Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the long run, the user-friendly solution is probably to offer (via a debconf question that defaults to 'yes') to automatically rewrite the conffile to take the change into account. That can only be done if we change our policy with respect to maintainer scripts changing of conffiles; and that I would not want unless something like ucf does is integrated in dpkg. Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on debconf questions is policy-buggy? -- Henning Makholm Khanivore is climbing out of its life-support pod.
Key signing in Dhaka, Bangladesh!
Hi HTere~! I am in Dhaka for a week, and have organised a key signing party with the local Bangladesh Linux Users Group (BDLUG) Hopefully we will end up with 1 or 2 maintainers from there! Regards, Matthew Grant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Evolution Contacts
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 15:14 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote: Someone sent an email I dunno if here or in evolution-hackers ML but I also lost All my contacts after upgrading yesterday in Sid! ;0( Close Evolution and killall evolution-data-server-1.4, then restart Evolution. That *should* work. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
* Alex Ross: 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is linked against a libc which is covered by the CDDL? Have you ported GNU libc? 3) Developer's portal at http://www.gnusolaris.org - fully functional, with downloads, APT repository, discussion forums, developer's hack zone, bug database, blogs, and numerous Solaris and free software related resources. This web site requires authentication. This will be 100% open and free-of-any-charge easy-to-install easy-to-use distribution. Coming out soon! You should drop all references to the Solaris trademark because Sun's terms of use are anything but open (worse than Debian's). And of course, compliance with the GPL in all aspects is very desirable, too. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#328423: must be moved from recommeds to suggests
Hello! I posted to debian-devel because I think it's a general question and I cannot figure out the answer with the manuals. Sorry if I was wrong. I'm in the process of debianize some CL software [1] and I've the same problem as bug #328423: some extra features of the package needs other packages to be installed, so I don't know if the package should use Suggests or Recommends. On Sun 02 Oct 2005 13:11 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:11:22PM +0200, Wolfram Quester wrote: as long as your attention rests at inkscape, may I ask you a question about Bug #328423? Olleg asked to move the stuff in Recommends: to Suggests: and argues: On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 10:49:16AM +0400, Olleg Samoylov wrote: So I'm not totally sure what would be the best way to follow here. Let's see http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps cut As I undestand the definition all modules and plugins must be declared as suggests. Without it inscape give warning message One or more extensions failed to load. This is not very bad, but for newbie debian user looked like something go wrong. But debian user expirienced enough to uncheck unstall suggests by default will be not confused by this warning. But I may mistake. May be better ask some of Debian Guru? I think that he is right, but in the beginning I had it in Suggests and got a bug report to move it to Recommends. So I think the solution would be to put all this into Suggests and add a README.Debian explaining which packages are needed for which effect. What do you think? Wolfram was referring to bug #317767. I really have no strong opinion on the question; the best guides to Recommends vs. Suggests are the wording in policy, and user feedback. :) It sounds to me like these would be better as Suggests than Recommends, but I don't know the package, so I don't have much to base that judgement on... The The Debian GNU/Linux FAQ [2] says: * Package A recommends Package B, if the package maintainer judges that most users would not want A without also having the functionality provided by B. * Package A suggests Package B if B contains files that are related to (and usually enhance) the functionality of A. So, I'd use Recommends in inkscape (and in the CL packages), but I'd like to have a wider help ;-) Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca [1] http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/bese-devel/2005-October/001176.html [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html#s-depends pgpUQ02lF33Vk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#328423: must be moved from recommeds to suggests
* Luca Capello: I'm in the process of debianize some CL software [1] and I've the same problem as bug #328423: some extra features of the package needs other packages to be installed, so I don't know if the package should use Suggests or Recommends. Use Recommends: if the functionality added by the recommended package is not too obscure and it's in the same section. Suggests: is mainly a way to bypass the same-section restriction in the policy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evolution Contacts
Il giorno mer, 02/11/2005 alle 09.15 +, Ross Burton ha scritto: On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 15:14 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote: Someone sent an email I dunno if here or in evolution-hackers ML but I also lost All my contacts after upgrading yesterday in Sid! ;0( Close Evolution and killall evolution-data-server-1.4, then restart Evolution. That *should* work. I think it is bug #336761, #336897. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to get rid of a poised version
Hello,
Mea culpa. I did a stupid thing with sbcl: in version 1:0.9.6.0-1 I used the
following construction:
Package: sbcl
Depends: sbcl-common (= ${Source-Version}), ${shlibs:Depends}
...
Package: sbcl-common
Now it turns out that the buildd network cannot build new packages[1]:
|The following packages have unmet dependencies:
| sbcl: Depends: sbcl-common (= 1:0.9.6.0-1) but 1:0.9.6.0-6 is to be
| installed
Now, after thinking a bit I dropped the Depends, but I cannot force the
buildd's to build a new version. I tried:
- to force to use a known good version: (1:0.9.6.0-4)
Build-Depends: debhelper ( 4.1.16), sbcl (= 1:0.9.5.50-1) ...
This also failed [2]:
|The following packages have unmet dependencies:
| sbcl: Depends: sbcl-common (= 1:0.9.6.0-1) but it is not going to be
|| installed
-include sbcl-common into the build-depends (1:0.9.6.0-6)
Build-Depends: debhelper ( 4.1.16), sbcl-common, sbcl (= 1:0.8.16-1)
Also [3]:
|The following packages have unmet dependencies:
| sbcl: Depends: sbcl-common (= 1:0.9.6.0-1) but 1:0.9.6.0-6 is to be
| installed
So is there anything else I can do?
Groetjes, Peter
1:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=sbclver=1%3A0.9.6.0-6arch=alphastamp=1130914277file=logas=raw
2:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=sbclver=1%3A0.9.6.0-4arch=alphastamp=1130888045file=logas=raw
3:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=sbclver=1%3A0.9.6.0-6arch=alphastamp=1130914277file=logas=raw
--
signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/
God, root, what is difference? Pitr | God is more forgiving. Dave Aronson|
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#337039: ITP: libdbix-class-loader-perl -- Dynamic definition of DBIx::Class sub classes
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: libdbix-class-loader-perl Version : 0.01 Upstream Author : Sebastian Riedel, [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/DBIx/ * License : (Perl: Artistic/GPL) Description : Dynamic definition of DBIx::Class sub classes DBIx::Class::Loader automate the definition of DBIx::Class sub-classes. scan table schemas and setup columns, primary key. . class names are defined by table names and namespace option. . +---+---+---+ | table | namespace | class | +---+---+---+ | foo | Data | Data::Foo | | foo_bar | | FooBar| +---+---+---+ . DBIx::Class::Loader supports MySQL, Postgres and SQLite. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-686 Locale: LANG=pl_PL, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL (charmap=ISO-8859-2) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#328423: must be moved from recommeds to suggests
* Florian Weimer [Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:26:30 +0100]: * Luca Capello: I'm in the process of debianize some CL software [1] and I've the same problem as bug #328423: some extra features of the package needs other packages to be installed, so I don't know if the package should use Suggests or Recommends. Use Recommends: if the functionality added by the recommended package is not too obscure and it's in the same section. Suggests: is mainly a way to bypass the same-section restriction in the policy. No, not really. There are lots of legitimate use-cases for suggests, specially if we are trying to encourage the install recommends by default as a default (and sane for normal users) behavior. Also, just FYI, from http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt: 2. Dependencies Packages in main cannot require any software outside of main for execution or compilation. Recommends: lines do not count as requirements. Not that I agree, but that's what it says at the moment. -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 In my opinion, the most fruitful and natural play of the mind is in conversation. I find it sweeter than any other action in life; and if I were forced to choose, I think I would rather lose my sight than my hearing and voice. -- Michel de Montaigne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#337052: ITP: denyhosts -- script to block SSH brute-force dictionary attacks
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andrew Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: denyhosts Version : 1.1.2 Upstream Author : Phil Schwartz phil_schwartz at users.sourceforge.net * URL : http://denyhosts.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Description : script to block SSH brute-force dictionary attacks DenyHosts is a python program that automatically blocks ssh attacks by adding entries to /etc/hosts.deny. DenyHosts will also inform Linux administrators about offending hosts, attacked users and suspicious logins. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-1-k7 Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- --- Andrew Netsnipe Lau http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~alau/ Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer Computer Science, UNSW - Nobody expects the Debian Inquisition! Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency! --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to get rid of a poised version
* Peter Van Eynde: So is there anything else I can do? Bootstrap with one of the other supported Lisp implementations? MLton recently solved a similarly problem by manually building the supported architectures outside the buildd network. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#328423: must be moved from recommeds to suggests
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: * Florian Weimer [Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:26:30 +0100]: * Luca Capello: I'm in the process of debianize some CL software [1] and I've the same problem as bug #328423: some extra features of the package needs other packages to be installed, so I don't know if the package should use Suggests or Recommends. Use Recommends: if the functionality added by the recommended package is not too obscure and it's in the same section. Suggests: is mainly a way to bypass the same-section restriction in the policy. No, not really. There are lots of legitimate use-cases for suggests, specially if we are trying to encourage the install recommends by default as a default (and sane for normal users) behavior. Also, just FYI, from http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt: 2. Dependencies Packages in main cannot require any software outside of main for execution or compilation. Recommends: lines do not count as requirements. Not that I agree, but that's what it says at the moment. That means that a broken Recommends: is not release-critical. It doesn't mean that a broken Recommends: is not a bug. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:59:22PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: Another obvious benefit is that OpenSolaris licensed under open sourced license which allowes to HW vendors to write their own drivers for all that variety of existing specific hardware and yet not to open their IP. Why would this be of interest to Debian developers? From user perspective, OpenSolaris core is well documented and supported. All that means: the end user of the system will not be forced to re-compile drivers during installations, will not suffer from half-implemented features, will not be forced to deal with source packages and will benefit from both world - proprietery and open source. I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification of NMU policy
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 07:21:48PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I have been in a discussion with a fellow developer about the exact meaning of the 0-day NMU policy that is currently in effect. For the record: there currently is not a 0-day NMU policy in effect. There was a 0-day NMU policy through the sarge release, and there are 0-day NMU policies during BSPs, but the default NMU policy has reverted to that in the developer's reference for now, in the absence of any other poilcy. There has been discussion of what the NMU policy *should* be going forward; please see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/10/msg00646.html ff. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Hamish: I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing. I read most of his points as being factual, some of which might be comparisons to and constructive criticisms of Linux. Not disappointing at all. I don't think anyone could argue that Linux's interfaces are stable. What, with the lead promoter and configuration manager on record as saying stability is not an objective. [And as someone who maintains kernels for a living, I can tell you with no uncertainty that he's meeting that non-objective really, really well.] b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the long run, the user-friendly solution is probably to offer (via a debconf question that defaults to 'yes') to automatically rewrite the conffile to take the change into account. That can only be done if we change our policy with respect to maintainer scripts changing of conffiles; and that I would not want unless something like ucf does is integrated in dpkg. Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on debconf questions is policy-buggy? Of course, see 10.7.3: , | The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the configuration | file a conffile. | [...] | The other way to do it is via the maintainer scripts. | [...] | | These two styles of configuration file handling must not be mixed, for | that way lies madness: dpkg will ask about overwriting the file every | time the package is upgraded. ` Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: pbuilder help (bug 334877)
Hi, Well, this build takes a long time (at least 45 minutes from start to failure). I'm getting tired of trying over and over again; it took me about four hours of compiling to prove certainly that Blars suggestion wouldn't work. Can you give me a hook script that will give an interactive shell? I tried the obvious: #!/bin/sh /bin/bash Heh, I was very slow to read this mail; but it's available in /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/C10shell which looks like: #!/bin/bash # invoke shell if build fails. /bin/bash /dev/tty /dev/tty regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch
Am 2005-10-26 14:51:00, schrieb Humberto Massa: It seems that you still did not get my point. My point is, in a SoHo workstation, this is exactly the most common scenario nowadays (example: hmm. let me try this new dvd-player... I open synaptic, install it, ... nah, it does not work as I expected [but it installed gstreamer, jackd, etc in the process] let me try the next one in the list...) ??? - I know only $USER of a propietary OS which do install all the time because they are never satisfait. My Office Workstation is Woody since r0 and in the last 2 years I have installed only 48 new packages. My Dual-Opteron 240 (Devel-Station) requires nearly every day installations of Packages but never I have had so much System-Users laying around... Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch
Am 2005-10-26 14:51:00, schrieb Humberto Massa: It seems that you still did not get my point. My point is, in a SoHo workstation, this is exactly the most common scenario nowadays (example: hmm. let me try this new dvd-player... I open synaptic, install it, ... nah, it does not work as I expected [but it installed gstreamer, jackd, etc in the process] let me try the next one in the list...) ??? - I know only $USER of a propietary OS which do install all the time because they are never satisfait. My Office Workstation is Woody since r0 and in the last 2 years I have installed only 48 new packages. My Dual-Opteron 240 (Devel-Station) requires nearly every day installations of Packages but never I have had so much System-Users laying around... Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch
Hello Humberto, Am 2005-10-26 14:30:32, schrieb Humberto Massa: Problem being, if daemons don't remove their (supposedly exclusive-use) accounts, you can end in two years with 100 unnecessary accounts in a workstation. Realy interesting... I have counted the System-Users on my 146 Machines The biggest machine has 72 and the smallest 48. Q: What do you do with your machine(s)? Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#337074: ITP: as2api -- API documentation tool for ActionScript 2
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: as2api Version : 0.3 Upstream Author : David Holroyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.badgers-in-foil.co.uk/projects/as2api/ * License : GPL Description : API documentation tool for ActionScript 2 as2api parses ActionScript 2 source code and generates HTML API documentation in the style of JavaDoc. I'm packaging this as part of a general effort to package osflash.org related stuff. Wiki page here: http://osflash.org/debian_packaging I'm in contact with upstream about licence issues. I'll require a sponsor once these are sorted and I've completed the packaging. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Clarification of NMU policy
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:12:18AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 07:21:48PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I have been in a discussion with a fellow developer about the exact meaning of the 0-day NMU policy that is currently in effect. For the record: there currently is not a 0-day NMU policy in effect. There was a 0-day NMU policy through the sarge release, and there are 0-day NMU policies during BSPs, but the default NMU policy has reverted to that in the developer's reference for now, in the absence of any other poilcy. Even for uploads related to the C++ ABI change (even if there is still very few libraries still using the old ABI)? Matthias Klose announced 0-day NMU with some conditions for such cases in is mail on debian-devel-announce: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg1.html Cheers, Aurelien -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification of NMU policy
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: For the record: there currently is not a 0-day NMU policy in effect. There was a 0-day NMU policy through the sarge release, and there are 0-day NMU policies during BSPs, but the default NMU policy has reverted to that in the developer's reference for now, in the absence of any other poilcy. I think you skip the NMU policy for the C++ transition, for which I think the first announcement was here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg1.html The C++ transition had no clear end, and AIUI is still ongoing. I think it's a bit fuzzy to track how far we are, what remains to be done, and how long it's going to take, but I don't have any solution to that. Cheers, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do we want? BRAINS!When do we want it? BRAINS! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#337083: ITP: bse-alsa -- ALSA plugin for BEAST
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Sam Hocevar (Debian packages) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: bse-alsa Version : 0.6.6 Upstream Author : Tim Janik [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://beast.gtk.org/beast-ftp/v0.6/ * License : LGPL Description : ALSA plugin for BEAST BEAST/BSE is a plugin-based graphical system where you can link objects to each other and generate sound. . This package contains a plugin for BEAST that uses ALSA (the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) to output sound. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.14 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ITP: pcmciautils -- PCMCIA userspace utilities (Linux 2.6.13+)
Marc Haber: On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:00:37PM +0200, Per Olofsson wrote: retitle 319583 ITP: pcmciautils -- PCMCIA userspace utilities (Linux 2.6.13+) thanks I'm the maintainer of pcmcia-cs so I'm intending to package pcmciautils. May I ask for the status of this ITP? I haven't done anything yet, actually. Help (maybe co-maintenance?) is welcome. -- Pelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Alex Ross: 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is linked against a libc which is covered by the CDDL? Have you ported GNU libc? all questions answerd on our web-portal. 3) Developer's portal at http://www.gnusolaris.org - fully functional, with downloads, APT repository, discussion forums, developer's hack zone, bug database, blogs, and numerous Solaris and free software related resources. This web site requires authentication. you have to send e-mail to Alex and request an account. This is pilot program, and mainly for web polishing, etc Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on debconf questions is policy-buggy? Of course, see 10.7.3: | These two styles of configuration file handling must not be mixed, for | that way lies madness: dpkg will ask about overwriting the file every | time the package is upgraded. ` This rationale does not apply to the case we are discussing. -- Henning MakholmDe kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:54:30AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Alex Ross: 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is linked against a libc which is covered by the CDDL? Have you ported GNU libc? all questions answerd on our web-portal. 3) Developer's portal at http://www.gnusolaris.org - fully functional, with downloads, APT repository, discussion forums, developer's hack zone, bug database, blogs, and numerous Solaris and free software related resources. This web site requires authentication. you have to send e-mail to Alex and request an account. This is pilot program, and mainly for web polishing, etc People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating the license on their code? - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Key signing in Dhaka, Bangladesh!
Quoting Matthew Grant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Hi HTere~! I am in Dhaka for a week, and have organised a key signing party with the local Bangladesh Linux Users Group (BDLUG) Hopefully we will end up with 1 or 2 maintainers from there! Don't hesitate pointing them at the current efforts in Bengali localization, which very recently started through the debian-in working group, with, as far as I know, combined efforts by Bengali speakers from Bangladesh and India -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:32AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing. Why is criticism disappointing? The goals of Linux and the Linux development model do not fit everybody's needs. Having an alternative that takes a different approach is a good thing. I think the target audience of Linux and OpenSolaris-based systems will be different (but of course there will be overlap). Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:54:30AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Alex Ross: 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is linked against a libc which is covered by the CDDL? Have you ported GNU libc? all questions answerd on our web-portal. 3) Developer's portal at http://www.gnusolaris.org - fully functional, with downloads, APT repository, discussion forums, developer's hack zone, bug database, blogs, and numerous Solaris and free software related resources. This web site requires authentication. you have to send e-mail to Alex and request an account. This is pilot program, and mainly for web polishing, etc People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating the license on their code? We wanted to get as much feedbacks about the layout, contents, usability and features of the web portal before opening it up fully to the public (scheduled for mid-November, barring any unforeseen circumstances). There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs, web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need to be tested during this pilot period. We would be more than happy to open it for the public now, but we are aiming for a controlled test environment which would be hard to achieve in such a case. After all, everything there is powered by our stuffs, and we have not had the necessary resources to make sure that everything is well oiled. We'd be thrilled to have you and others test that for us. We'll be providing ISO images of our LiveCD and InstallCD in the upcoming days (hopefully sooner rather than later) via the web portal. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating the license on their code? We wanted to get as much feedbacks about the layout, contents, usability and features of the web portal before opening it up fully to the public (scheduled for mid-November, barring any unforeseen circumstances). There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs, web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need to be tested during this pilot period. We would be more than happy to open it for the public now, but we are aiming for a controlled test environment which would be hard to achieve in such a case. After all, everything there is powered by our stuffs, and we have not had the necessary resources to make sure that everything is well oiled. We'd be thrilled to have you and others test that for us. We'll be providing ISO images of our LiveCD and InstallCD in the upcoming days (hopefully sooner rather than later) via the web portal. This is a total non-answer. You won't even copy and paste the answer from your website to answer the question? You may have compiled a bunch of Debian packages, but you clearly don't understand what Debian is about. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating the license on their code? We wanted to get as much feedbacks about the layout, contents, usability and features of the web portal before opening it up fully to the public (scheduled for mid-November, barring any unforeseen circumstances). There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs, web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need to be tested during this pilot period. We would be more than happy to open it for the public now, but we are aiming for a controlled test environment which would be hard to achieve in such a case. After all, everything there is powered by our stuffs, and we have not had the necessary resources to make sure that everything is well oiled. We'd be thrilled to have you and others test that for us. We'll be providing ISO images of our LiveCD and InstallCD in the upcoming days (hopefully sooner rather than later) via the web portal. This is a total non-answer. You won't even copy and paste the answer from your website to answer the question? You may have compiled a bunch of Debian packages, but you clearly don't understand what Debian is about. in short, the answer on your legality question is in GPL itself. Look for executable runtime explanations. This is the reason for Cygwin, www.blastwave.org and others to exists. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson wrote: in short, the answer on your legality question is in GPL itself. Look for executable runtime explanations. This is the reason for Cygwin, www.blastwave.org and others to exists. Or rather, in cases where code is linked with glibc, the LGPL. See a work that uses the library. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
todos: command not found
Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? I had this error in a debian-cd try: tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found Thanks-- Cumprimentos,João Carlos Galaio da Silva
Re: todos: command not found
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 22:20, João Silva wrote: Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? I had this error in a debian-cd try: tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found Try http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages#search_contents Christoph -- |\ _,,,---,,_Famous last words of a sysadmin: /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_We'll do the backup tomorrow. |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Re: todos: command not found
Le 02.11.2005 22:20:15, João Silva a écrit : Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? I had this error in a debian-cd try: tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found sysutils try something like 'apt-file search todo | grep bin' Thanks Jean-Luc pgpkND6vrqfTX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: todos: command not found
João Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? $ apt-file search bin/todos sysutils: usr/bin/todos -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#337052: ITP: denyhosts -- script to block SSH brute-force dictionary attacks
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Andrew Lau wrote: DenyHosts is a python program that automatically blocks ssh attacks by adding entries to /etc/hosts.deny. DenyHosts will also inform Linux administrators about offending hosts, attacked users and suspicious logins. Some discussion/comparison as to how denyhosts differs from fail2ban may be usefull. [fail2ban being another python script that basically fills a similar niche.] Don Armstrong -- It was said that life was cheap in Ankh-Morpork. This was, of course, completely wrong. Life was often very expensive; you could get death for free. -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p25 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: todos: command not found
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:24:16PM +, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote: Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? I had this error in a debian-cd try: tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found sysutils try something like 'apt-file search todo | grep bin' Dead grep. `apt-file search bin/todos` regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#337153: ITP: linsmith -- a Smith charting program, mainly designed for educational use.
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: linsmith Version : 0.9.1 Upstream Author : John Coppens * URL : http://jcoppens.com/soft/linsmith/index.en.php * License : GPL Description : a Smith charting program, mainly designed for educational use. linSmith is a Smith Charting program, mainly designed for educational use. As such, there is an emphasis on capabilities that improve the 'showing the effect of'-style of operation. . It's main features are: * Definition of multiple load impedances (at different frequencies) * Addition of discrete (L, C, parallel and series LC, and transformer) and line components (open and closed stubs, line segments) * Connection in series and parallel * Easy experimentation with values using scrollbars * A 'virtual' component switches from impedance to admittance to help explaining (or understanding) parallel components * The chart works in real impedances (not normalized ones) * Direct view of the result on the screen * Ability to generate publication quality Postscript output * A 'log' file with textual results at each intermediate step * Load and circuit configuration is stored separately, permitting several solutions without re-defining the other -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Transition time: KDE, JACK, arts, sablotron, unixodbc, net-snmp, php, ...
Scripsit Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [051101 17:23]: On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is removed from, testing? it's one of the things we agreed we wanted at the Vancouver meeting. I think there was going to be a -testing-changes list or something, perhaps? We agreed to both maintainer mails (but PTS might be more appropriate for that), and a summary to -testing-changes. IOW, whoever shows code up for any of the tasks has some bonus points :) I have now a frst draft of a status-change mail system running. it works from the archive mirror on merkel, and sends out mail to package@packages.debian.prg, with Bcc to the PTS (under the 'summary' keyword documented for this purpose). It turns turns out that the PTS cannot by itself send mail to the current maintainer in default of explicit subscriptions. It does not yet produce -testing-changes emails. The list does exist but seems to carry only upload announcements for stable-security, for reasons not totally clear to me. Comments welcome. [First reaction: Email sent to the official maintainer address for inline-octave bounces with Post by non-member to a members-only list. Whee!] -- Henning Makholm Det er trolddom og terror og jeg får en værre ballade når jeg kommer hjem!
iso2mirror
Hello, Some time ago I searched for a tool to convert my already downloaded and mounted stable Debian CDs into a mirror structure. However I failed (the ways was able to find didn't seem feasible or couldn't find the actual way, please tell me if something along the same lines exists). Thus I put together mine. I have a nice little Perl script, which converts the already existing CDs (ie. mounted on harddrive) into a mirror, either by copying or by making symbolic links, saving another 9Gb on the system, upon choice. As this is my first proposal of such a tool/thing, I would like to ask your guidance on this, shall I get it to utmost polished leetness and offer it to people or shall I not bother and be sorry I posted about this? Thanks. Can Kavaklıoğlu
[Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
Michael Banck wrote: Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation? Yes. Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once it stabilizes? Yes. If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug tracking system for development? No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists. I suggest you discuss things on this list (if they are technical) or debian-project (if they are non-technical). This will make it much easier for you to cooperate with the Debian project, if this is your intention. It is. The only limiting factor is: the bandwidth. When we make it through the Pilot and the first release, things will get easier, hopefully. Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:21:45PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote: Nexenta OS: Debian based GNU/Solaris == This is to announce Nexenta: the first-ever distribution that combines GNU and OpenSolaris. As you might know, Sun Microsystems just opened Solaris kernel under CDDL license, which allows one to build custom Operating Systems. Which we did... created a new Debian based GNU/Solaris distribution with (the latest bits of) Solaris kernel core userland inside. This sounds very interesting. The Future === We do hope that at some point, sooner rather than later, our changes (so far for the most part just cleanups to build the DEBs in the new Solaris-like environment) will be integrated with the upstream. At the end of the day - this would be the right thing to do. Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation? Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once it stabilizes? If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug tracking system for development? Contact = If interested, please send e-mail to support at nexenta.com, and tell us a few words about yourself. We'll respond with a user/password. I suggest you discuss things on this list (if they are technical) or debian-project (if they are non-technical). This will make it much easier for you to cooperate with the Debian project, if this is your intention. cheers, Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: todos: command not found
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, João Silva wrote: Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? I had this error in a debian-cd try: tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found File a bug on that package for not using a depends. Also, this is a -user question, not a -devel question.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Banck wrote: If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug tracking system for development? No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists. It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to be a Solaris-specific issue. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:41:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating the license on their code? We wanted to get as much feedbacks about the layout, contents, usability and features of the web portal before opening it up fully to the public (scheduled for mid-November, barring any unforeseen circumstances). There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs, web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need to be tested during this pilot period. We would be more than happy to open it for the public now, but we are aiming for a controlled test environment which would be hard to achieve in such a case. After all, everything there is powered by our stuffs, and we have not had the necessary resources to make sure that everything is well oiled. We'd be thrilled to have you and others test that for us. We'll be providing ISO images of our LiveCD and InstallCD in the upcoming days (hopefully sooner rather than later) via the web portal. This is a total non-answer. You won't even copy and paste the answer from your website to answer the question? You may have compiled a bunch of Debian packages, but you clearly don't understand what Debian is about. in short, the answer on your legality question is in GPL itself. Look for executable runtime explanations. This is the reason for Cygwin, www.blastwave.org and others to exists. The words executable runtime are not present in the text of the GPL. What the GPL *does* say is that kernels are only exempted from being considered part of the GPL definition of source code for a work *if* the GPLed work is not distributed together with the kernel. - -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDaWVnKN6ufymYLloRApvUAJ9mhnyUjj/YEFHWEkoECDnboSfdbgCgxfp/ pcrsnDdbzHar8aTKeyvTguE= =7JT+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:18 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:41:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating the license on their code? We wanted to get as much feedbacks about the layout, contents, usability and features of the web portal before opening it up fully to the public (scheduled for mid-November, barring any unforeseen circumstances). There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs, web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need to be tested during this pilot period. We would be more than happy to open it for the public now, but we are aiming for a controlled test environment which would be hard to achieve in such a case. After all, everything there is powered by our stuffs, and we have not had the necessary resources to make sure that everything is well oiled. We'd be thrilled to have you and others test that for us. We'll be providing ISO images of our LiveCD and InstallCD in the upcoming days (hopefully sooner rather than later) via the web portal. This is a total non-answer. You won't even copy and paste the answer from your website to answer the question? You may have compiled a bunch of Debian packages, but you clearly don't understand what Debian is about. in short, the answer on your legality question is in GPL itself. Look for executable runtime explanations. This is the reason for Cygwin, www.blastwave.org and others to exists. The words executable runtime are not present in the text of the GPL. What the GPL *does* say is that kernels are only exempted from being considered part of the GPL definition of source code for a work *if* the GPLed work is not distributed together with the kernel. GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Register for access to a website so I can read the opinions of people who apparently have failed to read the last clause of the definition they quote at me? That hardly seems worthwhile. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Banck wrote: If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug tracking system for development? No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists. It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to be a Solaris-specific issue. on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could re-consider. on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system... on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:37 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Register for access to a website so I can read the opinions of people who apparently have failed to read the last clause of the definition they quote at me? That hardly seems worthwhile. I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is shipped with Solaris distribution. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is shipped with Solaris distribution. How about we ask the FSF lawyers, since the issue is compliance with the GPL, not compliance with the CDDL? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Authorization Required This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn't understand how to supply the credentials required. Posting URLs to answer questions is only useful when random people who might look at those URLs can read the content of the page. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Authorization Required This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn't understand how to supply the credentials required. Posting URLs to answer questions is only useful when random people who might look at those URLs can read the content of the page. I have to agree here. Putting Authentication on the web site is plain stupid. Open that before we all get more bored about Sun. .Alejandro - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is shipped with Solaris distribution. How about we ask the FSF lawyers, since the issue is compliance with the GPL, not compliance with the CDDL? or better lets let FSF and SUN lowers to decide :-) I hate these legality stuff... CDDL is a good open source license and blessed by R.S. CDDL is more sutable for todays world. Sun made a clever decision to use it for its kernel and runtime. This opens window for HW vendors to contribute their drivers to the GNU-based system. CDDL is file based, while GPL is project based. But yes, GPL is more restrictive than CDDL. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CDDL is a good open source license and blessed by R.S. That does not make it compatible with the GPL. You cannot combine code from two licenses unless the licenses are compatible, and the CDDL is not compatible with the GPL. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to be a Solaris-specific issue. on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could re-consider. If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance. on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system... Ubuntu is not part of the Debian project. on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. The different libc is more of a problem than anything else you've mentioned, but given Sun's claims about wanting almost all Linux code to build under Solaris, I don't think it's likely to be a big one. Being part of the Debian project involves accepting certain responsibilities (such as a willingness to accept Debian policy, to be part of the release management process and to go through the new maintainer process if you want to be able to upload stuff directly to the archive), but means that you have a much larger set of developers working on your platform and gives you the right to advertise yourself as part of Debian. The alternative is to remain a separate Debian-based distribution, which means that users don't get the same assurances about quality control and policy as they expect from Debian itself. At the moment, your unique selling point is basically that you're Solaris except with more useful software and a better package manager. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:05 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CDDL is a good open source license and blessed by R.S. That does not make it compatible with the GPL. You cannot combine code from two licenses unless the licenses are compatible, and the CDDL is not compatible with the GPL. and we don't. We *do not* mix GPL-based and CDDL-based projects within Nexenta OS. The same Solaris. SUN does not mix their SUN proprietary licensed software with either GPL-based or CDDL-based projects. Any change made by SUN to GNOME, OpenOffice and others, contributed back to the projects. Please read some more details on license which allows closed binary re-distribution at http://www.opensolaris.org Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance. But only with the licensing question sorted out first. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We *do not* mix GPL-based and CDDL-based projects within Nexenta OS. You don't link CDDL libraries into GPL'd programs? At all? I disbelieve. Please read some more details on license which allows closed binary re-distribution at http://www.opensolaris.org Alas, I'm not going to. It's entirely unclear what you want from Debian. If you want to be part of Debian, one of the requirements is that you help convince us when there is doubt that there isn't a licensing problem. Repeated assertion does not convince us. Pointing at websites that require registration does not amount to anything. If you don't want to be part of Debian, then what is this discussion about? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson quotes from the GPL: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.^ ^ So you are distributing the CDDL components seperately? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
The words executable runtime are not present in the text of the GPL. What the GPL *does* say is that kernels are only exempted from being considered part of the GPL definition of source code for a work *if* the GPLed work is not distributed together with the kernel. I think you're stretching the definition of distributed together somewhat, in an effort to exclude all non-GPL software from any GNU/* operating system. That's not what the GPL intends: GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. What this says is if I distribute an application A whose source code is licensed under the GPL, then I must also distribute the source code for that application. If the application A is provided along with the major components of the operating system it runs on, then I must provide the source code for those components as well. In other words, if the only means to deploy application A is via something like a live Linux CD, then I have to also provide the source code for the GPL major components that application A depends on as they appear on that CD (kernel, compiler, C runtime library, etc.) so that the user could reconstruct the CD as needed to redeploy the application. If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the application itself. Furthermore, the GPL's mere aggregation clause allows for non-GPL applications to run in GPL operating systems. As an example, the Linux kernel and userland applications clearly have a distinct identity and can exist independently of each other; thus, their coexistence is defined by the GPL to be mere aggregation, and the license status of either party does not in isolation affect the license status of the other. Assuming you use glibc and other GNU-license-compatible runtime libraries, mere aggregation allows for a Debian userland under even a closed-source kernel (which would be an extreme interpretation of the Solaris license). Thus, I don't see a problem here. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
But yes, GPL is more restrictive than CDDL. More accurately, the GPL preserves more end user rights than CDDL. That's hardly restrictive--- especially if you're an end user. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the application itself. Wrong. Furthermore, the GPL's mere aggregation clause allows for non-GPL applications to run in GPL operating systems. Yes, but we're talking about the *reverse*. The mere aggregation clause is not relevant here. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the application itself. Wrong. Alright then, enlighten me. Furthermore, the GPL's mere aggregation clause allows for non-GPL applications to run in GPL operating systems. Yes, but we're talking about the *reverse*. The mere aggregation clause is not relevant here. Allow me to restate, then. Mere aggregation also allows GPL applications to run under a non-GPL kernel. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Or, in other words, the binary (say, bash) can't accompany, say, the C library. You can quibble over the meaning of the word accompany, but so far we're lacking a statement from any of the copyright holders (such as Sun, the FSF or the thousands of other people who hold copyright over GPLed software) about what their interpretation is. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the application itself. Wrong. Alright then, enlighten me. Let us suppose that you have a GPLd application foo which links against libbar. You can only distribute the binaries for foo under section 3 of the GPL, which requires you to provide the complete source for libbar, and you must do so providing all the freedoms that GPL sections 1 and 2 guarantee. That is, you have to distribute libbar in source, and libbar must have a GPL-compatible license. You have one special exception: if libbar is BOTH: normally distributed together with the major components of the operating system AND not distributed along with your binary for foo, then you are exempted from the requirement to provide the source for libbar. You have replaced those two very specific requirements with your own phrasing, which is different in some important cases. You have replaced the first clause (anything normally distributed with the major components of the operating system) with using the major components of the target operating system, not the same thing. The first condition of the special exception is broader than this: it does not matter what the library is or does, provided it is shipped along with the major components. You have ommitted the second clause entirely, and it is this which is most relevant here. The special exception allows you to ship, for example, emacs binaries linked against the proprietary HPUX libraries, provided HP distributes those libraries along with the major components of HPUX (that is, they cannot have unbundled them), and provided you are not shipping those libraries yourself. This is specifically designed to prevent HP from including an emacs binary which is linked against their libraries, shipping the whole thing as part of HPUX, and not providing the source for their libraries. Allow me to restate, then. Mere aggregation also allows GPL applications to run under a non-GPL kernel. Again, the mere fact that the GPL'd application and the non-GPLd kernel are on the same CD does not, in itself, mean that the non-GPLd kernel must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. But that does not negate clause 3 of the GPL in any way, which continues to apply, even to all the associated interface definition files most crucially. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Matthew Garrett wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Or, in other words, the binary (say, bash) can't accompany, say, the C library. You can quibble over the meaning of the word accompany, but so far we're lacking a statement from any of the copyright holders (such as Sun, the FSF or the thousands of other people who hold copyright over GPLed software) about what their interpretation is. From this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term intellectual property http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml. http://bits.netizen.com.au/licenses/NOSL/nosl.txt -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system... Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port. on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are similiar. Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port. on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are similiar. With the distinctive difference that: The Hurd port does not use a different libc; Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: iso2mirror
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some time ago I searched for a tool to convert my already downloaded and mounted stable Debian CDs into a mirror structure. However I failed (the ways was able to find didn't seem feasible or couldn't find the actual way, please tell me if something along the same lines exists). I submitted a patch to apt-move to do this to the Debian BTS. -- Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blars.org/blars.html With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas: Alright then, enlighten me. Let us suppose that you have a GPLd application foo which links against libbar. You can only distribute the binaries for foo under section 3 of the GPL, which requires you to provide the complete source for libbar, and you must do so providing all the freedoms that GPL sections 1 and 2 guarantee. That is, you have to distribute libbar in source, and libbar must have a GPL-compatible license. You have one special exception: if libbar is BOTH: normally distributed together with the major components of the operating system AND not distributed along with your binary for foo, then you are exempted from the requirement to provide the source for libbar. Right. You have replaced those two very specific requirements with your own phrasing, which is different in some important cases. Indeed, the problem is strictly with my oversimplification. I understand and concur with what you are saying, and hereby retract my crappy summary a few posts back. :) You have ommitted the second clause entirely, and it is this which is most relevant here. The special exception allows you to ship, for example, emacs binaries linked against the proprietary HPUX libraries, provided HP distributes those libraries along with the major components of HPUX (that is, they cannot have unbundled them), and provided you are not shipping those libraries yourself. This is specifically designed to prevent HP from including an emacs binary which is linked against their libraries, shipping the whole thing as part of HPUX, and not providing the source for their libraries. I understood all of this before, but now you've made it clear why it's at issue here. CDDL is not GPL-compatible. GNU/Solaris will ship GPL applications like emacs. Aaah, yes b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: iso2mirror
On 11/3/05, Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submitted a patch to apt-move to do this to the Debian BTS. Does it also provide the symbolic links only functionality the parent poster mentioned? -- Andrew Saunders
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:20 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: If you want to be part of Debian, one of the requirements is that you help convince us when there is doubt that there isn't a licensing problem. Repeated assertion does not convince us. Pointing at websites that require registration does not amount to anything. If you don't want to be part of Debian, then what is this discussion about? Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in their list besides GNU/Linux? If don't, Nexenta will continue its way more like Ubuntu does. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in their list besides GNU/Linux? I have no problem with it, provided it fits the legal requirements. It seems to me, from what I've heard here, that Nexenta is violating the GPL; so I'll ask the FSF to look into it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port. on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are similiar. With the distinctive difference that: The Hurd port does not use a different libc; Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible... FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible. Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of system runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with system runtime problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port. In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution, like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today). Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Well, I'd expect meta packages to have nothing on them Why? Was there any other definition than the link I posted that leads to this assumption? The link you posted has never bothered me before, I have zero contact with CDDs other than talking to Otavio a lot (and not about CDDs either). But from context, I'd assume that the link would tell me that meta package can contain non-metadata... (checks)... that's correct. Your links do *NOT* lead to the assumption that meta-packages only contain packaging system metadata, in fact, they are quite explicit on the opposite. And I don't recall ever reading any document that would lead me to believe that meta-packages contain useful packaged data (as opposed to metadata for the packaging system), other than the CDD URL you posted, and which I just read for the first time. Let me do something I should have done before: google-search for the earliest results of 'meta-package' in our lists. Read http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1999/07/msg00340.html. That was a huge deployment inside Debian, and it certainly fixed in memory what many of us expected meta-packages to mean: packages whose only function is to depend on/recommend/conflict/suggest others. I am quite sure these efforts (that begun well before 1997/07) were the source for the it contains only packaging system metadata definition of meta-package I am used to. I have found other uses of meta-package, most of them limited to one thread or another (and not something that hit the archive). Some of those implied packages that have content (such as lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/01/msg00268.html). After that (non-exaustive) search, IMHO it is CDD who is trying to change the meaning of meta-package, sorry. So, I still think CDD should drop the meta- prefix from anything that contains useful data. CDD meta-packages are really superstructure packages, IMHO you should name them accordingly. I personally have no problem with packages using the CDD definition of meta-packages *as long as* any and ALL package descriptions of either meta- prefixed packages, or that claim that a package is a meta-package, fully describe the package's contents so that it is obvious it has more than packaging metadata in it. Heck, maybe you guys already put all that information inside the package descriptions, I didn't check. What I mean with the above is, that a debian-med package would, if it includes meta-package anywhere in its description, also state that it includes menu definitions, configuration for other packages, etc. If it doesn't do it already, which it might. But I still like This is the Debian Med superstructure package better. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is shipped with Solaris distribution. How about we ask the FSF lawyers, since the issue is compliance with the GPL, not compliance with the CDDL? The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The numerous-our-examples issue? Or the FUD issue? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Alex Ross wrote: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is shipped with Solaris distribution. How about we ask the FSF lawyers, since the issue is compliance with the GPL, not compliance with the CDDL? s/our/other/ The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The numerous-our-examples issue? Or the FUD issue? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port. on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are similiar. With the distinctive difference that: The Hurd port does not use a different libc; Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible... FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible. Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of system runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with system runtime problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port. In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution, like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today). Erast IANAL by any means, and have never had much particular interest in licensing issues such as these, but after maybe twenty minutes of research it seems the BSD license as we know it today *is* compatible with the GPL. The advertising clause that the FSF/Stallman/whoever had a problem with, was removed years ago, and apparently the NetBSD project is the only one still using a four clause version similar to the original BSD license. If I'm wrong, please correct me, as this issue does interest me. I'm someone who has a big interest in projects such as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and have made small contributions along the way. I would've liked to be able to say the same thing about Debian GNU/Solaris one day. The techincal side sounds just as exciting, but the community and marketing side of things is slowly turning me sour. -- Joshua Cummings -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 19:34 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in their list besides GNU/Linux? I have no problem with it, provided it fits the legal requirements. It seems to me, from what I've heard here, that Nexenta is violating the GPL; so I'll ask the FSF to look into it. Don't forget to ask FSF to take a look at Solaris, BeliniX, BeliniX distributions too. Since Nexenta is no difference except it is Debian/OpenSolaris-based. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: iso2mirror
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: On 11/3/05, Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submitted a patch to apt-move to do this to the Debian BTS. Does it also provide the symbolic links only functionality the parent poster mentioned? No. -- Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blars.org/blars.html With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The numerous-our-examples issue? Of course, that's an issue. Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solaris. But I'm not sure they do so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible. You are incorrect. The BSG license most certainly is GPL-compatible. Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of system runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). You use these quotation marks in the most amazing way. The GPL does not speak of the system runtime, and it does not say that those things don't count. It says the don't count IF you don't ship the binary together with them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?
[Henning Makholm] Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on debconf questions is policy-buggy? 'conffile' is dpkg jargon that has a specific meaning: configuration files that dpkg handles specially w/r/t upgrades and removals. Editing a conffile at install time makes no sense. If you want to edit a configuration file, don't ship it as a conffile - in fact, don't ship it at all. Either generate it ex nihilo from a script, or if you feel you need a template, ship the template under another name, to be copied from if the file doesn't already exist. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The numerous-our-examples issue? Of course, that's an issue. Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solaris. But I'm not sure they do so. but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc, tar, sed, awk etc... btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for download, so, one could try to install and see. the same with Nexenta, SchiliX and BeliniX... they all share the same system runtime - i.e. OpenSolaris core. Which includes fully CDDL'ed kernel and libc. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc, tar, sed, awk etc... btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for download, so, one could try to install and see. I don't see how this possibly matters. Many companies have violated the GPL in the past. It would hardly be the first time. Are you seriously saying that whatever Sun does must be ok, so we can do the same? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
* Bill Gatliff: From this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU ^ GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. It requires that all ^^^ This is the problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Banck wrote: If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug tracking system for development? No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists. It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to be a Solaris-specific issue. on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could re-consider. We do have non-Linux ports in the works (in various states of completion). Typically they don't get released because there is insufficient interest to get them to the quality level needed for a stable release. This lack of interest probably stems from a Linux is OK for me viewpoint rather than an all these non-Linux ports are useless opinion -- that is, apathy rather than malice. A released Debian/Solaris would, in all likelihood, enhance Debian in all sorts of ways, like porting a regular program to 64-bit and big-endian architectures cleans things up. on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system... It's GNU/Linux, but not Debian. It's a derivative. The question here isn't whether you want to use some Debian-derived technologies in your port (which you're free to do with or without any input or cooperation with Debian itself) but whether you want to be part of A Debian Release. on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. Yehah! As I recall, there were plans to produce a non-glibc port of one of the BSDs, so there's precedent at some level. Being not-so-glibc-dependent would also benefit projects like the guys trying to rebuild Debian for uclibc (or one of the other itty-bitty-libcs) for use in the embedded space. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 22:01 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc, tar, sed, awk etc... btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for download, so, one could try to install and see. I don't see how this possibly matters. Many companies have violated the GPL in the past. It would hardly be the first time. Are you seriously saying that whatever Sun does must be ok, so we can do the same? i'm not claiming anything. But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL? Please prove it. (better in court). And once you will prove it, I will belive you. Until that time, all this looks like another Debian's flame to me. or better... religious war. In which I'm not going to participate anymore. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:50 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Banck wrote: If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug tracking system for development? No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists. It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to be a Solaris-specific issue. on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could re-consider. We do have non-Linux ports in the works (in various states of completion). Typically they don't get released because there is insufficient interest to get them to the quality level needed for a stable release. This lack of interest probably stems from a Linux is OK for me viewpoint rather than an all these non-Linux ports are useless opinion -- that is, apathy rather than malice. OK. May be I used too strong wording.. One of consideration on why we decided to go with Debian-technology at first place was the fact that Debian *is* a system runtime independent project. At least it was. But when we actually start looking into the details, we found it very GNU/Linux-centric except some absoutely core packages. A released Debian/Solaris would, in all likelihood, enhance Debian in all sorts of ways, like porting a regular program to 64-bit and big-endian architectures cleans things up. And I believe OpenSolaris community will benefit too. on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system... It's GNU/Linux, but not Debian. It's a derivative. The question here isn't whether you want to use some Debian-derived technologies in your port (which you're free to do with or without any input or cooperation with Debian itself) but whether you want to be part of A Debian Release. Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress. But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate. on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. Yehah! As I recall, there were plans to produce a non-glibc port of one of the BSDs, so there's precedent at some level. Being not-so-glibc-dependent would also benefit projects like the guys trying to rebuild Debian for uclibc (or one of the other itty-bitty-libcs) for use in the embedded space. true. there will be a lot of benefits for both communities. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL? I don't know. I've asked the FSF. It depends on the details of exactly what they are doing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:52:07PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The numerous-our-examples issue? Of course, that's an issue. Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solaris. But I'm not sure they do so. but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, I thought that JDS was built on top of Linux, not Solaris? among others GNU GPL software, gcc, tar, sed, awk etc... Things may have changed more recently, but all of the GNU stuff *used* to be only available quite separately from the actual distribution of Solaris. Can't remember the MarketingSpeak name for the suite of tools, for the life of me, though. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
* Erast Benson: Are you seriously saying that whatever Sun does must be ok, so we can do the same? i'm not claiming anything. But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL? In the past, Sun shipped the GNU components on separate media. (I don't know if you had to order them separately, though, and if this was done for licensing or marketing reasons.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:47 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:52:07PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The numerous-our-examples issue? Of course, that's an issue. Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solaris. But I'm not sure they do so. but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, I thought that JDS was built on top of Linux, not Solaris? http://www.sun.com/software/javadesktopsystem among others GNU GPL software, gcc, tar, sed, awk etc... Things may have changed more recently, but all of the GNU stuff *used* to be only available quite separately from the actual distribution of Solaris. Can't remember the MarketingSpeak name for the suite of tools, for the life of me, though. AFAIK, Solaris 10 comes with all these stuff installed by default. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:27:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of system runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). You use these quotation marks in the most amazing way. The GPL does not speak of the system runtime, and it does not say that those things don't count. It says the don't count IF you don't ship the binary together with them. Which, for full clarity here, this port would be doing (shipping the GPL-covered binaries together with the GPL-incompatible libc). -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted vpnc 0.3.3+SVN20051028-2 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:07:12 +0100 Source: vpnc Binary: vpnc Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.3.3+SVN20051028-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: vpnc - Cisco-compatible VPN client Closes: 336532 Changes: vpnc (0.3.3+SVN20051028-2) unstable; urgency=low . * TARGET_NETWORKS code was accidentaly removed in 04_debianitis.dpatch, now restored (closes: #336532) Files: e6665d25f478dbf259ec84d23f4f19d2 610 net extra vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2.dsc d4a6cb8635a1fcae3606d5e1ba77c1ca 11290 net extra vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2.diff.gz ced0c46b60f3f27b1d1d85dc22b8084d 53490 net extra vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDaHXZ4QZIHu3wCMURAoJnAJ9U0J07CniCxqF0f7vlMQI2HpDKtgCbBbFy TwpGRzOkMHtrIXBkCTyC3OA= =Mu1I -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2.diff.gz to pool/main/v/vpnc/vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2.diff.gz vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2.dsc to pool/main/v/vpnc/vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2.dsc vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2_i386.deb to pool/main/v/vpnc/vpnc_0.3.3+SVN20051028-2_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted twpsk 2.1+2.2beta1-5 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:31:08 +0100 Source: twpsk Binary: psk31lx twpsk Architecture: source i386 Version: 2.1+2.2beta1-5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Joop Stakenborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Joop Stakenborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: psk31lx- Soundcard-based ncurses program for operating PSK31 twpsk - Soundcard-based X program for operating PSK31 Closes: 336868 Changes: twpsk (2.1+2.2beta1-5) unstable; urgency=low . * Use sys/soundcard.h instead of linux/soundcard.h. Fixes FTBFS on GNU/kFreeBSD. Thanks to Aurelian Jarno for reporting. Closes: #336868. Files: 70322efd022b23a0b6f948e3251888ec 617 hamradio optional twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5.dsc 39d0b8d7f456c4714041a53c84b9e24f 9033 hamradio optional twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5.diff.gz 483d7832ffccd9536864eb47a47716f0 32356 hamradio optional psk31lx_2.1+2.2beta1-5_i386.deb 6f6e097c8cbe53ae2b3b4f7e10e0e00f 69396 hamradio optional twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDaHt7nuUI/ps3DJoRAj+fAJ9ewrJeigS8OoviQhKEtLcxifAStQCfXN2v 6w3XnI/JUEDUkCUMszKlOEE= =cT9H -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: psk31lx_2.1+2.2beta1-5_i386.deb to pool/main/t/twpsk/psk31lx_2.1+2.2beta1-5_i386.deb twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5.diff.gz to pool/main/t/twpsk/twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5.diff.gz twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5.dsc to pool/main/t/twpsk/twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5.dsc twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5_i386.deb to pool/main/t/twpsk/twpsk_2.1+2.2beta1-5_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
