Re: Résumé des discussions au sujet de debconf sur debian-devel
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 09:32:14AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: En réponse à Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Bonjour, Salut, les discussions de ce week-end sur debconf ont été intéressantes, mais noyées dans un flot d'insultes (étonnant, non ?). Je me permets d'en fournir un résumé, mais je ne prétends pas avoir tout compris, donc n'hésitez pas à rectifier. Merci pour ton résumé. C'est à peu près ce que j'avais compris. De surcroît, Joey rouspète car il considère qu'il y a un abus dans l'utilisation des notes Debconf ; il considère que ces informations devraient se trouver dans le fichier README.Debian. Exact. Dans mon précédent message, j'ai oublié d'indiquer que si le paquet contient une question du genre « Manage foobar with debconf ? », il faut alors vérifier qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un abus de debconf. Personnellement, je ne vois pas vraiment la bonne et la mauvaise utilisation des notes. Dans le paquet sympa, je l'utilisais en guise d'introduction à la configuration debconf qui allait suivre. Ça me semble tout à fait légitime dans ce cas, tu fournis des explications sur la suite de la procédure. Par contre, j'ai utilisé une note dans icewm pour indiquer que l'organisation du paquet avait changé mais j'ai mis ça aussi dans le README.Debian. Je ne sais pas si je fais un abus dans ce cas-là. A ton avis ? AMA c'est exactement l'usage que dénonce Joey ;) Denis
Re: Résumé des discussions au sujet de debconf sur debian-devel
En réponse à Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Par contre, j'ai utilisé une note dans icewm pour indiquer que l'organisation du paquet avait changé mais j'ai mis ça aussi dans le README.Debian. Je ne sais pas si je fais un abus dans ce cas-là. A ton avis ? AMA c'est exactement l'usage que dénonce Joey ;) J'imagine. Ceci dit, je pense que ça peut servir à éviter pas mal de bugs reports inutiles des utilisateurs, pour ceux qui n'ont pas le réflexe de la lecture du README.Debian, par omission voire ignorance. En revanche, j'admets que c'est un obstacle potentiel à une installation automatisée. -- Jérôme
Re: Résumé des discussions au sujet de debconf sur debian-devel
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 11:41:57AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: En réponse à Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Par contre, j'ai utilisé une note dans icewm pour indiquer que l'organisation du paquet avait changé mais j'ai mis ça aussi dans le README.Debian. Je ne sais pas si je fais un abus dans ce cas-là. A ton avis ? AMA c'est exactement l'usage que dénonce Joey ;) J'imagine. Ceci dit, je pense que ça peut servir à éviter pas mal de bugs reports inutiles des utilisateurs [...] Mais justement, debconf n'est pas fait pour pallier à ce problème. Détourner un système de son but original pour éliminer un problème ailleurs, c'est pourtant une pratique que tu réprouves fortement d'habitude ;) Denis
Re: Résumé des discussions au sujet de debconf sur debian-devel
En réponse à Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: J'imagine. Ceci dit, je pense que ça peut servir à éviter pas mal de bugs reports inutiles des utilisateurs [...] Mais justement, debconf n'est pas fait pour pallier à ce problème. J'en suis conscient. A priori, il n'y a pas d'autre méthode qu'une bonne vieille explication dans le README.Debian. Détourner un système de son but original pour éliminer un problème ailleurs, c'est pourtant une pratique que tu réprouves fortement d'habitude ;) En fait, je trouvais que c'était un confort supplémentaire mais ce n'est visiblement pas ce qu'il faut faire :-) Je sens que je vais revenir dans le droit chemin :-) -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Problème d'installation de coreutils
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:58:02 +0200 Laurent Rathle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: dpkg : erreur de traitement de /var/cache/apt/archives/coreutils_5.0-1_i386.deb (--unpack) : impossible de créer un lien symbolique de secours de « ./bin/ls » avant d'installer une nouvelle version: Opération non permise Je sens que je vais attendre un peu avant d'upgrader vu les mails de ces derniers jours ! Relance l'upgrade avec strace -f pour voir exactement l'appel qui plante, peut-être que tu as une partition en read-only ou un fichier avec chattr +i ? Alain
Re: Problme d'installation de coreutils
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:58:02 +0200 From: Laurent Rathle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-devel-french@lists.debian.org Subject: Problme d'installation de coreutils Bonjour, Dsol si je poste ici aprs avoir post sur user-french, mais je suis vraiment bloqu :-). J'ai fait un upgrade d'une machine tournant sous sid et je me retrouve avec le message d'erreur suivant : dpkg : erreur de traitement de /var/cache/apt/archives/coreutils_5.0-1_i386.deb (--unpack) : impossible de crer un lien symbolique de secours de ./bin/ls avant d'installer une nouvelle version: Opration non permise dpkg-deb: sous-processus paste tu par le signal (Relais bris (pipe)) Des erreurs ont t rencontres pendant l'excution : /var/cache/apt/archives/coreutils_5.0-1_i386.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) J'ai essay beaucoup d'options de dpkg et apt-get dont --force-yes sans succs. Je voudrai savoir comment me sortir de ce problme, en revenant en arrire si c'est possible. En plus, il ne s'agit pas de ma machine :-). Essaie de faire un 'mv /bin/ls ~/bin/ls'. Si cela ne marche pas comme je le crois, ta partition sans doute un problme. Un 'chattr -i /bin/ls' devrait rsoudre ton problme, pour le moment. -- Encolpe http://colpi.info Linux, hockey et autres activits crbrales
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 05:53:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:59 +1000, Martin Pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream author expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is not trolling (i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.) I find it interesting that you consider a public accusation of plagiarism to be merely expressing concern. However, I also find your judgment in this horribly tainted, which leads me to place less credence in the rest of your argument, sorry. What's that last sentence mean? I can only think of two interpretations: I don't like you, therefore I think your arguments are wrong. or I don't like your conclusion, therefore I think your arguments are wrong. Both make for inappropriately fallacious and prejudiced reasoning. Also, given the degree of hyperbole from developers on -devel, I don't think it's fair to take cries of plagiarism as being anything particularly out of line. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpUucmiZPEaL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Problem with fwbuilder on machine without X-Free
Well being the fwbuilder maintainer yes this is the correct behavior as fwbuilder itself doesn't have anything that depends on xauth... I also as a network administrator for a living, and I do use fwbuilder for my own internal firewall, don't recommend running it from the firewall itself anyway... I run it on an internal machine that does run X11 then upload the generated firewall script to the firewall via scp or sneaker-net... Regards, Jeremy On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 11:17:49PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:22:29PM +0100, David Goodenough wrote: (...) messages, and it mentioned that it could not find xauth. So I looked up the package for xauth and that is xbase-clients, and sure enough that had not been dragged in by the dependancy chain for fwbuilder. True enough, fwbuilder should not have it. When I installed xbase-clients sure enough fwbuilder worked remotely through ssh -X. Now I suspect that this is not a problem with fwbuilder's dependancies, but I am not quite sure whose problem it is. Any ideas? Yes: $ apt-cache show ssh |grep Suggest Suggests: ssh-askpass, xbase-clients, dpkg (=1.8.3.1), dnsutils That's what happens when you rely too much on apt. Suggests are not included in the dependancy chain (of ssh), it's your job to do it. You wouldn't have run into this if you had used 'dselect' or some other apt/dpkg frontend (aptitude would?) Regards Javi pgp9DZHfjjfuY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [debian-devel] Status of mICQ code audit
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:26:13 +1000, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Harmful to Debian even if possibly not harmful to the user. This could be clarified in the next DWN article on the topic (now that Rudi has started the debate again another DWN article is probably due anyway). I disagree, and I have posted reasons in another message why this could be harmful to users as well. manoj -- If you always postpone pleasure you will never have it. Quit work and play for once! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:57 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 05:53:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:59 +1000, Martin Pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream author expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is not trolling (i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.) I find it interesting that you consider a public accusation of plagiarism to be merely expressing concern. However, I also find your judgment in this horribly tainted, which leads me to place less credence in the rest of your argument, sorry. What's that last sentence mean? I can only think of two interpretations: I don't like you, therefore I think your arguments are wrong. or I don't like your conclusion, therefore I think your arguments are wrong. Or the blindingly obvious choice: Your blatant spin displays a bias so huge that your arguments are no longer credible? Or are you claiming that public accusations of plagiarization are normal expressions of concern? On what planet? Both make for inappropriately fallacious and prejudiced reasoning. And the missing third option doers not fit either category. Also, given the degree of hyperbole from developers on -devel, I don't think it's fair to take cries of plagiarism as being anything particularly out of line. You may be enured to unsubstantiated accusations of plagiarism, theft, idiocy, and worse, but please allow me the right of umbrage at such. manoj -- Like a solid rock is not shaken by the wind, so the wise are not moved by praise or blame. 81 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
getting libvorbis et al. into testing
My package mirrormagic is held up getting into testing because of sdl-mixer1.2 [1]. sdl-mixer1.2 in turn is held up by libvorbis [2]. But libvorbis is a valid candidate [3]. I can't see any reason why it isn't going into testing. What's wrong? Drew [1] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=mirrormagic [2] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=sdl-mixer1.2 [3] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=libvorbis -- PGP public key available at http://people.debian.org/~dparsons/drewskey.txt Fingerprint: A110 EAE1 D7D2 8076 5FE0 EC0A B6CE 7041 6412 4E4A pgpmTPbz1uhOy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: getting libvorbis et al. into testing
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:43:47PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: My package mirrormagic is held up getting into testing because of sdl-mixer1.2 [1]. sdl-mixer1.2 in turn is held up by libvorbis [2]. But libvorbis is a valid candidate [3]. I can't see any reason why it isn't going into testing. What's wrong? Basically, there are packages in testing which depends on libvorbis0 (and not the new libvorbis0a) and whose unstable version are not valid candidates, or have not yet been rebuilt. We had a thread or two abotu this last week, look at messages around : http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01065.html For more detail. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: getting libvorbis et al. into testing
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:43:47PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: My package mirrormagic is held up getting into testing because of sdl-mixer1.2 [1]. sdl-mixer1.2 in turn is held up by libvorbis [2]. But libvorbis is a valid candidate [3]. I can't see any reason why it isn't going into testing. What's wrong? or this message, which was the one i wanted to post in the previous mail : http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01063.html Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro
On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 02:08, Hans Reiser wrote: I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits who are discomforted. Our current activities on the GFDL involve writing up a list of objections to the license, to present to the FSF. We are doing this before removing the software from Debian. I think this shows great respect for Mr. Stallman and the FSF that we are spending a fair amount of time forming a consensus about what we feel needs changing in the GFDL, writing that down clearly, and sending it to him, all while ignoring our own principles, spelled out in the DFSG, in the meantime. It has nothing to do with wanting to remove the GNU Manifesto from the EMACS manual; Debian, as a whole, certainly has no hatred of RMS or his views. We even have a 'vrms' package in the distro. -legal just has a disagreement with him over some details of the GFDL. Consider that an Evil Company, say, starting with the letter 'M', could apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts that are unconscionable to the original author. Something like an invariant section on how the original author's coding style resembles the intelligence of the infamous paper clip. And a cover text that Linux Sucks. As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it. It is simply a matter of respect that is due the author. That the list of credits was completely removed from reiserfsprogs was surely a mistake. I'm sure Ed will, or already has, fixed it, given that Debian may continue to distribute reiserfsprogs. It should of been included in /usr/share/doc. However, the 20+ lines of credits on every run of mkreiserfs was certainly removed on purpose and needed to be. There are a lot of 24-line terminals, not all with scroll back, and that makes a 20+ line message a major problem. Especially since the time the admin is running it is probably during major system maintainance or recovery, when stress is quite high, and where being able to see what he has done already is quite important. Especially since the credit message, being last would cause the important technical messages, warnings, errors, etc. to scroll off screen. Should the remove have been done in a different way? Quote possibly. An alternative that springs to mind would be adding a --credits flag, and a short (one-line) message to inform the user of that option. I guess the basic question now is, does the license reiserfsprogs is distributed under allow the above change? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Heres the information you requested. ckxgft05h3w
Don't want any more adverts? Simply click here.
Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:45:44 -0500 For example, I set up a Debian machine in a lab with other, non debian machines. I note that all the machines have default texmf.cnf behaviour. No problem, I create a custom texmf.cnf, and distribute it to all machines. I don't know how you create texmf.cnf but it would be enough if you create it in Debian and distribute it to other machines (but under the condition that you use only compatible TeX components which is your case, perhaps). But it seems you dislike it by some reason or other and they are your machines so it's okay how you treat them and to complain or to file a bug as you like. Every other machine works. But the Debian box, despite having my nice, fancy, /etc/texmf.cnf, does not pay any attention to it. Ditto. Hmm. Red Hat Works. Suse Works. Solaris Works. Debian fails. Why does Debian have to be incompatible? I say this is a bug. Ditto. Because RedHat, for example, is a comercial distribution so RedHat would be designed from the biginning what TeX components it would include, therefore a static texmf.cnf worked. Further, RedHat doesn't have something similar to our policy, perhaps, so it can modify texmf.cnf freely if necessary, I guess. (Correct me if I misunderstand RedHat. I've never used it.) On the other hands, in Debian which is an association of volunteers, a developer can package any DFSG-free TeX components or DFSG-free extra fonts packages freely so we need an infra-structure which provides dynamic texmf.cnf etc. so that every such extra packages can modify texmf.cnf in order that they could be installed and work without problem. I believe this is our (tetex-mantainers') duty. From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:48:14 -0500 In he old scheme, my changes were never lost. If you like the old scheme, it is possible only if policy doesn't forbid to modify a conffile, texmf.cnf, by packages' scripts. (In fact, some packages did it before.) BTW, does policy force us that our configurations should be compatible with those of RedHat? Thanks, 2003-4-23(Wed) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Re: Non-debian running DD's (Was: Re: stop abusing debconf already)
On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 08:58, LapTop006 wrote: I use both Mutt and OE to read my E-mail (mostly mutt). The one feature OE has (on both mac and windows) that NO other client I've seen matches (Mozilla 1.0 came close, haven't tried since then) is its support for offline IMAP. Try Mac OS X's Mail program. It has at least as good offline support as OE, and is much nicer, too. /me wishes Mail were free. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: why do we care about configuration files?
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 22:36, Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Anthony DeRobertis may or may not have written... 3) After prompting, the package must confirm that the current md5sum matches the one stored in /var. If it does and the package succeeded at (2) it may replace the configuration file. Otherwise, use ucf. 5) Said user happens finds your message and some followups, and agrees that you were probably too tired to think straight... ;-) I think you missed the confirm that the current md5sum matches... part above, or I'm still too tired to think straight? Hmmm... [EMAIL PROTECTED]:anthony$ date Wed Apr 23 04:15:11 EDT 2003 never a good sign... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
frameset border=0 frameborder=0 frameSpacing=0 rows=100%,* frame marginHeight=5 marginWidth=10 name=mainsoft src=http://www.wanfugroup.com/ /frameset
Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
* Atsuhito Kohda I don't know how you create texmf.cnf but it would be enough if you create it in Debian and distribute it to other machines Jesus. You still haven't got the point. Repeat after me: I am *NOT* permitted to make that decision on behalf of the user. On the other hands, in Debian which is an association of volunteers, a developer can package any DFSG-free TeX components or DFSG-free extra fonts packages freely so we need an infra-structure which provides dynamic texmf.cnf etc. so that every such extra packages can modify texmf.cnf in order that they could be installed and work without problem. I believe this is our (tetex-mantainers') duty. I'm not a TeX user, but why can't you have a /etc/texmf.d/ directory where the other packages can drop their texmf.cnf fragments (like logrotate has, for instance), which is then included from the static texmf.cnf? -- Tore Anderson
Who b0rked my Ghostscript and fonts?
I have Debian Woody with gazillion packages from testing and unstable. Recently Ghostscript has worked very unreliably. For example ps2pdf gives this kind of errors: Error: /invalidfont in findfont Operand stack: Fg 139 --nostringval-- 1290 10 --nostringval-- 1290 6 --nostringval-- 2367 98 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 3 3874.36 Palatino-Bold Font Palatino-Bold 601248 Palatino-Bold --nostringval-- Helvetica-Bold NimbusSanL-Bold (NimbusSanL-Bold) NimbusSanL-Bold (NimbusSanL-Bold) NimbusSanL-Bold Execution stack: %interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- %--nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- %--nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1 %3 %oparray_pop 1 3 %oparray_pop 1 3 %oparray_pop %.runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %%stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 16 4 %%oparray_pop 17 4 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %--nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- %--nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 20 5 %oparray_pop %--nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 5 -1 1 %--nostringval-- %for_neg_int_continue --nostringval-- %--nostringval-- Dictionary stack: --dict:1040/1476(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:71/200(L)-- --dict:101/300(L)-- --dict:17/17(ro)(G)-- --dict:1040/1476(ro)(G)-- Current allocation mode is local Last OS error: 2 Current file position is 121689 GNU Ghostscript 6.53: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1 It seems, that if I use gv to watch PostScript files, that have some of those standard fonts of PostScript, it does not success. Only PostScript-files with Computer Modern or other fonts in METAFONT-format can be watched with gv. I even downgraded gs, psfontmgr and some other packages to that version, that comes with stable Debian, and it did not help at all. * * * There is some other weird things going on, too. If I install font packages like ttf-dustin and ttf-bitstream-vera , I can't see those fonts with xfontsel. All fontconfig-aware programs, like Mozilla, can use them, of course. I had to do this to make those fonts available to non-fontconfig-aware software, like rxvt: /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 has this kind of font-paths: Section Files FontPathunix/:7100# local font server # if the local font server has problems, we can fall back on # these FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/:unscaled FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/:unscaled FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Type1 FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/TrueType FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/freefont FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-bitstream-vera FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/dustin FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/openoffice FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/thryomanes FontPath/usr/local/fonts/TrueType FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/misc FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo # FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/cyrillic EndSection Then I did this (under zsh): cd /usr/share/fonts/truetype for f in ./*(/) ; do ; echo $f ; cd $f ; ttmkfdir -o fonts.scale ; mkfontdir ; chmod ugo+r ./* ; cd .. ; done chmod -R ugo+rX * So, who b0rked my Ghostscript and fonts? P.S: I don't subscribe to list. Cc: to me. -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * * http colon slash slash iki dot fi slash juhtolv Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Cicero
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 10:34:14PM -0700, David Nusinow wrote: You're forgetting that we don't really know what Reiser's intentions are. His complaints don't address anything specific, but instead throw out terms like plagiarism and bowdlerization in order to avoid listing specific complaints. Reiser didn't discuss this with the maintainer and come to an agreement, but instead threw a hissy fit accusing the whole project of some abstract crimes. We don't know if the problem is due to the accidental removal of the credits list from the documentation, or Regardless of what the compliants are, I would hope that the next version of the package (regardless of if it appears in main or non-free) has *this* credits list put back in it. I believe this aspect to be entirely non-controversial, and that it needs to get fixed ASAP, regardless of what the outcome with the other issues might be. I think it was purely an oversight, and in no way intended. It should also be easy to fix. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:45:11PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: On the other hands, in Debian which is an association of volunteers, a developer can package any DFSG-free TeX components or DFSG-free extra fonts packages freely so we need an infra-structure which provides dynamic texmf.cnf etc. so that every such extra packages can modify texmf.cnf in order that they could be installed and work without problem. I believe this is our (tetex-mantainers') duty. Dynamic TeX package registration is nice, but not through the main texmf.cnf if people feel that's intended for the admin and the admin only. Why not put the dynamic things in a file like texmf-debian.cnf, and tell the admin that if he wants to use newly installed packages automatically, he should include texmf-debian.cnf from the main texmf.cnf (if including is possible at all -- no idea) or make his texmf.cnf a symlink to the texmf-debian.cnf? I.e. have a fully managed file, but leave it to the admin whether or not his real file points to the managed file, or includes it (if possible), or ignores it altogether. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl pgpoFklGunLs9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debconf review of cvsd (was Re: stop abusing debconf already)
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:12:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: cvsd.conf is a trivial config file to parse and modify from what I can see. port=`sed -n 's/^Port *\([^ ]*\).*$/\1/p' /etc/cvsd/cvsd.conf` That's a reasonable way to get any value from it. I'm glad you do this What about writing values? I imagine that changing the value of port might be as simple as: sed 's/^Port .*$/Port xyz/g' /etc/cvsd/cvsd.conf /etc/cvsd/cvsd.conf.new mv /etc/cvsd/cvsd.conf.new /etc/cvsd/cvsd.conf (not tested). However, what if (and I haven't looked at cvsd; some of my examples may not make sense for cvsd): - There is more then one Port setting? (its probably illegal here). Do you change all of them, or only the first one, or what? - There is no Port setting and one needs to be added? Is it OK to blindly add at the end of the file, or should a script try some black magic to work out the best spot? - Adding a port setting destroys the config, because the adminstrator deliberatly deleted that setting for some reason (I am assuming this would mean something, eg. only bind to a UNIX stream socket, for instance). - The system adminstrator accidently or deliberately commented out the port setting, and puts it back in and finds it doesn't do anything, because a new port setting has been added to the end and has overriden the first setting without giving any errors or warnings? Now thats a lot of ifs. ;-). I am just curious though on what how other developers feel that these situations should be handled. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:41:34AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: If the copyright holder includes a copy of the GPL but writes that the software is licensed under the GPL plus additional restrictions, then this is not illegal as far as I know (there's nothing in the GPL that prevents it from being used in this way). Of course, the resulting licence is not compatibile with the GPL, so if the program were linked with other GPL software Debian could not distribute it. Quoting README, in particular the entire LICENSING section: [509] [scrooge:bam] ~/tmp/woody/reiserfsprogs/reiserfsprogs-3.6.4 dpkg-parsechangelog | grep '^Version: ' Version: 1:3.6.4-4 [503] [scrooge:bam] ~/tmp/woody/reiserfsprogs/reiserfsprogs-3.6.4 cat README [LICENSING] ReiserFS is hereby licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2. Source code files that contain the phrase licensing governed by reiserfs/README are governed files throughout this file. Governed files are licensed under the GPL. The portions of them owned by Hans Reiser, or authorized to be licensed by him, have been in the past, and likely will be in the future, licensed to other parties under other licenses. If you add your code to governed files, and don't want it to be owned by Hans Reiser, put your copyright label on that code so the poor blight and his customers can keep things straight. All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely distributing it to others or sending us a patch, and leaving the sentence in stating that licensing is governed by the statement in this file, you accept this. It will be a kindness if you identify whether Hans Reiser is allowed to license code labeled as owned by you on your behalf other than under the GPL, because he wants to know if it is okay to do so and put a check in the mail to you (for non-trivial improvements) when he makes his next sale. He makes no guarantees as to the amount if any, though he feels motivated to motivate contributors, and you can surely discuss this with him before or after contributing. You have the right to decline to allow him to license your code contribution other than under the GPL. Further licensing options are available for commercial and/or other interests directly from Hans Reiser: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you interpret the GPL as not allowing those additional licensing options, you read it wrongly, and Richard Stallman agrees with me, when carefully read you can see that those restrictions on additional terms do not apply to the owner of the copyright, and my interpretation of this shall govern for this license. Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits, without my permission, unless you are an end user not redistributing to others. If you have doubts about how to properly do that, or about what is fair, ask. (Last I spoke with him Richard was contemplating how best to address the fair crediting issue in the next GPL version.) [END LICENSING] --- cut --- I am no lawyer, but reading up to here I am a bit confused if it is GPL+interpretation or GPL+extension. Personally I don't see any problems with the above text, but the standard I-am-not-a-lawyer disclaimer applies. It is also not defined what he is referring to when he talks about his credits, I would assume he means the rest of the details from the remainder of the README file. I thought that the existing version of the GPL already catered for this, but it appears I might be mistaken. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:36:01 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I wondered whether this use of ucf is safe. If postinst fails for any reason, and package is reconfigured, the backup file is overwritten. An alternative is to abort postinst if -old already exists, and to remove it when postinst finishes. Isn't this safer? Well, I don't use proftpd, and I have blown away the downloaded package. Lets see. From what I recall, you had a single function where the configuration file was replaced, and that used ucf. Let us handle the trivial cases first [snip] Can you postulate qa scenario where ucf would cause user data to be lost? No, your analysis looks fine to me, thanks. I am now convinced that ucf is a great tool to manage configuration files, I hope it will support asking questions via debconf very soon. Denis
Re: Recently orphaned packages
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-04-21 16:54]: Here's a listing of packages I orphaned recently. If you're interested in any, check the bug report if the package is still available and retitle the bug (see http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp for instructions). and: Bug#190188: O: bbppp -- PPP tool for the blackbox window manager Bug#190194: O: verilog-mode -- Emacs mode for verilog language Bug#190195: O: qbrew -- homebrew recipe calculator Bug#190191: O: bbtime -- Time tool for the blackbox window manager Bug#190189: O: bbsload -- System load tool for the blackbox window manager Bug#190193: O: libgeo-metar-perl -- Geo::METAR, Accessing Aviation Weather Information with Perl Bug#190190: O: bbdate -- Date tool for the blackbox window manager Bug#190192: O: grdb -- Gnome capplet for the grdb program -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Debian-Lex] Packages and helpers for Linux for lawyers sub-project
As you may have noticed, Debian-Lex, the nascent Debian-for-lawyers sub-project, made DWN today, and I've had some expressions of interest off-list from that. We're still not officially launched yet though, until the list people create a list for us, so debian-devel will remain the point of contact until then. I'm also cc'ing debian-users on this mail because I am sure there are some non-developer lawyers who will be interested in getting involved, and I'm bcc'ing about a dozen upstream maintainers of packages that are proposed for inclusion in the project, but who might not want their addresses on Usenet. For these and others who came in late, our URL is http://people.debian.org/~terminus/debian-lex (until we are official and the Web people give us some proper space). So for starters we're mainly interested in what DFSG free packages are out there for lawyers, courts or legal administrators, that I don't already know about, that we can look at packaging into Debian-Lex. The current list (including, however, a number of vaporware packages) is found on the Web site. It also includes a few non legal-specific packages, but this needs to be fleshed out. Of the packages that are not vaporware and not already in Debian, I intend to package some of them myself, and I'm cc'ing the maintainers who have ITP'd GnoTime and SQL-Ledger to see if they have any news on their progress. One thing I am not confident at is PHP, so it would be good to have someone on board who can evaluate the PHP-based packages for possible inclusion and to package them if they come up to scratch. We are also interested in hearing about forms, templates, schemata, and documentation in use by lawyers with free software that can be packaged to support the main packages, and I already have a bundle of OpenOffice.org templates for the Family Law courts in Australia to start us off in this regard, and a set of SQL-Ledger accounts (including scripts to import time data from GnoTime). There are many other things to get going on but these are for starters. Also, we need to start the ball rolling in order to convince the powers that be to make us official. :-) Volunteers to help? -- JEREMY MALCOLM [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal: http://www.malcolm.id.au Providing online networks of Australian lawyers (http://www.ilaw.com.au) and Linux experts (http://www.linuxconsultants.com.au) for instant help! Disclaimer: http://www.terminus.net.au/disclaimer.html. GPG key: finger. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Debian-Lex] Packages and helpers for Linux for lawyers sub-project
Hi Jeremy. I'm an attorney, but I'm no longer active. I'm working as a system administrator for Texas Tech Health Sciences Center (http://www.ttuhsc.edu) in Lubbock, Texas. I've been using Linux since 1996, and specifically Debian since 2001. I actively script with Perl (since 1998) and PHP (1999) and am currently learning C++. I'm not a Debian Developer (yet -- I have aspirations, but just can't get a damned package built), but I'm interested in your Debian-Lex project. I haven't actively practiced law since 10.2001. However, when I did practice, I was active on the American Bar Association's LawTech email list and various others. My wife works in the legal field (she is a legal secretary) and many of my friends are attorneys, so I've managed to maintain a connection to the field and related technologies. I subscribe to debian-devel, but believe that I quite often miss out on what I consider to be important threads simply because I have _way_ too much email. I simply can't keep up. I'll be watching for anything concerning Debian-Lex, but in the event you don't hear from me, please contact me. I'd like to see what it is that I can contribute to your project. Thanks for your time, and good luck to you. -- steve ___ | | | There's a difference between being grumpy and | | hating every little fucker in existence. | | | | http://monticello.biz : technology that works | | http://exitwound.org : hard to find | | http://buckowensfan.com : he's the man | --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Debian-Lex] Packages and helpers for Linux for lawyers sub-project
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 07:43:50PM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: We're still not officially launched yet though, until the list people create a list for us, so debian-devel will remain the point of contact until then. Well, you can always create a list on Alioth for the time being. No need to hold off development. Michael
Re: curl, testing and gcc-3.2 (?) (was Re: Debian curl package depends on gcc-3.2?)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote: Colin Watson wrote: The reason why a library's shlibs get changed is that binaries built against one version of the library can't be guaranteed to run correctly against older versions. Because the interface changed or because the previous version was buggy? I have always assumed the first reason, but it seems many maintainers are using the second. first reason, interface changes. libcurl provides a function (curl_easy_setopt) which is used to set options for the run. if new options are added i have to change shlibs, i cannot know whether a program linking the new libcurl uses any new option. hence, i cannot allow its installation with an older libcurl. -[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
Re: Non-debian running DD's (Was: Re: stop abusing debconf already)
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:01:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 08:58, LapTop006 wrote: I use both Mutt and OE to read my E-mail (mostly mutt). The one feature OE has (on both mac and windows) that NO other client I've seen matches (Mozilla 1.0 came close, haven't tried since then) is its support for offline IMAP. Try Mac OS X's Mail program. It has at least as good offline support as OE, and is much nicer, too. /me wishes Mail were free. Please hack on GNUMail.app. It is in the gnumail package. Simon
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 02:53:38PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote: Some people here apparently delight in pissing off upstream authors who object to the way their software is modified. There are plenty of posts saying that Debian can do what it likes, and precious few acknowledging that Hans ought to have any say in what is done to the software he wrote. Authors have a moral right (and a legal one in some places) not to have their work mutilated. At the same time, upstream authors need to recognise the job that Debian does: integrates components to build a complete operating system. That means modifications of various types, like modifying paths and in this case messages. You may not be thinking of the whole target system when working on your one program/tool. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:45:11PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: I don't know how you create texmf.cnf but it would be enough if you create it in Debian and distribute it to other machines (but under the condition that you use only compatible TeX components which is your case, perhaps). WTF? You are not allowed to overwrite the system administrator's modifications. Do you understand that? You can't just decide that you are allowed to take over the fscking file. Can you understand that? Go check how update-modules works. (which is not perfect, but it's at any rate much better than update-texmf) Did you read that file? What are you waiting for then? But it seems you dislike it by some reason or other and they are your machines so it's okay how you treat them and to complain or to file a bug as you like. You are joking, right? Hmm. Red Hat Works. Suse Works. Solaris Works. Debian fails. Why does Debian have to be incompatible? I say this is a bug. Ditto. Ditto... what? Marcelo
Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Consider that an Evil Company, say, starting with the letter 'M', could apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts that are unconscionable to the original author. Something like an invariant section on how the original author's coding style resembles the intelligence of the infamous paper clip. And a cover text that Linux Sucks. Why is this a problem? Seems to me that it is their right to do so, if they make a contribution that nobody else wants to be without, they have earned the moral right to insult the original author. -- Hans
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to prominently crediting those who have contributed. -- Hans
Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro
On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 11:00, Hans Reiser wrote: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: [...] could apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts that are unconscionable to the original author. [...] (Note: I gave a specific example that involved insulting the original author of the software) Why is this a problem? [...] At least too me, it seems to defeat the purpose of copyleft. If I didn't mind if the document was made such that I couldn't use the modifications, I would license it under a much simpler, much more direct license like the MIT X11 one. Or just disclaim copyright interest in it (i.e., put it in the public domain). If I were to use the GFDL, my choices would be to not be able to use the changes (so much for copyleft) or start an invariant section war, where I add an invariant rebuttal.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 11:17, Hans Reiser wrote: Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to prominently crediting those who have contributed. I'm very happy to hear that this has been resolved amicably.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030422 05:50]: On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:25:39PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote: banner at startup is inconvenient. However just cutting it out is not a good way to resolve the bug. The maintainer made a mistake here. It ought to be obvious that removing a author/sponsor notice would be likely to offend. It's not obvious. Removing a sponsorship notice is something I'd do without a second thought; it's nothing more than advertisement and it's just as annoying to me as a banner ad. I object: There is always a cause why a certain message is output. A debian maintainer should (morally) at least ask what the upstream maintainer thinks about removing the sponsorship message and remove it against the will of the upstream maintainer only in very rare cases after appropriate discussions within the debian project. Everything else is at least very unfriendly. (I'm not speaking formally whether the removal is allowed, and consequences for the freedomsnes of the software in respect to debians guidelines. That's a totally different discussion.) Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C Fachbegriffe des Schienenverkehrs #1 von Marc Haber in dasr Alles wird billiger: 50 % Preiserhöhung für Stammkunden.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
* David Nusinow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030422 08:05]: So, ultimately, what harm does this do to the author? If all he cares about is his reputation, then he's certaintly not doing a good job of bolstering it in this particular forum. He's not representing his sponsors very well either. Can't you understand that as an author you would like that messages like this are not removed without your consent? The internet robustness principle says: Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send. Modifiying code is sending, and therefore the debian-maintainers should be conservative in making changes against the will of the upstream maintainers. (Formally everytihn is different. But the world doesn't work with only viewing the formal points.) Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C Fachbegriffe des Schienenverkehrs #1 von Marc Haber in dasr Alles wird billiger: 50 % Preiserhöhung für Stammkunden.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030422 08:35]: On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 02:53:38PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote: Authors have a moral right (and a legal one in some places) not to have their work mutilated. You can assert a moral right to control how your work is used, or you can write Free Software. You don't get to do both at once. You can. The _moral_ right is compatible with free software, the _formal_ right not. (And in some, rare cases the moral right is ignored. mkreiserfs could be a place like that. But that doesn't stop the moral right in general.) Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C Fachbegriffe des Schienenverkehrs #1 von Marc Haber in dasr Alles wird billiger: 50 % Preiserhöhung für Stammkunden.
x86-64 mailing list
CCing debian-devel.. hi! as noticed in DWN [1] and debian-devel [2], Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] has actualy started work [3] on the x86-64 port by using Bochs' x86-64 emulation. it's likely that debian-x86-64 developement discussions start to come up soon, so it'd be interesting if this list (#162668, New Mailinglist debian-x86-64) could be created soon (so that debian-devel is not crappled with x86-64 stuff). [1] http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/16/ [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg00978.html [3] http://www.arndb.de/debian/ -- Robert Millan make: *** No rule to make target `war'. Stop. Another world is possible - Just say no to genocide
Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro
Op wo 23-04-2003, om 17:00 schreef Hans Reiser: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Consider that an Evil Company, say, starting with the letter 'M', could apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts that are unconscionable to the original author. Something like an invariant section on how the original author's coding style resembles the intelligence of the infamous paper clip. And a cover text that Linux Sucks. Why is this a problem? Seems to me that it is their right to do so, if they make a contribution that nobody else wants to be without, they have earned the moral right to insult the original author. Well, it's your right to think so. But you have to understand that not everyone feels that way; the fact that the GFDL can potentially be abused into making the manual non-free *is* a problem. In fact, this whole argument started because 'someone' felt insulted. -- wouter at grep dot be An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal gesigneerd
Request for Clue: i18n of fortune-esque things
So, as some of you may remember, after a discussion on debian-devel about wanting some way to give a tip of the day or similar functionality for new (and sometimes used.. er... experienced) Debian users, I did an ITP for fortunes-debian-hints. It's now in testing (or so the PTS would lead me to believe), and has a small, if hopefully useful, seed of hints. (Speaking of which, folks should feel encouraged to submit more - I have a mild preference for using the BTS, but email to my @d.o address will suffice if you're only doing 1 or 2 and want to avoid hassling with it). What I was wondering is whether there is a way to do translations of the fortune data, without having to have 'fortunes-debian-hints-lang' packages. Granted, I probably won't be able to do much useful about translating them, myself, but I'd like to at least know if it's doable to support such a thing. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp1PoPdEVsp3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Who b0rked my Ghostscript and fonts?
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 12:02:00PM +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: Hi, dunno about your gs problems, but... There is some other weird things going on, too. If I install font packages like ttf-dustin and ttf-bitstream-vera , I can't see those fonts with xfontsel. All fontconfig-aware programs, like Mozilla, can use them, of course. I had to do this to make those fonts available to non-fontconfig-aware software, like rxvt: [...] FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/freefont FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-bitstream-vera FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/dustin FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/openoffice FontPath/usr/share/fonts/truetype/thryomanes Don't do this. Install x-ttcidfont-conf and add /var/lib/defoma/x-ttcidfont-conf.d/dirs/TrueType to your font paths instead. (Which almost every font package's README.Debian tells you to do, btw.) cd /usr/share/fonts/truetype for f in ./*(/) ; do ; echo $f ; cd $f ; ttmkfdir -o fonts.scale ; mkfontdir ; chmod ugo+r ./* ; cd .. ; done chmod -R ugo+rX * No need, x-ttcidfont-conf will take care of this for you. -Michael
Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:45:11 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:45:44 -0500 For example, I set up a Debian machine in a lab with other, non debian machines. I note that all the machines have default texmf.cnf behaviour. No problem, I create a custom texmf.cnf, and distribute it to all machines. I don't know how you create texmf.cnf but it would be enough if you create it in Debian and distribute it to other machines (but under the condition that you use only compatible TeX components which is your case, perhaps). No, since the Debian admin is not in charge. This is an established lab, with Debian trying to make inroads. If Debian is not inter-operable, it is useless. I am boggled at the Microsoft like insistence that sure, we are not inter-operable with the rest of the world, but if the rest of the world lets us take charge, and follow the Debian way, they shall be enlightened. What is the other TeTeX installations on these machines also had non standard procedures for configuration? Right now, Debian is not compatible with the other TeTeX installs, and this is a bug. But it seems you dislike it by some reason or other and they are your machines so it's okay how you treat them and to complain or to file a bug as you like. Every other machine works. But the Debian box, despite having my nice, fancy, /etc/texmf.cnf, does not pay any attention to it. Ditto. Yes, this is a Debian bug. Hmm. Red Hat Works. Suse Works. Solaris Works. Debian fails. Why does Debian have to be incompatible? I say this is a bug. Ditto. Yes, this is a Debian bug. Because RedHat, for example, is a comercial distribution so RedHat would be designed from the biginning what TeX components it would include, therefore a static texmf.cnf worked. Further, RedHat doesn't have something similar to our policy, perhaps, so it can modify texmf.cnf freely if necessary, I guess. (Correct me if I misunderstand RedHat. I've never used it.) It does not matter why they did not break compatibility; we did. And I can coime up with half a dozen mechanisms, including using ucf, that creates working, compatible, inter-operable, solutions. I am surprised you can't seem to think of even one of these. From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:48:14 -0500 In he old scheme, my changes were never lost. If you like the old scheme, it is possible only if policy doesn't forbid to modify a conffile, texmf.cnf, by packages' scripts. (In fact, some packages did it before.) BTW, does policy force us that our configurations should be compatible with those of RedHat? No, common sense does. Not all bugs are policy violations. And this is not just Red Hat. It is _any_ other TeTeX installation, since I mentioned more than Red Hat in this DARPA lab. manoj -- If you want to see card tricks, you have to expect to take cards. Harry Blackstone Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
Postpone GFDL flamewar, please!
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 07:00:32PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote: Why is this a problem? Seems to me that it is their right to do so, if they make a contribution that nobody else wants to be without, they have earned the moral right to insult the original author. This has all been debated at length on debian-legal. I'd recommend waiting on this flamewar for the time being; debian-legal is still preparing detailed information on this issue, in the hopes that if the repeat discussions/flamewars can't be prevented, they can at least not start from scratch. It's not quite ready to be dragged out onto debian-devel, as the existing arguments are still scattered among hundreds of messages. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 05:35:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: I object: There is always a cause why a certain message is output. A debian maintainer should (morally) at least ask what the upstream maintainer thinks about removing the sponsorship message and remove it against the will of the upstream maintainer only in very rare cases after appropriate discussions within the debian project. Everything I'm merely defending the actions of the maintainer: it's not obvious to me that summarily removing a clearly objectionable 24-line sponsorship message is objectionable, as long as actual author credits (copyright notices) remain. I'm willing to disagree on this. (And, although Hans says the issue was resolved, I still don't believe he's said publically exactly which issue we've been talking about ...) -- Glenn Maynard
Autobuilder locale setup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 During a package build, I need to produce translated files using gettext. By this, I mean using the .mo files at build-time to produce sets of translated PPD files. (I know this is ugly, but it's the only way to localise static data files.) This works fine when the locales exist for each localisation, but if they don't exist, it defaults to C locale/US-ASCII charset. Can the autobuilders guarantee a full set of generated locales, or is only C available? Thanks, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 available on public keyservers -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAj6mggoACgkQVcFcaSW/uEh81gCgwjG+MTRoLWh4t0RiiVFMJznE vpIAoJ2uCt2ny+YzhYJV1JzBVbaafXbT =WgXD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Brian May wrote: Quoting README, in particular the entire LICENSING section: [Snip text about Hans Reiser assuming the right to re-license contributed work if it's not clearly labelled otherwise. I don't have an opinion on the legality of it, but it doesn't sound non-free to me.] README Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you README to fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits, without my README permission, unless you are an end user not redistributing to README others. If you have doubts about how to properly do that, or about README what is fair, ask. (Last I spoke with him Richard was README contemplating how best to address the fair crediting issue in the README next GPL version.) On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:41:34AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: I am no lawyer, but reading up to here I am a bit confused if it is GPL+interpretation or GPL+extension. IANAL either, but this seems clearly to be an additional restriction over and above the GPL 2c requirement. It contradicts the statement that the code is released under the GPL. If it contains or links to any GPL code not owned by Hans Reiser, it appears undistributable. If it is wholly-owned, it can be distributed, but perhaps in non-free. It depends on further interpretation of fail to fairly credit or remove my credits. It is also not defined what he is referring to when he talks about his credits, I would assume he means the rest of the details from the remainder of the README file. I thought that the existing version of the GPL already catered for this, but it appears I might be mistaken. Credits in the README file don't bother me much. Advertising during program execution of a tool or on module load is non-free if it can't be changed/removed (within the limits of GPL section 2c). That said, I'd prefer Debian NOT remove such advertising, only that we guarantee users the right to do. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
[Some dude called Manoj (I think) did produce such utterances recently] You may be enured to unsubstantiated accusations of plagiarism, theft, idiocy, and worse, but please allow me the right of umbrage at such. I apologise for accusing Manoj of having a prune up his rear. It's clear to me now that this was a disservice to prunes and in fact it's a thesaurus thats lodged there and is giving him delusions of having a large vocabulary. Matt.
Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 11:00, Hans Reiser wrote: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: [...] could apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts that are unconscionable to the original author. [...] (Note: I gave a specific example that involved insulting the original author of the software) Why is this a problem? [...] At least too me, it seems to defeat the purpose of copyleft. If I didn't mind if the document was made such that I couldn't use the modifications, I would license it under a much simpler, much more direct license like the MIT X11 one. Or just disclaim copyright interest in it (i.e., put it in the public domain). If I were to use the GFDL, my choices would be to not be able to use the changes (so much for copyleft) or start an invariant section war, where I add an invariant rebuttal. That would give you a lot of incentive to write code that others would want to keep. Sounds good to me.;-) You have a choice of incentives: 1) money 2) ego 3) none. You are choosing 3). I know you won't choose 1). I suggest you choose 2), for all the reasons articulated in the Cathedral and the Bazaar. If you are feeling sympathetic you might consider that persons like me are concerned that vendors will strip all information about who wrote ReiserFS out except for copyright notices that none of their users will see, slap their brand identity onto it, and ship, depriving me of all credit for my work on their product. I say this, because that is exactly what slimy marketeers at startups do, and they do it a lot. Look at how many companies ripped off squid. -- Hans
irssi-text - Not quite a release-critical bug
Bug 183186 seems to be stopping irss-text 0.8.6 from entering Sarge, but IMHO the bug is not quite release critical. Botti is just a small part of irssi, not used by 90% of the package users (at least, I think so). (Maybe it should be split into a separate package anyway?) Can this bug be put back to normal priority? -- + .''`. - -- ---+ + - -- --- - --+ | lintux : :' : lintux.cx | | Unix and CGI @ IOI/NIO(Dutch)at | | at `. `~' debian.org | | www.lintux.cx/ www.algoritme.nl | +--- -- - ` ---+ +-- - --- -- - + pgpPMhJQl3Aox.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Hans Reiser wrote: Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to prominently crediting those who have contributed. Again, what does Debian(as a community/organization) have to do with a maintainer fixing a minor bug?
RE: Autobuilder locale setup
Roger Leigh wrote: This works fine when the locales exist for each localisation, but if they don't exist, it defaults to C locale/US-ASCII charset. Can the autobuilders guarantee a full set of generated locales, or is only C available? Autobuilders don't even have locales installed by default, as it's non-essential, so you certainly can't count on any specific locales being there, no. You can, however, generate the locales that you need and make them available to you during your package build, with some trickery. See debian/locale-gen in the gcc-3.2 source package, for instance. ... Adam
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:49:09AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: That said, I'd prefer Debian NOT remove such advertising, only that we guarantee users the right to do. *And* distribute the result, if you want to be DFSG-free. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl pgpXhwApwE0vB.pgp Description: PGP signature
libpng3 upgrade will remove kde development packages
The new libpng3 (1.2.5.0-1) renames libpng12-0-dev to libpng12-dev, which seems to be intentional on the part of the new maintainer. I have a number of kde development packages which depend on libpng12-0-dev, though, and so will be removed if I upgrade libpng3. Transcript: Shuttle:/home/josh# apt-get -s install libpng3 Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: libpng12-0 The following packages will be REMOVED: kdelibs4-dev kdesdk kspy libarts1-dev libartsc0-dev libpng12-0-dev libqt3-mt-dev The following held packages will be changed: libpng12-0 libpng3 2 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 7 to remove and 7 not upgraded. Remv kdesdk (4:3.1.1-1 Debian:unstable) Remv kspy (4:3.1.1-1 Debian:unstable) Remv kdelibs4-dev (4:3.1.1-1 Debian:unstable) Remv libartsc0-dev (1.1.1-2 Debian:unstable) Remv libarts1-dev (1.1.1-2 Debian:unstable) Remv libqt3-mt-dev (3:3.1.1-7 Debian:unstable) Remv libpng12-0-dev (1.2.5-11 ) Inst libpng3 (1.2.5.0-1 Debian:unstable) [] Inst libpng12-0 (1.2.5.0-1 Debian:unstable) Conf libpng12-0 (1.2.5.0-1 Debian:unstable) Conf libpng3 (1.2.5.0-1 Debian:unstable) Should I file any bugs? If so, against libpng3, or against the other packages? Thank you, Josh
Bug#190392: ITP: grub-disk -- GRUB bootable disk image
Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-23 Severity: wishlist * Package name: grub-disk Version : 0.93+cvs20030224.2.1 * URL : http://people.debian.org/~rmh/packages/grub-disk/ * License : GPL Description : GRUB bootable disk image This package contains a GRUB rescue disk. It consists of a bootable 1.44 floppy image you can use to grab a rescue disk or be run in an i386 emulator, like Bochs. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux aragorn 2.2.22 #1 dl nov 25 21:59:43 CET 2002 i586 Locale: LANG=ca_ES.ISO-8859-1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ignored: LC_ALL set)
Re: x86-64 mailing list
Robert Millan wrote: it's likely that debian-x86-64 developement discussions start to come up soon, so it'd be interesting if this list (#162668, New Mailinglist debian-x86-64) could be created soon (so that debian-devel is not crappled with x86-64 stuff). I second this (as I search for an in-stock tyan or msi opteron motherboard). -- Kevin Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for Clue: i18n of fortune-esque things
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Joel Baker wrote: What I was wondering is whether there is a way to do translations of the fortune data, without having to have 'fortunes-debian-hints-lang' packages. Granted, I probably won't be able to do much useful about translating them, myself, but I'd like to at least know if it's doable to support such a thing. I just had the idea of translating these hints myself and thus I talked with Grisu about using the DDTP server for this purpose. He promised to think about this ... Kind regards Andreas. -- Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. John F. Kennedy
Re: irssi-text - Not quite a release-critical bug
On Wed Apr 23, 09:35pm +0200, Wilmer van der Gaast wrote: Bug 183186 seems to be stopping irss-text 0.8.6 from entering Sarge, but IMHO the bug is not quite release critical. Botti is just a small part of irssi, not used by 90% of the package users (at least, I think so). (Maybe it should be split into a separate package anyway?) Can this bug be put back to normal priority? I can't even reproduce it in Sid's Irssi. pgpj8bLD1Ecma.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libpng3 upgrade will remove kde development packages
Should I file any bugs? If so, against libpng3, or against the other packages? Try filing a grave bug with gratuous change breaks other software, against libpng3 regards, junichi
Re: Autobuilder locale setup
Adam Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roger Leigh wrote: This works fine when the locales exist for each localisation, but if they don't exist, it defaults to C locale/US-ASCII charset. Can the autobuilders guarantee a full set of generated locales, or is only C available? Autobuilders don't even have locales installed by default, as it's non-essential, so you certainly can't count on any specific locales being there, no. You can, however, generate the locales that you need and make them available to you during your package build, with some trickery. See debian/locale-gen in the gcc-3.2 source package, for instance. However generating *all* locales is going to be excessively painful for slower architectures and it'd be nice if it wasn't done unless absolutely necessary. -- James
Re: libpng3 upgrade will remove kde development packages
Le mer 23/04/2003 à 22:23, Josh Metzler a écrit : Shuttle:/home/josh# apt-get -s install libpng3 Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: libpng12-0 The following packages will be REMOVED: kdelibs4-dev kdesdk kspy libarts1-dev libartsc0-dev libpng12-0-dev libqt3-mt-dev The following held packages will be changed: libpng12-0 libpng3 This should be fine if you tell apt-get to install libpng12-dev explicitly. BTW, shouldn't APT deal with this case (conflicts/replaces/provides) automatically ? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:46:24 +0400 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: persons like me are concerned that vendors will strip all information about who wrote ReiserFS out except for copyright notices that none of their users will see, slap their brand identity onto it, and ship, depriving me of all credit for my work on their product. We seem to have slalomed across from talking about documentation to about code, again. Ok. Whilst I'm not personally advocating taking and re-branding code (especially if its against upstream's wishes) the ripping off that you speak so vehemently against isn't quite so bad as it may appear. In fact, it can often be very advantageous to a project. One could argue that if the thief had been unable to re-brand the code, they never would have used it. If they had to have a prominent notice advertising We did not write this, Hans Reiser did (only 24 times as long) every time their application started, they wouldn't touch the code with a barge pole. Thus, the code is now in places where it wouldn't have been before. This means greater penetration, albeit by the back door. Depriving you of all credit is an exaggeration. There's always going to be some recognition gained. They cannot remove the copyright notice, as you say. And again, since the code would not have been used at all if large, blatant credits were a requirement, the alternative is zero recognition because they would have done something else instead. They might gain _more_ reputation from their immediate user-base than you, but you still gain. And the more clueful hacker types will be the ones who will read the copyright notices, anyway, and most probably come and seek you out on their own. Additionally, having taken the code and rebranded it, a prudent person is highly unlikely to want to go to the trouble of maintaining the codebase on their own. Even if they're being especially selfish and don't want to contribute anything back, they'll definitely file bug reports on any problems that they or their users find, because they'll want them to be fixed. Again, net gain through increased testing. Please note, I don't say that your view is invalid, merely that there is an alternative view that seems to be quite widely spread. The above involves sacrificing some very prominent visibility to the users of those that do accept the more onerous licensing terms, in the hope of garnering greater penetration, utilisation and development of the code in the long term. Look at how many companies ripped off squid. And yet, to the best of my knowledge, Squid have not changed their license to prevent this recurring in the future. I wonder why?
Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro
Andrew Saunders wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:46:24 +0400 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One could argue that if the thief had been unable to re-brand the code, they never would have used it. If they had to have a prominent notice advertising We did not write this, Hans Reiser did (only 24 times as long) every time their application started, they wouldn't touch the code with a barge pole. Thus, the code is now in places where it wouldn't have been before. This means greater penetration, albeit by the back door. If they want to leave off the credits, they can pay me for the privilege, or live with only the credit they deserve for their work. People who can't live with my credits on work they sell to others should pay. Look at how many companies ripped off squid. And yet, to the best of my knowledge, Squid have not changed their license to prevent this recurring in the future. There is no need to change the license, the companies violated the GPL, they didn't just strip the credits. The need is to enforce the license, and nobody is bothering. UC Santa Cruz University lawyers are not very interested in earning their living. I reported it to them some time ago -- Hans
Re: Any active maintainers using mod_perl?
I actively use and develop with mod_perl and would be happy to take the packages over if you are no longer inclined. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ivan On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:44:18PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: It's been a few years since I've actually run a web site which uses libapache-mod-perl or apache-perl. If there's anyone more interested than I in maintaining these packages, I'd be glad to pass them on. They're in pretty good shape; there's one mysterious apache-perl bug which shouldn't be too hard to track down, and a couple of bugs that want more automatic configuration when libapache-mod-perl is installed that I'm not sure I agree with. Also one bug for uninstalling libapache-mod-perl, but I'll fix that tonight. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ivan
Re: Autobuilder locale setup
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adam Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Autobuilders don't even have locales installed by default, as it's non-essential, so you certainly can't count on any specific locales being there, no. You can, however, generate the locales that you need and make them available to you during your package build, with some trickery. See debian/locale-gen in the gcc-3.2 source package, for instance. However generating *all* locales is going to be excessively painful for slower architectures and it'd be nice if it wasn't done unless absolutely necessary. That's fine--I can just generate those that I really need (~20). Thanks, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 available on public keyservers
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: Can't you understand that as an author you would like that messages like this are not removed without your consent? The internet robustness principle says: Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send. Modifiying code is sending, and Writing the code in the first place is also sending. I'd say that, under the circumstances for which reiserfsprogs is most likely to be used by a person, a long credits speil at the end of execution isn't overly conservative. The principles apply to everyone. therefore the debian-maintainers should be conservative in making changes against the will of the upstream maintainers. (Formally That I wholeheartedly agree with - hell, it should be put in the Developers Reference in big pointy letters. However, at the end of the day, maintainers have signed on to do the best for our users, not upstream maintainers. The question must be asked and answered, how are users better served - by keeping a long credits message and reiserfs, or switching to another journalling file system whose tools don't have such unpleasantness. -- --- #include disclaimer.h Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
Re: Work-needing packages report for Apr 11, 2003
(Sorry for taking so long to get back) On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 19:18, Cameron Patrick wrote: Er, the SBLive and its Creative brethren do, don't they? At least, I'm presuming that's what sound fonts are for. Has it been removed in later versions of the card? If it's there, I can't find it on my current one (which I bought about a month ago). Anyway, most[1] motherboards these days seem to come with an onboard DSP, but no MIDI. Most people don't bother to buy a real sound card when they've already got one built in, as long as it works with Linux. Me, I bought my SBLive cause the one on my motherboard didn't want to work with Linux. [1] - Yes, I know I really should say most x86 motherboards, but I stopped to think, and most of the other architectures I've ever played with (PowerPC, Alpha, Sparc) had built in sound too, and no MIDI . . . -- The more I use other operating systems, the more I like Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org http://www.linux.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Work-needing packages report for Apr 11, 2003
(Sorry for taking so long to get back) On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 08:28, Darren Salt wrote: Hmm. They're conffiles (not sure why, given that they're all binaries); have you tried 2.4 with the 2.3 drums files? I believe I tried that, but I can't recall. As it stands now, I just keep the source to 2.3 around for safekeeping. I use it from time to time, and I think that it should be left in the archive until most people are using 2.6-series kernels (and, thus, ALSA). Ah, I've been lax; I haven't even moved to ALSA yet. Does it do good MIDI? I have an SBLive; it has an on-board synth, which sounds almost as good as timidity (and has the advantage of using next to no CPU power). Odd, my current SBLive (bought about a month ago) doesn't seem to have on board synth. Even so, if it only sounds almost as good as timidity, that's pretty piss poor. OTOH, the only synth support for emu10k1 is in ALSA, although there's OSS support for the MIDI port on these cards (but I don't have anything to plug in there). That would explain why I can't use synth on mine. Hmm... another reason to keep it, then. Like I've said, I've got the source, I'm not too concerned, but I don't have the time to maintain a package for it. A text editor :-) Yeah, I like vim, but sometimes I just like to have a reassurance that I haven't missed anything. -- The more I use other operating systems, the more I like Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org http://www.linux.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 07:27:05PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: I apologise for accusing Manoj of having a prune up his rear. It's clear to me now that this was a disservice to prunes and in fact it's a thesaurus thats lodged there and is giving him delusions of having a large vocabulary. At this point in the thread I am asking myself if you are presently trying to present a point. You seem to have left your ideas a few branches back. Regards, Josh -- New PGP public key: 0x27AFC3EE pgpd7S3jScHti.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:45 -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Hans Reiser wrote: Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to prominently crediting those who have contributed. I'm glad to hear that. Again, what does Debian(as a community/organization) have to do with a maintainer fixing a minor bug? Imagine you are the developer of some random piece of free software. You don't necessarily use Debian; you certainly don't understand all its systems and protocols. The conventional way to get in touch with the developers of a free software project to raise an issue is to write to the -devel list. It's not surprising that this is what people do with debian. By all means suggest they write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but there's no need to flame people for doing the normal and reasonable thing. -- Martin
Re: irssi-text - Not quite a release-critical bug
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 09:35:13PM +0200, Wilmer van der Gaast wrote: Bug 183186 seems to be stopping irss-text 0.8.6 from entering Sarge, but IMHO the bug is not quite release critical. #183186 is important, which hasn't been a release-critical severity for several years now. It is not affecting irssi-text's promotion to testing. irssi-text is in fact held up by the perl 5.8 transition. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libpng3 upgrade will remove kde development packages
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:17:46AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mer 23/04/2003 à 22:23, Josh Metzler a écrit : Shuttle:/home/josh# apt-get -s install libpng3 Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: libpng12-0 The following packages will be REMOVED: kdelibs4-dev kdesdk kspy libarts1-dev libartsc0-dev libpng12-0-dev libqt3-mt-dev The following held packages will be changed: libpng12-0 libpng3 This should be fine if you tell apt-get to install libpng12-dev explicitly. BTW, shouldn't APT deal with this case (conflicts/replaces/provides) automatically ? It might have something to do with him having libpng12-0 libpng3 set to hold? When I attempt to install kdelibs4-dev here it seems to work correctly: singularity:~# apt-get install kdelibs4-dev Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: libart-2.0-dev libarts1 libarts1-dev libartsc0 libartsc0-dev libasound2-dev libaudio-dev libaudiofile-dev libcupsys2 libcupsys2-dev libfam-dev libfreetype6-dev libglib2.0-dev libjpeg62-dev liblcms1-dev libmad0-dev libmng-dev libogg-dev libpcre3-dev libpng12-dev libqt3-headers libqt3-mt-dev libvorbis-dev pkg-config qt3-dev-tools xlibmesa-gl-dev xlibmesa-glu-dev xlibs-dev zlib1g-dev The following NEW packages will be installed: kdelibs4-dev libart-2.0-dev libarts1-dev libartsc0-dev libasound2-dev libaudio-dev libaudiofile-dev libcupsys2-dev libfam-dev libfreetype6-dev libglib2.0-dev libjpeg62-dev liblcms1-dev libmad0-dev libmng-dev libogg-dev libpcre3-dev libpng12-dev libqt3-headers libqt3-mt-dev libvorbis-dev pkg-config qt3-dev-tools xlibmesa-gl-dev xlibmesa-glu-dev xlibs-dev zlib1g-dev The following held packages will be changed: libarts1 libartsc0 3 packages upgraded, 27 newly installed, 0 to remove and 7 not upgraded. Need to get 11.7MB of archives. After unpacking 42.8MB will be used.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:53:14 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:59 +1000, Martin Pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream author expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is not trolling (i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.) I find it interesting that you consider a public accusation of plagiarism to be merely expressing concern. I was intentionally using moderate language because (a) I don't believe it is strictly plagiarism (as you say), and (b) because I don't think inflaming the debate by tossing around words like plagiarism (or troll, slander, etc) is very helpful. (Had I thought about it more, I would have realized the second one goes completely against the behaviour expected on -devel, which is apparently to be as personal and negative as possible.) However, I also find your judgment in this horribly tainted, which leads me to place less credence in the rest of your argument, sorry. Well, Hans and Ed seem to have arrived at exactly the outcome I was arguing for, so I suppose I can't have been completely wrong: despite that Debian has the legal right to change the code, it should seek compromise between the author and the distribution's goals. You need to get past the emotional upset you felt (understandably) at Debian being accused of plagiarism. (Well, it seems to have been resolved without your help, so I suppose you can stay upset if you prefer.) Or the blindingly obvious choice: Your blatant spin displays a bias so huge that your arguments are no longer credible? It's a sorry day when wanting Debian to give some consideration to the opinions of original authors is huge bias. -- Martin
Bug#190422: ITP: dumb -- the dynamic universal music bibliotheque
Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-24 Severity: wishlist * Package name: dumb Version : 0.9.2 Upstream Author : Ben Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://dumb.sourceforge.net/ * License : BSD-like Description : the dynamic universal music bibliotheque DUMB is a tracker library with support for IT, XM, S3M and MOD files. It targets maximum accuracy to the original formats, with low-pass resonant filters for the IT files, accurate timing and pitching, and three resampling quality settings (aliasing, linear interpolation and cubic interpolation). [note about the license: section 4 was merely a joke, but was making the license GPL-incompatible, and probably non-DFSG-free. The author kindly agreed to renounce it.] -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux c18 2.5.53 #2 Thu Apr 24 01:24:46 CEST 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Martin Pool wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:45 -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Hans Reiser wrote: Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to prominently crediting those who have contributed. Again, what does Debian(as a community/organization) have to do with a maintainer fixing a minor bug? Imagine you are the developer of some random piece of free software. You don't necessarily use Debian; you certainly don't understand all its systems and protocols. The conventional way to get in touch with the developers of a free software project to raise an issue is to write to the -devel list. It's not surprising that this is what people do with debian. I think you missed the thrust of Adam's comment (and previous missives on the same topic). Hans is thanking Debian for an action, when the project as a whole (the entity typically referred to by the name Debian) has taken no such action. This flamewar might be a good reminder to everyone why it's a useful idea to keep in good contact with your upstreams - that way, they can come and pester you with problems instead of setting the whole project off into a paroxym of heated messages (to say the least). -- --- #include disclaimer.h Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:17, Martin Pool wrote: The conventional way to get in touch with the developers of a free software project to raise an issue is to write to the -devel list. It's not surprising that this is what people do with debian. The conventional way to approach a large group of people if you want a positive response is to not start making accusations in your first message. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On 24 Apr 2003, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:17, Martin Pool wrote: The conventional way to get in touch with the developers of a free software project to raise an issue is to write to the -devel list. It's not surprising that this is what people do with debian. The conventional way to approach a large group of people if you want a positive response is to not start making accusations in your first message. I agree. I am not trying to defend Hans's diplomatic skills. -- Martin
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:41:58 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030422 08:35]: On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 02:53:38PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote: Authors have a moral right (and a legal one in some places) not to have their work mutilated. You can assert a moral right to control how your work is used, or you can write Free Software. You don't get to do both at once. You can. The _moral_ right is compatible with free software, the _formal_ right not. (And in some, rare cases the moral right is ignored. mkreiserfs could be a place like that. But that doesn't stop the moral right in general.) You seem to be impying that all forks of free software are immoral. manoj ps. Someone ought let the XEmacs folks into this -- An American's a person who isn't afraid to criticize the president but is always polite to traffic cops. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:46:32 +1000, Martin Pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:53:14 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:59 +1000, Martin Pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream author expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is not trolling (i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.) I find it interesting that you consider a public accusation of plagiarism to be merely expressing concern. I was intentionally using moderate language because (a) I don't believe it is strictly plagiarism (as you say), You need a modifier strictly there? You think it was loosely plagiarism? and (b) because I don't think inflaming the debate by tossing around words like plagiarism (or troll, slander, etc) is very helpful. I think anyone throwing out unsubstantiatged accusation of plagiarism is indeed a troll; and never intended to jave a rational conversation. If you start out by being rude, what ought you to expect? (Had I thought about it more, I would have realized the second one goes completely against the behaviour expected on -devel, which is apparently to be as personal and negative as possible.) Quite so. Now you know. However, I also find your judgment in this horribly tainted, which leads me to place less credence in the rest of your argument, sorry. Well, Hans and Ed seem to have arrived at exactly the outcome I was arguing for, so I suppose I can't have been completely wrong: despite that Debian has the legal right to change the code, it should seek compromise between the author and the distribution's goals. The fact that the outcome reached meets your desires in no way mitigates the bias you were displaying. You need to get past the emotional upset you felt (understandably) at Debian being accused of plagiarism. (Well, it seems to have been resolved without your help, so I suppose you can stay upset if you prefer.) Ah. Turn the other cheek, ad infinitum. Not quite my style. I am to take it that Or the blindingly obvious choice: Your blatant spin displays a bias so huge that your arguments are no longer credible? It's a sorry day when wanting Debian to give some consideration to the opinions of original authors is huge bias. I see. Wanting Debian to fawn over authors (as if we are a body totally devoid of authors of free software) even when the aforementioned authors insult us and tar our reputation is merely some consideration. If you do not think your view point is biased, then I am sorry to say I am not wearing those blinkers. manoj -- It's always darkest just before the lights go out. -- Alex Clark Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Now my understanding is; the new mechanism might be okay if it first checks whether texmf.cnf is an admin's file or a file generated by update-texmf before generating texmf.cnf and overwrites it only in the case it was a file generated by the script (for example, with the way of update-modules). Is this right? Well, I had an impression from the prases like; From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500 I am sorry, I do think that not preserving user changes is not an advancement. or From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:52:43 -0500 Excellent? Dumping user changes is excellent? I think I would prefer a less gee-which flashy scheme that actually followed polciy. that you denied the new mechanism in the whole so I tried to explain why it was necessary for entire TeX system. If you said something like; it might be okay ONLY IF it checks first if texmf.cnf was generated one or not before overwriting it, (I'm not completely sure that this is really your intention, though) then I could get your point soon... # Communication with English is indeed difficult for me. # I hope my understanding is correct now. Thanks,2003-4-24(Thu) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Re: llave gpg
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 01:43:02AM +, Roberto Santos wrote: El dom, 20-04-2003 a las 11:22, Amaya escribió: A todos los fans de Branden: http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=32 The first thing you might notice is that Branden Robinson had the most first place votes. The 158 exclusive first place votes he received were 32.4% of the total vote. Short of any sort of tactical voting by supporters of the other candidates, Branden would have won under the First Past the Post electoral system. ¿Qué hay que hacer para cmabiar el sistema de votos en Debian? No sé si habeis visto http://evoto.org/ pero me parecio la caña...esta hecho con filtros de sendmail . Conocí a Sergio (Barcelona) en el votobit de León y me parecio un tio estupendo :) Cuando vio metadistros flipó y me dijo que prepararía una distro con el evoto integrado; Lo metes y ya tienes el refendun liado XD Amaya se refiere al sistema de recuento de los votos de Debian, que no es el normal de las elecciones de aquí, sino el Condorcet [1]. No sé lo que se usa en Debian pero deberiais echarle un ºjº Unos scripts hechos por Manoj Srivasta [2] [1] http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics/condorcet.html [2] http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/ -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpihwgPgYVVZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: llave gpg
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 11:42:50AM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote: No sé si habeis visto http://evoto.org/ pero me parecio la caña...esta hecho con filtros de sendmail . Mejor Postfix :P ( también me valen Exim y Qmail, pero no es lo mismo ;) ) Mejor Postfix. data -- Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 -- Registered Linux user #66350 proudly using Debian Sid Linux 2.4.20 Shall I make us a nice cup of tea, Ma'am ? --Mrs. Mills (The others)
Re: llave gpg
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 12:08:05PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 11:42:50AM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote: No sé si habeis visto http://evoto.org/ pero me parecio la caña...esta hecho con filtros de sendmail . Mejor Postfix :P ( también me valen Exim y Qmail, pero no es lo mismo ;) ) Mejor Postfix. data Pues vaya una mierda de flamewar que vamos a montar si todos estamos de acuerdo. Postfix rulez. -- Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta | They that give up essential liberty agi@(agi.as|debian.org)| to obtain a little temporary safety Encrypted mail preferred | deserve neither liberty nor safety. Key fingerprint = 9782 04E7 2B75 405C F5E9 0C81 C514 AF8E 4BA4 01C3
Re: llave gpg
Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta dijo: Pues vaya una mierda de flamewar que vamos a montar si todos estamos de acuerdo. Postfix rulez. Tú lo has querido. Postfix mola, pero mucho más con un messagewall delante. -- .''`. I liked, having hurt, so send the pain below, where I need it : :' : I'll send the pain below, much like suffocating Chevelle `. `' Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (Sid 2.4.20 Ext3) `-www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com
Re: llave gpg
At 18:02 23/04/2003 +0200, you wrote: Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta dijo: Pues vaya una mierda de flamewar que vamos a montar si todos estamos de acuerdo. Postfix rulez. Tú lo has querido. Postfix mola, pero mucho más con un messagewall delante. esto... enmedio, porfa ;)
Re: llave gpg
Pues vaya una mierda de flamewar que vamos a montar si todos estamos de acuerdo. Postfix rulez. Tú lo has querido. Postfix mola, pero mucho más con un messagewall delante. Pero si no me llevas la contraria mal nos vamos a pegar. hmm apt-cache show . hmmm eso tiene buena pinta apt-get install messagewall cd /usr/share/doc/messagewall Joder, con este club de gente que confían todos unos en otros y se ayudan y siempre está de acuerdo no se puede uno divertir... -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
