Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality
Non-free software sets back the whole community. It is non-free, nobody can develop on it, the author wants the rights for himself (greed). free software lets all code and share and create, everybody wins. non-free, only the developer wins, and those that have enough money to buy free software lets poor countries use pcs. We should abandon non-free software as much as possible. If all software was free, we would have a lot more useable programs. Don't code for profit, code for fun Keep the profit at work, but I certainly wouldn't charge in my sparetime If you code on something you are hired to do, then its fine you charge, because you can't say what you want to code on, your employeer decides so If you code in your sparetime you are free, and you should spread that freedom, not imprisonment On Sat, 04 Jul 2015, Jan Gloser wrote: Hello Lumin, I am not an active member of the debian community, just a listener on this thread, but you got my attention. I also admire free software makers although I think one must always keep in mind the reality of the world and the rules of the game called 'trade'. Software is a product like any other. It requires care, time and considerable effort to develop. With the advent of cheap, affordable computers people somehow started to think that everything in this domain should be free. Well, I don't really think so. If you go to the market and want to get some apples, it's only fair that you pay for the apples. It's your way to say to the apple-seller: Hey, I appreciate what you're doing. Take the money and continue growing and delivering apples so that me and people like me can buy them when we want. I think non-free software is not inherently bad. Every programmer likes to get paid (or at least I do). Programmers usually get paid a lot and that gives them some room - that allows them to give something back for free. But you must carefully decide where the line is - what you can give for free and what you must charge others for. Because the reality is there. If you give everything for free you won't be able to survive in this global 'game of monopoly' that we are all playing - and that also means you won't be able to give ANYTHING back. I think the free software movement is partly an outgrowth of the times when just a few people really had the software-making know-how, or a few companies. And these companies charged ridiculous prices. It's very good that these companies have competition today in the form of free software so that users can ask: Hey, this software I can get for free. What extra can you give me? Why do you charge so much? I am definitely against over-pricing. But I am also definitely not against charging a reasonably price. It would be really nice if we didn't have to care about money at all. Let's say you would make software and give it for free. If you needed a house, you would go to someone who specializes in that and he would build the house for you, for free. If you needed shoes ... you get my point, right? Then we could live like a huge happy tribe, sharing everything we have. This is a very nice philosophy. It has a history though. It also has a name. Communism. And history has shown us that communism on a large scale does not work. So from my perspective - feel free to use non-free software, but remember to pay for it, at least if the price is reasonable ;-). And if it is not - make a better alternative and either charge for it or give it away for free. All depends on how much money you need for your own survival. Cheers, Jan On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:55 PM, lumin cdlumin...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Debian community, I long for becoming a Debian member, always. However now I get into trouble with the problem of Spirit of Free software or Reality. I wonder how Debian interprets it's Spirit of Free Software. (Certainly Social Contract and DFSG don't refer much detail) As we know, getting into the stage where as the same as Richard.M.Stallman (i.e. Resists any non-free stuff, thoroughly ) is very hard for an ordinary person, as well as me. Even though, many people are trying their best to protect their software freedom, with several careful compromises to non-free blobs. Several years ago I was influenced by Debian's insist on Freesoftware, and then trying to gradually block non-free matters away, and was very happy doing that, because I protected my computer away from those terrible non-free softwares and got myself stayed in a clean, pure computer environment. Blocking non-free blobs away, does it means partially blinding one's eye for teenagers? In order to get touched with the world outside of freesoftware, sometimes indeed we need to compromise with non-free blobs, at least temporarily. After all freesoftware communities and opensource software communities occupies only a tiny proportion of human. Hence my strategy was changed.
debian installer, install listofpackages.txt in CD root dir after end install?
It would be very cool if the debian installer had a listofpackages.txt and that listofpackages.txt could be edited by the user then we would be getting customized debian installs some people would edit and tell it to auto install: - zsh - lilo instead of grub - lukssetup (crypt thing) - ext3 instead of ext4 - Xfree86 instead of Xorg - systemX instead of systemY etc. :-) would be very cool if this was possible it is hard to do everyone right in the installer so most people will have to install afterwards but not if this was possible they could make their own perfect debian install cd would be a sysadm's dream.. also the geeks dream of course there is debootstrap too, but it would be cool if the debian installer could be made like this too just dragdrop a list of installpackages.txt into base of debian install CD then the CD finds that list and replaces grub with lilo in end of install if needed and sysX with sysY if specificed in list would be the ultimate customization, we would get wikis filled with packagelists for custom debian cds the biggest problem is we would get nonsupported debian dists, could be a big problem people claiming they use official debian, but then own packages in installer still think it would be very cool... debootstrap can provide this, but debian installer can't do this easily only if you are a debian programmer do you know how to do it probably... until then I prefer to use debootstrap, I don't like to use the installer because it forces me to use certain packages i.e. it installs grub and newest kernel for me, which I might not want or it installs sysX instead of SysY I know I am picky... and lazy I do really like the ssh connection to the installer though this is just a last suggestion, would make perfect debian installers if this was possible override all packages after end install if custompackages.txt exists in CD directory of if it exists on a usbstick on the pc that gets automounted unlimited configuration possibilities! I could tell it to install an old kernel, a custom compiled kernel etc. I often use custom kernels... would have to install those manually after installing as it is now many sysadms use custom kernels they have compiled for debian themselves as it is now they have to debootstrap or install normal debian dist then copy it over afterwards with this im suggesting they could make their own debian installer with their custom kernel on custom bootloader etc. custom kernel is ALSO just a simple .deb package to install! lilo bootloader is too so that listofpackages.txt should just contain .deb filenames to install after end of installation! would be very unique to the debian installer if this was possible all people would stop complaining, almost ;) we would be getting : debian-simplified debian-for-sysadms debian-for-geeks debian-for-lilousers debian-for-sysV-users and many more custom installers (custompackage lists in wikis) On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Russ Allbery wrote: Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes: We do tell users of Debian what to do - that's part of the problem right now. We told the users they will switch init systems, and a large portion (or at least a vocal portion) don't want to. Well, no, we didn't. We said that there would be a different default, which is not the same thing. The project hasn't made a decision about switching, and also, at present, sysvinit is still fully supported (modulo the normal pre-release bugs). The current systemd / GR issue would not be happening if the project had not said the default init system shall be init system. Had the project said we have the following init systems available: list of init systems and let the other package dependencies drive the user's selection then users would fell there was a little more choice in the matter. Right now, GNOME seems to be the primary driver for requiring systemd. If you don't use a graphical environment, you don't need systemd but you are forced to at least install it on a new build. Various people were discussing the installer experience elsewhere, and whether enough users care about this to warrant making a sysvinit install an option directly in the installer. I don't think this is any sort of fudamental decision we've already made; it's a debate over UI experiences. In other words, I don't think this is anywhere near as central to the argument as you seem to think. If I'm wrong, that's great news -- if all of this argument could go away by just tweaking the installer UI, that would be fantastic. But I'm dubious. If there are two opposing sides, then there are two maintainers willing to maintain the packages. If there are not, the package without a maintainer looses by default. Ah, see, I also believe this, which is exactly why I'm so upset about the current GR. The proposed GR (the first option) is exactly about overriding the normal practice
some dev suggestions from oldtime user: /usr/src source packages, non-forced bootloader, even more simple base-install with no GUI installer seriously
Just installed debian on an old amd32 platform, it booted in 4-5 seconds !:) debian + GNU base, love it debian is one of the last dists to create a no fuzz installer, only installer that is tolerable to me so I hope the baseinstall will be made even more non-gui in the future and perhaps apt-get all-source to fetch all sourcecodes for all programs on the system I miss gentoo like that, having all sources in /usr/src or such with debian I have to manually apt-src when I find something I want to hack but I would like to hack anything at any time, to have source for any program in /usr/src automatically auto updated too is this coming in debian 8.0 ?:) fully populated /usr/src , would be so neat, any geek would get an orgasm just by hearing about it and an option to not be forced to using grub as the boot loader in installer, before there was a lilo option that was easy to chose I love the debootstrap program for debian too, takes 2minutes to debootstrap a debian onto a HD like no other dist... keep up the good work!:) can't live without debootstrap or debian base installs if only I could get the last thing missing in life... fully populated /usr/src for easy hacking On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, John Goerzen wrote: Debian is a making-the-world-better project, a caring for people project, a freedom-spreading project. Free Software is our tool. [...] My plea is that we each may get angry at what matters, and let go of the smaller frustrations in life; that we may each find something more important than init/systemd to derive enjoyment and meaning from. [5] Thank you for your message. It might not be what I was thinking when I joined Debian but over time it has became clear to me that there's more than just having fun building the best operating system, though this is still a core motivation and we should be very cautious to not destroy the fun others are having, even when when we don't share their opinions. To all the persons who are going to be disappointed, please follow John's advice or find a better way to channel your anger into something positive (either in Debian or somewhere else, it's not a big deal). Don't use it against other Debian contributors, because you would only contribute to destroy what we have built together. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110081330.gc5...@home.ouaza.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110084353.ga26...@rlogin.dk
free choice in installer?
If there was a choice in the installer for Init system and boot loader there would be nobody complaining. People only complain when there isn't a choice and they are forced to use something new. I.e. forced to use ext4 instead of ext3 forced to use grub instead of lilo forced to use systemX instead of systemY forced to use GUI desktop crap when they want a server (ubuntu) On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Holger Levsen wrote: Good morning, On Montag, 10. November 2014, John Goerzen wrote: Good afternoon, [...] May you each find that airplane to soar freely in the skies, to lift your soul so that the joy of using Free Software to make the world a better place may still be here, regardless of what /sbin/init is. thanks for your nice words, John. I very much agree with what you wrote. I read them on planet as one of the first things while waking up - it was a nice way to wake up :) [...] cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110101512.ga4...@rlogin.dk
Re: LSB headers and other junk, how do you hack a quick init script in debian these days?
Who needs to document their own pc they hack on daily? suddenly I couldnt just place a script in rc2.d folder anymore, needed to symlink needed to add an lsb header too it seems maybe I'm overlooking something I prefer to hack on my own without using debian tools, update-rc.d i.e. would be nice to be able to place a script in rc2.d folder again, even though it isn't a symlink it seems that 'feature' has been removed in the new debians I wouldn't do it at work/anywhere where documentation is important though but why force people to document / use the right tools? I prefer an OS that is easy to hack around debian init scripts is something that frustrates me often, because I can't just hack them easily need to symlink in different folders or use the debian tool got no experience with sysV or whatever it uses, only bash programming which I am fairly good with so it frustrates me that hacking initscripts should be so annoying at times :P it used to work good back in the days, I could just add an S99mio and that would get executed after booting not anymore, now it needs to be symlinked and all it seems there used to be an /etc file one could edit to make boot scripts anyone remember which one? rc.local or such I think, but not sure anymore, debian has changed a bit lately it seems How do you hack a quick init script these days?:) On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: Hey Paul, I really appreciate your feedback. Glad to see that at least, systemd in Debian have some boundaries. Whew! Tks! I'll try to disable html messages for all Debian Lists at my GMail account right now, sorry about that. Nevertheless, I'm not flaming (not my intention, really), I care about Debian. ;-) Cheers! Thiago ** We don't need kdbus @ PID 1. It did not got merged into Linux 3.15... Think about it.* ** uselessd might replace systemd, since it have all that CGroups cool stuff, without systemd's useless bits. We just need a new udev! :-P* On 21 October 2014 02:21, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: Please do not use HTML mail on Debian lists. Please do not flame on Debian lists. https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: tried it without success, lots of bugs popped everywhere when with systemd), Please file bugs about issues you find in Debian packages: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html ... So, is systemd even trying to replace dpkg+apt too? No. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021064119.ga31...@rlogin.dk
Re: Reality check.
Geeks don't complain Geeks don't worry :-) On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Bjoern Meier: I entirely concur his language was unacceptable. Really? All that because of that a human being used an emotional language? Yes. Human beings are perfectly able to communicate dislike for another human's actions in a way that does not imply disrespect for that person. Therefore, not using that ability implies a bunch of ideas like don't care whether the person this is directed at is hurt/offended/?!?, don't care if this list is full of invectives and personal attacks, it's OK not to differentiate between personal attacks and disagreements about $SUBJECT, and whatnot. The exact implications depend on the recipients' culture and socialization, which is why this is not an easy problem to solve. Especially if the sender does not understand that. Is a proper language more useful than that we? There are enough people out there who choose not to participate in an environment where that kind of language is rampant. You don't know at whom it's going to be directed next. personal aside I myself do not have that thick a skin and do not WANT to NEED a safety shield every time I post on a Debian list. It should not be surprising that I switched to Ubuntu, ten years or so ago. Well, I'm back here because Debian has become much better at this, and franky I want to stay because I can learn a lot here. But I'd be unable to do that if our discussion culture reverts back to what it was. Do we _really_ want to limit participation in Debian to the typical Western white group of thick-skinned guys (and the VERY occasional gal) who can (and, more to the point, _want_to_) tolerate that kind of culture where makign a mistake will get you fried to a crisp? I don't know about you, but I do not. I prefer a trustworthy, emotional community over a smile before me and stab me from behind-community. This is not a dichotomy. Most people are perfectly able to be emotional without being hurtful. === All that being said, I do agree that Thorsten has a valid point and that the actions of the maintainer he flamed do in turn imply disrespect. But that's a separate problem. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141013080143.ga10...@rlogin.dk
Re: what free software is about/and supporting nonfree?, maybe add to clause 5?
Free software is about the sharing of that freedom So there is nothing wrong with urging people to reconsider if non-free is really what they want (therefore my idea to add that to clause5) We shouldn't even be supporting non-free by hosting it, yet we do So it is a good idea to mention to people they should reconsider if there are other ways of getting a free alternative than putting non-free into the repository. If you support hosting of non-free you support putting people in jail. but debian users are nice people apparently, got a non-free repos :-) A one-liner mention that the person wanting their non-free uploaded should reconsider would be a good thing due to it not being optimal with a large non-free repos as I said. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:46:27PM +0200, Michael Ole Olsen wrote: having a too large non-free repos is not a good thing IMO. Be that as it may, there's no reason why Debian as a whole should agree with that. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141012023346.ga10...@rlogin.dk
Re: Packaging proprietary software, maybe add to clause 5?
I sent the poor guy a link to my bashrc with how to compile debian binary and source packages then noone has to feel bad :-) but true, constructive feedback is much better than flaming just to flame I bet most of us have tried running non-free at some time, and seen several reasons, i.e. adobe flash plugin or nonfree wifi firmware it is a good idea to urge people to reconsider adding non-free binaries though I think. maybe that should be in the wiki? (add to clause 5?) there might be a few number of reasons like he says that source cannot be released I just wouldn't urge him to add it to any pub repos unless it was very used software. having a too large non-free repos is not a good thing IMO. distributing packages offline/directly to customers is still possible even if it isn't in the repos. On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, Philip Hands wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au writes: On 9 October 2014 09:03, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: On that point: It is in poor taste to declare up front that you have no intention of helping the free software community (which is what it means to release proprietary software), and then in the same message ask that same community for help in doing this. It is possible to release the source to your packaging as open source with instructions on how to download the proprietary code and create the Debian packages. Assisting someone to install proprietary software is not helping the *free software* community. It may be helping some other community, but not the community of users making an expressly free operating system. This person was specifically asking the community of a free software operating system for help in distributing non-free software. That's what I'm pointing out is in poor taste. Given that Debian Developers as a body have agreed to abide by the Social Contract[1], clause 5 of which includes: Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists). it's pretty childish to harangue people for asking how best to use the infrastructure we provide for exactly this purpose. Of course, you're not the first to think that there's something wrong with clause 5. We've had two GRs attempting to change that. The second of which[2] achieved the opposite by attracting a large majority in favour of the reaffirmation of clause 5. It seems very impolite to use this as an excuse to attack newcomers. You don't have to stay here if that makes you unhappy, but if you do stay I suggest that you stop whining about it. Cheers, Phil. [1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract [2] https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141009134627.ga21...@rlogin.dk
Re: Packaging proprietary software
You should repent your sins Thinking proprietary is a sin in the free software community Making a fully free replacement is a much better way, don't taint your operating system or kernel! Might as well change to windows then, because running non-free isn't that bad eh? The free software movements is about keeping software free if possible. Non-free software is very rarely a good idea, a last resort hack. Many people would rather be without than with non-free. You use a free software operating system, so you should contribute back if you write something not use stuff that costs money/is without sourcecode, that isn't helping back, that is doing the opposite it is about love/freedom and contributing back that love/freedom. The more nonfree software we get in free software OSes, the worse it will get. then people might as well just use Microsoft. Because then they're not free anymore. So you are asking free software devs to help you make the OS not free. You see the problem? I would spend all that time developing a free alternative instead, and researching myself. The only non-free that people get tempted with today is flash and non-free wifi firmware Both should be overcome in the near future with html5 probably, and newer chipsets. It seems people are using flash less and less, because the language is getting so powerful now. At least I hope so :) On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, Brian May wrote: On 9 October 2014 09:03, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: On that point: It is in poor taste to declare up front that you have no intention of helping the free software community (which is what it means to release proprietary software), and then in the same message ask that same community for help in doing this. It is possible to release the source to your packaging as open source with instructions on how to download the proprietary code and create the Debian packages. This means you can't distribute the built packages. I have done this. https://github.com/VPAC/tivsm Another option is to have a deb installer package that downloads the proprietary code at install time. I think the Adobe flash plugin does this. This means you can distribute the binary packages, however may not be a good choice if there is no anonymous download or upstream is likely to change the URL. So it is possible to package proprietary software and help the community in doing so. -- Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141008231813.ga4...@rlogin.dk
Re: Contact copyright holder / ask for free software license
Contacting copyright holder and asking them to release under GPL or such is not a bad idea. even if they say no they might consider it in the future. They will know there is a real use for it. Else people just buy free-software complying hardware, or better alternative software that is fully free software. Doing nonfree is getting a worse and worse business these days. Many people have begun to use Ubuntu i.e., so the more market share that is taken from MS/apple etc. the more the need for releasing free software becomes Not sure if ubuntu accepts non-free though in their non-free repository (isn't that a bit too easy to use?)... They should make it harder to enable that.. Non-free can be enabled from the GUI it seems.. The problem is non-free sets the whole free software development back quite a bit.. On Thu, 09 Oct 2014, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Mathieu Slabbinck wrote: I was wondering if anyone could point me to the best practice way of doing this. Best practice would be to contact the copyright holder and ask them to convert the software to FLOSS. If they refuse to do so, then try to find, write or convince someone to write an alternative. If all of that fails and you still need the proprietary spftware, install it locally and you are done. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6F5jXM-gGVTqyiy=qjamxn_mbebx7mkxdc2l1vn7at...@mail.gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141008235131.ga...@rlogin.dk
Re: Danke für das beste OS der Welt, yup, and some grub/boot script suggestions
Me2 :-) I have some suggestions: grub2 , I don't like its/its current integration, and the autogenerated files are very ugly - I used to use lilo ... sometimes grub fails with raid(even when debian says it has installed fully), auto updating grub after upgrading the system can fail sometimes (killed my system many times - failed to boot with lvm afterwards) boot scripts ? - some are pretty some used to be ugly , and using various daemons - bash could be so pretty/manageable(debian is GNU after all..), sh could be so portable(but a bit ugly), sysv, well... wish there was an option to not auto run grub after running debian upgrades... damn I'm tired of that especially annoying if you compile kernels yourself you could set kernels on hold if you got the time/patience for that on every new system... an /etc file would be pretty for this (an apt.conf)... or never enforcing grub run unless 100% necessary even if grub is run it should double or tripple check it has been run correctly, it has broken on raid6 before for me(grub2) and lvm2(grub2) , failed to boot afterwards (both in official installer and after system upgrade) some suggestions from old debian user since around 2000 :) grub2 is quite confusing in the start, but gets easier with time lilo was so easy /etc files for your bootloader, comeon? .. no need for that.. /boot is all I need.. ram disks are quite confusing and hard to build, it should be much easier to make your own ramdisks.. , you never know if you got the right modules compiled in atm. - unless you double check or unless you assume it assumed right for you :-) - it rarely does on lvm/raid systems IME debian should be easier to use with your own custom kernels(kernel.org), instead of compiling them the debian way(dpkg-mkpg?), you should be free to make them on your own in /usr/src/linux, without apt messing it all up later on! I miss an apt that doesn't break randomly, seems better in the newest stable release, but always manage to break my apt so much it becomes unrecoverable dependency requirement infinite loop and the boot routine has changed lately, now I cant custom symlink my stuff in /etc/rc2.d ... used to do that all the time now it does nothing it seems the init scripts often looked so ugly (yes) that I refused to look at them, not all of them, but it looked like different maintainers code? - very different code in each could be much prettier, but seems you are working on it :) my init scripts looking nice and not autorunning grub on upgrades(or option for that) is the only thing I miss in debian and no fuzz in debian base installs (hopefully no daemons etc.) thanks from Denmark :) - Original Message - From: Manuel Studer osx...@gmail.com To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 9:49 PM Subject: Danke für das beste OS der Welt Sehr geehrtes Debian Dev. Team, Ich möchte Ihnen allen meinen Dank für Ihre tolle Arbeit aussprechen. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/534c3be5.90...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/001101cf5878$51f34150$e1bca151@mxphome
Bug#638403: ITP: gbkeeper -- Book Keeping ncurses interface/accounting/database editor
Package: wnpp Version: 0.9-1 Checked WNPP/apt for the package and didn't find anything like it. I already made the package for private purposes before checking. It was made as there was nothing like it in apt apparently. The only programs existing were saldi(php) and nonfree windows programs (and those are a bit different). Here is the description (I couldn't find anything like it on the WNPP page): - Description: Ncurses book keeping interface/accounting/database editor Program for typing in vouches on vat customers (and their gross and netamounts). . The program is based on libcdk5 which is statically linked in. This program can update,delete,insert vouches into a MySQL database on different VAT-registered customers and add/edit/remove customers. . gbkeeper can edit records with this info for each customer: Vouchid, Date, BookEntry, Grossamount, Netamount, Timestamp. Vouchid is autoincremented and there are shortcuts for various operations. . It can also be used as a database editor to edit your own databases, the column count and field names can be changed dynamically in source. . The program supports both . and , as decimal separator and short dates. (3-2 becomes 03-02-2011 after saving) to speed up typing of vouches. License: GPLv3+ but code linked in from libcdk5 which is 4-clause BSD. (I authorized that in the main program as I was told was legal). Project page: http://rlogin.dk/gbkeeper Project src (linthian pedantic no errors tarball and deb package): http://rlogin.dk/gbkeeper/src pgpZ3fL6Qsja6.pgp Description: PGP signature
