. The 
debconf question is the way to go here, too.

OTOH the user should be in charge of menu layout... The second possible 
solution (i can think of), is to make menu system capable of building 
KDE-like menu structure, GNOME-like one, etc. I don't know if this is 
possible with Debian menu package, but if not, it is worth consideration 
IMHO.

Please, please, please, do not change the default without asking user 
first. Debian users tend to know what they want.

  My 2 cents.
  Cheers, 

my .02 euro :)
cheers
yenar
--
---
Yenar Calentaure
mail: yenar(at)host.sk
homepage: http://yenar.host.sk
---
The universe is entering maintenance mode in 2 minutes. Please logout.
 -- Your administrator
---

Re: Bug#158851: ITP: mairix -- indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or MH folders.

[Andreas Metzler]

Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:09:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>>> * URL : http://www.rc0.org.uk/mairix
 
>> Sounds cool. Is it us-ascii only or does it support latin1/latin9?
>> And directly connected to this question: does it decode
>> quoted-printable before indexing?

> I don't see any latin support. Since Mairix is in active development
> (and the author is in the UK), you might want to go to the above web
> site and write to the author about non-ascii character set support.

[X] Done.

After reading the documentation I think I can answer my second
question with yes.
 cu andreas
-- 
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Mateusz Papiernik]

>  that reddish tone?  Please no; it's a very nice color, but I don't
>  think people want to look at it for more than 5 seconds at a time.
why? In my windowmaker I'm using default debian-theme, and I like
it very much :-)



-- 
Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

On Friday 30 August 2030 06:50, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > I don't have a real opinion, but i do thing that looks begin to matter
> > for linux apps and desktops...
>
>   I agree with you. I think that the default Distribution theme really
>   matters; RH and MDK have very nice default desktop themes but Debian
>   doesn't have any. I know that they hired graphic artists.
>   AFAIK, we don't have any. I'm sure we could find volonteers.
>
>   My 2 cents.
>
>   Cheers,

I also agree.  There was a moment of "bah we are not a company" but in the 
end, I think a little help in giving our users a good looking default would 
go a long way.  Of course not being a KDE or GNOME user I would also like to 
see this extended to the simple window managers as well.

Provided we *ONLY* muck with things like colors, icons, and root images this 
should be fine.  Actually changing code like RH did to remove the About box 
would not be good.

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Robert Millan]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:23AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:16, Robert Millan wrote:
> > currently non-US is the only place where it can be without breaking law.
> 
> This is incorrect: mp3 patents exist in non-US places too, like Germany.

we definitely need an mp3 decoder in debian if we want to fight the
patent oppression at all. i think we need another branch for that kind
of problems.

> > having mp3 players in non-free would still be illegal. mpg321 is free
> > software that complies to DFSG and there's no reason to put it in
> > non-free or non-free/non-US.
> 
> If fraunhofer say that you are allowed to distribute mp3 players for
> free (but not for cost), then they must be put in non-free. And since
> they have patents all around the world, they can't be put in non-us.

yes, but only non-free in states that impose patent restrictions. if we
have such "non-patented" branch it would be free for users outside the circle.

-- 
Robert Millan

"5 years from now everyone will be running
free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5"

  Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 30 Jan 1992

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

>> Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 > Apart from the question if KDE and GNOME2 should be made to look
 > similar (KDE developers were pretty angry at RedHats step), should we
 > try to make a "Debian" look default?  (Provided that someone does
 > Debian Themes...)

 By all means, anything that makes KDE look less hideous is good

 No, seriously, it would be less confusing for novice users.  More
 experienced ones already know how to change themes and perhaps make
 everything look consistent, but it's a considerable ammount of work.

 But the screenshots are all but impressive.  I had actually expected to
 look at a screenshot and think "uhm... is that GTK+ or Qt?"  Diverging
 UI policies probably makes that goal very hard to achieve, not to
 mention the fact that different programmers program differently and --
 even with a UI policy at hand -- applications are going to deviate here
 and there.  Even more, modulo a couple of icons here and there, there
 are things which are visibly different.  If they like the KDE XP-like
 eye candy, then get someone to make a matching engine for GTK+.
 Personally it makes me puke... I have this prejudice that a desktop
 that I'm going to be looking at 8 hours a day has to make a very well
 reasoned use of color and contrast.

 > It could be as simple things as using the debian color

 that reddish tone?  Please no; it's a very nice color, but I don't
 think people want to look at it for more than 5 seconds at a time.

-- 
Marcelo | "Go ahead, bake my quiche"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Magrat instructs the castle cook
|(Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies)

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Joe Drew]

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:16, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:44:03PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 18:34, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Also since this depends on mpg321 it'd have to be in non-US.
> > 
> > Certainly not. mpg321 isn't in non-US now, and probably won't ever be.
> 
> currently non-US is the only place where it can be without breaking law.

This is incorrect: mp3 patents exist in non-US places too, like Germany.
 
> having mp3 players in non-free would still be illegal. mpg321 is free
> software that complies to DFSG and there's no reason to put it in
> non-free or non-free/non-US.

If fraunhofer say that you are allowed to distribute mp3 players for
free (but not for cost), then they must be put in non-free. And since
they have patents all around the world, they can't be put in non-us.

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

"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:44:03PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 18:34, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Also since this depends on mpg321 it'd have to be in non-US.
> 
> Certainly not. mpg321 isn't in non-US now, and probably won't ever be.

currently non-US is the only place where it can be without breaking law.

> However, if the time comes that we think it's necessary to move mp3
> players to non-*FREE*, I'm going to ask that mpg321 be removed from
> Debian altogether.

having mp3 players in non-free would still be illegal. mpg321 is free
software that complies to DFSG and there's no reason to put it in
non-free or non-free/non-US.

the idea is to have an mp3 to ogg conversion tool in non-US for some time,
untill the so-called legislative insanity reaches europe.

-- 
Robert Millan

"5 years from now everyone will be running
free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5"

  Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 30 Jan 1992

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Jérôme Marant]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:

> I don't have a real opinion, but i do thing that looks begin to matter
> for linux apps and desktops...

  I agree with you. I think that the default Distribution theme really
  matters; RH and MDK have very nice default desktop themes but Debian
  doesn't have any. I know that they hired graphic artists.
  AFAIK, we don't have any. I'm sure we could find volonteers.

  My 2 cents.

  Cheers, 

-- 
Jérôme Marant

Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

[Erich Schubert]

Redhat seems to be going to use a common look for their desktops (GNOME
as well as KDE) in their new beta featuring a new icon set.
Check out the screenshots at 
  http://www.gnomedesktop.org/article.php?sid=616&mode=&order=0
I like them and i think they are impressive...
It's one of the things Apple proved: desktop and apps that look smooth
do make their users feel comfortable with them ;)

Apart from the question if KDE and GNOME2 should be made to look
similar (KDE developers were pretty angry at RedHats step), should we
try to make a "Debian" look default?  (Provided that someone does Debian
Themes...)
This look doesn't need to be shared from GNOME2 to KDE (although i don't
see the reason not to do so...) but it could make Debian become some
"Brand" that looks like quality, too ;)

Actually one of the reasons some people didn't like Gnome 1.4 was the
default configuration... This "Distribution Theme" could also take a look
at default configurations...

The other way would be to leave this to upstream... GNOME2 is already
pushing on having a standard GNOME2-look (which i like very much)
and just distribute Defaults as-is from upstream...

(although it should be easily possible to have a separate
debian-common-look package or something like that...)

Maybe someone could give a good reason to do so or not to do so...
It could be as simple things as using the debian color as default for
highlights instead of the usual default-blue for highlights many themes
use...

I don't have a real opinion, but i do thing that looks begin to matter
for linux apps and desktops...

Greetings,
Erich

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Vince Mulhollon]

On 08/30/2002 06:42:48 AM Richard Atterer wrote:
>> As usual Heise got it right:
>>  (German).

Or, for you English speakers,
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/data/jk-28.08.02-008/

Bug#158874: ITP: backuppc -- A high-performance, enterprise-grade system for backing up PCs

[Ludovic Drolez]

Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-30
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: backuppc
  Version : 1.5.0
  Upstream Author : Craig BarrattName <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/backuppc/
* License : GPL
  Description : A high-performance, enterprise-grade system for backing up 
PCs

BackupPC is a high-performance, enterprise-grade system for backing up
Linux, WinXX PCs, and laptops to a server's disk. Features include
clever pooling of identical files, no client-side software, and a
powerful Apache/CGI user interface.

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux ovronnaz 2.4.18-k7 #1 Sun Apr 14 13:19:11 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Michael Banck]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:42:48PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> I have been waiting all along for someone to post this, but nobody
> does, so...
> 
> As usual Heise got it right:
>  (German).

I posted the other story (with Thomson official reply to -legal
yesterday morning, btw.

Michael

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Richard Atterer]

Hi,

I have been waiting all along for someone to post this, but nobody
does, so...

As usual Heise got it right:
 (German).

Essentially, the relevant change to the MP3 license was already made
1.5 years ago, but apparently nobody noticed until now.

Thomson tolerate violations against their license are far as
*de*coders are concerned. That's what the Thomson PR person probably
talked about... However, such a statement is not enough for us to keep
MP3 decoders in the distribution, I'm afraid.

  Richard

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

Re: Bug#158851: ITP: mairix -- indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or MH folders.

[Kevin Rosenberg]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:09:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > * URL : http://www.rc0.org.uk/mairix
> 
> Sounds cool. Is it us-ascii only or does it support latin1/latin9?
> And directly connected to this question: does it decode
> quoted-printable before indexing?

I don't see any latin support. Since Mairix is in active development
(and the author is in the UK), you might want to go to the above web
site and write to the author about non-ascii character set support.

-- 
   Kevin Rosenberg|  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  http://b9.com/debian.html   | : :' :  The  universal
  GPG signed and encrypted| `. `'  Operating System
 messages accepted.   |   `-http://www.debian.org/

Re: Security notification script

[Ola Lundqvist]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:31:34PM +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
> I have written a python script that allows you to compares locally
> installed  packages with those on security.debian.org. Furthermore it
> provides a description of the problem/DSA name if the package is
> mentioned in the DSA RDF.

That looks really interesting for the harden packages. Especially for
the harden-*flaws packages. It is probably a better approach than 
uploading new harden-fooflaws everytime. Is it possible for your script
to differentiate between local and remote flaws?

> The script is intended to be run as a normal user in a crontab, and thus
> produces no output if the system is completely upto date.
> 
> You will need to install python2.2 and python2.2-xml prior to using the
> script which can be found at
> http://www.robster.org.uk/files/security-update-check.py
> 
> Any feedbacl/ideas would be much appreciated. I plan to make some minor
> changes and package this up later this week :)

Maybe you want to have it in the harden-*flaws package or simply make
these depend on your package. The later is maybe better.

Regards,

// Ola

> Cheers
> 
> Rob
> -- 
> Rob 'robster' Bradford
> Founder: http://www.debianplanet.org/
> Developer: http://www.debian.org/
> Monkey with keyboard: http://www.robster.org.uk/



-- 
 - Ola Lundqvist ---
/  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11   \
|  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 584 36 LINKÖPING |
|  +46 (0)13-17 69 83  +46 (0)70-332 1551   |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36  4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
 ---

Re: Bug#158851: ITP: mairix -- indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or MH folders.

[Andreas Metzler]

Kevin M. Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-30
> Severity: wishlist

> * Package name: mairix
>  Version : 0.4
>  Upstream Author : Richard Curnow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.rc0.org.uk/mairix
> * License : GPL
>  Description : indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or 
> MH folders.

> mairix is a program for indexing and searching email messages stored
> in Maildir or MH folders.
[...]

Sounds cool. Is it us-ascii only or does it support latin1/latin9?
And directly connected to this question: does it decode
quoted-printable before indexing?
cu andreas

Bug#158851: ITP: mairix -- indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or MH folders.

[Kevin M. Rosenberg]

Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-30
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mairix
  Version : 0.4
  Upstream Author : Richard Curnow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.rc0.org.uk/mairix
* License : GPL
  Description : indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or 
MH folders.

mairix is a program for indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir 
or MH folders.

* Indexing is fast. It runs incrementally on new messages - any
particular message only gets scanned once in the lifetime of the index
file.

* The search mode populates a "virtual" maildir folder with symlinks
which point to the real messages. This folder can be opened as usual
in your mail program.

* The search mode is very fast.

* Indexing and searching works on the basis of words. The index file
tabulates which words occur in which parts (particular headers + body)
of which messages.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux pal 2.4.19 #1 SMP Sat Aug 3 09:47:40 MDT 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

-- no debconf information

Re: Work-needing packages report for Aug 30, 2002

[Peter Palfrader]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 0
> Number of packages offered up for adoption this week: 0
> Total number of orphaned packages: 0
> Number of packages orphaned this week: 0

Maybe you could run the script on satie rather than auric?

It seems to work on satie for me while on auric it never does - even the
version placed there today:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ./maintainers-needed.pl
| I/O Error Resource temporarily unavailable  at ./maintainers-needed.pl line 
35.

As I said, it works on satie.

yours,
peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :  The  universal
   | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-http://www.debian.org/


pgp6kmFSlNEWp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: debbugs: assign someone from a group of willing people to fix a bug

[Peter Palfrader]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Goswin Brederlow wrote:

> Package: debbugs

It would be bugs.debian.org. You don't file a bug against smartlist or
qmail if you want a new mailinglist either. Please reassign.

> What to do?
> 
> I would like to propose a setup similar to the one used to translate
> package descriptions:

> If a bug is not delt with for some time (no mails or status changes
> indication work being done) a person is selected out of a pool of
> willing persons and is mailed the bug. He can then check out the bug
> and fix it if possible and has the right to do an NMU or close the bug
> etc.

You can do this right now. Setup such a system and start working. NMUs
may happen all the time. Just make sure to make it right (send the patch
etc)


> Any comment? Maybe something more than "send patch and we think about
> it"?

Find bugs you'ld like to work on and NMU. It's as simple as that. Your
suggestions sounds a bit like overengineering to me. Perhaps you can
setup an independant mailbot somewhere else? This need not necessarily
be directly in the BTS.

yours,
peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :  The  universal
   | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-http://www.debian.org/


pgpgbCU9qNJKP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

[Fabien Penso]

Joey a écrit : 

 >> | To clarify, since the beginning of our mp3 licensing program in 1995,
 >> | Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed 
 >> software
 >> | decoders.  For commercially sold decoders – primarily hardware mp3 
 >> players –
 >> | the per-unit royalty has always been in place since the beginning of the
 >> | program.

 > This is irrelivent since debian is commercially sold. I suppose it would
 > let us put mp3 decoders in non-free or something.

I guess they basicly don't care for free softwares, even when they are
solded. I understand than some people might want to move MP3 players
From main to non-free, what I don't understand is why people do wake up
now as the license didn't change recently.

Well, never too late :-)

-- 
Fabien Penso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | LinuxFr a toujours besoin de :
http://perso.LinuxFr.org/penso/  | http://linuxFr.org/dons/
A PHP Template Engine ? Take the best ! http://templeet.org/


pgpdFwWTA9EeY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: "Bug of the month", or how to get people fixing bugs

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:

> Also once you have this more fully fleshed out perhaps announcing this on some
> place like DebianPlanet would be a good idea.  We have plenty of users who
> have time to fix a bug or two but not become full time devels.  Or is this
> meant as a Debian devels only game?
I think that it should not be restricted to Debian developers.  All
people who are interested in quality enhanceing Debian could (should?)
join.

Nice idea

 Andreas.