Accepted ctwm 3.5.2-6 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 00:44:22 -0500 Source: ctwm Binary: ctwm Architecture: source i386 Version: 3.5.2-6 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ctwm - Claude's Tab window manager Changes: ctwm (3.5.2-6) unstable; urgency=low . * Get right with Policy version 3.5.7. * debian/control: - increment versioned build-dependency on debhelper to (= 4.0) - increment Standards-Version to 3.5.7 * debian/rules: - use debhelper version 4 compatibility - support noopt flag in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS - clean up paths in install rule - write null rule for binary-indep target Files: 2420f5b7f423fe77cc0f5b26ed3f6578 611 x11 optional ctwm_3.5.2-6.dsc ac3d1db7109eb21ca1d1552c6a453627 37156 x11 optional ctwm_3.5.2-6.diff.gz adc4f122d67e546b6eef81e0906ee3e7 416950 x11 optional ctwm_3.5.2-6_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAj2aiCIACgkQ6kxmHytGonzgmgCeNhIHRdR0zBK2G2JMl6GcaWLQ jvkAn3HOCR2dgCn+b+ZyGdRgG5Ua1wOg =3ntH -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ctwm_3.5.2-6.diff.gz to pool/main/c/ctwm/ctwm_3.5.2-6.diff.gz ctwm_3.5.2-6.dsc to pool/main/c/ctwm/ctwm_3.5.2-6.dsc ctwm_3.5.2-6_i386.deb to pool/main/c/ctwm/ctwm_3.5.2-6_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted twofish 0.3-1 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:24:30 -0500 Source: twofish Binary: libtwofish-dev Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.3-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libtwofish-dev - Niels Ferguson's Twofish cryptographic algorithm library Changes: twofish (0.3-1) unstable; urgency=low . * new upstream version + Improved ISO/ANSI standard adherence. + Renamed a macro to avoid a naming conflict with a rogue gcc header file. * debian/control: add dependency on libc6-dev | libc-dev * debian/copyright: updated * debian/patches: deleted * debian/rules: - stop compiling with -D__USE_STRING_INLINES and -D__OPTIMIZE__ - support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopts Files: f16b5dc2f281ff955cddd54be301f610 571 devel optional twofish_0.3-1.dsc 2cf5dc3eb64489e89745f2f3126deb18 22516 devel optional twofish_0.3.orig.tar.gz cd38677168ea0330eefe63bc5397af89 3680 devel optional twofish_0.3-1.diff.gz 96a4b2715d4482e033a7cd4437c22106 12664 devel optional libtwofish-dev_0.3-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAj2VMvAACgkQ6kxmHytGonwSFQCfWVX0u6Vbg+Oke+j6t2rbTZaP HhwAnRobmLwcmFNMOj9JGG9anKu6F73a =YPae -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libtwofish-dev_0.3-1_i386.deb to pool/main/t/twofish/libtwofish-dev_0.3-1_i386.deb twofish_0.3-1.diff.gz to pool/main/t/twofish/twofish_0.3-1.diff.gz twofish_0.3-1.dsc to pool/main/t/twofish/twofish_0.3-1.dsc twofish_0.3.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/t/twofish/twofish_0.3.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted python-parted 0.11 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:32:32 -0500 Source: python-parted Binary: python-parted Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.11 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Progeny Debian Packaging Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: python-parted - Python bindings for GNU Parted Closes: 153651 Changes: python-parted (0.11) unstable; urgency=low . * ported to libparted 1.6; thanks to Torsten Landschoff for his very generous help with this task! (Closes: #153651) . * NOTE: The parted.geometry_get_disk() function has been removed. Use parted.geometry_get_device(). This tracks an upstream Parted library change, so see the Parted library documentation for details. . * NOTE: This Python module is even more alpha than usual thanks to the recent Parted 1.6 transition. Use with caution! (This means you, pgi.) . * NOTE: Future development of this Python module will likely involve the writing of SWIG bindings for Parted. . * pyparted.c: - Took the lineage off of Eric's name since he no longer prefers to have it listed. - libparted1.6 support changes, courtesy of Torsten Landschoff: + (init): remove call to ped_init() + (disk_open): call ped_disk_new() instead of ped_disk_open() + (disk_create): call ped_disk_new_fresh() instead of ped_disk_create() + (disk_close): call ped_disk_destroy() instead of ped_disk_close() + (disk_write): call ped_disk_commit() instead of ped_disk_write() + (geometry_get_disk): removed + (geometry_get_device): new; formerly geometry_get_disk(), now returns a device object instead of a disk object + (partition_is_efi, partition_mark_efi): function bodies eliminated + (constraint_new): handle new max_size argument (XXX: this change looks incomplete) + (done): remove call to ped_done() + (disk_close, disk_read, partition_is_efi, partition_mark_efi): always return true (1) + (file_system_create, file_system_check, file_system_copy, file_system_resize): pass additional NULL argument at end of enclosed Parted library function - Handle functions with constraints, and new max_size constraint, a little better. - (disk_add_partition, disk_set_partition_geom, disk_maximize_partition): ped_constraint_any() now takes a PedDevice as its first argument, not a PedDisk. - (file_system_copy): return a Python object, not an integer. - Add comments explaining what's going on with the only compiler warning this file generates. . * debian/control: - add Uploaders field and put myself in it - bump build dependency on libparted-dev to libparted1.6-dev - update dependency on Python to (= 2.2), ( 2.3) Files: e23e57751b3b13aa150c45fde75d0f5a 620 interpreters optional python-parted_0.11.dsc b82f1b47c19969c6462142a0fa0a18fa 166053 interpreters optional python-parted_0.11.tar.gz aff61fc287930308e856729cb1a4242a 28910 interpreters optional python-parted_0.11_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAj2HriwACgkQ6kxmHytGonzPIACgnv7rvMuTuqP/snJdcDzyHfY0 X20An07ivCjXa7hn95Tisj5izOWg+1HE =U3f3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: python-parted_0.11.dsc to pool/main/p/python-parted/python-parted_0.11.dsc python-parted_0.11.tar.gz to pool/main/p/python-parted/python-parted_0.11.tar.gz python-parted_0.11_i386.deb to pool/main/p/python-parted/python-parted_0.11_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted xfm 1.4.3-3 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:19:08 -0500 Source: xfm Binary: xfm Architecture: source i386 Version: 1.4.3-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: xfm- X file and application manager Closes: 155810 Changes: xfm (1.4.3-3) unstable; urgency=low . * lib/Apps, lib/Xfm.cpp, lib/Hosts, src/xfm.man: changed instances of xterm to x-terminal-emulator (thanks, José Luis González González) (Closes: #155810) Files: c6ca9af2fbe68dacd7b7e2fd7f19cf96 588 utils optional xfm_1.4.3-3.dsc 4422a9b14ae285211e374385e92b033d 5837 utils optional xfm_1.4.3-3.diff.gz 0ab7a26950c32b4b6839799656cd9f89 232060 utils optional xfm_1.4.3-3_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAj15YigACgkQ6kxmHytGonxUUACcDo54ABb98rUP06UMXKd8oxEj 3tcAn3OpFbBlNthxOYB4jmY3MoAIepU+ =f2vx -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: xfm_1.4.3-3.diff.gz to pool/main/x/xfm/xfm_1.4.3-3.diff.gz xfm_1.4.3-3.dsc to pool/main/x/xfm/xfm_1.4.3-3.dsc xfm_1.4.3-3_i386.deb to pool/main/x/xfm/xfm_1.4.3-3_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted debsigs 0.1.13 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:54:15 -0500
Source: debsigs
Binary: debsigs
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.1.13
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
debsigs- applies cryptographic signatures to Debian packages
Closes: 155439
Changes:
debsigs (0.1.13) unstable; urgency=low
.
* debsigs, debsigs-autosign: when importing Getopt::Long, add
Configure('no_ignore_case') because perl's default has changed.
(thanks, Joey Hess)
* debsigs: eliminate SIGCHLD handler because perl 5.8 won't let us use it
anymore (thanks, Andrew Suffield)
* forktools.pm: use WEXITSTATUS() instead of manual math to extract the exit
status from a reaped child process (thanks, Andrew Suffield)
* The above three changes rectify perl 5.8 issues. (Closes: #155439)
Files:
fd58a7a90e64dce3b20c1fcd65c449e9 531 devel optional debsigs_0.1.13.dsc
c4fe6afe86e19c364d45cc5d57338ea3 38286 devel optional debsigs_0.1.13.tar.gz
c0ec8ba71aa4b01d6fdf31f439cafb27 45120 devel optional debsigs_0.1.13_all.deb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAj13m0kACgkQ6kxmHytGonyqVwCcCawxPYNwYDjTMppDaTQ+kWr+
GUkAoKj7wJbIWVDI+qdUIoXD4OQIDif0
=NW3h
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Accepted:
debsigs_0.1.13.dsc
to pool/main/d/debsigs/debsigs_0.1.13.dsc
debsigs_0.1.13.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/debsigs/debsigs_0.1.13.tar.gz
debsigs_0.1.13_all.deb
to pool/main/d/debsigs/debsigs_0.1.13_all.deb
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:15:48AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:36, Branden Robinson wrote: I think it would be fair to tar mpg321 with the brush of non-free when ^un? Yes. that clearly wasn't your intent when you wrote it. Having a giant corporation smash your First Amendmendment[1] right to express yourself I, personally, am glad you exercised your first amendment right to write that word. Hm. I have to admit that I'm considering just dropping development of mpg321 altogether, particularly if it's our judgement that we can't ship it. I can't say that I'd be overly sad in that case - the only mp3s I acquire these days are illegal ones my friends send me, as I encode all my CDs to Ogg now - but it's still a sign that we are just so utterly unimportant in a society ruled by the megacorps. I have to agree. :( [1] Okay, so you're Canadian, UDHR or whatever. I'm perfectly happy to ?? Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A document ratified by the U.N., I believe, which of course means nothing in Amerika. Sorry for all the typos. I guess I got excited and had an oggasm, which interfered with my typing. -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton pgpodxXB52xIR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:23AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: If fraunhofer say that you are allowed to distribute mp3 players for free (but not for cost), then they must be put in non-free. And since they have patents all around the world, they can't be put in non-us. It's my interpretation of the DSFG, which I have offered on debian-legal many times in the past without controversy (notable in itself), that we do not hold DFSG-nonfreeness imposed by a patent as rendering a package DFSG-nonfree if the package maintainer or upstream author is not in cahoots with the patent holder in enforcing a DFSG-violating patent license. In other words, if you write some free software, it's not your fault if some company decides 15 minutes or 15 years later that they had a patent on an algorithm you used, and sent packs of lawyers out to eradicate your software from the planet. So, the issue for Debian is not -- as long as it's honestly licensed DFSG-freely by the author -- do we move it into non-free? but can we ship it at all? I think it would be fair to tar mpg321 with the brush of non-free when that clearly wasn't your intent when you wrote it. Having a giant corporation smash your First Amendmendment[1] right to express yourself via computer code is quite punishment enough. [1] Okay, so you're Canadian, UDHR or whatever. I'm perfectly happy to stand up for the First Amendment rights even of people who aren't governed by the U.S. Constitution. That makes me doubly-damned according to the Republican Party, I think. *FREE SPEECH* for *FOREIGNERS*!?!??? WHAT KIND OF GODLESS HEATHEN COMMONIST[sic] CRAP IS THIS? -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp4kHEsqFOwP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please compile treetool on alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, powerpc and s390
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:15:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:59:36AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: unfortunately treetool is non-free because there is neigther a license nor any upstream author available. Uh, if there's no license we have no business shipping it at all. Even in non-free. Please ask debian-legal if you need clarification of this. We have explicite permission: Thanks for your interest in treetool. While treetool is free; some portions are copyright the University of Illlinois. I am currently working on getting permission from them to obtain clear rights to the package; in the meantime, I cannot place the program under the GNU license (which is my desire). I do have permission to distribute the program, so you are welcome to include it under the non-free area of Debian Linux. When these issues are cleared up, I will place the package under the GNU license and let you know. Okay. What you have is a license, then; it's just a very informal one. Email from a person granting you permission to do things not ordinarily permitted by copyright law is a license, when that person has appropriate legal standing to grant such permission. Such communications are just as valid as the GNU GPL or BSD licenses, if less formal. -- G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the Debian GNU/Linux |best of all possible worlds. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists are afraid the optimists http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |are right. pgpQ84hLV184e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: graphical installer?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:37:50AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/ It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have You got any other plans ? Or maybe you want to use text installer for ever? It is currently ia32 (x86) only. Bzzzt. PGI supports IA-64 (ia64) as well. A PowerPC port is also underway, though testing and development is limited to NewWorld PowerMacs at this point. There has even been a successful PowerPC install performed, though it was clunky and partitioning could not be done. -- G. Branden Robinson|To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux |means not assisting people they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn pgp5SuZ1jkTRB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please compile treetool on alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, powerpc and s390
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:59:36AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: unfortunately treetool is non-free because there is neigther a license nor any upstream author available. Uh, if there's no license we have no business shipping it at all. Even in non-free. Please ask debian-legal if you need clarification of this. -- G. Branden Robinson|America is at that awkward stage. Debian GNU/Linux |It's too late to work within the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |system, but too early to shoot the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |bastards. -- Claire Wolfe pgplFta24PXlv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this still valid?
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 07:51:19AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: I never saw this get pushed into policy, joeyh just decided to stop doing it in debhelper. Joey is cutting the Policy Manual's Gordian Knot. That being the conjunction of policy-is-supposed-to-document-current-practice, not-be-used-as-a-stick-to-beat-maintainers-with and policy-reigns-supreme-and-violating-a-must-or-must-not-directive-means- your-package-is-obscenely-broken-and-should-be-removed-from-the- distribution. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpA7D1YtnA0v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Accepted vim 6.1.165-1 (i386 source)
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:47:22PM -0400, Wichert Akkerman wrote: vim (6.1.165-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Change priority to extra bleep. bleep. bleep. blee... beats chest with fist pops nitroglycerine pill injects heart with andrenalin reaches for cardiac defibrillator CLEAR! thump AGAIN! CLEAR! thump blee.. Why, God, why? -- G. Branden Robinson|I'm sorry if the following sounds Debian GNU/Linux |combative and excessively personal, [EMAIL PROTECTED] |but that's my general style. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Ian Jackson pgpDl0rxzVDkZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Accepted debsigs 0.1.11 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 23:13:29 -0500 Source: debsigs Binary: debsigs Architecture: source all Version: 0.1.11 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: debsigs- applies cryptographics signatures to Debian packages Closes: 96495 96598 97357 97757 108344 Changes: debsigs (0.1.11) unstable; urgency=low . * new maintainer * debsigs: - got rid of unneeded duplicate definition of VERSION - consistently and correctly refer to debsig-verify(1) (Closes: #108344) * debsigsmain.pm: improved documentation stub...a little (Closes: #97357) * debian/README.Debian; removed silly template (Closes: #96495) * debian/control: - updated package description - added versioned Build-Depends-Indep on perl and debhelper per Perl Policy - bumped Standards-Version to 3.5.6 * debian/docs: actually ship docs as part of package * debian/rules: - added call to dh_installchangelogs (Closes: #96598) - applied Brendan O'Dea's patches to bring this package up to date with modern Perl policy (Closes: #97757) Files: 395fdef967e9a4fba57a94f075c0ba72 574 admin optional debsigs_0.1.11.dsc 1b4d1310100cb44bf4f6035459965b13 26770 admin optional debsigs_0.1.11.tar.gz 48f57010986df7f7c6821f29f52ee30f 27416 admin optional debsigs_0.1.11_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjwdcpEACgkQ6kxmHytGonyd7QCePZYVV8Nm+78BcQkM70rCnOWB h+8AnjYACiGcs5685c1b552/dIj8JRau =sNgC -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: debsigs_0.1.11.dsc to pool/main/d/debsigs/debsigs_0.1.11.dsc debsigs_0.1.11.tar.gz to pool/main/d/debsigs/debsigs_0.1.11.tar.gz debsigs_0.1.11_all.deb to pool/main/d/debsigs/debsigs_0.1.11_all.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to get rid of non-free packers?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 04:01:15PM +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: When I run command vrms in my Debian GNU/Linux, most of those non-free packages it finds are packers and/or unpackers. While not the best team in their league, I think you'll find that even the Packers aren't so bad that they play for free. /me grins, ducks, runs, and watches that one go over the heads of everyone outside the U.S. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgptmrr2EHKI7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] MES-2 [Was: Re: Linux Fonts]
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:11:06PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:25:28PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote: free high quality variable width font. Dustimo could become base of such a font, if it covered at least MES-2 repertoire (maybe without Georgian and Armenian characters for the beginning). Just out of interest, what is MES-2? http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/mes-2-rationale.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpg68Axgx2ZL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: chroot administration
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:16:41PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Perhaps it would be possible to use the FOIA to get the terms of the contract? Bwa ha ha ha, it has been the Bush administration's directive to all Federal agencies since BEFORE September 11th of last year to flush all FOIA requests down the toilet. -- G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks pgp2AQGRpEVEc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HELP - Screen is flooded with DHCP messages.
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 11:58:07PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:00:04:76:de:b9:53:08:00 SRC=0.0.0.0 DST=255,255,255,255 LEN=328 TOS=0x10 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=0 PROTO=UDP SPT=68 DPT=67 LEN=308 on all machines. Configure your firewall correctly. That message is a DHCP request. Just don't log DHCP requests. DHCP requests need to be send as broadcasts... Alternatively, if you don't mind them being logged but do mind them getting blasted to the system console, set the default console logging level to something other than the default insane amounts of drivel setting; e.g.: echo 4 /proc/sys/kernel/printk -- G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman pgptsCCZ9nd8r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debian-security-announce and bugtraq
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 09:46:42PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: it seems like people still don't get that bugtraq is subscribed to debian-security-announce... And bugtraq seems unable to add some Footer to the posts that clarifies this... [...] P.S. Or wasn't this recent mail from branden another try to unsubscribe from our postings to bugtraq? I don't remember much recent complaints... maybe that issue is already settled. IMO we should add a boilerplate paragraph to our security advisories that drills this info into people's heads. It aggravates me how moronic Bugtraq is being about this. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If existence exists, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | why create a creator? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpc4HeaPG3Wl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
Over six months ago, on 2001-11-14, Bug #119517 was submitted to the Technical Committee for a ruling. No member of the Technical Committe has participated in any public discussion of this bug (at least in the bug logs or in available messages from the debian-ctte list archives) since 2001-12-04, and no apparently discussion of any sort since 2002-02-26. Does the Technical Committee have any plans to issue any statement on this issue? Either an affirmative statement regarding the issue on point, or a statement that the Committee refuses to countenance the it? If the latter, please provide some reasoning as to why, as Section 6.3.6 of the Constitution appears to be applicable: Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort. The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until efforts to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed, unless it has been asked to make a decision by the person or body who would normally be responsible for it. Note that the unless clause is applicable here, as the package maintainer explicitly requested a ruling from the Technical Committee. In fact, both disputants made such a request. Thanks for your attention. -- G. Branden Robinson|It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux |screaming mob pounding on a greasy [EMAIL PROTECTED] |spot on the pavement, where used to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |lie the carcass of a dead horse. pgp4Ss7tPHXy1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 12:59:22PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: Hallo? On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:20:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Over six months ago, on 2001-11-14, [...] Huh? At what time do you live? That's ISO 8601 date format. However, s/six months/five months/, sorry. Maybe last year felt like it was 13 months long. ;-) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpSJ9k1Km5Ex.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGI installer [Was: Re: Why XFree86 4.2 Isn't in Woody]
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:49:58PM +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: After that introduction (sorry, just wanted You to know the situation) let me ask You a few questions: First, main one: 0. Is PGI good enough to be used as basic installer for Debian magazine edition which will be pressed in a few thousand of copies? Well, I wouldn't want to make any warranties or guarantees at this point. When the version number has reached 1.0 I'll feel more confident. All I can say is that PGI appears to be much more robust even than Progeny Debian's installer, upon which it was based. Aside from issues with video cards unsupported by XFree86 (see below), I am unaware of any categorial complaints about PGI's robustness. Maybe it is good enough to be secondary installer (maybe on second a CD or sth?) I personally would certainly be comfortable with that. 1. Is this possible to include it along with the basic, textmode installer? Can You say some more deatailed about it? PGI does actually include a text-mode installer. You pass the installer the textmode argument at the SYSLINUX boot prompt. 2. Is PGI localized to Polish? (I don't think so) Is it hard to do? where/who to ask? (I will also be trying to get base-config in Polish, as I belive it's needed to have fully localized installation). PGI is not localized to Polish, and there would be some infrastructural changes necessary to support internationalization. 3. What else should I know ? ;-) Some mailing list? (I can't find anything about PGI on debian-boot) You can read more at http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/. Huh - it'd be really nice to have PGI as the main installer ;-) But now I really need some good advice in the first place. Any comments are welcomed. I welcome further feedback, especially once you've had a chance to evaluate it. Thanks a lot for giving PGI a look! -- G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go Debian GNU/Linux | about naked, we would have been [EMAIL PROTECTED] | born that way. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpSi6GZwbvwj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:26:30AM -0500, The Doctor What wrote: I would like to ask you to offer an apology to Brandon, saying that you didn't know that it was a difficult task and maybe say thank you for the work he has done already. But that's your choice. Well, as long as we're in the apology business, you could tell me who this Brandon person is that you're talking about, and what the heck he's doing with my X packages. I think he owes me an explanation. ;-) -- G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual activity ceases. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Anton Wilson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp79mxk0fMHb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why XFree86 4.2 Isn't in Woody
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:44:31PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: Seems that 4.1.0-16 fixed at last the old problem with garbage-on-screen in kicker and in nedit scrollbars on r128 card. Oh no, the bug is still there :-(. But not as often as before :-). Anyway, it is not really harmful. Sorry to hear it didn't work out, but I wouldn't have expected a bug like this to be fixed by -16. The only patches to a video driver in -16 were some fixes to the video mode validation code in the r128 driver. If you're experiencing screen corruption, you want to experiment with the various XaaNo options as documented in XF86Config-4(5). -- G. Branden Robinson|Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux |he is half an animal is only half a [EMAIL PROTECTED] |man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Thornton Wilder pgpeHmNXwzgPM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 03:16:52PM -0700, David D. W. Downey wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:20:00PM -0500, Scott Dier wrote: * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020417 14:29]: this Brandon person is that you're talking about, and what the heck Don't worry, I also had a lapse of judgement eariler in the thread. No apologies needed, we all know it's his evil twin. *Evil* twin? You mean one of us isn't? -- G. Branden Robinson| Measure with micrometer, Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell. pgpaZzmL4GYas.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:27:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *Evil* twin? You mean one of us isn't? He's bck. I didn't go anywhere. Nowhere in my platform did I claim I wasn't evil. ;-) -- G. Branden Robinson|You should try building some of the Debian GNU/Linux |stuff in main that is [EMAIL PROTECTED] |modern...turning on -Wall is like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |turning on the pain. -- James Troup pgpi7JR1hEuPW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 06:20:24PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: Overfiend this is the New Overfiend, preacher of Love and Tolerance I see your irony detector is as non-functional as ever... :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpPTZOvqBlln.pgp Description: PGP signature
Why XFree86 4.2 Isn't in Woody
://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/ PGI is not yet at 1.0, but has performed dozens (perhaps hundreds, by now) of successful woody installations on i386 and ia64 hardware. If you use either of these platforms, please check it out. Additionally, thanks to Jimmy Kaplowitz a PowerPC port is underway. I'm looking forward to the day when I can perform a PGI install using XFree86 4.2. (So are S3 Trio64 users, IBM Thinkpad T21 users, etc.) Both projects are important to me. -- G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux |confuse me with the facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp7yf8yTwFZi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#142705: pgi default configuration WIPES OUT whole filesystems without asking!!!
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 11:30:09AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote: first and foremost: you should upload immediatly a new version which comments out the rm -rf command: it is wy too dangerous to leave that out in the wild Sorry, the machine I was testing the package release on decided to crash (or someone unplugged its network cable). I'll have to go into the office and reboot it. BTW, your characterization of this bug is misleading. By *default*, PGI creates its own subdirectory of $TMPDIR to use, so there is no risk of losing data that PGI doesn't create in the first place. -- G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks pgpANLXMe7RJJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pgi default configuration WIPES OUT whole filesystems without asking!!!
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 11:18:14PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 08:09:47PM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote: Package: pgi Version: 0.9.6 Severity: critical Justification: causes serious data loss Just for the record: I got bitten by this, too. (But I had a backup for most of the stuff :-) I'm working on it; you can expect 0.9.6.2 today. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgphYpI2TYFWg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please test this woody cd image
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 09:48:36AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 08:38:00AM -0500, Shyamal Prasad wrote: It failed to boot an IBM Aptiva 2161-C8E desktop with a 1/19/1997 BIOS. This 166Mhz Pentium box has been my trusty machine for 5 years, and boots the potato r3 CD and also another woody netinst ISO (the one Well, I guess the question is do we want to support new machines or old machines; it doesn't seem that we can do both. (I'd vote for the former because we need to move forward, and it's not like we're removing the floppy boot option.) Also, PGI currently uses syslinux and will continue to do past its 1.0 release. PGI works on i386, of course, and may be a good candidate for legacy hardware support when the official Debian installer can't bend over backwards that far anymore. (PGI does not, however, support floppy-disk-based installs.) There's more information about PGI at http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/. -- G. Branden Robinson| One man's magic is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. Supernatural is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpCPls6ihkf2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. I'll put you down as being in favor of eternal copyright, then. Give me a break. I've never said that, and your suggestion that what I said implies I believe your suggestion is ... stupid. This is exactly the kind of distraction by misdirection that I so greatly detest. Not at all. Copyright is exactly on point, for it is the only tool with which you are seeking protection for the Debian Manifesto. Unless you have a patent, trade secret, or non-disclosure argument up your sleeve. A work that is not copyrighted is in the public domain. Hence my reference to works which *are* in the public domain, and for which there often exist canonical versions despite the absence of government regulation to retain their purity. (Sometimes there is no canonical version to point to, at least not in one's native tongue. What's the canonical modern English translation of the _Canterbury Tales_?) -- G. Branden Robinson| Why do we have to hide from the Debian GNU/Linux | police, Daddy? [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs. pgpnOXqzHbhm4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:57:32PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote: I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries, then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to even know who to approach. (The debian-doc package is conspicuously lacking of the relevant copyright information, btw. :) Here's a statement from Bruce Perens: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00063.html Bruce also used a questionable similarity, ignored the possibility of authors mis-applying the license, and failed to rebut any of the points made in response to his message (and not only by me). -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpNS5bvp66ND.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: It's more useful, I think, to look at it this way: there is a sense that the freedom we insist upon for executable code may not necessarily be appropriate for other kinds of information that may be found in a Debian package. I reject this premise entirely. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html -- G. Branden Robinson|One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux |belly laugh. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp6SJ8obvCPD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. I'll put you down as being in favor of eternal copyright, then. The Congress shall have the power to PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (Emphasis added.) What a tragedy that the value of all works published before 1926 has been irrevocably lost because we're not protecting them anymore. -- G. Branden Robinson| There is no gravity in space. Debian GNU/Linux | Then how could astronauts walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Because they wore heavy boots. pgpZ5VF9lqvR1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software, since they created a *separate license* solely for documentation - which means that for their intent, documentation != software, and thus, Debian should respect that and not publish it, since it's not software at all? What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the DFSG. What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as software, documentation, or fried green tomatoes. I don't have a problem with putting fried green tomatoes in main as long as they're DFSG-free fried green tomatoes. ;-) On a more serious note, the position you're stating is a false alternative. People who would rather see non-DFSG-free documentation in main are trying to say that their opponents would exclude DFSG-free documentation from main because it's not software, not because it's not DFSG-free. That argument is ass backwards, and dishonest. The important trait of a copyrighted work for Debian is its licensing, not what ontological category someone has elected to place it in. /me wonders if that last sentence will summon Eray Ozkural, and if so, if that makes it a new corollary of Godwin's Law -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpxh5H8syNv8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making a big mistake with the GFDL. I'm curious about your reasoning. Have you posted it already? If not, maybe it would be good to hear once woody is out. Jeff, you might want to read: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00071.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00073.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00079.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00081.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00082.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00099.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00112.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00137.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00195.html People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should subscribe to -legal. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpea6PUN8qBu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote: Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is software, for the purposes of the DFSG. [...] In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem seemed to be with corner cases, and wanting a good definition of software. I feel you are misrepresenting my position. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software, Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have. -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpjr49WCG9hF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free license, then we will need to redefine free or watch our project splinter into uselessness. The GNU FDL is a license, period. It can applied in a manner consistent with the DFSG. It can also be applied in ways inconsistent with the DFSG. Please see: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/ http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/ Discussion of software vs. documentation, the precise meaning of DFSG 3, and the GNU FDL in particular dominated the traffic on debian-legal for two solid months. The reason that there is no consensus was pretty nicely summed up by Mark Rafn: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00336.html He said: Just so I can follow the teams, is there anyone who doesn't feel their position falls more-or-less into one of the following? 1) Documents aren't software, so it's ok to include non-free documents in Debian. 2) Documents with some amount of invariant non-license text can still be considered free. 3) Documents with non-license invariant text are non-free, and don't belong in Debian. 4) Generally, we shouldn't include documents with invariant text because they're not free, but we should make occasional exceptions. BTW, I have no clue how to resolve such a basic policy dispute. I have a personal opinion, but I really expect that there won't be many people moving between the above camps. The present discussion should really be taking place on debian-legal. -- G. Branden Robinson| Why do we have to hide from the Debian GNU/Linux | police, Daddy? [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs. pgp3N88KAy4H4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free. It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses. The simple fact is, a work licensed under version 1.1 of the GNU FDL with no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections is clearly and plainly DFSG-free. A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of Invariant Sections either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable. Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free. You can call the GNU FDL free or non-free due to either or both of the above. Which you decide is far less important to Debian than how the GNU FDL is actually applied to works in real life. I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author... I find it ... surprising that you're unfamiliar with the issues surrounding the Artistic License and its reasonable copying fee. Actually, since you usually opine on issues before educating yourself on them, I'm not surprised. :) The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Under that logic, the GNU GPL is non-free because it is not a modifiable document. Debian, however, takes a pragmatic approach to license documents; we care about licenses only insofar as they apply to actual software that we package. We also care about licenses as they are enforced by the copyright holder, not about how they could have been exercised by the copyright holder. That said, Debian does occasionally serve to act in an advisory capacity to people seeking to adopt license terms that express their desires clearly. Selective editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist. *shrug* Then your beef is with the people who author such licenses. The GNU FDL and OPL both have optional parts that the copyright holder can elect not to exercise. For that matter, the GNU GPL does too. You can always add a rider to the license, for instance by permitting your work to link against an old version of the Qt library. If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the -legal mailing list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such nonsense. If this is the kind of logic you're going to try to bring to -legal, perhaps the list is better off without your participation. -- G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too long to fit [EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpazrOtgynxb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of Invariant Sections either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable. Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free. ^ Hrm. DFSG-*non*free, that is. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|Damnit, we're all going to die; Debian GNU/Linux |let's die doing something *useful*! [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Hal Clement, on comments that http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous pgpDwMcQp1qKh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:17:28PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote: I asked: Were there any other important debates about the GFDL that should be read? To answer my own question: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html Off to read about 100 messages ... More than that. You're starting out about a month and a half late: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00096.html -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpmOXc9rE3a9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:39:31AM +1000, Brian May wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: Software. Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an It must be free software, even if it's documentation? It doesn't matter what it *is*. People can and will argue for eternity about how many angels should dance on the software and documentation pins. What matters is how what's packaged for Debian is *licensed*. So any documentation, if included in Debian, would suddenly transform into computer software? I don't think so... Another straw man lies slain! Of course, it is possible to blur the issue, for instance, is a C comment documentation or C code? Is a C printf statement documentation or C code? Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? What if you wrapped the contents of the GPL in a C printf statement? Would it still meet the DFSG? Under my proposals, it would if it were a license applicable to the softare in question, but not otherwise (because the Free Software Foundation does not permit alteration of their copyrighted text). Also, it is worth noting that even the GPL doesn't allow unrestricted editing of source files: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Also, it is worth noting that even the BSD license doesn't allow unrestricted editing of source files: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Your point? -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpJ2H1ReFZac.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#141686: xbase: name clash with old XFree86 package
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:59:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: Package: xbase Version: 2.0.0-1 Severity: normal xbase |2.0.0-1 | unstable | source xbase | 3.3.6-11potato32 |stable | all This seems pretty broken to me ... it's a source package, so the lower version number doesn't cause the upgrade troubles it might otherwise do, but it *is* confusing the BTS into thinking Branden is the maintainer of the source package currently in unstable (hence the X-Debbugs-Cc:). Wouldn't it be better to rename the current xbase? The BTS is brain damaged about this, too. Very convenient for the maintainer of this new xbase package, I will see all his bug reports. :-P FWIW, I no longer ship any package called xbase post-woody. However I agree that this package should change its name. -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp2OQdD9O08h.pgp Description: PGP signature
[bdale@gag.com: Bug#141688: FTBFS: config.sub/guess out of date]
Sending this bug report to debian-devel so that hopefully the maintainer of this package will see it. Please rename your package. - Forwarded message from Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bdale Garbee) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#141688: FTBFS: config.sub/guess out of date Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:24:17 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=4.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_FOUND,SENT_BY_BTS version=2.11 Package: xbase Version: 2.0.0-1 Severity: important This package fails to build from source on ia64 because the config.sub/guess files are out of date. See the autotools-dev package for a good solution. Bdale - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Oscar Wilde http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpIec1KE4BNA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant. 4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we can make demands for good documentation. As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read. Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months. In a nutshell: 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections. Note that your license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover Texts and Invariant Sections. 2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially DFSG-free when none of the license options are exercised. Read the archives of debian-legal for supporting references. -- G. Branden Robinson|One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux |belly laugh. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpD6SM16B1ml.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:34:45PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets the DFSG or not. However, there seemed to be consensus on documents released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic parts are. There was no such consensus. -- G. Branden Robinson| You live and learn. Debian GNU/Linux | Or you don't live long. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp5aff0ebGpc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: xfree86 unbuildable on ppc
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:37:52AM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote: About the only thing you can do is to discontinue use of the kernel headers altogether and provide your own, unconditional, definitions (with different names if there is any danger that the kernel's version of them might become visible under some conditions). This obviously sucks quite a lot, but less than the alternatives. This means forking from XFree86 upstream in a way that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Is there anyone around who is familiar with DRM innards who would be willing to work with me and upstream to get this fix implemented in the proper place? I don't want to keep my kludge (patch #65) around any longer than I have to. -- G. Branden Robinson|America is at that awkward stage. Debian GNU/Linux |It's too late to work within the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |system, but too early to shoot the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |bastards. -- Claire Wolfe pgpIlhp7DeUEF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: xfree86 unbuildable on ppc
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:55:22PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: This means forking from XFree86 upstream in a way that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Is there anyone around who is familiar with DRM innards who would be willing to work with me and upstream to get this fix implemented in the proper place? I'm here. :) Great, thanks a lot. Let's haul the discussion over to -x. -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpS0nZbblPQw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: xfree86 unbuildable on ppc
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:42:24PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: Hello, Could someone explain to me the point of releasing Xfree86 4.1.0-15 as is when clearly patch #065 was going to break builds on most non-intel arches? Actually, the patch was applied to FIX a problem with building xfree86 on ia64. So your assertion is wrong. The bottom line is that it's hit or miss as to whether you can compile XFree86 or not. It depends on what kernel flavor your libc6-dev was compiled against. BenC's last glibc release for i386 was built against a kernel that omitted the SiS ioctl information from drm.h. BenC also says that it's completely up to the guys who build glibc for each architecture what kernel headers they build against. And Herbert Xu told me that I shouldn't ever depend on kernel headers for anything, but encapsulate all information I need into my package. So that's how we got where are today. Somehow it's the application-writer's job to know how the underlying kernel defines its ioctls. How this position is consistent with the very existence of symbolic constants in C library headers is quite beyond me. Apparently, if the Linux kernel driver guys renumber some ioctls, the right thing is for everybody's apps to break instantly. I simply don't see the logic at play here considering we're supposed to be closing in on woody's release. I entirely agree. However, I don't have the power to tell Ben, the glibc-architecture builders, or Herbert Xu how to do things. My package is at their mercy. As I understand it, however, the real blame lies with the guys on the linux-kernel list. We wouldn't have this problem if the kernel headers were the same regardless of what modules you decide to compile. -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton pgpRAEPpufNoV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: xfree86 unbuildable on ppc
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:34:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Apparently, if the Linux kernel driver guys renumber some ioctls, the right thing is for everybody's apps to break instantly. Err, brainfart -- scratch that point. Obviously this happens no matter where they're defined, because they're expanded at build time. ...which does, actually, leave me wondering why app writers should bother defining them at all. The numbers belong to the kernel; why don't we keep them there? If the kernel revs in such a way as to break ioctl numbers, there's no userland way around it, is there? -- G. Branden Robinson| I had thought very carefully about Debian GNU/Linux | comitting hara-kiri over this, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I overslept this morning. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Toshio Yamaguchi pgp3qZJPshxjc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: xfree86 unbuildable on ppc
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:04:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The kernel doesn't change ioctl numbers; they're actually competent at
maintaining their interfaces. OTOH, they don't consider their headers
such an interface, and they're happy to have them break randomly or not
work from userspace at all or anything.
What we really should have is a nice low-level C library that encapsulates
such things and lets anyone use it...
Fine and dandy, but what do I do in the meantime? I can guard each of
the ioctl #defines with an #ifndef, but there's also a typedef thrown
into the mix. I can't exactly do this:
try {
typedef struct {
int context;
unsigned int offset;
unsigned int size;
unsigned int free;
} drm_sis_mem_t;
} except redefinitionException {
/* oh, that's all right, it's already defined */
}
It's because of this that I continue to feel that kernel interfaces are
best defined by the kernel.
If the kernel headers aren't an interface, why do they exist? There
appears to be a very large philosophical gulf here. The fact that the
Linux kernel guys may long for nice low-level C libraries that
encapsulate such things doesn't mean they exist. Is this a side-effect
of some sort of real men don't program in userspace dogma?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell.
pgpNYjTRYa7Kg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: xfree86 unbuildable on ppc
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 12:16:30AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: What we really should have is a nice low-level C library that encapsulates such things and lets anyone use it... All we really need is a master ioctl header that defines the numbers. It would be Debian specific, but what the hell. It needs to be more than just #defines for the AGP and DRM interfaces. Whole data structures are shuttled around. -- G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux |confuse me with the facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpWUnuFQXFpE.pgp Description: PGP signature
WARNING: xmkmf/imake broken in xutils 4.1.0-12
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:49:12PM +, James Troup wrote: Package: xutils Version: 4.1.0-12 Severity: serious Justification: breaks other packages from building from source xmkmf appears to have been broken by 4.1.0-12; packages which built fine with xutils 4.1.0-11 no longer build with 4.1.0-12. It appears Imake.tmpl and indeed the entire contents of /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/ have disappeared. YEEEARGH. This is one of those only implemented half the change bugs. /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config was intended to move from xlibs-dev to xutils (since only imake cares about this directory, or uses it). Unfortunately, only half of the moving took place. I'll roll new packages ASAP. -- G. Branden Robinson| I had thought very carefully about Debian GNU/Linux | comitting hara-kiri over this, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I overslept this morning. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Toshio Yamaguchi pgpMU9NpP5aeF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should I rename scalable-cyrfonts?
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 02:12:48AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: scalable-cyrfonts - scalable-fonts This sounds too generic. scalable-cyrfonts-x11 - scalable-fonts-x11 This one should be xfonts-scalable-cyrillic or something like that. I concur with Josip. -- G. Branden Robinson|There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux |Lincoln today -- just a rumor that [EMAIL PROTECTED] |is put about by people who have http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |nowhere to live.-- G. L. Murfin pgpwP0wvY7aCv.pgp Description: PGP signature
WARNING: xmkmf/imake broken in xutils 4.1.0-12
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:49:12PM +, James Troup wrote: Package: xutils Version: 4.1.0-12 Severity: serious Justification: breaks other packages from building from source xmkmf appears to have been broken by 4.1.0-12; packages which built fine with xutils 4.1.0-11 no longer build with 4.1.0-12. It appears Imake.tmpl and indeed the entire contents of /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/ have disappeared. YEEEARGH. This is one of those only implemented half the change bugs. /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config was intended to move from xlibs-dev to xutils (since only imake cares about this directory, or uses it). Unfortunately, only half of the moving took place. I'll roll new packages ASAP. Unfortunately there is no way I can make dinstall today. -- G. Branden Robinson| I had thought very carefully about Debian GNU/Linux | comitting hara-kiri over this, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I overslept this morning. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Toshio Yamaguchi pgpEAuYozdI1n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: serious bug. Evolution and Microsoft mentality.
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:55:34PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Evolution added an X-Evolution header to each message for status purposes. Merely _looking_ at a message with Evolution alters it? That is _truly_ evil. Maybe, but it's also commonplace. Consider how elm has for many years added Status: OR flags to read messages. -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgpx53DaSLvKM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for translation for locales package
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 01:04:40PM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote: Description: Quel locale devrait être utilisé par défaut par votre système ? De nombreux paquets de Debian utilisent locale pour WRONG! Never wrap the first line of the description. -- G. Branden Robinson| Don't use nuclear weapons to Debian GNU/Linux | troubleshoot faults. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- US Air Force Instruction 91-111 http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpfLSsPNQbMU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: EURO and CENT signs in the console keymaps
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 07:54:16PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: You can now get POSIX online for free... URL? -- G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too long to fit [EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpGitfyWhdXE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:12:01PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: ... In fact, I would consider it acceptable in general to move everything in contrib to main as long as it each package was forced to be priority extra until it was suitable for general-purpose use as packaged in main (including any dependencies, of course). ... If I understand it correctly you suggest to move e.g. the package below to main? No, the issue is moot. If your example was meant to be reductio ad absurdum, point taken. But try less absurd scenarios next time. -- G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Oscar Wilde http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpuEFsBGXpqv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: EURO and CENT signs in the console keymaps
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 12:39:31PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
BTW: is there any particular reason why the sequences differ between
console and X?
Yes. XFree86 and console-{tools,data} have completely different
upstreams.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist: It ain't a sin if you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't get caught.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Anthony Davidson
pgppI8iapok24.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: BitKeeper
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of that. I don't think it's obvious from a casual reading of the DFSG that such a requirement is non-free, but perhaps it should be. -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpNhJA9inbQx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: EURO and CENT signs in the console keymaps
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:12:25PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
BTW: is there any particular reason why the sequences differ between
console and X?
Yes. XFree86 and console-{tools,data} have completely different
upstreams.
And of course a little consistency and uniformity is too much to ask for
in the unix world until it's mandadted by some dead-tree standard for which
you have to pay a few hundred bucks.
Well, that need not be the case here. All we need is a gizmo that
generates console keymaps from XKB description files, and then loads
them.
--
G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of
Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
pgpJ0l929dKii.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Preparing a Proposal: 3 DD needed for every NEW package
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:45:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I can see how removing bad packages helps. How does removing an MIA maintainer make anything better? The distort the apparent size of our project and, more importantly, swamp our Standard Resolution Procedure by artificially inflating the value of Q. See the Debian Constitution. -- G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Oscar Wilde http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp3KFoWCC98C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Preparing a Proposal: 3 DD needed for every NEW package
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 12:50:58PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: For the record, please note that while quite a few packages of inactive developers have been orphaned already, no one has been asked to leave the project for their inactivity (An inactive developer without any packages doesn't do any harm anyway, and he might become active again). See Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. -- G. Branden Robinson| You could wire up a dead rat to a Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socket and the PC BIOS memory [EMAIL PROTECTED] | test would pass it just fine. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Ethan Benson pgpqIxVa97Fc1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: An alarming trend (no it's not flaimbait.) (fwd)
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:02:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Maybe we need a way to make being on the QA team a sexy job, just like maintaining glibc or the kernel or X is. Eh? In my experience the maintainers of these packages get nothing but grief, sometimes from each other. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go Debian GNU/Linux | about naked, we would have been [EMAIL PROTECTED] | born that way. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpFcN49o4dT5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: why does xlibs-pic exist?
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:02:26PM -0500, Paul Duncan wrote: * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [snipped] THIS IS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ. Press the little button below tab and above left shift before sending any more messages. ;) It might surprise you, but I have ctrl:nocaps in my XF86Config-4 file. :) I just hold down the left shift key with my pinky and pound away. -- G. Branden Robinson| When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers. pgpDMOXupiU8Z.pgp Description: PGP signature
FAQ: How do I add custom sections to a dexconf-generated XF86Config or XF86Config-4 file?
I just wrote this for addition to the Debian X FAQ, and thought I would post it here since I've been getting asked about this lately. Also, it's a bit of signal to counter the noise I generated yesterday under provocation from Jack Howarth. :) Needless to say, XF86Config(7), XF86Config-v3(5), and XF86Config-4(5) are required reading for people who want to customize their XFree86 server configuration. *) How do I add custom sections to a dexconf-generated XF86Config or XF86Config-4 file? As of xfree86v3 3.3.6-42 and xfree86 4.1.0-10, the dexconf utility only writes to part of the X server configuration file, instead of claiming the entire file for itself. For XFree86 3.x servers, this is mostly useful for adding XInput and ServerFlags sections, and for replacing the Files and Modules sections with something more to the user's liking. For XFree86 4.x, this enables the replacement of the Files and Modules sections, and the addition of an arbitrary number of supplementary Device, InputDevice, Monitor, Screen, and ServerLayout sections. Sections that are never written by dexconf (ServerFlags, VideoAdaptor, Modes, and Vendor) can also be added, of course. The most obvious application of this functionality is to support additional input devices and multi-headed configurations, but another is the replacement of, for instance, the Device section with something more customized. For instance, the driver for your video card may be buggy and you may wish to add the 'Option NoAccel' flag to the Device section for your video card. Dexconf and the debconf questions associated with it do not support the plethora of possible options (many of them driver-specific), because it is not a very ambitious tool. The number one fact to remember about the XFree86 4.x server is that the first ServerLayout section encountered in the XF86Config-4 file is the one that is used by default. It is of course possible to add the -layout option to server invocations, either manually or by configuring xdm or xinit to do so by default (e.g., by editing /etc/X11/xinit/xserverrc and/or /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers). To implement the above example, then, I would add three sections to the configuration file generated by debconf: a Device section with 'Option NoAccel, a Screen section to use that Device in conjunction with a monitor, and a ServerLayout section to bind the Screen to input devices. If I want my new ServerLayout to be the default, I'll put it at the top of the XF86Config-4 file, before the debconf area. The Device and Screen sections can go either before or after the debconf area, but I'll put them before just to keep my customizations together. Also, I'll remember to give my new sections unique identifiers so that they don't collide with the identifiers used by debconf. Example: Section Device IdentifierCustom Device Driverati OptionNoAccel EndSection Section Screen Identifier Custom Screen Device Custom Device Monitor Generic Monitor DefaultDepth 24 Subsection Display Depth 8 Modes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024x768 800x600 640x480 EndSubsection Subsection Display Depth 16 Modes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024x768 800x600 640x480 EndSubsection Subsection Display Depth 24 Modes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024x768 800x600 640x480 EndSubsection EndSection Section ServerLayout IdentifierCustom ScreenCustom Screen InputDevice Generic Keyboard CoreKeyboard InputDevice Configured Mouse CorePointer EndSection ### BEGIN DEBCONF SECTION [snip] ### END DEBCONF SECTION Of course, my Generic Monitor, Generic Keyboard, and Configured Mouse should be defined in the debconf section of the file, but the identifier in the monitor section may be different, depending on what dexconf wrote to the file. -- G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist: It ain't a sin if you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't get caught. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Anthony Davidson pgpjpJcS06Qfr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: closed bug reports
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:25:58AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: Unless I am confused, shouldn't you open your own bug report then on libsdl-image rather than just closing mine? A bug was already filed against sdl-image1.2, #125928. If you simply close mine rather than leaving an open bug report doesn't that create the possibility that the libsdl-image and libsdl-dev maintainers will simply assume these reports are bogus... No, because the sdl-image maintainer has already been in touch with me about problems he had with his latest upload, and the SDL maintainer has granted me permission to upload the package as needed until this transition is complete. especially after your little tirade on the announce list. I don't care how they fix it but what you just did doesn't seem productive in getting it fixed. Stopping your campaign of disinformation strikes me as quite productive. -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgpI2wl8j5JCT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#126409 acknowledged by developer (bug submitter smoking
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 11:22:35AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: crack) I am puzzled then. What ever was the rational for creating a xlibs_pic package in that case. You obviously didn't read the messages the URL's in my announcement. Try again. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html You scream at the maintainer not to use static libs in shared libs yet you create the very thing, xlibs-pic, which allows him to violate your rule. Nope. The purpose of xlibs-pic is to serve plugins, not shared libraries. Think again, Hammurabi. Perhaps you meant to scream... Don't link static objects, that aren't built using the -fPIC or -fpic flags, into shared ones. This breaks on half the architectures in Debian. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200110/msg00353.html Otherwise you should depreciate out xlibs-pic since its only possible purpose would be to do the above. First, grab a dictionary and lookup depreciate and deprecate. Note the distinction. Second, xlibs-pic is a brand NEW package, not an old one that needs to be eliminated. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html -- G. Branden Robinson|There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux |Lincoln today -- just a rumor that [EMAIL PROTECTED] |is put about by people who have http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ |nowhere to live.-- G. L. Murfin pgpPOcyZfi7IA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sdl-image1.2 fixed
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:02:24PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: Branden and Christian, Sorry that I misunderstood that the fix for this was already in place in the current libsdl-image1.2 package. That's because Christian's latest upload of sdl-image1.2 didn't port forward all the changes from my NMU. See bug #125928, which had already been filed before you went on your little crusade. You'll note there's also a diff in the logs of that bug from me that fixes the library. [snip] The rest of your mail was bogus conclusions drawn from your bogus premises. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ | pgptlMcWTLzTZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: one last comment
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 04:21:32PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: Branden and Christian, I guess I don't follow the finer nuance here but these are the different compile lines generated from libtool without doing an autoconf before configure... gcc -shared IMG.lo IMG_bmp.lo IMG_gif.lo IMG_jpg.lo IMG_lbm.lo IMG_pcx.lo IMG_png.lo IMG_pnm.lo IMG_tga.lo IMG_tif.lo IMG_xcf.lo IMG_xpm.lo -L/usr/lib /usr/lib/libSDL.so -lpthread -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lXxf86dga -lXxf86vm -lXv /usr/lib/libjpeg.so -lpng -lz -Wl,-soname -Wl,libSDL_image-1.2.so.0 -o .libs/libSDL_image-1.2.so.0.1.0 ...and with doing an autoconf first before configure in libsdl-image1.2... gcc -shared IMG.lo IMG_bmp.lo IMG_gif.lo IMG_jpg.lo IMG_lbm.lo IMG_pcx.lo IMG_png.lo IMG_pnm.lo IMG_tga.lo IMG_tif.lo IMG_xcf.lo IMG_xpm.lo -L/usr/lib -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lXxf86dga -lXxf86vm -lXv /usr/lib/libjpeg.so -lpng -lz /usr/lib/libSDL.so -lpthread -Wl,-soname -Wl,libSDL_image-1.2.so.0 -o .libs/libSDL_image-1.2.so.0.1.0 Does this look correct now? I am surprised as this looks to be just a simple reordering of the linkage rather than anything that invokes the xlibs-pic versions of -lXxf86dga -lXxf86vm -lXv explicitly. Guess I'll need to reread the mailing list on that issue again. In any case, the second link command generates a good copy of libSDL_image-1.2.so.0.1.0. Or you could just read the bug logs of 125928 instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, and ending up with 4 right angles. -- G. Branden Robinson| When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ | his passengers. pgpXk6YM9B13v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: WARNING: Jack Howarth is an agent of destruction
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:18:37AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: This is absurd. You're right about that much. As for everything else... One of the problems with this Debian policy violation is that it is not always reproducible as a bug on other folks machines. However feel free to ask on debian-powerpc and the will confirm that it is in fact wrong to use non-fPIC static libs in a shared lib on ppc and in fact any arch under Debian. Branden seems to have gone off the deep end here. All I am trying to do is eliminate a serious policy violation in libsdl. YOU ARE ON CRACK. I DO DEVELOPMENT **DAILY** ON THE POWERPC AND IA64 ARCHITECTURES, BOTH OF WHICH DO NOT PERMIT THE LINKING OF STATIC OBJECTS WITHOUT RELOCATION INFORMATION INTO SHARED LIBRARIES. I SAW THIS BUG MONTHS AGO, AND SO DID MANY OTHER DEBIAN DEVELOPERS. WE ARE NOT BABES IN THE WOODS. I RESENT YOUR IMPLICATION THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON JUST AS I RESENT -- ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS -- THE MASSIVE SPAM ATTACK YOU LAUNCHED SEVERAL WEEKS AGO TRYING TO GET EVERYONE TO PUT -z combreloc INTO ALL OF THEIR BINARIES WHILE WE WERE (AND ARE) IN A FREEZE. PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND REALIZE THAT THE DEBIAN PROJECT EXISTED LONG BEFORE YOU BECAME COGNIZANT OF IT. MORE TO THE POINT, READ http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200110/msg00353.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html AND GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL THAT EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMN ONE OF THE POINTS YOU ARE RAISING HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. Again, I'm just reporting a real bug in these packages that impacts Debian ppc sid (and probably other arches). Don't flame me just because you don't want to hear a real problem. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200110/msg00353.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html AGAIN, THE PROBLEM WAS WELL-KNOWN LONG BEFORE YOU PRANCED IN HERE WITH YOUR BAD ATTITUDE. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman pgpbqYOIY0594.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why does xlibs-pic exist?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 11:43:18AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: After a number of rants from Branden I rather confused now as to why xlibs-pic exists at all. THIS IS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html -- G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche pgpb0hzt13iFJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libsdl-image1.2
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:19:49PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: Ok. I see Branden's NMU declaration for changing the use of the static libs in SDL related packages. Still when I read the change log for libsdl-image1.2 I find... sdl-image1.2 (1.2.1-1) unstable; urgency=low * new upstream version * tried to add Brandens fixes again in Makefile.am, aclocal.m4 and configure.in * re-ran libtoolize --force --copy; aclocal; automake --foreign; autoconf -- Christian T. Steigies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:21:39 -0500 I assume this is an implementation of Branden's suggestions from... http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200110/msg00353.html If it is...it isn't working on Debian ppc sid. We still get the static versions of the libs. AS I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU AT LEAST TWICE, THIS IS BECAUSE CHRISTIAN DID NOT GET ALL OF MY CHANGES PORTED FORWARD. http://bugs.debian.org/125928 http://bugs.debian.org/125928 http://bugs.debian.org/125928 http://bugs.debian.org/125928 http://bugs.debian.org/125928 http://bugs.debian.org/125928 http://bugs.debian.org/125928 _____ _ __ __ ___ ___ _ _ | _ \| | / \ | _ \ |_ _|_ _| | \/ |/ _ \| _ \ / _ \| \ | | | |_) | _| / _ \ | | | | | | | | | |\/| | | | | |_) | | | | \| | | _ | |___ / ___ \| |_| | | | | |_ | | | | |_| | _ | |_| | |\ | |_| \_\_/_/ \_\/ |___| |_( ) |_| |_|\___/|_| \_\\___/|_| \_| |/ -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpSaiP5nVJT8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: one last comment
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 05:24:00PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: I thought they taught social skills in England. A little empathy never killed anyone. I have no empathy for people who spout egregious falsehoods about complex scenarios without bothering to do even basic research. Never mail me again. All mail from you is spam. -- G. Branden Robinson|There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux |Lincoln today -- just a rumor that [EMAIL PROTECTED] |is put about by people who have http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ |nowhere to live.-- G. L. Murfin pgpKWguRA7V63.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 11:50:11AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: I'm willing to accept the quake2-engine in non-us as long as it is Eh? non-us? Did the Supreme Court just uphold COPA and declare Quake2 harmful to minors or something? -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpJFwhyDJbZj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Flamewars Why pedantic spelling is good.
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:52:41PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: OTOH, it's kind of amusing to read someone who can't spell attempt to harangue me over spelling. It's kind of amusing to observe someone who can't perceive the practical differences between package descriptions and conversational mail messages. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure [EMAIL PROTECTED] | universe will now reboot http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp1UEdVT0fWp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. But that's obviously not the case. A game engine, especially one coded in large part by a luminary in the fieldlike John Carmack, is interesting and useful (to programmers) in its own right. We wouldn't stick a Free compiler or interpreter for some new-fangled programming language in contrib simply because no Free programs written in that language were yet packaged for Debian. I would, however, be tempted to mark such an engine as Priority extra until Free game levels were packaged for Debian, so that Debian's many non-programming users would not get their hopes up at being able to play the game in Debian as distributed. -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton pgpK9ugzb19HE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Flamewars Why pedantic spelling is good.
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:37:47PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: I never said that my spelling of that was correct. And seen Branden's response(mail(like irc) is conversational, similiar to spoken speech, and therefor has no need for spelling rules to be applied to it). I wouldn't go that far. It's just that correctness in detail, while not insignificant in conversational contexts, is far less important than it is in formal documentation. -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire pgpyhz4BP1zlC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:53:06AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Several emulators (apple2, atari800, gnuboy, gsnes9x, gtkiemu, nestra pose, uae, vice, and xtrs) from contrib should also move to main immediately then, as you can't argue that there will never be free ROMs for those either. Further, they could be educational. Does this sound absurd yet? Not to me. As long as these packages had a debconf note that warned of the problem, I wouldn't consider it a big deal. These packages are all priority extra, right? In fact, I would consider it acceptable in general to move everything in contrib to main as long as it each package was forced to be priority extra until it was suitable for general-purpose use as packaged in main (including any dependencies, of course). OTOH, I don't feel passionately about it, so if people are wedded to the concept of the contrib distribution, so be it... -- G. Branden Robinson| To be is to do -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | To do is to be -- Aristotle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do be do be do -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpa2XW71wsNL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:03:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Well, clearly after making the package from scratch, the next step is to get it into the archive, and responsibility for that is with ftpmaster, so let's reassign the bug to ftp.debian.org ...typically requires human intervention. Well, clearly after making a version of the package that fixes the bug, the next step is to get it into the archive, and responsibility for that is with ftpmaster, so let's reassign the bug to ftp.debian.org ...typically does not. -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpkkT05HduYe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 06:38:46PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit Well, the bug could be reassigned to wnpp,ftp.debian.org. That should work with the current BTS without changing anything. I think it should be kept to wnpp. At least, so that we have a distinction between ITP that has been withdrawn, and an ITP that is going to be fulfilled. That seems completely orthogonal to the proposal. * If an ITP is being withdrawn and no package has been uploaded yet, then the bug hasn't already been reassigned to wnpp,ftp.debian.org and it can be retitled RFP: as usual * If an ITP is being withdrawn and a package has already been uploaded, but is not installable because overrides/database updates are still pending, the package should be deleted from incoming (would happen under existing policy anyway), the bug retitled (would happen under existing policy), and reassigned back to just wnpp (new step). * If an ITP is being withdrawn and the package is already in the archive, the ITP bug should already have been closed. The usual RFA/ITO rules apply here. I think it is probably rare that a person will withdraw his ITP after actually uploading a package. It's about new packages, after all. And not everything related to ftp.debian.org needs to be at ftp.debian.org. Why is that? It's generally accepted practice that bugs against my packages, for instance, should be assigned to my packages, not someone else's. As I said before, this proposal makes it easy to tell when the ball is in the FTP admins' court, without requiring any special action from them under normal circumstances (that is, they vet the package and accept it into the archive). When a package has to be rejected, I can think of no better place for the information than the ITP bug report. I suppose it would also be necessary for a rejected package to be reassigned back to just wnpp, but this sort of thing seems pretty scriptable (and even if not, it's a one-liner in shell if you have devscripts installed[1]). [1] bts reassign 123456 wnpp -- G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche pgpMEarxRZUrc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:46:57AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My two cents... If the bug stayed with wnpp (as opposed to being reassigned to ftp.debian.org) Keep in mind, these are not the only alternatives. I've modified my proposal in response to a good point that Marcelo Magallon made. It is possible for bugs to be assigned to more than one package: reassign 123456 wnpp,ftp.debian.org This makes the bug show up in the indices for both packages. It seems like a good application of this seldom-used feature of the BTS. Again, under normal circumstances (package maintainer created a good package and included the Closes: ITP bug in the package changelog), this requires no special action from the FTP admins whatever. I would expect the package maintainer to do the above reassignment when uploading the package. On top of everything else, the above could be automated in a tool like debrelease. -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpnK6Q063LcB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:59:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:35:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: You are not going to harass us into special casing you. I wouldn't dream of it, hence the proposal in this thread. Uh, and you figure making people mail the BTS specially for each new package uploaded What proposal were you reading? It sure doesn't sound like the one I wrote: When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org. If you have a problem with people filing bugs with the BTS to declare their intent to package each new package they intend to upload, I suggest you talk to the WNPP team ASAP. (instead of adding a Closes line to the changelog), The package changelog can and should still use Closes: #ITP bugnumber, so that the bug is closed automatically and filing, what, a dozen new bugs against ftp.debian.org every week is something other than harassment [0]? I'm sorry, I don't understand where you're getting the new bugs from. ITP bugs already exist in the BTS. Why, btw, are you uploading a NEW package with the maintainer set to -qa, especially when -qa has already asked for the package to be removed from the distro? That's usually considered somewhat irresponsible. Did you read the changelog of the uploaded package? It appears in the bug logs of #113360. [0] A few weeks ago, the term would've been bug terrorism, but maybe not now. Thankfully(?), you've kept the meme alive with this message. -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgpO0sQGOGmtk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:54:43AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 09:53:26AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: However, the more people are involved, the more coordination has to be done. And considering we're all antisocial disobliging SoBs, this is a fatal flaw ; Joey's just worried that too many people can get a hold of his token. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpECM17efIY5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MUAs and Locking Was: Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:33:04AM -0500, Scott Dier wrote: * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [010925 22:59]: Why, btw, are you uploading a NEW package with the maintainer set to -qa, especially when -qa has already asked for the package to be removed from It's absouletly horrid code to look at and has a locking scheme I wish not to overhaul to get into the fnctl, then dotlock policy. Right now it seems to dotlock only, never fnctl. It might not be a bad idea for MUA maintainers to check on how their packages handle the munging of mailboxes. This can be a pretty 'critical' thing because users using NFS mounted mailspools can quickly lose whole spools with bad locking practices. This is well and good, but offtopic. This thread isn't (supposed to be) about xmailtool, it's about ITP bug reports being in a state that more accurately represents what's going on with the corresponding packages. I posted no ITP for xmailtool, for two reasons: 1) It wasn't really new, since madison knew about it, and it exists in the current release of Debian; and 2) I wasn't sure I wanted to maintain it. If xmailtool implements brain-dead mail locking, I'm pretty sure I don't want to dirty my hands with it. -- G. Branden Robinson| If you have the slightest bit of Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual integrity you cannot [EMAIL PROTECTED] | support the government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- anonymous pgpuEZLSVeKMT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: Rather than making it to be reassigned to something else, it might be better to retitle it to make it look ITP-uploaded: package - description or Uploaded: package - description and still assigned to wnpp. It will make clearer which packages are still in preparation and which are not (which is not obvious in the current state), and not make ftp.debian.org overloaded with bugs. I don't really see how retitling is any better than reassigning. As with account creation for New Maintainers, inclusion of an uploaded package with an ITP bug against it is the final stage in the realization of the new package. We don't have fully fledged new developers until their accounts are created; we don't have fully fledged new packages until dinstall/katie can pull them into the archive. Also, I don't think ftp.debian.org will be overloaded with open bugs; getting new packages that have been ITP'ed into the archive is just as important a function as removing packages that have been orphaned, and we file bugs for that. Furthermore, as I said, this gives a place for people to post reasons why a package may not be acceptable for inclusion into the archive. Finally, should the ftp.debian.org buglist start to back up, it might serve as a useful barometer telling us that we need to add members to the team. (As they are delegates of the Project Leader, though, it's up to the DPL to make this call, as I understand it.) But it's one more step to the procedure, and I guess it will add to the confusion / manual mistakes. That could be a risk. Does it outweigh the benefits? -- G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks pgpG81xPuCuYp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 08:42:18PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: I can understand your argument for reassigning the bugs and in principle I agree with it. My only objection is that people would have to check http://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org instaed of http://bugs.debian.org/wnpp or http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp to find out about uploaded packages. Making www.d.o/devel/wnpp fetch the relevent ftp.d.o bugs would be trivial. Well, the bug could be reassigned to wnpp,ftp.debian.org. That should work with the current BTS without changing anything. In general it's a bad idea to assign a bug to more than one package, but this might be one of those cases where it makes sense. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is omniscience hell? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpclcRXhed44.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Potato to Woody upgrade problem
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:28:39AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: On the installation in question the Xservers file has everything commented out. The default-display-manager file contains the line: /usr/bin/X11/wdm I put the correct line into the Xservers file and wdm comes up as expected! Thanks! (what process should have put this in?) High-priority debconf questions from gdm, kdm, wdm, and xdm. Now I seem to have some font problems. Netscape seems to be OK, but the GIMP comes up with [] [] [] [] [] in place of the hint text. The title bars are OK but any filled in text is just [] repeated. Any hints? Debian X Window System Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) List [...] *) I recently upgraded some packages, and now instead of readable text, some characters appear as little gray boxes. Why? A long-standing bug in many X clients and the widget libraries they use was recently brought to light by the addition of fonts encoded in ISO 10646-1 (Unicode in common parlance) to the X Window System. The details are highly technical. The short answer: It's a bug in the application, or the widget toolkit (e.g., GTK+) that it uses. The authors and maintainers of all commonly-used widget libraries are aware of the problem and a fix will likely appear in the future (or may already be available by the time you read this). It is not -- repeat *NOT* -- a bug in the X server, the X libraries, the X fonts, or anything having to do with the XFree86 packages. The long answer, courtesy of Markus Kuhn: (from http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/fonts/2001-March/000569.html) ANNOUNCEMENT AND WARNING: The classic and widely used X11 BDF bitmap font families -misc-fixed-*, -adobe-*, and -bh-* have been extended from ISO8859-1 to ISO10646-1 (Unicode) to accommodate users of more languages and mathematical symbols under X11 and to facilitate the migration towards UTF-8. They are available on http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/download/ucs-fonts-75dpi100dpi.tar.gz Most likely, XFree86 4.1 will include these *-iso10646-1 fonts, so they will become quickly widely installed. Unfortunately, GTK+ 1.2.3 contained a bug that was triggered by the mere presence of a certain Unicode font, namely -Adobe-Helvetica-Medium-R-Normal--12-120-75-75-P-67-ISO10646-1 In gtk/gtkstyle.c, the line gdk_font_load (-adobe-helvetica-medium-r-normal--*-120-*-*-*-*-*-*); simply picks the first font in the alphabet that matches the wildcard. With the ISO10646-1 fonts present, this will be -Adobe-Helvetica-Medium-R-Normal--12-120-75-75-P-67-ISO10646-1 instead of -Adobe-Helvetica-Medium-R-Normal--12-120-75-75-P-67-ISO8859-1 Getting an ISO10646-1 font instead of an ISO8859-1 font should normally not make a big difference to an application. The latter is just a superset of the former, it contains in the first 256 glyph positions the same Latin-1 characters as the old ISO8859-1 font and just consumes a bit more memory. Almost all X clients survive the addition of an ISO10646-1 font or even the replacement of all ISO8859-1 fonts by ISO10646-1 fonts without any problem. GTK+ 1.2.3 broke badly, because gdk/gdkfont.c contained several unfortunate code pieces that tested whether a font contained any characters 0xff and then treated any string written out in such a font as a (Japanese, etc.) EUC coded string of 16-bit values. So if you tried to print 8-bit text with an ISO10646-1 font, all you saw were default character boxes. For this reason, XFree86 delayed the introduction of ISO10646-1 versions of the Adobe fonts by a year after I reported this GTK+ bug in 1999-08-06 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This year is soon over. Newer versions of GTK+ (I just looked at 1.2.9) fixed this problem by explicitly specifying *-iso8859-1 in the default font. So I hope nothing too bad will happen if XFree86 4.1 adds the new fonts soon. However there might still be numerous older GTK+ applications around for which an update or workaround will be necessary. You hereby have been warned! Other clients and toolkits have similar issues anytime they request a font with no specific character set or encoding in the request, but make assumptions about the properties of the font they get back (for instance, that it contains no more than 256 codepoints). The moral? Don't claim to not care about such things as character set encodings if you actually do care. If you want ISO 8859-1, ask for it. -- G. Branden Robinson| Suffer before God and ye shall be Debian GNU/Linux | redeemed. God loves us, so He [EMAIL PROTECTED] | makes us suffer Christianity. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Aaron Dunsmore pgp4mCoDfkSIE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Potato to Woody upgrade problem
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 06:16:37PM +0300, Jaakko Niemi wrote: Perhaps the packages could do something about it. This is certainly FAQ material. Yeah, hence the fact that my message to Dale quoted from my own FAQ, available in xfree86-common. -- G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpy6DKC9lojr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Potato to Woody upgrade problem
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 11:18:49AM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote: One thing, though. After Branden's NMU of wdm 1.20-11.2, /etc/X11/wdm/Xservers has all X server lines commented out. It used to be that the postinst would uncomment one if the user requested it that wdm be used to manage :0. Since the debconf default-display-manager mechanism is now used to determine which display manager runs, shouldn't wdm/Xservers contain a valid server line for :0? Yes. Did I do that? Oops. Sorry. When you do your next MU, please also make the following change to the prerm (see #113070): if [ $THIS_PACKAGE = $RET ]; then db_fset shared/default-x-display-manager isdefault true db_input critical shared/default-x-display-manager || true db_go db_get shared/default-x-display-manager + if [ -e $DEFAULT_DISPLAY_MANAGER_FILE ] \ + [ $(cat $DEFAULT_DISPLAY_MANAGER_FILE) != $THIS_DISPLAY_MANAGER ]; then + rm $DEFAULT_DISPLAY_MANAGER_FILE + fi message Please be sure to run \dpkg-reconfigure $RET\. -- G. Branden Robinson| Why do we have to hide from the Debian GNU/Linux | police, Daddy? [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs. pgpjnAcXZnizn.pgp Description: PGP signature
PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
See http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ for reference. When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org. The package changelog can and should still use Closes: #ITP bugnumber, so that the bug is closed automatically, but this way it is clear that the matter is out of the (prospective) package maintainer's hands, or those of the WNPP group, and in that of the FTP maintainers. If a package is rejected by the FTP admins, they should email the bug number and explain why. If by its very nature a package can't be accepted into the project, perhaps the bug should retitled UTP [unable to package] and reassigned to wnpp. Advantages: 1) This better reflects the actual process by which packages get into Debian, and who is responsible for a package at a given stage of its life-cycle. 2) This gives the FTP admins a place to put information relevant to the process of accepting (or not) a new package into the archive. For instance, here's part of the output of ls -hlrt on auric's incoming directory: -rw-r--r--1 philhDebian 1.2k Jul 3 02:31 memoization_1.0-4_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 viralDebian 1007 Jul 3 13:49 kernel-patch-folk_1.10-1_hppa.changes -rw-rw-r--1 troupDebian 1.0k Jul 6 13:25 mnews_1.22PL5-1_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 troupDebian 1000 Aug 29 16:50 sword-comm-mhcc_1.1-1_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 troupDebian 1019 Aug 29 17:01 sword-dict-naves_1.1-1_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 was Debian988 Sep 1 22:21 csmash-demosong_1.0_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 chanop Debian 1.2k Sep 15 02:59 libjpeg-mmx_0.1.3-1_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 chanop Debian 1.3k Sep 15 03:03 libmpeg3_1.4-1_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 chanop Debian 1.1k Sep 15 07:43 bcast_2000c-1_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 branden Debian 1.5k Sep 18 09:43 xmailtool_3.1.2b-1.4_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 gibreel Debian 1.9k Sep 19 12:43 j2se1.3-powerpc_1.3.0-1_powerpc.changes -rw-r--r--1 gibreel Debian 2.1k Sep 20 13:28 j2se1.3-i386_1.3.1-1.1_i386.changes -rw-r--r--1 marillat Debian 1.3k Sep 21 10:46 rte_0.3.1-1_i386.changes Some of those packages have been there quite a while. Some of them, like the FOLK collection of kernel packages, and Broadcast 2000, are quite interesting, but I'm not sure where to look for information about why they haven't been accepted yet (other new packages have been in the meantime). After xmailtool sat in the incoming queue for several days, I filed a bug against ftp.debian.org http://bugs.debian.org/113300. Hi, xmailtool is one of those de facto unmaintained packages that hasn't seen an upload since potato released. I uploaded an NMU on September 18th that fixes a serious bug in the package (it has a file overlap with xlibs, which might actually be a grave bug, not just serious). Please add xmailtool to the katie database. madison knows about the version in stable, if that's any help. The bug was quickly closed by one of the FTP admins: xmailtool is a NEW package. It will be processed as normal. You are not going to harass us into special casing you by filing hysterical bug reports. So I replied: Please quote to me the part of the report that was hysterical, so I can avoid using such language in the future. The FTP admins' only further reply was to the BTS control bot: tags 113360 wontfix severity 113360 wishlist thanks Bored now. Clearly not a very productive exchange. Apparently the package is never to be accepted into Debian, and the FTP admins have not explained why. Disadvantages: I can't think of any. Comments? WNPP guys, what do you think? -- G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked Debian GNU/Linux |like in a spotlight. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Jim Morrison http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpbeezA7Bfuq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:57:50AM +0100, James Troup wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Apparently the package is never to be accepted into Debian, Err, no, I never said that. Exhibit 1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=113360msg=11repeatmerged=yes From: James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 25 Sep 2001 19:18:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lines: 8 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tags 113360 wontfix severity 113360 wishlist thanks Bored now. Exhibit 2: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities wontfix This bug won't be fixed. Possibly because this is a choice between two arbitrary ways of doing things and the maintainer and submitter prefer different ways of doing things, possibly because changing the behaviour will cause other, worse, problems for others, or possibly for other reasons. Did you tag the bug wontfix in error? -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpbWWZqJwIK7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:22:19AM +0100, James Troup wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: tags 113360 wontfix severity 113360 wishlist thanks Which means since you won't leave the bug closed, I'll mark it wontfix instead. That doesn't alter my statement in the close mail and repeated here on -devel. Since you don't seem to (want to) understand, I'll try one more time: xmailtool will be processed as normal. So in other words, the request in the subject line of the bug report please add xmailtool to overrides/katie database? will actually be done at some point? How does that mesh with the wontfix tag, or closing the report? If you do actually intend to resolve the report using the method suggested by the submitter, that sounds like an ordinary bug fix to me. The kind of report you close when the matter is resolved. You are not going to harass us into special casing you. I wouldn't dream of it, hence the proposal in this thread. Anyway, as it stands, people with the current version of the package installed will be dealing with Bug #112645, which makes it difficult to upgrade a box to testing. The urgency field of a package upload is meaningless if a package can't be processed because of changes that need to happen to the katie database first. Is that a deliberate or accidental policy? -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpnajHYC4Cwd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Q]: GNU inetutils and debian inetutils not in sync??
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 03:43:27AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 07:20:23AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: GNU inetutils is a FSF implementation, ours is the original BSD. The FSF is re-implementing long existing code so that they can GPL it. Uh, this is dead wrong, at least in the case of inetutils. The GNU inetutils started out as a port of the BSD code to the GNU Hurd platform, and it was done by Miles Bader. In a desire to do the right thing, the code was actually modified to be portable across many systems. There are plans to do more with the code (new features etc). Of course the package is GPL'ed (just like sysklogd is GPL'ed, although it is forked from the BSD code), but that is not the motivation. Stop combatting hysteria with the facts. Don't you know that's not how this Project is supposed to work? -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpoytqcPGQhs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: default font resolution in X Windows
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:22:00PM +0200, Matthias Berse wrote: meaning it should be changed back?! Anyway my main concern about the font resolution is that many programs break, because they expect the fonts being 75dpi. File bugs against those programs. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure [EMAIL PROTECTED] | universe will now reboot http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpJr56bPCKES.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: default font resolution in X Windows
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:10:44PM +0200, Matthias Berse wrote: Anyway, could you, Branden point out, or give me a pointer to, why this change happened from using 75dpi to 100dpi? I just want a good reason to give to all those people, who tell me the fontsize sucks. Because of the popularity of 17 and larger monitors, and the fact that the dpi's actually in use are closer to 100dpi than 75dpi these days. It's not 1990 anymore. -- G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are Debian GNU/Linux |venerable because they are more [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fruitful than the truths of little http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |men. -- Friedrich Nietzsche pgpl1cuG42s0t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A language by any other name
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 02:37:15PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Steve Langasek writes: en_UK is English as spoken in the United Kingdom. While en_GB is english as spoken in Great Britain. Perhpas one of the residents thereof can explain the difference. Well, I'm not a resident thereof, but at least at some point, the official name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. AIUI, the island on which you find England, Scotland, and Wales is called Britain. I'm not sure how Great modifies that unless it's to include some of the smaller outlying islands, like the Shetlands and the Isle of Man. Now, I'll let some Brit come along and tell us all how I've got all that 100% wrong. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton pgp1ZnAfnj7Zs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: default font resolution in X Windows
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:06:50PM +0200, Matthias Berse wrote: I'd like to know, how I could accomplish that X Screen font res. will not default to 100dpi. That is probably not going to happen. Don't get me wrong I don't claim that it should be 75dpi by default, BUT there are so many questions asked while configuring X, so why not one more? Because debconf is not a registry. The files that need to be edited are conffiles and debconf cannot touch them, per Debian policy. -- G. Branden Robinson| The greatest productive force is Debian GNU/Linux | human selfishness. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpVWN3T5SGDZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: neat mutt bug.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:17:37AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Sep 16 03:12:37 2001) --] gpg: Signature made Thu Sep 13 20:30:20 2001 PDT using DSA key ID 2B46A27C gpg: Good signature from Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg: aka Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg: Fingerprint: 1573 D544 73C3 988F 0096 3E4F EA4C 661F 2B46 A27C [-- End of PGP output --] [-- The following data is signed --] Interesting highlighting bug in mutt -- could confuse an unsuspecting person into thinking Branden actually signed this. [-- End of signed data --] /me has a heart attack -- G. Branden Robinson| Yesterday upon the stair, Debian GNU/Linux | I met a man who wasn't there. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | He wasn't there again today, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | I think he's from the CIA. pgpMFSzjWNHDk.pgp Description: PGP signature
