Mozilla

[Kenneth Scharf]

My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run this
morning grabbed a new version of mozilla.  It no
longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault.

Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites
: Begin
Profile Manager : Command Line Options : Begin
Profile Manager : Command Line Options : End
Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites
: End
Segmentation fault



=
Amateur Radio, when all else fails!

http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze

Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

mozilla 1.6b

[Thomas E. Vaughan]

I am interested in getting an anti-aliased version of
Mozilla 1.6b.  A pointer either to a deb or to instructions
on how to build it myself from some kind soul in the know
would be appreciated.

The downloadable Linux version from mozilla.org has the
great new NTLM authentication that enables me, for the first
time ever, to browse my company's internal Web pages from
within Debian GNU.  I tested it.  It works.  This is really
good news!

Unfortunately, the appearance of the downloadable browser is
less than appealing.  Neither the page text nor the widget
text is anti-aliased.

I downloaded the source code and compiled Mozilla 1.6b
myself.  Unfortunately, the configure script required that I
install libgtk1.2-dev, and no anti-aliasing joy whatsoever
was apparent.  I have been assuming that mozilla-1.5 in
Debian was using gtk2 for anti-aliased widget text, but now
I'm just confused.

Any help appreciated.

-- 
Thomas E. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Mozilla Calendar?

[Carl B. Constantine]

is anyone planning on packaging Mozilla.org's Calendar program?
<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/>

It requires Mozilla 1.2a (1.2 is in Unstable but I don't know about
1.2a). It looks promising and hope someone packages it. If not, I might
take it up since I think asd-ng (which I'm supposed to be maintaining)
is in limbo at present.

-- 
 .''`.  Carl B. Constantine
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'GnuPG: 135F FC30 7A02 B0EB 61DB  34E3 3AF1 DC6C 9F7A 3FF8
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


pgpqLItHLLCus.pgp
Description: PGP signature

mozilla 0.7

[Eray 'exa' Ozkural]

Hi Myth and all,

I filed a bug report about the new mozilla 0.7 release. It looks
like it's got PSM built in so it will comfort a lot of people.
It would be highly appreciated if you could give it a whirl.

Regards,

__
Eray

Re: Mozilla

[Christian Surchi]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 01:04:59PM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run this
> morning grabbed a new version of mozilla.  It no
> longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault.

I heard that you have to remove ~/.mozilla directory. 

bye
Christian

-- 
| Christian Surchi   | www.firenze.linux.it/~csurchi| www. |   
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | gnu. | 
| FLUG: www.firenze.linux.it | Debian GNU/Linux: www.debian.org | org  | 

Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)

Re: Mozilla

[Nils Jeppe]

Delete your preferences of M13, restart mozilla. You'll get the create
profile wizard, and then mozilla works.

Yes, it's still alpha software, why? ;-)




On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Kenneth Scharf wrote:

> My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run this
> morning grabbed a new version of mozilla.  It no
> longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault.
> 
> Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites
> : Begin
> Profile Manager : Command Line Options : Begin
> Profile Manager : Command Line Options : End
> Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites
> : End
> Segmentation fault
> 
> 
> 
> =
> Amateur Radio, when all else fails!
> 
> http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze
> 
> Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

-- 
 "Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me."
-- Amy

Re: Mozilla

[jello]

> My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run this
> morning grabbed a new version of mozilla.  It no
> longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault.
> 
> Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites
> : Begin
> Profile Manager : Command Line Options : Begin
> Profile Manager : Command Line Options : End
> Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites
> : End
> Segmentation fault

 Try removing ~/.mozilla , worked for me.

-- 
Education is a system of imposed ignorance. -Noam Chomsky

Re: Mozilla

[Stefan Ott]

i had the same problem. just remove your ~/.mozilla and it works (you'll
have to re-setup it, tough).

regards
Stefan

On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 01:04:59PM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run this
> morning grabbed a new version of mozilla.  It no
> longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault.
> 
> Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites
> : Begin
> Profile Manager : Command Line Options : Begin
> Profile Manager : Command Line Options : End
> Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager activites
> : End
> Segmentation fault
> 
> 
> 
> =
> Amateur Radio, when all else fails!
> 
> http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze
> 
> Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpJdSQdAN2XO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mozilla

[Will Barton]

I dont believe that this is a problem with Mozilla itself, because the binary 
tarball of
M14 works fine with M13 prefrences.  Its only after you install the deb that 
this go crazy.

Has anyone else used both the deb and the binary version of M14 and had similar 
results?

--
Will Barton

Re: Mozilla

[Daniel Burrows]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 08:03:15PM -0500, Will Barton was heard to say:
> I dont believe that this is a problem with Mozilla itself, because the binary
> tarball of M14 works fine with M13 prefrences.  Its only after you install the
> deb that this go crazy.
> 
> Has anyone else used both the deb and the binary version of M14 and had
> similar results?

  Yes.  I just chalked it up to alpha software and moved on..

  Daniel

-- 
   It is hard to think of anything less sentient than a pumpkin.

 -- Terry Pratchett, _Witches Abroad_

RE: Mozilla

[Brent Fulgham]

Title: RE: Mozilla





The Mozilla M14 readme clearly states that the M13 preferences
are not compatible.  Most likely their install script removes
the preferences automatically or similar, but I view this as
a fix for a temporary problem and not worth implementing for
Debian.


> -Original Message-
> From: Will Barton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 5:03 PM
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Mozilla
> 
> 
> I dont believe that this is a problem with Mozilla itself, 
> because the binary tarball of
> M14 works fine with M13 prefrences.  Its only after you 
> install the deb that this go crazy.
> 
> Has anyone else used both the deb and the binary version of 
> M14 and had similar results?
> 
> --
> Will Barton
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Re: Mozilla

[Kenneth Scharf]

If this works, (and it seem too) then It would have
been a good idea for the package script to have done
this when debconf ran during the update.  (IE check
for an install of M13 and then delete any mozilla
profiles with the option of creating a backup copy
first).

--- Nils Jeppe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Delete your preferences of M13, restart mozilla.
> You'll get the create
> profile wizard, and then mozilla works.
> 
> Yes, it's still alpha software, why? ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> 
> > My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run
> this
> > morning grabbed a new version of mozilla.  It no
> > longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault.
> > 
> > Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager
> activites
> > : Begin
> > Profile Manager : Command Line Options : Begin
> > Profile Manager : Command Line Options : End
> > Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> > Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> > Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager
> activites
> > : End
> > Segmentation fault
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > =
> > Amateur Radio, when all else fails!
> > 
> > http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze
> > 
> > Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .
> > 
> > 
> > __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> > http://im.yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
>  "Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight
> or more times, shame on me."
>   -- Amy
> 
> 
> 

=
Amateur Radio, when all else fails!

http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze

Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Re: Mozilla

[Nils Jeppe]

Heck no, I really don't want any debian install scripts messing in MY home
directory!



On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Kenneth Scharf wrote:

> If this works, (and it seem too) then It would have
> been a good idea for the package script to have done
> this when debconf ran during the update.  (IE check
> for an install of M13 and then delete any mozilla
> profiles with the option of creating a backup copy
> first).
> 
> --- Nils Jeppe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Delete your preferences of M13, restart mozilla.
> > You'll get the create
> > profile wizard, and then mozilla works.
> > 
> > Yes, it's still alpha software, why? ;-)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> > 
> > > My latest apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade run
> > this
> > > morning grabbed a new version of mozilla.  It no
> > > longer works, it dies with a segmentation fault.
> > > 
> > > Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager
> > activites
> > > : Begin
> > > Profile Manager : Command Line Options : Begin
> > > Profile Manager : Command Line Options : End
> > > Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> > > Profile Manager : GetProfileDir
> > > Profile Manager : Profile Wizard and Manager
> > activites
> > > : End
> > > Segmentation fault
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > =
> > > Amateur Radio, when all else fails!
> > > 
> > > http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze
> > > 
> > > Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .
> > > 
> > > 
> > > __
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> > > http://im.yahoo.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> >  "Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight
> > or more times, shame on me."
> > -- Amy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> =
> Amateur Radio, when all else fails!
> 
> http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze
> 
> Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> 

-- 
 "Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me."
-- Amy

Re: Mozilla

[Martin Fluch]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Nils Jeppe wrote:

> Heck no, I really don't want any debian install scripts messing in MY home
> directory!

Why not just print a warning message via debconf as it is done in
setserial package?

Martin

-- 
Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs,
it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."

For public PGP-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ITA: Mozilla

[Franklin Belew]

As many already know, I've been building mozilla debs and placing them
on master for general consumption. I have been informed by the previous
maintainer that he would like to get rid of it.

I am hereby placing an official adoption on mozilla by his request.

I will have a new mozilla package uploaded that will fix many hidden bugs
by the end of the weekend at the latest.

Frank aka Myth (irc)



pgpS6AN1X9gAl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Mozilla Firefox

[patrick . dreier]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren!

Mozilla Firefox:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.0.2/linux-x86_64/en-US/

Mes meilleurs Salution!

Mozilla Firefox

[patrick . dreier]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren!

Mozilla Firefox:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.0.2/linux-x86_64/en-US/

Mit freundlichen Grüssen!

ITP: mozilla-venkman - Javascript debugger for Mozilla and Firefox

[Mike Hommey]

reassign 230874 wnpp
retitle 230874 ITP: mozilla-venkman - Javascript debugger for Mozilla and 
Firefox
thanks

Venkman being not really sync'ed in firefox or mozilla, I'm proposing to
package the venkman package which will conflict with mozilla-js-debugger
(venkman provided by the mozilla source package) and will provide venkman
for both mozilla and firefox.

* Package name    : mozilla-venkman
  Version : 0.9.84
  Upstream Author : Robert Ginda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=216
* License : Dual-licensed GPL/MPL
  Description : Javascript debugger for Mozilla and Firefox
 
  Venkman is the JavaScript debugger for Mozilla based browsers, such as
  Mozilla 1.x and Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox.
  It can be used to debug either Javascript embedded in web pages, or
  even Mozilla's interface and extensions.

Mike

"Mozilla" plugins to depend upon virtual "mozilla-plugin-browser"?

[Harald Dunkel]

Hi folks,

Would it be possible that the "Mozilla" plugins depend upon
a virtual mozilla-plugin-browser package? All browsers with
the same plugin interface could provide this feature, and
foreign browsers would not be kept out.


Many thanx in advance

Harri


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

Re: mozilla 1.6b

[Warren Turkal]

Thomas E. Vaughan wrote:
*snip*
> Any help appreciated.

Did you see the mozilla-snapshot package? Try installing it.

wt
-- 
Warren Turkal
President, GOLUM, Inc.
http://www.golum.org

Re: mozilla 1.6b

[Norbert Tretkowski]

* Warren Turkal wrote:
> Thomas E. Vaughan wrote:
> *snip*
> > Any help appreciated.
> 
> Did you see the mozilla-snapshot package? Try installing it.

Last update of this package was in the beginning of october. I don't
think that's a mozilla 1.6b.

Norbert

Re: mozilla 1.6b

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:06:28PM -0700, Thomas E. Vaughan wrote:
>...
> I downloaded the source code and compiled Mozilla 1.6b
> myself.  Unfortunately, the configure script required that I
> install libgtk1.2-dev, and no anti-aliasing joy whatsoever
> was apparent.  I have been assuming that mozilla-1.5 in
> Debian was using gtk2 for anti-aliased widget text, but now
> I'm just confused.
> 
> Any help appreciated.

Download the Mozilla 1.5 source package from Debian unstable and look at 
the configure options used in debian/rules .

E.g. Mozilla defaults to Gtk 1.2, you have to give an explicit configure
option to compile it with Gtk 2 .

> Thomas E. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: mozilla 1.6b

[Hartmut Figge]

Adrian Bunk:

> E.g. Mozilla defaults to Gtk 1.2, you have to give an explicit configure
> option to compile it with Gtk 2 .

Because of http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186789 i don't
like gtk2.

Hartmut

mozilla-*-locale-* packages?

[Christian Perrier]

>From a thread in -devel, dated September, after an ITP for Swedish
locale files for Mozilla stuff...

Quoting Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> 
> >I agree too. Actually, it makes more sense if we do a single package and
> >integrate there mechanisms to extract the needed files from xpis to
> >generate mozilla-locale-* packages instead of having each maintainer 
> >devise its own (as well as redoing the registration of the packages in 
> >mozilla as documented at [1])
> >
> >Moreover, somebody (a packaging group) could just package the locale
> >definitions available for Mozilla [2], Firefox [3] and Thunderbird [3], 
> >update them from time to time and update them whenever a new release is 
> >produced. That would avoid all the bugs related to -locale-YYY 
> >packages not allowing transitions of new Mozilla|Firefox|Thunderbird 
> >versions because they have not been updated and having the binary package 
> >proceed into testing would break them.
> >
> >I believe that's actually how Mozilla is integrated in other OS, for 
> >example, in Solaris IIRC.
> > 
> >
> I think, that this would not be too hard to implement. On the other
> hand, there would still be problems that some translations might not be
> ready if mozilla* packages become ready to go in. IMHO, doing so looks like
> a trick to declare translations not to be release critical and in fact
> inferior to normal packages.


Has there been any progress on that topic ?

The Arabeyes team (Arabic translators) want to get their ar
translations in Debian and they asked me for help.

Of course, I can post ITPs for mozilla-*-locale-ar packages and handle
such packages myself (by using another one as a model, that woulkdn't
be too hard), but it would be better integrating this in a more
general project.

Re: Mozilla Calendar?

[Graham Wilson]

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 08:29:28PM -0800, Carl B. Constantine wrote:
> If not, I might take it up since I think asd-ng (which I'm supposed to
> be maintaining) is in limbo at present.

what is asd-ng?

--
gram


pgpPEqEM5v6xH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mozilla Calendar?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Sun, 2002-12-01 at 23:29, Carl B. Constantine wrote:

> It requires Mozilla 1.2a (1.2 is in Unstable but I don't know about
> 1.2a).

It works on 1.2a and higher. 1.2 is higher than 1.2a (a=alpha), so
you're set.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Mozilla Calendar?

[Carl B. Constantine]

* Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 08:29:28PM -0800, Carl B. Constantine wrote:
> > If not, I might take it up since I think asd-ng (which I'm supposed to
> > be maintaining) is in limbo at present.
> 
> what is asd-ng?

Advanced Sound Daemon . The idea is to
replace ESounD completely with a better program. But as far as I can
tell, nothing has happened on it for some time.

-- 
 .''`.  Carl B. Constantine
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'GnuPG: 135F FC30 7A02 B0EB 61DB  34E3 3AF1 DC6C 9F7A 3FF8
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: Mozilla Calendar?

[Sami Haahtinen]

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 08:29:28PM -0800, Carl B. Constantine wrote:
> is anyone planning on packaging Mozilla.org's Calendar program?
> <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/>
> 
> It requires Mozilla 1.2a (1.2 is in Unstable but I don't know about
> 1.2a). It looks promising and hope someone packages it. 

In the past the only thing that stopped me from doing a build of my own
from the sources was that debian missed libical.. and now that there
appears to be libical-dev, i can't see any reason why not package it..

Sami


-- 
  -< Sami Haahtinen >-
  -[ Notify immediately if you do not receive this message ]-
-< 2209 3C53 D0FB 041C F7B1  F908 A9B6 F730 B83D 761C >-

Re: Mozilla Calendar?

[David B Harris]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:55:35 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sami Haahtinen) wrote:
> In the past the only thing that stopped me from doing a build of my
> own from the sources was that debian missed libical.. and now that
> there appears to be libical-dev, i can't see any reason why not
> package it..

Yes, looks like it was uploaded somewhere near the end of September.

Regardless, newer versions of Mozilla Calendar don't need it. :)


pgp9rG0oGCoS7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mozilla Calendar?

[Sami Haahtinen]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:37:13PM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > In the past the only thing that stopped me from doing a build of my
> > own from the sources was that debian missed libical.. and now that
> > there appears to be libical-dev, i can't see any reason why not
> > package it..
> 
> Regardless, newer versions of Mozilla Calendar don't need it. :)

Hmm.. which library do they use then? i know they still use iCal
files...

oh well.. 

Sami


-- 
  -< Sami Haahtinen >-
  -[ Notify immediately if you do not receive this message ]-
-< 2209 3C53 D0FB 041C F7B1  F908 A9B6 F730 B83D 761C >-

Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Humberto Massa Guimarães]

> > What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian
> > packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? 
> 
> If we don't use any trademarked images, logos, or phrases, what
> exactly are we talking about here?

As I think this is a very nice question, could Eric or any other
person identify which Mozilla Foundation trademarks are used in our
packages (and where)?

--
Thanks,
Massa


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

Re: mozilla 0.7

[Brian Almeida]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 03:13:28PM +0200, Eray 'exa' Ozkural wrote:
> I filed a bug report about the new mozilla 0.7 release. It looks
> like it's got PSM built in so it will comfort a lot of people.
> It would be highly appreciated if you could give it a whirl.
.%( WhoIs: MythDead
:%( address  : [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
:%( away : Yes, I know its out, leave me the fuck alone 

Bad move...

-- 
Brian Almeida  | http://people.debian.org/~bma
Debian Developer   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mozilla 0.7

[Arjan Drieman]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Almeida wrote:
>> I filed a bug report about the new mozilla 0.7 release. It looks
>> like it's got PSM built in so it will comfort a lot of people.
>> It would be highly appreciated if you could give it a whirl.
>.%( WhoIs: MythDead
>:%( address  : [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>:%( away : Yes, I know its out, leave me the fuck alone 
>
>Bad move...

Is it recommended to send bug reports about new releases in general?  Or
is it recommended not to?


Arjan

Re: mozilla 0.7

[Jordi Mallach]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Arjan Drieman wrote:
> Is it recommended to send bug reports about new releases in general?  Or
> is it recommended not to?

I'd say it's not bad if it's been out for a LONG time and the packages
haven't been updated for ages.
But I don't think the day after a release someone should be filing bugs, no.

-- 
Jordi Mallach Pérez || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Rediscovering Freedom,
   aka Oskuro in|| [EMAIL PROTECTED]  || Using Debian GNU/Linux
 Reinos de Leyenda  || [EMAIL PROTECTED]  || http://debian.org

http://sindominio.net  GnuPG public information:  pub  1024D/917A225E 
telnet pusa.uv.es 23   73ED 4244 FD43 5886 20AC  2644 2584 94BA 917A 225E


pgpEVTnigiCXJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: mozilla 0.7

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Arjan Drieman wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Almeida wrote:
> >> I filed a bug report about the new mozilla 0.7 release. It looks
> >> like it's got PSM built in so it will comfort a lot of people.
> >> It would be highly appreciated if you could give it a whirl.
> >.%( WhoIs: MythDead
> >:%( address  : [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> >:%( away : Yes, I know its out, leave me the fuck alone 
> >
> >Bad move...
> 
> Is it recommended to send bug reports about new releases in general?  Or
> is it recommended not to?

A friendly email to @packages.debian.org after a few days
would be OK, a bug report straight away is poor form.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

mozilla under frozen

[Kenneth Scharf]

Think I may have a bug report for Mozilla.  Twice I
tried to use it to download a rather large file (iso
cd rom image) and after about 50-100 megs or so my
computer went into a swap fit with constat disk
thrashing.  I was running mozilla under gnome desktop
with sawmill as the window manager.  I can use
commandline ftp just fine to download the same file
with no swapping.  I have 128mb of ram and a 255mb
swap partition  

=
Amateur Radio, when all else fails!

http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze

Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .



__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Bug#219959: ITP: mozilla-locale-eu -- Mozilla Basque Language Package

[Jordi Mallach]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mozilla-locale-eu
  Version : 1.5
  Upstream Author : Librezale.org
* URL : http://www.librezale.org/mozilla/
* License : (GPL, LGPL, MPL)
  Description : Mozilla Basque Language Package

 Basque menu/message resource package for Mozilla.
 .
 Homepage: http://www.librezale.org/mozilla/

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux nubol 2.6.0-test7 #1 Tue Oct 14 14:38:50 CEST 2003 i686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]

PROPOSAL: debian-mozilla@lists.debian.org (was: Transitioning to Mozilla Firefox 1.0PR)

[Johannes Rohr]

[Cc and reply-to debian-devel]
Am 2004.10.08 06:49 schrieb(en) Mike Hommey:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:24:07AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I remarked that mozilla-firefox is built on hppa using gcc-3.2 (I
[...]
Dear all,
due to the ever increasing number of mozilla-based packages I wonder if  
it would be a good thing to have a separate debian-mozilla mailing  
list. Personally  I have big difficulties understanding the hacked way  
how mozilla extensions etc are being repackaged for Debian and I would  
be very happy if there was a place to discuss such matters.

Looking forward to any comments & opinions,
Johannes

Bug#171935: ITP: mozilla-locale-da -- Mozilla danish language package

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-12-06
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mozilla-locale-da
  Version : 1.21
  Upstream Author : Robert Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Henrik Lynggaard 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/l10n/lang/moz1.21/
* License : GPL, LGPL and MPL 1.1
  Description     : Mozilla danish language package

Danish menu/message resource package for Mozilla.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: powerpc
Kernel: Linux auryn 2.4.20-rc4ben20021128+ck+vartimeslice+rmap #1 lør nov 30 
22:34:22 CET 2002 ppc
Locale: LANG=da_DK, LC_CTYPE=da_DK

Re: "Mozilla" plugins to depend upon virtual "mozilla-plugin-browser"?

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:34:17PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Would it be possible that the "Mozilla" plugins depend upon
> a virtual mozilla-plugin-browser package? All browsers with
> the same plugin interface could provide this feature, and
> foreign browsers would not be kept out.
> 
What is the point?

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#219959: ITP: mozilla-locale-eu -- Mozilla Basque Language Package

[Joe Drew]

On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 07:16, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> * Package name    : mozilla-locale-eu
>   Description : Mozilla Basque Language Package

The mozilla-locale* packages need some uniformity to their short (and
maybe long, I haven't looked) descriptions.

("Mozilla $LANG Language Package", "Mozilla $LANG language add-on",
"Mozilla $LANG language/region pack" are all examples)

I suggest "Mozilla $LANG language support package", perhaps without
"support."

-- 
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

My weblog doesn't detail my personal life: http://me.woot.net

Re: Bug#219959: ITP: mozilla-locale-eu -- Mozilla Basque Language Package

[Jordi Mallach]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:59:45PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> The mozilla-locale* packages need some uniformity to their short (and
> maybe long, I haven't looked) descriptions.
> 
> ("Mozilla $LANG Language Package", "Mozilla $LANG language add-on",
> "Mozilla $LANG language/region pack" are all examples)
> 
> I suggest "Mozilla $LANG language support package", perhaps without
> "support."

I'll change the description if you manage to get everyone to accept this
one :)

A better generic long description for all the packages would be nice
too.

Jordi
-- 
Jordi Mallach Pérez  --  Debian developer http://www.debian.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sindominio.net/
GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/~jordi/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#219959: ITP: mozilla-locale-eu -- Mozilla Basque Language Package

[Joe Drew]

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:58, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:59:45PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> > The mozilla-locale* packages need some uniformity to their short (and
> > maybe long, I haven't looked) descriptions.
> > 
> > ("Mozilla $LANG Language Package", "Mozilla $LANG language add-on",
> > "Mozilla $LANG language/region pack" are all examples)
> > 
> > I suggest "Mozilla $LANG language support package", perhaps without
> > "support."
> 
> I'll change the description if you manage to get everyone to accept this
> one :)

Which one in particular? I will file bugs if it's desired.

> A better generic long description for all the packages would be nice
> too.

$PACKAGENAME contains Mozilla resources for [the] $LANG [language]. If
it is installed, Mozilla's menus and messages will all be available in
$LANG [instead of the default] [if configuration XYZ is selected].

I solicit input for bits in []. I don't know what's required to actually
enable a Mozilla package, but it should be made clear if it's not
automatically selected by the LANG/LC_CTYPE combination.

-- 
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

My weblog doesn't detail my personal life: http://me.woot.net

Re: PROPOSAL: debian-mozilla@lists.debian.org (was: Transitioning to Mozilla Firefox 1.0PR)

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Johannes Rohr [Fri, Oct 08 2004, 10:20:12AM]:

> >> I remarked that mozilla-firefox is built on hppa using gcc-3.2 (I
> 
> [...]
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> due to the ever increasing number of mozilla-based packages I wonder if  
> it would be a good thing to have a separate debian-mozilla mailing  
> list. Personally  I have big difficulties understanding the hacked way  

What is wrong with an Alioth project, say "mozilla-group"? There you can
create mailing lists you need.

Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
 morgen!
 was ist morgen?
 aehm, mittwoch!

Re: PROPOSAL: debian-mozilla@lists.debian.org (was: Transitioning to Mozilla Firefox 1.0PR)

[Eric Dorland]

* Johannes Rohr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [Cc and reply-to debian-devel]
> 
> Am 2004.10.08 06:49 schrieb(en) Mike Hommey:
> >On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:24:07AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> I remarked that mozilla-firefox is built on hppa using gcc-3.2 (I
> 
> [...]
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> due to the ever increasing number of mozilla-based packages I wonder if  
> it would be a good thing to have a separate debian-mozilla mailing  
> list. Personally  I have big difficulties understanding the hacked way  
> how mozilla extensions etc are being repackaged for Debian and I would  
> be very happy if there was a place to discuss such matters.
> 
> Looking forward to any comments & opinions,

I'm very much in favor of such a list, but it would be best if Takuo
and other leading mozilla packagers wanted such a thing as well. 

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#276440: ITP: mozilla-locale-ko -- Mozilla Korean Language/Region Package

[Yooseong Yang]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mozilla-locale-ko
  Version : 1.7
  Upstream Author : Sukcheon Yoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://kldp.net//projects/mozilla/
* License : GPL
  Description : Mozilla Korean Language/Region Package

(Include the long description here.)
 Korean Menu/Message resource and Region property package for Mozilla.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=ko_KR.eucKR, LC_CTYPE=ko_KR.eucKR (ignored: LC_ALL set to 
ko_KR.eucKR)

Bug#348317: ITP: mozilla-bookmarksync -- Mozilla Firefox extension to synchronize bookmarks

[Yaroslav Halchenko]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mozilla-bookmarksync
  Version : 1.0.2
  Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL or Web page : 
* License : MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1
  Description : Mozilla Firefox extension to synchronize bookmarks

Bookmarks Synchronizer is a Mozilla Firefox extension that let you
connect to an FTP/WebDAV server and synchronize your bookmarks that
are stored in an XML file. Setup is easy; just write in your
FTP/WebDAV server address, username, password and a name for the XML
file (by default called xbel.xml).  To start, press Upload to create
the file on the server and set (if you want) to automatically download
the file on startup or upload it when you close your browser

--Yarik


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

mozilla-firebird in testing

[Takuo KITAME]

Ho.

I wonder why mozilla-firebird is in testing with no arm binary.
According to buildd.d.o, mozilla-firebird fails to build on arm.
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=mozilla-firebird&ver=0.6.1-7&arch=arm&file=log


-- 
Takuo KITAME.

Re: mozilla-*-locale-* packages?

[Aurelien Jarno]

Christian Perrier wrote:
From a thread in -devel, dated September, after an ITP for Swedish
locale files for Mozilla stuff...
I didn't pay to much attention to that thread, I am discovering it now.
Quoting Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:

I agree too. Actually, it makes more sense if we do a single package and
integrate there mechanisms to extract the needed files from xpis to
generate mozilla-locale-* packages instead of having each maintainer 
devise its own (as well as redoing the registration of the packages in 
mozilla as documented at [1])

Moreover, somebody (a packaging group) could just package the locale
definitions available for Mozilla [2], Firefox [3] and Thunderbird [3], 
update them from time to time and update them whenever a new release is 
produced. That would avoid all the bugs related to -locale-YYY 
packages not allowing transitions of new Mozilla|Firefox|Thunderbird 
versions because they have not been updated and having the binary package 
proceed into testing would break them.

I believe that's actually how Mozilla is integrated in other OS, for 
example, in Solaris IIRC.


I think, that this would not be too hard to implement. On the other
hand, there would still be problems that some translations might not be
ready if mozilla* packages become ready to go in. IMHO, doing so looks like
a trick to declare translations not to be release critical and in fact
inferior to normal packages.
IHMO, that is not very easy to do that for, at least, mozilla and 
thunderbird (but that could change in the future). The .xpi packages 
differ a lot from one language to an other, some .xpi are not available, 
you have to use a CVS (for example for the French translation of 
thunderbird).

However, for firefox that could be implemented as since version 1.0PR, 
the translations are standardized. All language teams use the mozilla 
CVS, the translations are using the same format and are available at the 
same time on ftp://ftp.mozilla.org.

--
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno   GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net

Re: mozilla-*-locale-* packages?

[Alexander Sack]

I think, that this would not be too hard to implement. On the other
hand, there would still be problems that some translations might not be
ready if mozilla* packages become ready to go in. IMHO, doing so 
looks like
a trick to declare translations not to be release critical and in fact
inferior to normal packages.

IHMO, that is not very easy to do that for, at least, mozilla and 
thunderbird (but that could change in the future). The .xpi packages 
differ a lot from one language to an other, some .xpi are not 
available, you have to use a CVS (for example for the French 
translation of thunderbird).

Of course one would need to modify the upstream origs, but I think this 
would be ok if it resolves our problems. Nevertheless, let's wait and 
see what upstream is doing. I guess at least for thunderbird the locale 
development model will change as soon as the firefox way of handling 
locales is mature and proved to be efficient.

--
GPG messages preferred. |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Alexander Sack  | : :' :  The  universal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | `. `'  Operating System
http://www.jwsdot.com/  |   `-http://www.debian.org/

mozilla 1.3.1-1 segfaults

[Jack Howarth]

Are any arches other than debian ppc sid
seeing the new mozilla 1.3.1-1 release segfault?
This new version also causes galeon to segfault
as well. Regressing back to 1.3-5 fixes both.
Jack

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Alexander Sack]

Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:

>>>What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian
>>>packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos? 
>>>  
>>>
>>If we don't use any trademarked images, logos, or phrases, what
>>exactly are we talking about here?
>>
>>
>
>As I think this is a very nice question, could Eric or any other
>person identify which Mozilla Foundation trademarks are used in our
>packages (and where)?
>
>
>  
>
In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the
product name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can
recall now, it is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name
and the window title bar.

-- 
 GPG messages preferred.   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
 Alexander Sack| : :' :  The  universal
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.asoftsite.org  |   `-http://www.debian.org/

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[John Hasler]

Alexander Sack writes:
> In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product
> name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it
> is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name and the window
> title bar.

I'm not convinced that any of these constitute trademark infringement.
-- 
John Hasler


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

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Gervase Markham]

John Hasler wrote:

Alexander Sack writes:


In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product
name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it
is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name and the window
title bar.


I'm not convinced that any of these constitute trademark infringement.


Then I'm slightly confused as to your concept of trademark infringement. 
If I label the car I've built as a Ford (even if it uses a lot of Ford 
parts), it infringes Ford's trademark.


I haven't heard anyone else disputing that to ship a web browser called 
"Firefox", Debian needs an arrangement with the owner of the trademark 
"Firefox" as applied to web browsers.


Gerv


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

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 6/17/05, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> > Alexander Sack writes:
> >
> >>In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product
> >>name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it
> >>is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name and the window
> >>title bar.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that any of these constitute trademark infringement.
> 
> Then I'm slightly confused as to your concept of trademark infringement.
> If I label the car I've built as a Ford (even if it uses a lot of Ford
> parts), it infringes Ford's trademark.
> 
> I haven't heard anyone else disputing that to ship a web browser called
> "Firefox", Debian needs an arrangement with the owner of the trademark
> "Firefox" as applied to web browsers.

Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous
thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and
all that.  But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an
arrangement were reached.  I prefer the not-quite-a-trademark-license
arrangement discussed in the thread ending at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00795.html .

But then, I tend to take the "square deal" / "keep people's options
open when that won't result in a tragedy of the commons" approach to
freedom rather than the "natural right" approach.  So I'm
pro-GPL-as-construed-under-the-actual-law,
pro-trademark-when-used-to-discourage-misrepresentation, and
pro-real-world-legal-system generally.  This may put me in a minority
among debian-legal regulars.  :-)

Cheers,
- Michael
(IANAL, IANADD)

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[John Hasler]

Gerv writes:
> If I label the car I've built as a Ford (even if it uses a lot of Ford
> parts), it infringes Ford's trademark.

Not until you try to sell it.  Ford Motor Company does not own the word
'Ford'.  They merely have the exclusive right to sell automobiles (and
related parts and services) using that mark.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elmwood, WI USA


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

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[John Hasler]

Michael writes:
> Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous
> thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and all
> that.  But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an
> arrangement were reached.

Exactly.  If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users.
And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not
put us in a privileged position with respect to them: they have the legal
right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission.

So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on.  There is no DFSG problem
here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks.
-- 
John Hasler
(IANAL, IAADD)


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

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Eric Dorland]

* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Michael writes:
> > Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous
> > thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and all
> > that.  But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an
> > arrangement were reached.
> 
> Exactly.  If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users.
> And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not
> put us in a privileged position with respect to them: they have the legal
> right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission.
> 
> So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on.  There is no DFSG problem
> here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks.

If we don't need the "arragement", why exactly would we accept it
anyway? 

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 6/17/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Exactly.  If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users.
> > And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not
> > put us in a privileged position with respect to them: they have the legal
> > right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission.
> >
> > So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on.  There is no DFSG problem
> > here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks.
> 
> If we don't need the "arragement", why exactly would we accept it
> anyway?

I wouldn't say "accept" it, I would say "acknowledge" the safety zone
offered unilaterally by the Mozilla Foundation, and as a courtesy to
them make some effort to stay comfortably within it while continuing
to ship under the Mozilla names.  Their trademark policy is surely
less draconian than, say, Red Hat's, and we aren't going around
purging the RedHat Package Manager from Debian.

If the offer from six months ago still stands (which, to my
recollection and in my non-lawyer view, read like a unilateral "safety
zone" rather than a trademark license as such), that's extraordinarily
accommodating on MoFo's part.  It's a square deal from people with a
pretty good reputation for square deals.  They deserve better from
Debian than to have their flagship products obscured by a rename when
they haven't done anything nasty to anyone yet.

The FSF has, at best, completely failed to offer leadership with
respect to free software and trademarks, as the MySQL case and the Red
Hat / UnixCD mess have shown.  I think it would be rather gratifying
if Debian could step in to fill the void.  And it would be kind of
nice to have a workable modus vivendi to exhibit if and when the Linux
Mark Institute (or the OpenSSL team or the PHP folks or Red Hat or
MySQL) comes knocking.

Cheers,
- Michael

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[John Hasler]

Eric Dorland writes:
> If we don't need the "arrangement", why exactly would we accept it
> anyway?

Because they want it and it costs us nothing to give it to them.  They are
our friends.  Let's accommodate them where we can.
-- 
John Hasler


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

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Eric Dorland]

* Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 6/17/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Exactly.  If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our 
> > > users.
> > > And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not
> > > put us in a privileged position with respect to them: they have the legal
> > > right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission.
> > >
> > > So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on.  There is no DFSG problem
> > > here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks.
> > 
> > If we don't need the "arragement", why exactly would we accept it
> > anyway?
> 
> I wouldn't say "accept" it, I would say "acknowledge" the safety zone
> offered unilaterally by the Mozilla Foundation, and as a courtesy to
> them make some effort to stay comfortably within it while continuing
> to ship under the Mozilla names.  Their trademark policy is surely
> less draconian than, say, Red Hat's, and we aren't going around
> purging the RedHat Package Manager from Debian.

I think you're playing word games now. Even if this is a unilateral
"gift" we still need to decide if we want it or not. 

> If the offer from six months ago still stands (which, to my
> recollection and in my non-lawyer view, read like a unilateral "safety
> zone" rather than a trademark license as such), that's extraordinarily
> accommodating on MoFo's part.  It's a square deal from people with a
> pretty good reputation for square deals.  They deserve better from
> Debian than to have their flagship products obscured by a rename when
> they haven't done anything nasty to anyone yet.

What reputation are you referring to? Not that I necessarily disagree,
but what are you basing that assessment on? 
 
> The FSF has, at best, completely failed to offer leadership with
> respect to free software and trademarks, as the MySQL case and the Red
> Hat / UnixCD mess have shown.  I think it would be rather gratifying
> if Debian could step in to fill the void.  And it would be kind of
> nice to have a workable modus vivendi to exhibit if and when the Linux
> Mark Institute (or the OpenSSL team or the PHP folks or Red Hat or
> MySQL) comes knocking.

I do have to agree that guidance when it comes to trademark situations
is sorely lacking. There doesn't seem to be that consistent a
viewpoint with Debian either unfortunately. 

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 6/19/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I wouldn't say "accept" it, I would say "acknowledge" the safety zone
> > offered unilaterally by the Mozilla Foundation, and as a courtesy to
> > them make some effort to stay comfortably within it while continuing
> > to ship under the Mozilla names.  Their trademark policy is surely
> > less draconian than, say, Red Hat's, and we aren't going around
> > purging the RedHat Package Manager from Debian.
> 
> I think you're playing word games now. Even if this is a unilateral
> "gift" we still need to decide if we want it or not.

Of course; and as the maintainer, you are going to be the one making
that call.  I'm just chary of using words like "offer" and "accept"
because they suggest that we are in the contract zone.  I think (I
could be wrong; IANAL) that, in the free software arena, it's actually
better for both sides for the trademark holder to say:

"We aren't exactly licensing all and sundry to manufacture products
under our brand.  Our product line includes both the source code and
the 'official' binaries; we are of the opinion that third parties who
follow these guidelines when building and distributing their own
binaries are merely re-packaging our source code product (under
standards like Coty v. Prestonettes in the US and X, Y, and Z
elsewhere) and using our trademarks descriptively.

"We reserve the right to decide unilaterally that someone either has
created a product of their own (to which our trademark can't be
applied without license) or isn't doing an adequate job of QA in the
course of re-packaging.  But if and when that happens, we're going to
follow the steps outlined here to try to bring them into voluntary
compliance before we demand that they either accept a formal license
and traditional oversight procedures or cease to apply our trademarks
to their modified version of our product."

>From what I've read, that's as open a policy as a trademark holder can
offer and still retain control of the trademark in the long run.  I
may be overstating here how far the Mozilla Foundation is willing to
go; but if a modus vivendi can be reached in which the only thing
special about Debian is that the guidelines more or less reflect the
maintainer's actual practice, I think that sits more comfortably with
DFSG #8 than a license per se.

> > If the offer from six months ago still stands (which, to my
> > recollection and in my non-lawyer view, read like a unilateral "safety
> > zone" rather than a trademark license as such), that's extraordinarily
> > accommodating on MoFo's part.  It's a square deal from people with a
> > pretty good reputation for square deals.  They deserve better from
> > Debian than to have their flagship products obscured by a rename when
> > they haven't done anything nasty to anyone yet.
> 
> What reputation are you referring to? Not that I necessarily disagree,
> but what are you basing that assessment on?

Their rebranding isn't special for Netscape/AOL and other corporate
partners; they've worked very hard to make it accessible to third
parties without any need for explicit cooperation with them.  They're
going through the agony of relicensing their entire code base under
MPL/LGPL/GPL so that GPL projects can cherry-pick at source code
level.  They're good citizens in W3C standards space even when the
committee decisions go against them (e. g., XUL vs. XForms).  I don't
know the details of their CA certificate handling, but at least they
_have_ a policy and respond constructively to criticism of it.  And
Mitch Kapor and the rest of the MoFo board have a lot of street cred
as individuals.

> > The FSF has, at best, completely failed to offer leadership with
> > respect to free software and trademarks, as the MySQL case and the Red
> > Hat / UnixCD mess have shown.  I think it would be rather gratifying
> > if Debian could step in to fill the void.  And it would be kind of
> > nice to have a workable modus vivendi to exhibit if and when the Linux
> > Mark Institute (or the OpenSSL team or the PHP folks or Red Hat or
> > MySQL) comes knocking.
> 
> I do have to agree that guidance when it comes to trademark situations
> is sorely lacking. There doesn't seem to be that consistent a
> viewpoint with Debian either unfortunately.

It's a sticky wicket.  Free software enthusiasts (among whom I count
myself) don't like systems that exacerbate second-class-citizenship
among those whose motivations aren't principally commercial.  Nowadays
everyone's a publisher, and the paperwork overhead of copyright has
dropped near to zero (until you try to enforce it); but not everyone
is a marketer, and that's what trademarks are about.  I think it's
possible to have a personal-freedom-compatible trademark policy, but
it's not trivial, and the first few tries are bound to have their
discontents.  Doesn't mean it's not worth trying, though.

Cheers,
- Michael
(IANADD, IANAL)

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Eric Dorland]

* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > If we don't need the "arrangement", why exactly would we accept it
> > anyway?
> 
> Because they want it and it costs us nothing to give it to them.  They are
> our friends.  Let's accommodate them where we can.

We may be their friends, but that shouldn't give us special
privileges. 

Friendship is really not a valid justification to do something in this
context.

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[John Hasler]

Eric Dorland writes:
> We may be their friends, but that shouldn't give us special privileges.

If what we are doing does not actually infringe their trademark we would
not be getting any special privileges.
-- 
John Hasler


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

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Eric Dorland]

* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > We may be their friends, but that shouldn't give us special privileges.
> 
> If what we are doing does not actually infringe their trademark we would
> not be getting any special privileges.

What we are doing already is against their trademark policy. We're
being offered an agreement specific to Debian to bypass that. I would
call that special privileges.  

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[John Hasler]

I wrote:
> If what we are doing does not actually infringe their trademark we would
> not be getting any special privileges.

Eric Dorland writes:
> What we are doing already is against their trademark policy. We're being
> offered an agreement specific to Debian to bypass that. I would call that
> special privileges.

If their policy is not legally enforceable our users have all the rights we
have whether we accept the agreement of not.
-- 
John Hasler (IANAL)


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

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Eric Dorland]

* Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 6/19/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I wouldn't say "accept" it, I would say "acknowledge" the safety zone
> > > offered unilaterally by the Mozilla Foundation, and as a courtesy to
> > > them make some effort to stay comfortably within it while continuing
> > > to ship under the Mozilla names.  Their trademark policy is surely
> > > less draconian than, say, Red Hat's, and we aren't going around
> > > purging the RedHat Package Manager from Debian.
> > 
> > I think you're playing word games now. Even if this is a unilateral
> > "gift" we still need to decide if we want it or not.
> 
> Of course; and as the maintainer, you are going to be the one making
> that call.  I'm just chary of using words like "offer" and "accept"
> because they suggest that we are in the contract zone.  I think (I
> could be wrong; IANAL) that, in the free software arena, it's actually
> better for both sides for the trademark holder to say:
> 
> "We aren't exactly licensing all and sundry to manufacture products
> under our brand.  Our product line includes both the source code and
> the 'official' binaries; we are of the opinion that third parties who
> follow these guidelines when building and distributing their own
> binaries are merely re-packaging our source code product (under
> standards like Coty v. Prestonettes in the US and X, Y, and Z
> elsewhere) and using our trademarks descriptively.
> 
> "We reserve the right to decide unilaterally that someone either has
> created a product of their own (to which our trademark can't be
> applied without license) or isn't doing an adequate job of QA in the
> course of re-packaging.  But if and when that happens, we're going to
> follow the steps outlined here to try to bring them into voluntary
> compliance before we demand that they either accept a formal license
> and traditional oversight procedures or cease to apply our trademarks
> to their modified version of our product."
> 
> >From what I've read, that's as open a policy as a trademark holder can
> offer and still retain control of the trademark in the long run.  I
> may be overstating here how far the Mozilla Foundation is willing to
> go; but if a modus vivendi can be reached in which the only thing
> special about Debian is that the guidelines more or less reflect the
> maintainer's actual practice, I think that sits more comfortably with
> DFSG #8 than a license per se.

If the mozilla foundation come up with something like that I would be
satisfied, as long as the guidelines as reasonable and allow me to do
things I need to do as a maintainer. 
 
> > > If the offer from six months ago still stands (which, to my
> > > recollection and in my non-lawyer view, read like a unilateral "safety
> > > zone" rather than a trademark license as such), that's extraordinarily
> > > accommodating on MoFo's part.  It's a square deal from people with a
> > > pretty good reputation for square deals.  They deserve better from
> > > Debian than to have their flagship products obscured by a rename when
> > > they haven't done anything nasty to anyone yet.
> > 
> > What reputation are you referring to? Not that I necessarily disagree,
> > but what are you basing that assessment on?
> 
> Their rebranding isn't special for Netscape/AOL and other corporate
> partners; they've worked very hard to make it accessible to third
> parties without any need for explicit cooperation with them.  They're
> going through the agony of relicensing their entire code base under
> MPL/LGPL/GPL so that GPL projects can cherry-pick at source code
> level.  They're good citizens in W3C standards space even when the
> committee decisions go against them (e. g., XUL vs. XForms).  I don't
> know the details of their CA certificate handling, but at least they
> _have_ a policy and respond constructively to criticism of it.  And
> Mitch Kapor and the rest of the MoFo board have a lot of street cred
> as individuals.

Point taken. But I'm not sure what you mean by their Netscape
rebranding isn't special. Netscape doesn't claim their browser is
Firefox, so there isn't a problem from that perspective. 

> > > The FSF has, at best, completely failed to offer leadership with
> > > respect to free software and trademarks, as the MySQL case and the Red
> > > Hat / UnixCD mess have shown.  I think it would be rather grat

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Eric Dorland]

* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I wrote:
> > If what we are doing does not actually infringe their trademark we would
> > not be getting any special privileges.
> 
> Eric Dorland writes:
> > What we are doing already is against their trademark policy. We're being
> > offered an agreement specific to Debian to bypass that. I would call that
> > special privileges.
> 
> If their policy is not legally enforceable our users have all the rights we
> have whether we accept the agreement of not.

If their policy is not legally enforceable then we've wasted a lot of
time discussing it. Do you have any backup to this claim? 

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Eric Dorland]

* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> I'd certainly 
> 

be interested in trying to develop some sort of policy for Debian
regarding trademarks. I'm not sure how much weight it could carry, but
at least if people like the ideas.


-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Gervase Markham wrote:

> Then I'm slightly confused as to your concept of trademark infringement.
> If I label the car I've built as a Ford (even if it uses a lot of Ford
> parts), it infringes Ford's trademark.

OTOH, as has been pointed out before in one of the many related threads,
if I take a Ford, built by Ford Motor Company, replace the fuel pump, I
can still sell it as a Ford.

I'm not a trademark lawyer, haven't read much on trademark, etc. so I
don't feel competant at all trying to figure where that line is drawn in
software. However, I'd be surprised if putting

Mozilla Firefox
Modified by Debian
(see /usr/share/doc/mozilla-firefox/changelog.Debian.gz)

in the About box and similar things in the package description wouldn't
be allowed.

OTOH, I don't see any issue whatsoever with Debian taking the Mozilla
Foundation's trademark license offer, so long as it only gives Debian
additional rights.


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

Mozilla PSM (https support)

[Franklin Belew]

Since the RSA code was put in the public domain, the
Personal Security Manager (aka PSM) that allows SSL/https connections
has become opensource under the same license as mozilla (MPL/GPL)

Facts:
- License is DFSG Free (MPL/GPL)
- Uses OpenSSL for encryption (BSD Style License(s))
- Soure is in upstream mozilla cvs tree, and will (if not already) be 
  be in upstream release tarballs
- PSM Requires mozilla libraries to build

Questions:
- Can the PSM go in Main?
- If Not in main, how do I build this so that mozilla(noncrypto parts) 
  goes in main, while mozilla-psm goes to non-us/main with minimum amount
  of manual work? (when answering this, keep the autobuilders in mind)
- Is there anything I've forgotten?


Frank aka Myth


pgpWp7638BlVN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Mozilla and spell check

[Valentijn Sessink]

Hello all,
As you can see, I'm writing this with Mozilla 0.9.4, which works great 
(I did a backport for Potato, went OK, but the mozilla-xmlterm did not 
like becoming a .deb. For those of you who are interested: get it at 
<http://olivier.pk.wau.nl/~valentyn/>, Packages.gz available, backports 
are in debian/potato/binary-i386/)

One thing I'm missing is a spell checker in the composer. I looked 
around a bit and as far as I can see, the "official" (i.e. non-debian, 
regular, Mozilla supplied) installer "seems to" incorporate a 
proprietary spell checker. I'm not sure, I did not check - yet.

Before I start downloading Mozilla 0.9.4, is there maybe someone who 
tried this before, or are there people that use the non-debianized 
Mozilla version? Can anyone comment on this?

(Related: I can't get Acroread to work as a plugin, but oh well, that 
can wait).

V.
--

Re: mozilla 0.9.7 <-> galeon

[Shaya Potter]

I've updated my unstable galeon package with a pull from the cvs that
compiles against mozilla 0.9.7

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/galeon_1.1-1_i386.deb

wget it, dpkg -i it

it seems to work fine for me.  Note that this is a cvs pull from
11am'ish EST on Dec 25th, so it could be unstable.

shaya

On Tue, 2001-12-25 at 12:21, johan boeckx wrote:
> Possible that with the most recent update of mozilla (0.9.7) there are 
> problems with the dependences with galeon. ?
> 
> thx,
> Johan Boeckx
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED],yucs.org}
http://yucs.org/~spotter/

Re: mozilla 0.9.7 <-> galeon

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
Shaya Potter wrote on Wed Dec 26, 2001 um 01:50:32AM:
> I've updated my unstable galeon package with a pull from the cvs that
> compiles against mozilla 0.9.7
> 
> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/galeon_1.1-1_i386.deb
> 
> wget it, dpkg -i it

LOL, keep hoping. Were is the source or valid trustable GPG signature?

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
In /etc steht, was Du denkst. In /proc steht, was das OS denkt.
Lutz Donnerhacke in doc

Bug#189362: ITP: mozilla-mozgest -- Mouse gesture support for the mozilla webbrowser

[Alan Woodland]

Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-17
Severity: wishlist


* Package name: mozilla-mozgest
  Version : 0.3.5.1
  Upstream Author : David Illsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://optimoz.mozdev.org/
* License : (MPL, GPL)
  Description : Mouse gesture support for the mozilla webbrowser

Mouse gestures are mouse movements in combination with a click-hold
and optionally a modifier that execute some browser functions. You
press mouse button, draw a gesture, and release mouse button (you 
can choose which button to use in advanced preferences). This 
gesture is recognized and appropriate action is triggered.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux einstien 2.4.20 #1 Fri Feb 21 16:25:56 GMT 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Bug#126586: [ITP]: mozilla-ca-cert -- Mozilla builtin CA certificates' PEM files

[Fumitoshi UKAI]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mozilla-ca-cert
  Version : 0.9.7 ?
  Upstream Author : mozilla.org
* URL : http://www.mozilla.org/
* License : MPL or GPL
  Description : Mozilla builtin CA certificates' PEM files

Mozilla has several builtin CA certificate, but it can be useful only in 
mozilla for now.  It would be very useful for other OpenSSL enabled
applications, such as w3m-ssl.  This package will provides PEM files
generated from mozilla certdata.txt, install them to /etc/ssl/certs
and probably generate hash symlinks by using c_rehash(1).
So a package using openssl can use /etc/ssl/certs as CApath to verify
SSL peer certificate.

What do you think about this package?  Does it make sense?
If mozilla maintainer or openssl maintainer is interested to provide this
package, I'd like to tell them how to build this package instead of 
building this by myself.

Can we put this package in main?

Any comments?

Thanks,
Fumitoshi UKAI

Bug#126883: [ITP]: mozilla-ca-cert -- Mozilla builtin CA certificates' PEM files

[Fumitoshi UKAI]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mozilla-ca-cert
  Version : 0.9.7 ?
  Upstream Author : mozilla.org
* URL : http://www.mozilla.org/
* License : MPL or GPL
  Description : Mozilla builtin CA certificates' PEM files

Mozilla has several builtin CA certificate, but it can be useful only in 
mozilla for now.  It would be very useful for other OpenSSL enabled
applications, such as w3m-ssl.  This package will provides PEM files
generated from mozilla certdata.txt, install them to /etc/ssl/certs
and probably generate hash symlinks by using c_rehash(1).
So a package using openssl can use /etc/ssl/certs as CApath to verify
SSL peer certificate.

What do you think about this package?  Does it make sense?
If mozilla maintainer or openssl maintainer is interested to provide this
package, I'd like to tell them how to build this package instead of 
building this by myself.

Can we put this package in main?

Any comments?

Thanks,
Fumitoshi UKAI

Bug#659826: ITP: mozilla-gnome-keyring -- Store mozilla passwords in GNOME Keyring.

[Ximin Luo]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ximin Luo 

* Package name: mozilla-gnome-keyring
  Version : 0.6.1
  Upstream Author : Ximin Luo 
* URL : https://github.com/infinity0/mozilla-gnome-keyring
* License : MPL-1.1 or GPL-2+ or LGPL-2.1+
  Programming Lang: C++
  Description : Store mozilla passwords in GNOME Keyring.

 This extenion integrates gnome-keyring into xulrunner applications as the
 software security device.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20120213234545.5347.3093.reportbug@localhost.localdomain

Bug#276442: ITP: mozilla-firefox-locale-ko -- Mozilla FireFox Korean Language/Region Package

[Yooseong Yang]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mozilla-firefox-locale-ko
  Version : 0.9.1
  Upstream Author : Sukcheon Yoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://kldp.net/projects/mozilla/
* License : GPL
  Description : Mozilla FireFox Korean Language/Region Package

 Korean Menu/Message resource and Region property package for
 Mozilla Firefox.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=ko_KR.eucKR, LC_CTYPE=ko_KR.eucKR (ignored: LC_ALL set to 
ko_KR.eucKR)

Bug#276445: ITP: mozilla-thunderbird-locale-ko -- Mozilla Thunderbird Korean Language/Region Package

[Yooseong Yang]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: mozilla-thunderbird-locale-ko
  Version : 0.8
  Upstream Author : JoungKyun Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://oops.org/project/thunderbird/LanguagePack/
* License : GPL
  Description : Mozilla Thunderbird Korean Language/Region Package

 Korean Menu/Message resource and Region property package for Mozilla
 Thunderbird.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=ko_KR.eucKR, LC_CTYPE=ko_KR.eucKR (ignored: LC_ALL set to 
ko_KR.eucKR)

Bug#300578: ITP: mozilla-firefox-locale-ar -- Mozilla Firefox Arabic Language/Region Package

[Torsten Werner]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Torsten Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: mozilla-firefox-locale-ar
  Version : 0.2
  Upstream Author : Ayman Hourieh
* URL : http://www.arabeyes.org/project.php?proj=Mozilla
* License : MPL
  Description : Mozilla Firefox Arabic Language/Region Package

 Arabic Menu/Message resource and Region property package
 for Mozilla Firefox.
 .
 Homepage: http://www.arabeyes.org/project.php?proj=Mozilla


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

Bug#341532: ITP: mozilla-thunderbird-locale-cs -- Mozilla Thunderbird Czech Language/Region Package

[Ondrej Sury]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Ondrej Sury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: mozilla-thunderbird-locale-cs
  Version : 1.07debian
  Upstream Author : Czilla Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.czilla.org/
* License : Mozilla Public License 1.1
  Description : Mozilla Thunderbird Czech Language/Region Package


 Czech Menu/Message resource an Region property package for Mozilla
 Thunderbird.
 .
 Homepage: http://www.czilla.org

Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-10-686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)


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

Re: mozilla-firebird in testing

[Joshua Kwan]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 02:00:01PM +0900, Takuo KITAME wrote:
> According to buildd.d.o, mozilla-firebird fails to build on arm.

From the build log:

Linux2.4_arm_glibc_PTH_OPT.OBJ/shlibsign -v -i 
/build/buildd/mozilla-firebird-0.6.1/dist/lib/libsoftokn3.so
./sign.sh: line 51: 14771 Segmentation fault  ${2}/shlibsign -v -i ${4}
make[4]: *** [/build/buildd/mozilla-firebird-0.6.1/dist/lib/libsoftokn3.chk] 
Error 139
make[4]: Leaving directory 
`/build/buildd/mozilla-firebird-0.6.1/security/nss/cmd/shlibsign'


This is the part of the mozilla build that does something ludicrous like
generating a RSA and a DSA key pair with which to self-sign the actual
library or something. I'm not sure why it exists.

Takuo, since you are the Mozilla maintainer, do you know any more about
the purpose of this weird signing?

Failing that I suppose arm's toolchain is just severely braindamaged...

-- 
Joshua Kwan


pgpHgJ6tKLD4B.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: mozilla-firebird in testing

[David Schleef]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 11:22:49PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 02:00:01PM +0900, Takuo KITAME wrote:
> > According to buildd.d.o, mozilla-firebird fails to build on arm.
> 
> From the build log:
> 
> Linux2.4_arm_glibc_PTH_OPT.OBJ/shlibsign -v -i 
> /build/buildd/mozilla-firebird-0.6.1/dist/lib/libsoftokn3.so
> ./sign.sh: line 51: 14771 Segmentation fault  ${2}/shlibsign -v -i ${4}
> make[4]: *** [/build/buildd/mozilla-firebird-0.6.1/dist/lib/libsoftokn3.chk] 
> Error 139
> make[4]: Leaving directory 
> `/build/buildd/mozilla-firebird-0.6.1/security/nss/cmd/shlibsign'
> --------
> 
> This is the part of the mozilla build that does something ludicrous like
> generating a RSA and a DSA key pair with which to self-sign the actual
> library or something. I'm not sure why it exists.
> 
> Takuo, since you are the Mozilla maintainer, do you know any more about
> the purpose of this weird signing?
> 
> Failing that I suppose arm's toolchain is just severely braindamaged...

I've been debugging this off-and-on for several days now.  The
NSS code ends up smashing its own stack and the stack pointer
wanders off into la-la land.  Obviously not the easiest thing
to debug using gdb.

Anyway, the reason why mozilla-firebird is in testing without
arm is because it _never_ built on arm.



dave...

Re: PROPOSAL: debian-mozilla@lists.debian.org

[Aurelien Jarno]

Johannes Rohr a écrit :
Dear all,
due to the ever increasing number of mozilla-based packages I wonder if  
it would be a good thing to have a separate debian-mozilla mailing  
list. Personally  I have big difficulties understanding the hacked way  
how mozilla extensions etc are being repackaged for Debian and I would  
be very happy if there was a place to discuss such matters.

Looking forward to any comments & opinions,
As still nobody has answer to Johannes, I start.
I think that creating a such list is a very good idea. Currently the 
only way to contact mozilla package's maintainers is to do an apt-cache 
search mozilla and grep for the email adresses. FYI there is currently 
49 source packages with mozilla in their name. A common list would 
improve communication between all such maintainers, supposing that they 
all subscribe to the new mailing list (I hope so).

Moreover, it could improve the coordination between all mozilla 
package's maintainer. It could be useful to tell things like, "Hey I 
have uploaded a new version of mozilla-foo to experimental, feel free to 
also update the corresponding translation package", or "new version of 
mozilla-foo handles translation differently as before, here is how it 
works".

I don't say there is a lack of communication, but I am sure that some 
duplicate work could be avoid by creating such a new mailing list.

If nobody opposes, I volunteer to open a bug against lists.debian.org, 
unless somebody else want to do that.

Cheers,
Aurelien
--
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno   GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net

Re: PROPOSAL: debian-mozilla@lists.debian.org

[Jesus Climent]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 10:51:21PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> 
> I think that creating a such list is a very good idea. Currently the 
> only way to contact mozilla package's maintainers is to do an apt-cache 
> search mozilla and grep for the email adresses. FYI there is currently 

Or send a mail to @packages.debian.org

-- 
Jesus Climent  info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.27|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429  7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69

If you iz watching dis in da UK, you may remember me from da telly. If 
you iz in Belgium you iz living in a shit hole.
--Ali G (Ali G indahouse)

Re: PROPOSAL: debian-mozilla@lists.debian.org

[Johannes Rohr]

Jesus Climent schrieb:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 10:51:21PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
I think that creating a such list is a very good idea. Currently the 
only way to contact mozilla package's maintainers is to do an apt-cache 
search mozilla and grep for the email adresses. FYI there is currently 

Or send a mail to @packages.debian.org
That solves only part of the problem. There should be a forum for *all* 
maintainers of mozilla-related packages to communicate.

Once instance where this would have been and still could be useful is 
the ongoing transition to firefox 1.0pre. Another (related) issue is how 
to repackage firefox /thunderbird extensions and locales for Debian. I 
have severe difficulties understanding what the extension manager does. 
All I understand is that repackaging those extensions for Debian 
requires massive hacks. It would be incredibly helpful to have something 
like a mozilla packaging policy,  just like the existing Debian GNOME 
packaging policy. Stuff like this could be discussed on a prospective 
debian-mozilla list.

Thanks,
Johannes

Re: PROPOSAL: debian-mozilla@lists.debian.org

[Johannes Rohr]

Eduard Bloch schrieb:
[...]
Dear all,
due to the ever increasing number of mozilla-based packages I wonder if  
it would be a good thing to have a separate debian-mozilla mailing  
list. Personally  I have big difficulties understanding the hacked way  

What is wrong with an Alioth project, say "mozilla-group"? There you can
create mailing lists you need.
Well, I fail to understand what the extra effort of first creating an 
Alioth project in order to then set up a mailing list would be good for.

I understand that Alioth's primary purpose is to facilitate 
collaborative maintainership, like e.g. practiced by Debian's GNOME 
team. However, this was not what I had in mind when I made my proposal. 
I simply would like to have a forum to discuss common issues related to 
packaging mozilla-related software.

Thanks,
Johannes

GtkMozEmbed with Firefox not Mozilla

[William Ballard]

gtkmozembed.h is packaged in mozilla-dev
mozilla-dev depends on mozilla-browser

Apparently it is possible to use FireFox instead and RPM for 
"firefox-gtkmozembed" exit:
http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2004-October/011326.html

Will Debian package such?

Re: Mozilla PSM (https support)

[Joseph Carter]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:42:37PM -0400, Franklin Belew wrote:
> Questions:
> - Can the PSM go in Main?
> - If Not in main, how do I build this so that mozilla(noncrypto parts) 
>   goes in main, while mozilla-psm goes to non-us/main with minimum amount
>   of manual work? (when answering this, keep the autobuilders in mind)
> - Is there anything I've forgotten?

Note that Netscape 4.75 is in main.

You might consider building two copies of mozilla, but frankly I'm
beginning to tire of this US/non-US crap with our packages.  Wasn't
someone going to have a look at the regulations or something?  IIRC the
policies were up for review in four months, but it's been longer than that
by quite some measure.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3

 my US geograpy is lousy...lol
 so's mine and I live here


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

Re: Mozilla PSM (https support)

[Ruud de Rooij]

Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Note that Netscape 4.75 is in main.

Since when?

- Ruud de Rooij.
-- 
ruud de rooij | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://ruud.org


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

Re: Mozilla PSM (https support)

[Franklin Belew]

I have come to new information...
The PSM is completely self-contained in the mozilla source tree, so
all my previous problems are null and void

Frank aka Myth


pgpKHi21ImoZ7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mozilla PSM (https support)

[Josip Rodin]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 01:15:17PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > - Can the PSM go in Main?
> > - If Not in main, how do I build this so that mozilla(noncrypto parts) 
> >   goes in main, while mozilla-psm goes to non-us/main with minimum amount
> >   of manual work? (when answering this, keep the autobuilders in mind)
> 
> Note that Netscape 4.75 is in main.

No, it's in non-free/contrib. :)

> -- 
>  my US geograpy is lousy...lol
>  so's mine and I live here

This is lame. :>

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification


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

mng files mozilla and konqueror

[Samu]

hi,
i'm starting to play with mng files ( a kind of png with frames ).
btw in these days it seems no resonable ( i'm running a sid :-)) ).
however it seems there aren't apps on debian that display a mng 
images http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/mngapps.html 
neither konqueror and mozilla do .
i would like to know if it's a debian related problem or 
anything else, but these are not the right days (mng depends on libpng )
or if it's someone that share the same problems.

ciao
Samuele 


-- 
Samuele Tonon  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.linuxasylum.net/~samu/
Acid -- better living through chemistry.
   Timothy Leary

Re: [TESTME] Mozilla M4 .deb

[Rainer Dorsch]

On my potato system, I see a segmentation fault, before something is coming up:



$ mozilla
nsComponentManager: Using components dir: /usr/lib/mozilla/components
nsComponentManager: Creating Directory /home/rami/rainer/.mozilla
Registered Ok
*** The NEW and Improved Mime being registered
width was not set
height was not set
Reading file...
Segmentation fault
rai16 10:37:29$ uname -a
Linux rai16 2.2.5 #2 Fri Apr 16 18:58:40 EST 1999 i686 unknown
rai16 10:38:17$ ldd `which mozilla`
not a dynamic executable
rai16 10:38:22$ which mozilla
/usr/bin/mozilla
rai16 10:38:27$ less /usr/bin/mozilla
rai16 10:38:39$ ldd /usr/lib/mozilla/apprunner
libnsappshell.so => not found
libxpcom.so => not found
libraptorbase.so => not found
libwidgetgtk.so => not found
libraptorgfx.so => not found
libgfxgtk.so => not found
libgfxps.so => not found
libgmbasegtk.so => not found
libreg.so => not found
libabouturl.so => not found
libhttpurl.so => not found
libsockstuburl.so => not found
libfileurl.so => not found
libgophurl.so => not found
libftpurl.so => not found
libremoturl.so => not found
libxp.so => not found
libnetutil.so => not found
libnetcache.so => not found
libnetcnvts.so => not found
libmimetype.so => not found
libnetwork.so => not found
libnetlib.so => not found
libraptorwebwidget.so => not found
libraptorhtml.so => not found
libraptorhtmlpars.so => not found
libexpat.so => not found
libxmltok.so => not found
libjsdom.so => not found
libraptorplugin.so => not found libjsurl.so => not found
libsecfree.so => not found
libmozjs.so => not found
libpref.so => not found
libimg.so => not found
libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x4001f000)
libpng.so.2 => /usr/lib/libpng.so.2 (0x40049000)
libmozutil.so => not found
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x40076000)
libplds3.so => /usr/lib/libplds3.so (0x40085000)
libplc3.so => /usr/lib/libplc3.so (0x40089000)
libnspr3.so => /usr/lib/libnspr3.so (0x4008d000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x400b7000)
libpwcac.so => not found
libgtk-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0 (0x400c9000)
libgdk-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0 (0x401ea000)
libgmodule-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-1.2.so.0 (0x4021f000)
libglib-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0 (0x40222000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40244000)
libXi.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x40247000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x4025)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x4025c000)
libnsl.so.1 => /lib/libnsl.so.1 (0x40302000)
libutil.so.1 => /lib/libutil.so.1 (0x40318000)
libresolv.so.2 => /lib/libresolv.so.2 (0x4031b000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4032a000)
libstdc++-libc6.0-1.so.2 => /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.0-1.so.2 (0x40
0)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4038c000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000)
$ ls -l /lib/libc.so.6
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root root   13 May  7 19:10 /lib/libc.so.6 -> 
libc-2.1.1.so
rai16 10:42:14$  
-- 
Rainer Dorsch
Abt. Rechnerarchitektur  e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Uni StuttgartTel.: 0711-7816-215

Re: [TESTME] Mozilla M4 .deb

[jtravs]

On  9 May, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> 
> On my potato system, I see a segmentation fault, before something is coming 
> up:
> 

I see the same.

-- 
John Travers

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the 
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us!

Re: mozilla motif-2.1 package

[Oliver Elphick]

I have now uploaded a mozilla-smotif and mozilla-dmotif package, linked
with Motif 2.1 and libc6.

If anyone would like to pile in and start looking for bugs, I'd be
grateful.  If we can really get a joint maintenance effort going, perhaps
we should set it up on master with cvsup.  I don't have any
experience with that, though.

These are the problems I know about at the moment:

1. It is far too eager to look up remote pages; I haven't yet found how to
   disable this.

2. A set of warnings appear when it is started up; they don't seem to
   affect performance, though:
Warning: Actions not found: PageUp, PageDown
Warning: Actions not found: PageDown, LineUp, LineDown, PageUp, PageUp, 
PageDown

3. It always seems to want to start the composer as its first action.

Some of these may be in configuration files, but they aren't in the
preferences dialogs.
-- 
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight  http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver

PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1



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

Bug: can't install Mozilla Firefox

[patrick . dreier]

Fear Woman and Man!

In the system is the ESR version. I will have the Release version.
Bug: can't install Mozilla Firefox.
apt remove firefox*
apt purge firefox*
apt install firefox
How can resolve this?

With kind Greetings!

Mozilla- prefix. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy -- advanced proxy management tool for iceweasel

[Yaroslav Halchenko]

> > > > I don't think we should still use the mozilla-* prefix for extension
> > > > packages ... now that we have ice*.
> > > But then, what to use instead ?
> > Reading from the package description, this extension is just for
> > iceweasel ... so maybe iceweasel-foxyproxy ... 
> With a little work, such an extension could be made available for
> iceape. That may even happen upstream. So iceweasel-something is out of
> the question, IMHO.
Indeed, stupid me didn't get at once what +xp-fl stands for so I
inquired upstream
http://z9.invisionfree.com/foxyproxy/index.php?showtopic=243
and they are planning to support it for iceape and seamonkey

> > or just foxyproxy
> > with the term "iceweasel extension" in the package short description.
> or debtags ?
> Anyways, the thing is that when I uploaded the very first extension
> packages, for mozilla at the time, they didn't have the mozilla in their
> name. Now they have, because of fair comments from Ari Pollak in bug
> #189595. And I still agree with him.
That was the idea I had for "why do we use mozilla- prefix". But the
question now is -- can we use it at all? I mean, since it is a trademark
of Mozilla Co since this year (according to wikipedia), I believe we
can't use it any more...

So possible ways I see
1. leave it as is and have mozilla- prefix
2. figure out substitution to the mozilla trademark 
3. remove prefix once and forever and use appropriate tags. After all,
many applications use some common codebase, but they are not required to
have a common prefix.

(1) seems to be the worst in the lengthy run, but the only one which fits
the frozen state of etch now


-- 
  .-.
=--   /v\  =
Keep in touch// \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko  /(   )\   ICQ#: 60653192
   Linux User^^-^^[17]




pgprklmKc1Fe7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]

[Fabian Greffrath]

Hi -devel,

> The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of
> mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix for all Mozilla extensions [1].
> This will group the extensions visually. There are currently 18
> extensions that use this naming scheme already. Please rename the binary
> package if not already done.

while we are at it, maybe we could take the opportunity and introduce a
similar scheme for all packages providing mozilla-compatible browser
plugins as well?

Let's have a look at what's maybe installed on an average (i.e. my)
system:
- flashplugin-nonfree
- icedtea6-plugin
- mozilla-openoffice.org
- totem-mozilla
- and maybe some more...

It seems to be common practice to either prefix or suffix the package
name with one of "plugin" or "mozilla", which is both inconsistent and
bad. First, because -plugin is way to general and second, because AFAIUI
we currently fork the Mozilla applications to stay out of their name
space.

I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach
these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that
perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too
long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like
xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming
scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think?

 - Fabian



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org