Re: x11amp
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:30:41PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote: But that is not the reason why my first guess was non-free. It was the fact that mpg123 is in non-free, and x11amp is (according to the docs) based on it. I already have it packaged. It uses plugins for the decoder so I think x11amp can go in contrib and libmpg123.so can be moved into x11amp-nonfree. Great! But please wait with the upload, we still don't know for certain does the libmpg123.so break mpg123 licence. Yeah i am waiting, for now I got it at http://www.wf.net/~stephenc/x11amp /---\ |Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org | |GPG Key http://va.debain.org/~crow/public.key | \--- 8A8B 3B82 6EA7 CF4E 01A5 5B21 B378 981D D2E1 0D85 /
Re: x11amp
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:14:38PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:05:01PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:02:13PM -0500, Shaleh wrote: On 01-Feb-99 John Goerzen wrote: Why should it be non-free if it's GPL? the mp3 patent Which nobody has guaranteed is valid or defensable in Germany, let alone anywhere else. (I believe the EU does not allow software/algorithm patents, IIRC.) And which applies only to encoders. I don't see why we ought to let some lawyers trying to make a good bluff scare us. Fraunhofer institute holds the patent, we shouldn't take any chances. They have already treathened to sue or sued several people who used their encoder engine - let's hope that they won't get to the decoders. Debian has been very paranoid to the vague licencing terms of some progs in the past, from what I've seen. But that is not the reason why my first guess was non-free. It was the fact that mpg123 is in non-free, and x11amp is (according to the docs) based on it. I already have it packaged. It uses plugins for the decoder so I think x11amp can go in contrib and libmpg123.so can be moved into x11amp-nonfree. /---\ |Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org | |GPG Key http://va.debain.org/~crow/public.key | \--- 8A8B 3B82 6EA7 CF4E 01A5 5B21 B378 981D D2E1 0D85 /
Re: package for X11 or svgalib ??
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 01:01:47PM +, John Travers wrote: I have just started to package spectremu, it comes in two versions for X11 and SVGAlib, should I just to X11 or both and in one or seperated packages? They should be in seperate packages. Also, how do I make a menu entry start a program in xterm? because spectremu for X11 must be started from xterm. Just do it like any other thing xterm -e someprog /--\ |Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org| |GPG Key http://va.debain.org/~crow/public.key| \--- 8A8B 3B82 6EA7 CF4E 01A5 5B21 B378 981D D2E1 0D85 ---/
Intent to package: Xconfigurator
I know some of you may want to shoot me but Xconfigurator is the redhat Xfree configuration utility, it's a hacked up xf86config that scans the pci bus to auto-detect the vid card, has a monitor database, and has a nice looking slang interface too. It will need a quite a few modifications to work with debian so I'm wondering if I should just split the tree and make my own version. Any comments? ftp://csociety-ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/pub/redhat/redhat-5.2/SRPMS/SRPMS/Xconfigurator-3.82-1.src.rpm use alien --to-tgz to convert it to a tarball Copyright: Copyright (c) 1994 by The XFree86 Project, Inc. Copyright (c) 1998 Red Hat Software, Inc. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -- Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key. PGP#22714B25 *-
Re: Intent to package: Xconfigurator
Sorry to reply to myself but I left part of the license off. On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:22:08PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote: Copyright (c) 1994 by The XFree86 Project, Inc. Copyright (c) 1998 Red Hat Software, Inc. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, neither the name of the XFree86 Project or Red Hat Software shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the XFree86 Project. -- Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key. PGP#22714B25 *-
Re: Intent to package: Xconfigurator
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 09:40:18AM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote: While at it, why not add monitor detection, like windows can do? I plan on doing that, but the VESA DDC specifications are not freely available, I'm going to call VESA today and see if I can find out anything about the specs, I would have used their website but it sucks. -- Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key. PGP#22714B25 *-
Re: GNOME in potato needs slink libs
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 02:22:36PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote: Hi Jules, Another quick question... Why does potato's GNOME require slink's gtk/gnome/etc libs? Because potato is not yet a complete distribution, and should be 'overlayed' over slink? Ah, I see. I did a clean potato installation, i.e. not over slink. Anyone have any idea when GNOME for potato will be updated? No rush or complaints, I'm just curious since I want to test the imlib packages on potato's GNOME once I start releasing imlib package updates. Huh? the new GNOME has been uploaded at about 2-3 days ago, it doesnt depend on slink libs. Try a mirror that is not so out of date. -- Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key. PGP#22714B25 *-
Re: the .app extension on (some) wmaker apps
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 06:10:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to package wmsysmon.app -- but I'm not sure about the .app that *some* wmaker apps get -- I'm not sure if I should have the package as wmsysmon.app or just wmsysmon. The tarball is wmsysmon.app, but the binary that gets built is wmsysmon. I built an (undocumented) manpage for wmsysmon.app -- but lintian gives me a binary with no manpage since the binary doesn't have the .app -- hr Should I leave the package as .app, but have the binary/manpage as-is (wmsysmon)? -- always thought the binary/manpages should match the package-name is all. Nope, the package name doesn't have anything to do with the binary name. Although you have to be reasonable, just because the upstream tarball is called wmsysmon.app doesn't mean the package has to be called that. The manpage should always be the same as the binary. If you binary is named wmsysmon then your manpage should be wmsysmon.1 not wmsysmon.app.1 -- Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key. PGP#22714B25 *-
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-) And what if some anti-debian people get ahold of the logo and use it for evil purposes? -- Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key. PGP#22714B25 *-
Re: libpng gnome slink
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 09:14:14AM -0500, Brian Almeida wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:03:26PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: and how the unfortunate of us who already have upgraded to 1.0.2 can downgrade, i see the 1.0.1 package nowhere ... bma !find libpng2 hamm dpkg bma: um, dists/hamm/hamm/binary-i386/libs/libpng2_1.0.0-0.1.deb what about latest gnome packages ? (0.99.3), is nobody packaging them ? Stephen Crowley (aka Crow-) is. Well, I was going to...but then jpick said just to wait til he's ready with them. Who knows when that will be? For now you can get them from http://master.debian.org/~crow/gnome but they aren't official so don't bug me if they don't work ;) (sorry, i already erased the .diff.gz's) -- Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key. PGP#22714B25 *- pgpUflkE57xF0.pgp Description: PGP signature
something is f***ed
Ok, i just apt-get upgraded about an hour ago, to my horror i can no longer login, nor can I su, it just sits there doing nothing. I also cannot telnet to localhost. Someone on irc just upgraded also and got the exact same problem. What is going on!? -- Stephen Crowley Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.debian.org -- pgpNutPIpUfen.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: something is f***ed
I found out the problem is in sysklogd, not sure what is going on though. -- Stephen Crowley Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.debian.org -- pgp8zboM3TGbD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Uploaded sysklogd 1.3-29 (source i386) to master
Nope, same problems, cant su, cant telnet in. -- Stephen Crowley Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.debian.org -- pgpD1gxhbyDMg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: something is f***ed
On Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 11:20:28AM +0200, Remco van de Meent wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Chris Leishman wrote: : On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 06:07:17PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote: : Ok, i just apt-get upgraded about an hour ago, to my horror i can no : longer login, nor can I su, it just sits there doing nothing. I : also cannot telnet to localhost. Someone on irc just upgraded also and got : the exact same problem. What is going on!? : : : : Confirmed problem here too. Same symptoms. Have you solved this one : yet. What version of sysklogd are we talking about? -27? -28? -29 -- Stephen Crowley Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.debian.org -- pgpHnj27kuNHd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Possible serious problem with the newest sysklogd?
On Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 12:36:37PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Could you try the next prelimnary version? ftp://ftp.infodrom.north.de/pub/people/joey/debian/sysklogd_1.3-29.2_i386.deb Great! This seems to fix it, no problems here. -- Stephen Crowley Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.debian.org -- pgpvX5cXPlt7x.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libgimp/glib/gtk weirdness...
On Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 07:54:35PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: When trying to build my rather overdue debian package (libgimp-perl), I get this at the configure stage: [stuff deleted] Is this a bug? If so, in which package? I've copied Che into this email anyway, since he seems to be reponsible for a large chunk of the programs concerned. You need to link with -lgmodule -- Stephen Crowley Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.debian.org -- pgpx5P81cAFga.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removing Gnome [was: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1]
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:32:02AM -0400, Brian White wrote: What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff? The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0 release coming up in a few months that will be thoroughly tested and stable. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to release them as a part of a stable distribution, as they really aren't. There aren't any guarantees that the stuff that runs today is going to run tomorrow. I would agree with you. They should probably be removed from slink at the time of the freeze. Do you have a list of these packages? That is ridiculous, there is no reason to remove gnome before the freeze, if you dont like it dont use it. There are several programs that wont run without it, including GtkICQ which is about the only usuable icq replacement available (if you dont count those crappy console ones) -- Stephen Crowley (Crow- on IRC) -- Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. pgpaWr0Ag8Asy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anyone packaging snes9x?
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:07:19PM +0100, Dave Swegen wrote: I've been considering packaging snes9x, and was just wondering whether it had already been done. Yeah, they're done. the package names are snes9x-x, snes9x-svga and snes9x-server -- Stephen Crowley (Crow- on IRC) -- Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. pgp9wH4sok5wY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Games removed from non-free?
What is all this about? I just noticed snes9x, xmame, doom and quake have been removed from non-free. Why? -- Stephen Crowley (Crow- on IRC) -- Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
