Bug#361158: ITP: libpostscript-file-perl -- Base class for creating Adobe PostScript files

[Vincent Danjean]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: libpostscript-file-perl
  Version : 1.01
  Upstream Author : Christopher P Willmot
* URL : http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/C/CP/CPWILLMOT/
* License : same as Perl (ie GPL or Artistic License)
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : Base class for creating Adobe PostScript files

 This module produces the outline for an Adobe PostScript file. It provides
 convenient routines for writing postscript directly, including reporting
 postscript errors and debugging support.  Although it may be used
 independently, the functions provided are also suitable for use in other
 modules.


   Note: the long description comes from the perl module documentation. 
Any comments and/or suggestions for improvement are welcome.
  Note bis: I want to package this perl module as sgf2dg needs it to
output PostScript files (cf my ITP for sgf2dg)
  Note ter: I did not find a Homepage for this library. Does someone
know one ?

  Best regards,
Vincent

PS: the package should be available on my webpage[1] within a few
minutes.

[1] http://dept-info.labri.fr/~danjean/deb.html

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:

>> GPLv3 is available at [1]. The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and
>> in particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: "You may copy and
>> distribute the Program ..." During the discussion [2], Eben Moglen,
>> General Counsel for the Free Software Foundation, noted that he always
>> believed that GPLv2 should be interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes
>> explicit. Quoting [3]:

>>  "Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the
>>  issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any
>>  kind of a problem even under GPL v2..."

> That's his choice to interpret the GPLv2 that way, although given the
> quite elaborate wording used in the GPL for this point I consider this
> an attempt at a retcon.  Either way, his interpretation of the GPL may
> be binding on the FSF, but it's not binding on other copyright holders
> who have licensed their work under the GPL; some of us definitely think
> the restriction on distributing GPL binaries together with a
> GPL-incompatible OS is a feature.

It is interesting to note, though, that the GPLv3 has apparently dropped
this restriction.  That will mean that software with "or later version"
clauses potentially won't have this issue once GPLv3 is formally released,
although I haven't analyzed it in detail.

dpkg is one of the packages with an "or later version" clause.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Bug#361159: ITP: libpdf-create-perl -- create PDF files

[Vincent Danjean]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: libpdf-create-perl
  Version : 0.06.1b
  Upstream Author : Fabien Tassin and Michael Gross
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/perl-pdf/
* License : "This module may be used and modified freely, but I
   do request that this copyright notice remain attached to the
   file. You may modify this module as you wish, but if you
   redistribute a modified version, please attach a note listing
   the modifications you have made."
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : Create PDF files

 PDF::Create allows you to create PDF documents using a large number
 of primitives, and emit the result as a PDF file or stream.
 PDF stands for Portable Document Format.
 .
 Documents can have several pages, a table of content, an information
 section and many other PDF elements. More functionnalities will be
 added as needs arise.
 .
 Documents are constructed on the fly so the memory footprint is not
 tied to the size of the pages but only to their number.
 .
  Homepage: http://sourceforge.net/projects/perl-pdf/


  Note: the long description comes from the perl module documentation.
Any comments and/or suggestions for improvement are welcome.
  Note bis: I want to package this perl module as sgf2dg needs it to
output PDF files (cf my ITP for sgf2dg)

  Best regards,
Vincent

PS: the package should be available on my webpage[1] within a few
minutes.

[1] http://dept-info.labri.fr/~danjean/deb.html

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


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

Bug#361155: ITP: sgf2dg -- Creates TeX files from Go game records

[Vincent Danjean]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: sgf2dg
  Version : 4.026
  Upstream Author : Daniel Bump and Reid Augustin
* URL : http://match.stanford.edu/bump/sgf2tex.html
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: Perl, TeX (font)
  Description : Creates TeX files from Go game records

 Go is a board game from Eastern Asia and TeX is a program for
 typesetting.  sgf2dg converts Go game records in smart-go format (SGF)
 into TeX files.  You can produce camera-ready copies for books or
 magazines, or simply generate attractive printouts of your (internet)
 Go games.
 .
 sgf2dg includes the Metafont sources for a new set of Go fonts, and a
 script, sgf2dg (formerly Sgf2tex), which translates files in sgf-format
 into TeX.
 .
  Homepage: http://match.stanford.edu/bump/sgf2tex.html


Package will be available on my webpage [1] on a few minutes (I just
need to wait for the ITP bugs number to add it in my changelog)

[1] http://dept-info.labri.fr/~danjean/deb.html

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> >(d-l may give advice)

> >So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every* 
> >copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU 
> >utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF)
> > or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible as Sun wouldn't like it).

> Needs an exemption? Hmm... Here're a few links and some info, but first:
> Disclaimer: This post *is not* an invitation for yet another GPL flamewar.

> GPLv3 is available at [1]. The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and in
> particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: "You may copy and distribute 
> the
> Program ..." During the discussion [2], Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the
> Free Software Foundation, noted that he always believed that GPLv2 should be
> interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes explicit. Quoting [3]:

>   "Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the
>   issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any
>   kind of a problem even under GPL v2..."

That's his choice to interpret the GPLv2 that way, although given the quite
elaborate wording used in the GPL for this point I consider this an attempt
at a retcon.  Either way, his interpretation of the GPL may be binding on
the FSF, but it's not binding on other copyright holders who have licensed
their work under the GPL; some of us definitely think the restriction on
distributing GPL binaries together with a GPL-incompatible OS is a feature.

-- 
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: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Alex Ross]

Andrew Donnellan wrote:

(d-l may give advice)

So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every* 
copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU 
utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF)

 or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible as Sun wouldn't like it).


Needs an exemption? Hmm... Here're a few links and some info, but first:
Disclaimer: This post *is not* an invitation for yet another GPL flamewar.

GPLv3 is available at [1]. The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and in
particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: "You may copy and distribute the
Program ..." During the discussion [2], Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the
Free Software Foundation, noted that he always believed that GPLv2 should be
interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes explicit. Quoting [3]:

"Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the
issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any
kind of a problem even under GPL v2..."

More on the same at [3] and [4] by Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer at 
Sun.

[1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft
[2] http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
[3] http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=gpl_v3_released
[4] http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=21134劎

OK, now back to the original post, the only purpose of which was to submit a
patch. I guess, we'll try Debian BTS.

Thanks!
--
Alex
www.gnusolaris.org


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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Andrew Donnellan]

Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc.

andrew

On 4/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (d-l may give advice)
>
> So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from
> *every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc.
> (the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one
> copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible
> as Sun wouldn't like it).
>
> Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be
> considered free?
>
> andrew
>
> On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous;
> >
> > The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section
> > has been well-understood and widely discussed for years.
> >
> > | 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.
> >
> > The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying
> > to do.  This is not in any way an unintended consequence.  It is an
> > intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under
> the
> > GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication.  You're
> only
> > allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing
> the
> > software along with the OS.  That clause is there to allow people to run
> > free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for
> > derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
> >
> > We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward
> and
> > were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which
> > their code was released.  If this is not what people want, they shouldn't
> > use the GPL.  Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are
> > quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of
> > using the GPL.
> >
> > > it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license
> > > must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous.
> >
> > If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up?  It's
> > obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to
> > derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and
> make
> > any sense.  The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on
> > anything else accompanying the binaries.  It is not even a restriction;
> > rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges
> > that this use does not qualify for.  It is a special exception, akin to
> > the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that
> > under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the
> > core requirements of the GPL:
> >
> > |   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> > | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> > | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> > |
> > | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> > | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> > | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
> interchange;
> > or,
> > |
> > | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> > | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> > | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> > | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> > | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> > | customarily used for software interchange; or,
> > |
> > | c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> > | to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
> > | allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
> > | received the program in object code or executable form with such
> > | an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> >
> > This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries
> > linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible
> > license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements.
> >
> > --
> > Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Andrew Donnellan]

(d-l may give advice)

So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from
*every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc.
(the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one
copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible
as Sun wouldn't like it).

Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be
considered free?

andrew

On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous;
>
> The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section
> has been well-understood and widely discussed for years.
>
> | 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.
>
> The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying
> to do.  This is not in any way an unintended consequence.  It is an
> intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under the
> GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication.  You're only
> allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing the
> software along with the OS.  That clause is there to allow people to run
> free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for
> derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
>
> We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward and
> were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which
> their code was released.  If this is not what people want, they shouldn't
> use the GPL.  Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are
> quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of
> using the GPL.
>
> > it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license
> > must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous.
>
> If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up?  It's
> obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to
> derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and make
> any sense.  The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on
> anything else accompanying the binaries.  It is not even a restriction;
> rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges
> that this use does not qualify for.  It is a special exception, akin to
> the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that
> under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the
> core requirements of the GPL:
>
> |   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> |
> | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
> or,
> |
> | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> | customarily used for software interchange; or,
> |
> | c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> | to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
> | allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
> | received the program in object code or executable form with such
> | an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
>
> This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries
> linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible
> license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

Bug#361134: ITP: qvamps -- Qt based frontend for vamps

[Moratti Claudio]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Moratti Claudio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: qvamps
  Version : 0.96
  Upstream Author :  Vamps Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://vamps.sf.net
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C, Perl
  Description : Qt based frontend for vamps

 qVamps is a qt based frontend for vamps.
 It allows to make backup of DVD9, resizing and
 recompressing it.
   
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15.1-maxer
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)


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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Russ Allbery]

Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous;

The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section
has been well-understood and widely discussed for years.

| 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.

The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying
to do.  This is not in any way an unintended consequence.  It is an
intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under the
GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication.  You're only
allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing the
software along with the OS.  That clause is there to allow people to run
free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for
derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.

We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward and
were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which
their code was released.  If this is not what people want, they shouldn't
use the GPL.  Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are
quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of
using the GPL.

> it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license
> must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous.

If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up?  It's
obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to
derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and make
any sense.  The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on
anything else accompanying the binaries.  It is not even a restriction;
rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges
that this use does not qualify for.  It is a special exception, akin to
the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that
under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the
core requirements of the GPL:

|   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
| under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
| Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
| 
| a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
| source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
| 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
| 
| b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
| years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
| cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
| machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
| distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
| customarily used for software interchange; or,
| 
| c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
| to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
| allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
| received the program in object code or executable form with such
| an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries
linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible
license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Andrew Donnellan]

The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; it could be argued that
this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license must not contaminate) (I
wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous.

andrew

On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> No.  It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed
> >> binaries together with those libraries.
>
> > Hmmm. Would this include 'mere aggregation'?
>
> Yes.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

Re: process timeslice

[Simon Richter]

Hello,

Robbie schrieb:


I'm trying to determine if their is an API that allows the user program to 
change the scheduler timeslice. Is there any?


Changing the slices doesn't make much of a difference -- I'd just give 
the process with special needs some realtime privilege.


   Simon


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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Russ Allbery]

Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> No.  It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed
>> binaries together with those libraries.

> Hmmm. Would this include 'mere aggregation'?

Yes.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: MIA: Thomas Fasth?

[Frank Küster]

Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> QA/MIA people: are you reading this (below)?  Or Thomas - perhaps you have 
> time to dropa a quick note yourself?

http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html#s-mia-qa

If you want to reach the QA/MIA people, try  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this is
not yet in the released package)

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

MIA: Thomas Fasth? (was: Re: About the maintainance of monotone)

[Adrian von Bidder]

QA/MIA people: are you reading this (below)?  Or Thomas - perhaps you have 
time to dropa a quick note yourself?

cheers
-- vbi

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 23:46, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wonder if there's a way to figure out what the status of the
> monotone package is.  The current Debian package is 0.24-1+b1,
> while the upstreams version is 0.25 and soon moving to 0.26.
>
> I and other monotone developers have tried to reach the maintainer
> (Tomas Fasth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) for a bit now, with no apparent
> success.  Can anyone tell us what has become of him, if he still
> intends to do the great maintainance (and give feedback to the
> monotone project) that he did up until 0.24 was released, or if it's
> time that someone else takes up the maintainer role?
>
> Sincerely,
> Richard
>
> --
> Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://richard.levitte.org/
>
> "When I became a man I put away childish things, including
>  the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
>   -- C.S. Lewis

-- 
featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro


pgpB39ofWy39J.pgp
Description: PGP signature

process timeslice

[Robbie]

Hi All,
I'm trying to determine if their is an API that allows the user program to 
change the scheduler timeslice. Is there any?
If not Is their any recommendations for changine it in the kernel?


___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!



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

Bug#361098: ITP: libdata-structure-util-perl -- Change nature of data within a structure

[Jonathan McDowell]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: libdata-structure-util-perl
  Version : 0.11
  Upstream Author : Pierre Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~pdenis/Data-Structure-Util/
* License : Perl (Artistic/GPL)
  Programming Lang: Perl/C
  Description : Change nature of data within a structure

Data::Structure::Util is a toolbox to manipulate the data inside a data
structure. It can process an entire tree and perform the operation
requested on each appropriate element.

For example: It can transform all strings within a data structure to
utf8 or transform any utf8 string back to the default encoding. It can
remove the blessing on any reference. It can collect all the objects or
detect if there is a circular reference.

It is written in C for decent speed.


I am packaging this as it's required by recent versions of
libopensrs-perl, which I already maintain.

-- 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 2.6.16
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally
> shipped with your OS or compiler, so I would think this would include
> the C library.

Unfortunately, it does not apply if the thing you ship is also part of
that same "OS or compiler". Which is the case for dpkg (unless you're
not doing Debian, which I understand you are).

This could be fixed if you get "a special exception" from the
maintainer of every program you try to link with your libc, but I
suspect it's going to be easier to either port glibc to solaris, or get
Sun to relicense their code under something that is GPL-compatible.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Andrew Donnellan]

Hmmm. Would this include 'mere aggregation'?

On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally
> > shipped with your OS or compiler,
>
> No.  It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed binaries
> together with those libraries.
>
> --
> 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/
>
>


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally
> shipped with your OS or compiler,

No.  It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed binaries
together with those libraries.

-- 
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: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Andrew Donnellan]

The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally
shipped with your OS or compiler, so I would think this would include
the C library.

andrew

On 4/6/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 avril 2006 à 15:18 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds
> > solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS.
>
> Have you fixed the legal situation of dpkg being linked with a
> GPL-incompatible C library?
>
> Regards,
> --
>  .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
> : :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>`-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
>
>


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 05 avril 2006 à 15:18 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds
> solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS.

Have you fixed the legal situation of dpkg being linked with a
GPL-incompatible C library?

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