Re: Is rvplayer working for others?
On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 10:30:16PM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote: On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 07:17:03PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote: rvplayer does not work under Linux 2.1, if that's what you're running. Why not? I noticed today that it wasn't working...are there any fixes? Its a bug in rvplayer, the sound code changed to fix some broken behaver, the fix broke rvplayer, people on both sides know the problem, on the driver side its a case of a bug fix, plain and simple.. On the rvplayer side, nobody there seems to want to talk about it... *sigh* It'll suck when 2.2 comes out and rvplayer don't wrok... Zephaniah E, Hull. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpOIosVU7x0c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: new unstable please
On Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 11:54:28AM +0100, M.C. Vernon wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Thomas Lakofski wrote: Hi, I noticed that with the transition to frozen, as expected, packages too unstable to be in frozen have vanished (on ftp.debian.org, at least). I hope I can expect a new unstable to appear within a few days, if only to drop those packages which were removed from frozen into it. I guess a name needs to be agreed on. IMHO we should go for emperor. Erwin!! Zephaniah E, Hull, --- Addicted.. Matthew -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Steward of the Cambridge Tolkien Society Selwyn College Computer Support http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/8841/ http://www.cam.ac.uk/CambUniv/Societies/tolkien/ http://pick.sel.cam.ac.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpCdUb3waB1K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [owner@bugs.debian.org: Debian bugs information: logs for bug#26827]
On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 09:29:28AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: snip It IS implied that its FULLY gnu-su compatible, if it is not then it Where did you find that? I never read it. See control file, under provides. should not provide su, very very simple.. But then gnu-su is not your standard su. As usually with gnu tools it has much more features than the su you find on other unix versions. I still don't see why this is important enough to warrant a removal of secure-su. But gnu-su is the DEBIAN STANDARD su, it provides the DEBIAN SU PACKAGE, doing so and not supporting the gnu-su features breaks things, this by definition is a critical bug, end of story.. Zephaniah E, Hull. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp1meeW2zDav.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [owner@bugs.debian.org: Debian bugs information: logs for bug#26827]
(Before I go on I should note that I'm in a sleep deprived state at the moment) On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: I tried to reproduce this bug but cannot. Package: secure-su Version: 980403-0.3 Exactly my version. install and configure secure-su [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# su -s /bin/sh nobody -c ls / [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# My one says: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo su -s /bin/sh nobody -c ls / Unknown option -s sudo? adding a unnessary layer here, but anyways.. Which is correct btw. secure-su is not meant to be gnu-su compatible. Or do I miss something? It IS implied that its FULLY gnu-su compatible, if it is not then it should not provide su, very very simple.. Zephaniah E, Hull. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp3yNMFKjS0N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#27823: proftpd: non-maintainer upload (alpha) diffs
Ok, fine, then please insert a pointer to the patchs in the description, Sorry for that.. But that still leaves the rest of my argument fully intact, and someone stated in past messages that they sent the patchs directly to the maintainer and NOT through the BTS, for a binary only NMU. Zephaniah E, Hull.. On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:30:46PM +0100, James Troup wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: binary-only MNU hits only one arch normal NMU hits possible all archs=20 A binary-only MNU violates the GPL, end of story. FUD, FUD, FUD and more FUD. The source changes for our binary-only NMUs are _always_ sent to the BTS. Also, please get over this GPL obsession, there is *plenty* of software in main _not_ covered by the GPL. -- James [Want to know how Debian violates the GPL all the time? Check how many GPLed packages in Debian have modifications yet don't obey 2(a).] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpnnbxbf34li.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 05:31:10PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: snip Hmm. We have zless to less gz'd files. zless nothing, a simple lesspipe.sh works great, for bigger stuff a not so simple lesspipe.sh (Can give a real complete one if you want, its what I use) works GREAT... Gives file listings for .tar's, handles .bz2 and .gz compression on a file transparently, gives nice readouts for .deb's and .rpm's, renders groffs (man pages), and transparently handles uuencoded files (under .uxx, .uux, and .uue) And its designed in such a way that something like less foo.tar.gz.uue.bz2.uue.gz works perfectly.. (=:] /plug Zephaniah E, Hull. snip Mike Stone -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpgkvyccXUou.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: what's after slink
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:45:49PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: theone wrote: Names after Slink is very simple. They should just be named after userfriendly characters. Oooh.. that means our releases would even have their own geek code blocks (http://www.userfriendly.org/cast/) ;-) dust_puppy pitr aj chief cobb erwin greg hillary mike smiling_man stef tanya miranda now too... Don't forget her. (I still want an iWhack) Debian GNU/Linux Erwin/iWhack! Zephaniah E, Hull, --- Thought he suggested this before? pgpSshXkxBnfl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#27823: proftpd: non-maintainer upload (alpha) diffs
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 02:54:53PM +0100, James Troup wrote: Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip Are you trolling? As I've said 3 times already (at least): because they only affect one architecture. And because there are perfectly valid reasons to do binary-only NMUs (which you seem to want to ignore) [see my bash example in [EMAIL PROTECTED]]. If the changes break the other architectures then the changes are BROKEN, learn how not to do it, simple.. We all make mistakes, its a fact of life, and there are some RARE cases where a binary only NMU is needed, however they are the EXCEPTION, not the rule.. Basicly, your argument of it only affecting one architectures is bogus, if your worried about your changes not working on other architectures then go over to master and compile it, if you need testers go over to #debian and ASK, if I'm there (nick Mercury, idle a LOT) and I use the package I'll test it for 80x86, so in the end, give one GOOD reason why they should be the norm, and the only affecting one architecture is not a good reason.. Zephaniah E, Hull.. -- I think I could dig up complaints form *you* saying that. That would be a cunning trick. -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpmP9YnPAu2w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: what is non-free in this license?
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 01:51:25PM +, Jakob Borg wrote: I may be clueless, but could someone explain to me why this license is=20 automatic ticket to non-free? I may be just a clueless however let me highlight.. quote 6. Legal This software can be used freely for any purpose. It can be distributed freely, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT SOLD COMMERCIALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM TOMISLAV UZELAC [EMAIL PROTECTED]. However, including this software on CD_ROMs containing other free software is explicitly permitted even=20 when a modest distribution fee is charged for the CD, as long as this software is not a primary selling argument for the CD. Building derived versions of this software is permitted, AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT SOLD COMMERCIALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM TOMISLAV UZELAC=20 [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Any derived versions must be clearly marked as such, and must be called by a name other than amp. Any derived versions must retain this copyright notice. /* This license is itself copied from Tatu Ylonen's ssh package. It does= * not mention being copyrighted itself :) */ THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THIS PROGRAM - whatsoever. You use it entirely at your risk, and neither Tomislav Uzelac, nor FER will be liable for any damages that might occur to your computer, software, etc. in consequence of you using this freeware program. /quote What I hi-lighted I do believe violates the DFSG.. Zephaniah E, Hull. pgpnWa3IU1gO8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Upcoming 2.1 Release Architectures
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:04:29PM -0400, Christopher C Chimelis wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Brian White wrote: Could I get some official word on which architectures wish to be included in the 2.1 release of Debian? Thanks! So far, Alpha is looking near ready and we are shooting to release with slink/i386. A caveat, however, is that we need to resolve some big egcs issues SOON or else we can't release (as is, 1.1b will not compile two or three vital packages correctly). There is one, MAJOR, huge, massive, 'program' which egcs will not properly compile, this is the kernel, 2.0.x is officially not going to operate 100% correctly when compiled with gcc 2.8.x or egcs.. Any suggestions? Zephaniah E, Hull.. I'll keep you updated on this. How long do we expect the freeze to last (ballpark guess)? C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpFVfYJTsbs0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#27823: proftpd: non-maintainer upload (alpha) diffs
I don't really want to get into this, I've got enough people mad at me for filing some bug reports, but I think this needs to be said, anyways. On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 02:54:02AM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote: But you're missing my point. Why does a binary-only NMU give you the right to skip waiting, while a normal NMU does not? Why are they different? Why does one let you circumvent the rules, for however noble a purpose? Binary-only and normal NMU's are the same thing, and if you can do a binary-only NMU w/o waiting, you should be able to do a normal NMU w/o waiting. And if you can do that, it follows you should, since a normal NMU is better. How will you feal, if i get one of your packages, make necessary patches for kernel-2.1 and glibc-2.1 and egcs to it and upload the package _with_ source (without asking you for permission) to master. And then you notice that this new source-package is broken on your system? There is a reason libc's have version #defs, and that gcc and alike have version #defs, and *gasps* kernels too.. Basicly, use #if and #ifdef, if your changes blindly assume a arch then your no better then the programmers who assume ix86, if not worse because you KNOW how important the issues are.. binary-only MNU hits only one arch normal NMU hits possible all archs A binary-only MNU violates the GPL, end of story. Another story: I patched a debian binary in february, forwarded the patch directly to the maintainer (not to the BTS) and uploaded this package as a binary-only MNU. This package (with the patch) is always not yet available, because the maintainer is very busy to make a new release. This is more then a 1/2 year ! This is why you should include source with the NMU!!! Zephaniah E, Hull. Greetings, Hartmut PS: we talk no about two or three packages, porters means 100 or 200 packages :-) -- Hartmut Koptein EMail: Friedrich-van-Senden-Str. 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 26603 Aurich Tel.: +49-4941-10390 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpO2UrqfrDvo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [warp@whitestar.soark.net] Bug#27841: apt: apt depends on a missing library
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 12:54:27PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote: Ray == Ray J.H.M. writes: Ray Personally, I'd rather see the packages that still depend on Ray libstdc++2.8 recompiled for libstdc++2.9 . Of course, of course, nobody's arguing that. APT will be recompiled for libstdc++2.9. However, commercial apps and apps that are not part of Debian will come linked to 2.8, and we should support that. Ok, do we have a consensus? 2.8 should go back in slink, but marked as a oldlib. All packages which we have source to should be recompiled with 2.8 if possable? Any disaggreement? Zephaniah E, Hull. -- Brought to you by the letters N and J and the number 15. Son, I am able, she said, though you scare me. -- They Might Be Giants Debian GNU/Linux -- where do you want to go tomorrow? http://www.debian.org/ I'm on FurryMUCK as Che, and EFNet and YiffNet IRC as Che_Fox. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpZ38oLtnwLC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [warp@whitestar.soark.net] Bug#27841: apt: apt depends on a missing library
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 03:36:54AM -0700, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, do we have a consensus? 2.8 should go back in slink, but marked as a oldlib. All packages which we have source to should be recompiled with 2.8 if possable?^ | You of course ment 2.9, but everyone knew that, right ? :) Yes, *peers at himself* Any disaggreement? Nope, not from me... Ok, if I don't see any disagreement by midnight EST I'll submit a bug against ftp.debian.org, and start filing bug reports against packages which have not been recompiled in a week or so... Zephaniah E, Hull.. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( D | e | b | i | a | n ) Debian Certified Linux Developer \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ Surrey/B.C./Canada -- kibo KGB Peking Soviet Saddam Hussein fissionable Panama SEAL Team 6 bomb NSA arrangements Khaddafi $400 million in gold bullion Mossad Nazi pgpLto9v4McQT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl 5.005.02
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 11:28:06AM -0400, Roderick Schertler wrote: On 11 Oct 1998 03:08:22 -0700, Darren/Torin/Who Ever... [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Andy Dougherty, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote: After some thought, I think I'd recommend that perl5.005_xx retain the same directory structure that perl5.00[34]_xx did. (with 5.005 in place of 5.00[34], of course). That's good enough for me. I have boatloads of respect for Andy and his understanding of Perl Install issues. That's how it will be for 5.005.02-3. I don't think Andy is taking into account your plan of allowing both threaded and non-threaded Perls present on the system at the same time. It seems to me that the only real problem we've got with the current layout is that the *.pm files for extensions which have XS portions are placed in /usr/lib/perl5 rather than in /usr/lib/perl5/arch/version. If that were changed so that such modules behaved like core modules (placing both *.pm and *.so in the arch/version hierarchy) then only modules with *.so files would need to be reinstalled when a new version is installed. If this were in place previously then the recent 5.005 install would only have broken modules with XS portions, as it should have. Further, if the version part of that didn't necessarily track every new version, but only changed when a new version was binary incompatible, that would save even more recompilation. That is, if 5.006 doesn't break binary compatibility, I'd recommend that you continue to use /usr/lib/perl5/arch/5.005 rather than changing to /usr/lib/perl5/arch/perl5.006. I would suggest using symlinks here, have the version be the first one which was binary compatible with all binarys there, and then for the rest just symlink the new version dirs to the old until binary compatibility is broken.. Also, when possible, could we try to lean towards having support for more then one version of perl installed at the same time even if currently its not possible? (See my preavous posts on perl on a possible way to allow having more then one installed at the same time) Zephaniah E, Hull. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpnu47V19lyT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bad signature!! [was: Re: LICENSES]
I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message and what the contents were when it was signed? Thanks. Zephaniah E, Hull. On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 03:35:18PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.) That doesn't mean everyone else ise sensible. I've seen many people DEMAND Troll Tech release Qt under the GPL. I wanted to take a large cluebat to their heads for the reasons you cite above. i agree. people who bash Troll over Qt are missing the point. Worse, they are clouding the issue. IMO, Troll Tech are beyond reproach. they wrote a good library, and they allow people to use it for free in certain circumstances. while i would be happy to see it under an Open Source-compatible license, nobody has any right to demand that they do anythingthat's like demanding caviar from a good neighbour when they give you a sandwich. the only right you have here is to choose to accept their generosity or choose not to accept it. I personally choose not to accept it (the license isn't compatible with what i want to do with free software...also, I don't like C++ :), but i'm grateful for the offer all the same. craig -- craig sanders pgpjRLGQaq2p0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl policy for managing modules ?
Ok, after some thought, and fielding a LOT of perl questions on #debian, I've come up with a more workable idea which gives us much better handling for the next time something like this happens.. Rename perl to perl5.005, version 02-2 or such.. Then use the alternatives setup to decide which perl gets run when you try to use just 'perl'.. At that point packages which are NOT subject to binary compatibility issues can depend on perl5, and those which are can depend on perl5.005, etc.. This allows us to both handle future perl upgrades cleanly, and allows us to maintain more then one version of perl at any given time.. Any comments? Zephaniah E, Hull.. On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 09:57:36AM -0400, Dan Jacobowitz wrote: Le Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 02:31:40AM -0700, Darren/Torin/Who Ever... écrivait: I do worry about what this might break as well. Another option would be to have /usr/lib/perl5/debian(/$arch)? be the first element of @INC and leave /usr/lib/perl5/$version(/$arch)? there with only the Perl installed files. I'll ask on p5p if this will break things. My question is, why are we so intent on removing the versioned component even though we have lost binary compatibility? I understand that it requires some packaging changes, but the packaging can usually be easily rewritten to work for any version (use perl5/5.*/, etc.). Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpk4oO1Le4IK.pgp Description: PGP signature
The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!
In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink towards 2.2.0? Thanks. Zephaniah E, Hull.. pgpL2Z9IpY4sx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: On 9 Oct 1998, Samuel Tardieu wrote: Santiago There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled Santiago for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing. I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is supported), but not a lot of packages. Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely a lot of work, since there are a lot of new drivers. Actually it should not be that much work if its written to be expanded (And if its not I'm not sure we should be using it in the first place) We should base our distribution in stable software, not in betas. Which is why I asked for another week to see IF we need to re-target, instead of asking for a re-target now.. Maybe we should wait for 2.0.36, not for 2.2. As I said, lets wait another week, and see where things have landed, if 2.0.36 is ready and 2.2.0 is still a bit away then we do 2.0.36, if 2.2.5 is out and looking stable.. Zephaniah E, Hull.. -- 33ca525b2c9f2cd0f9b40ef52e0d64f6 (a truly random sig) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpD0mSk7AYDF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:42:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: Quoting J.H.M. Dassen Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run). Things like smbfsx that have 2.0 and 2.1 versions will need to be consolidated. (Though that's not a big problem.) Don't forget dhcp* and tleds, and who knows what other little things which WILL come up when 2.2.x is out, ready for it or not.. Zephaniah E, Hull. Mike Stone -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp1NRiURaN6X.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink towards 2.2.0? No, this would hold the release for at least two more months. . We have several kernel module package that need to be re-packaged. We have to do that anyways for 2.0.36.. . We have to rework on the sound modules, possibly, I dunno. When did we get sound modules? With 2.2.0 we could actually have some!! . We have to rework on the boot-floppies to cope with different and/or more modules etc. We have to do that anyways for 2.0.36.. . We have to ensure that the new kernel headers won't infect various compilation of programs. I thought that was part of the idea of the glibc 2 header stuff.. . We might need to re-compile/re-package the libc. Nope, works fine here and with countless others.. . We need to include new programs / packages to interfere with new kernel interfaces. We have ipchains in slink at the moment, so we are already leaning in that direction.. . We need to review our documentation wrt the kernel (maybe, I duno) See 2.0.36 All this can't be done in 6 days. I did not ask it to be done in 6 days, I asked that we wait another week so we can see if we need to re-target for 2.2.0, if its not looking like it won't be out in a day or two at the end of this extra week then we need to do nothing, on the other hand if it IS going to be out, then it seems perfectly reasonable that we fully consider (and perhaps vote on) re-targeting at 2.2.x.. Linux 2.2 is a good candidate for the next unstable to play with. I believe that it will be fun, but I also forsee that there will be problems. If its not done for slink, then definitely for 2.2.. (2.2 for 2.2.x hmm) I hope our release manager won't jump on that train too quick. I hope our release manager won't jump on any track without fully considering it.. Zephaniah E, Hull.. Regards, Joey -- No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly to answer. -- Perl book pgp1WzMmclavg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: what's after slink
Debian 2.4 (Erwin/Ix86!) Debian 2.5 (Erwin/iWhack!) I'm sure that Erwin will be on other platforms by the time we get to 2.6.. (=:] Zephaniah E, Hull, --- A big fan of Erwin.. On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 12:19:59AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:09:51 +1300, theone wrote: Names after Slink is very simple. They should just be named after userfriendly characters. Check out http://www.userfriendly.org Dust Bunny!!! Dust Bunny!!! And not Crud Bunny :) -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpKg1HFp22K1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: suggestion - AntiVir for Linux
Before I say anything let me state that I am, currently, not even a registered Debian developer, just a user, however.. I'd suggest that you take a look at the debian web page (www.debian.org), specificly the Social Contract (http://www.debian.org/social_contract), including the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines)... The specific licensing on your software will have to be reviewed to decide if we can include said software in Debian, and if we can what section it will go in.. Well I am sure we would like to include your software in main I suspect, from your message, that due to the license, if we are able to include it at all, it will have to be in non-free.. Thank you for your interest.. Zephaniah E, Hull... On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 10:36:24AM +0100, Birgitt Simon wrote: Dear Sirs, we know you as a distributor of program packages for Linux. We, the H+BEDV Datentechnik GmbH, are developer and distributor of the virus protection program AntiVir for Linux. Since 1988, when the number of computer viruses in Germany could be counted on one hand, we deal with the subject virus protection. In the last 11 years we won a lot of awards for our anti-virus products in Germany. Our main market is currently Germany and the german speaking market. Now we are going to expand our distribution area. We would like to make you following suggestion, for our both advantage. We offer you a free version from AntiVir for Linux, so that you will deliver our program with your next distribution CD-ROM. So your customers are able to use a virus protection program under Linux and you add value to your program package. If you want to try AntiVir for Linux, please feel free to download the newest version of AntiVir for Linux from our Internet-Server www.hbedv.com. We offer AntiVir for Linux free of charge for private use. For commercial use, our customers are asked to purchase AntiVir for Linux. We hope our offer meets with your approval and will be pleased to answer any queries you may have. Yours sincerely H+BEDV Datentechnik GmbH Lindauer Strasse 21, D-88069 Tettnang Birgitt Simon Tel.: +49 (0) 7542-93040 Fax.: +49 (0) 7542-52510 BBS.: +49 (0) 7542-52110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antivir.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpOKiWtOqZA7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: what's after slink
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 11:20:45PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: snip I think I'd almost rather switch to Red Hat than use the Beeblebrox release. I mean, what's next? Putting pictures of maintainer's pets on the Debian web page? :-) Let me get some nice pictures of my kitten, taz, she is a cute kitten.. Zephaniah E, Hull, AKA Mercury, --- Not wanting to file this critical bug report against APT.. :/ -- Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpnKCiG7a35K.pgp Description: PGP signature
[vernard@cc.gatech.edu: [ale] Loan Equipment to Linux In Action Booth]
We may want to coordinate with them for some of the machines we will be bringing in, its definitely a worthy cause.. Zephaniah E, Hull. - Forwarded message from Vernard Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernard Martin) Subject: [ale] Loan Equipment to Linux In Action Booth To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:27:55 -0400 (EDT) This is an official request for the loan of computer equipment for use by the Linux In Action display at the Atlanta Linux Showcase scheduled for October 23rd-24th. The Linux In Action booth has expanded from 2 booths last year to 3 booths this year. There is also a separate terminal garden which should cut down on visitors using machines as simple email terminals. We are asking for loans of computer equipment to be used in the booth for both days. Although the Showcase is much bigger than before, it is still difficult to acquire hardware for demos and such. This year the Linux General Store has graciously donated us space to use as a staging area. We are asking all equipment loans be dropped off at the LGS between the hours of Noon and 9pm any day in the range of Oct 19 - 21. This gives us a couple of days to get the necessary software installed on the machines. Be warned. The hard drives will be wiped so please remove any data that you wish to save. I can't stress this enough. If you have partial machines that you are willing to loan us such as large monitors and such they will be considered as well. We have several machines that are being loaned by various vendors that will need only monitors to make them functional. If you are willing to loan your equipment, please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that I can coordinate with you. I'll contact you ASAP to finalize everything. Thanks in advance. Vernard Martin Coordinator, Linux In Action booth --- Vernard Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | 2nd Atlanta Linux Showcase! http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~vernard/ | October 23 - 24, 1998 Georgia Tech, College of Computing | http://www.ale/org/showcase - End forwarded message - pgpEUSgSgNk6p.pgp Description: PGP signature
