Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:44:11PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still > > > > > around > > > > > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even > > > > > existed. > > > > > > > > the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is > > > > compatible to > > > > some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to > > > > reboot, to > > > > just open that page. > > > > > > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x > > > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It > > > doesn't hang like NS though. > > > > There are some sites that still require Netscape 4.77. A good example is > > an online banking site here in Belgium, which 'supports' Linux, but you > > need to use Netscape to be able to use that site. > > > With the current mozilla version, everything that works with a > netscape 4.x works with mozilla. > > If not, write them to work on w3c standards compliances. And they will respond, but nobody uses mozilla anyway, see only 0.67 % of the accesses are with mozilla, so we are going to support what people use. They don't even mention that if the web site doesn't work with mozilla, nobody is going to access it with it, and thus the statistic are meaningless. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around > > > > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed. > > > > > > the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is compatible > > > to > > > some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to reboot, > > > to > > > just open that page. > > > > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x > > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It > > doesn't hang like NS though. > > There are some sites that still require Netscape 4.77. A good example is > an online banking site here in Belgium, which 'supports' Linux, but you > need to use Netscape to be able to use that site. With the current mozilla version, everything that works with a netscape 4.x works with mozilla. If not, write them to work on w3c standards compliances. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > * Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x > > > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It > > > doesn't hang like NS though. > > > > There are some sites that still require Netscape 4.77. A good example is > > an online banking site here in Belgium, which 'supports' Linux, but you > > need to use Netscape to be able to use that site. > > Even if you use konqueror and change the UserAgent it provides? AIUI, yes. They use some bugs in NS as 'features'. However, I'm not a customer with that bank (mine works almost perfectly with mozilla (at least to an amount that makes it useful for me)), so I can't give you any details -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x > > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It > > doesn't hang like NS though. > > There are some sites that still require Netscape 4.77. A good example is > an online banking site here in Belgium, which 'supports' Linux, but you > need to use Netscape to be able to use that site. Even if you use konqueror and change the UserAgent it provides? -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite Campus MitteTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Referat V a - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-916 AIM: ralfpostfix
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around > > > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed. > > > > the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is compatible to > > some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to reboot, to > > just open that page. > > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It > doesn't hang like NS though. There are some sites that still require Netscape 4.77. A good example is an online banking site here in Belgium, which 'supports' Linux, but you need to use Netscape to be able to use that site. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > me wrote: > > some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to reboot, to > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x navigator is much faster on my 128mb system than anything else, and it still displays some pages which mozilla does not. in my case this are pages with cross frame scripting of java applets and some refreshing pages. But thanks anyway :) Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around > > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed. > > the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is compatible to > some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to reboot, to > just open that page. Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It doesn't hang like NS though. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages > > which are libc5 related: > > > > [SNIP] > > > > > and others, partially. > > > > This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries, > > Comments, ideas, complaints? > > I agree with this removal. I don't really see any reason to keep such old > pieces of software anymore (specially when they don't work properly > anymore or it looks like) I guess there is still commercial and proprietary software floating around which requires older library versions. If they should contininue to run on Debian it would be helpful to provide compatible versions of the required libraries. Regards, Joey -- Let's call it an accidental feature. -- Larry Wall Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:45:21AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]: > > > On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The > > > only > > > >reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to > > > maintain > > > >the package. > > > > > This looks like a good enough reason to me. > > > > Sorry, but I can find no RFA/O-entry for this package. That should be > > done first before kicking it off. > > That's not a rule. Maintainers are allowed to say that their package > should be removed if they believe that it's no longer useful; they're > usually much more qualified to say that than, say, the QA group are. > It's not as if it's impossible for somebody else to reintroduce the > package if they really care. > The point is I wonder if efforts of maintaining libc5-related packages are proportional to benefits of having them in a modern distro as sarge, whenever it will be available. In these days, zlib's maintainer already dropped libc5 support. I have a grave bug in libc5 linker which is currently unable to manage properly also a silly program. Those kinds of problems will (probably) become quite constant in the future, 'cause of aging of those libs. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:14:51PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in > > > the > > > kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a > > > whole > > > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around > > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed. > > I'm not talking about DRI programs; I'm talking about just basic support. Yes, i suppose you mean the i810 drivers and co, which need the dri infrastructure and agpgart to do 2D stuff. That said, i suppose the older vesa driver works as well on these, not sure though. And anyway, i believe the best solution is to run a libc5 chroot inside a normal install, and thus using the libc5 xlibs library, but a normal X server and kernel. I am not entierly sure if this works as is, but in the worst case, you could try to setup some kind of pseudo network link between the normal root and the chroot, and pipe the X protocol information trough that. I really am not familiar with chroot, but X should allow you to do many things. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
* John Goerzen | Since providing this capability requires only free software on | Debian's part, where exactly is the problem? Manpower. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in the > > kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a whole > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed. I'm not talking about DRI programs; I'm talking about just basic support.
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]: > > On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only > > >reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to > > maintain > > >the package. > > > This looks like a good enough reason to me. > > Sorry, but I can find no RFA/O-entry for this package. That should be > done first before kicking it off. That's not a rule. Maintainers are allowed to say that their package should be removed if they believe that it's no longer useful; they're usually much more qualified to say that than, say, the QA group are. It's not as if it's impossible for somebody else to reintroduce the package if they really care. > And I don't remember to read anything from the current maintainer > either. Obviously you haven't looked too closely at who started this thread then? From: "Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies Package: libc5 Maintainer: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]: > On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only > >reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain > >the package. > This looks like a good enough reason to me. Sorry, but I can find no RFA/O-entry for this package. That should be done first before kicking it off. And I don't remember to read anything from the current maintainer either. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only >reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain >the package. This looks like a good enough reason to me. -- ciao, | Marco | [1676 advirpG9WvvSg]
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:26:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries? > I really don't understand why this is such a difficult problem. If, for > instance, gcc 2.7.2 could build these things three years ago, why can't it > now? It's not as if some fundamental kernel structures have changed in a > hugely incompatible way; other binaries from that era work fine. That's what we have been doing for GCC: | $ i486-linuxlibc1-gcc --version | 2.7.2.3 (though not for binutils). -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." pgphIKMm9Y1H5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
Le sam 21/06/2003 à 19:26, John Goerzen a écrit : > > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot > > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still > > work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works. > > Assuming it supports your hardware. Which it is not entirely likely to do. > For instance: > > Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in the > kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a whole > host of things that are not necessarily going to work from old > distributions, and the situation is only getting worse. Then you can still debootstrap the old distribution inside your existing system and run your software from the chroot. This is possible as long as the kernel supports libc5, and even if it gets dropped, there is user-mode-linux. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed. the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is compatible to some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to reboot, to just open that page. But hopefully sometimes the mozilla bug gets fixed, and then i will be libc5 free :) Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:26:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > > Alternative 1: > > > > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot > > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still > > work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works. > > Assuming it supports your hardware. Which it is not entirely likely to do. > For instance: > > Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in the > kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a whole Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries?
There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
the package.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > Alternative 1: > > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still > work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works. Assuming it supports your hardware. Which it is not entirely likely to do. For instance: Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in the kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a whole host of things that are not necessarily going to work from old distributions, and the situation is only getting worse. > Alternative 2: > > Debian can continue to drag along support for libc5-binaries (hey, > nobody out there with need for libc4?) to the end of days, with more and > more problems accumulating, and more and more baggage needed to build > them (for every new release of binutils/gcc/etc, it becomes less likely > that libc5 will work properly without serious tinkering). Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries? I really don't understand why this is such a difficult problem. If, for instance, gcc 2.7.2 could build these things three years ago, why can't it now? It's not as if some fundamental kernel structures have changed in a hugely incompatible way; other binaries from that era work fine. -- John
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:57:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > M, that's the basis of freelosophy. Don't use proprietary formats and > don't > use proprietary software. The risk of being unable to use your own > documents is concrete. Who owns your docs? Corel does. Microsoft does. Which is all nice, and which I agree with, but it doesn't solve the problem of what to do with the documents before you realized this was the case! In my own case, I have WordPerfect 4.x and 5.x documents dating back to the late 80s and early 90s that still require occasional usage of WordPerfect. Since providing this capability requires only free software on Debian's part, where exactly is the problem?
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:27:57AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > > > > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot > > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still > > work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works. What about a solution using a libc5 aware chroot only, or something such ? So, no need to dual-boot, and a subset of woody containing only the libc5 stuff can be kept even after we drop official support for woody. I don't know if this would be feasible though. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:33:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine > wrote: > > >And surely Debian DOES NOT support > >non-free (in DFSG sense) software, > > No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See clause 1 of > the Social Contract. > There will be archived packages for that. Also that is users support IMHO. Thinking of actively support a dead and buggy library for ever and trying to keep it compatible with a modern distro is simply craziness. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still > work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works. > Also woody... -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:35:18PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > As long as these doc's exist someone will make money by providing the > means of reading them, if OOo does not. That someone is Microsoft. > IMHO, the problem has been resolved.
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > > > > > > > Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it > > was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck. > > > > If he was really interested in his data, he should convert them in a > standard and portable format soon. The same for all that people > who have the same problem. Registration and maintainance of > historical e-data is not something that Debian can manage. > It's a big problem which requires strong choices. > Anyone who stores in proprietary formats his data is looking > for problems. They have to convert them as soon as possible. My lawyer an exception being into GNU/Linux. Other solicitors wouldn't think of converting and will continue to email him with complex doc's. > > Take my wife's Ph.D., started seven years ago. We looked at MS Word and > > it could not cut the mustard so she stuck with WP 5.1. What free > > alternatives were there then? Maybe Lyx, certainly latex, but my wife is > > a musiciannot a geek. Anyway, her M.A. thesis was in WP 5.1. So when the > > Mmmm, bad example. See http://www.lomuto.it/HomeMicheleLomutoE.htm > That is a non-geek musician who uses Emacs and Latex only :-P > because he is seriuously concerned about his data. But he is not my wife. Again, he is an exception. > > Please remember this is 2003 and not 1983. People have accumulated a lot > > on their HDDs in twenty years. > > > > ... and they are also completely uninterested in storing docs in a way > that will allow them to read their own data in the future... As long as these doc's exist someone will make money by providing the means of reading them, if OOo does not. IMHO, the problem has been resolved. Phil. -- Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand +64 3 488 2818Fax +64 3 488 2875Mobile 025 267 9420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: And surely Debian DOES NOT support non-free (in DFSG sense) software, No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See clause 1 of the Social Contract.
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: || Debian can continue to drag along support for libc5-binaries (hey, || nobody out there with need for libc4?) (raises hand) Ciao. Vincent.
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: [lots of text snipped] > It is not a question of using non-free software, I use it almost > exclusively, but that of accessing documents that were created with > non-free software before there were free alternatives. > > Please remember this is 2003 and not 1983. People have accumulated a lot > on their HDDs in twenty years. What it comes down to is this: Alternative 1: You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works. Alternative 2: Debian can continue to drag along support for libc5-binaries (hey, nobody out there with need for libc4?) to the end of days, with more and more problems accumulating, and more and more baggage needed to build them (for every new release of binutils/gcc/etc, it becomes less likely that libc5 will work properly without serious tinkering). Regards: David Weinehall -- /> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /> Northern lights wander <\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:59:46AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages > > which are libc5 related: > > I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to > can install the old libc5 support packages from archive.debian.org > without breaking their system. Which just means not introducing new > packages named xpm4.7, svgalib1, xaw3d, etc. > Sure, I second this. Probably we have to add a specific section to Policy for this... -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > > > > Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it > was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck. > If he was really interested in his data, he should convert them in a standard and portable format soon. The same for all that people who have the same problem. Registration and maintainance of historical e-data is not something that Debian can manage. It's a big problem which requires strong choices. Anyone who stores in proprietary formats his data is looking for problems. They have to convert them as soon as possible. > Take my wife's Ph.D., started seven years ago. We looked at MS Word and > it could not cut the mustard so she stuck with WP 5.1. What free > alternatives were there then? Maybe Lyx, certainly latex, but my wife is > a musiciannot a geek. Anyway, her M.A. thesis was in WP 5.1. So when the Mmmm, bad example. See http://www.lomuto.it/HomeMicheleLomutoE.htm That is a non-geek musician who uses Emacs and Latex only :-P because he is seriuously concerned about his data. > Please remember this is 2003 and not 1983. People have accumulated a lot > on their HDDs in twenty years. > ... and they are also completely uninterested in storing docs in a way that will allow them to read their own data in the future... -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages > which are libc5 related: I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to can install the old libc5 support packages from archive.debian.org without breaking their system. Which just means not introducing new packages named xpm4.7, svgalib1, xaw3d, etc. -- see shy jo pgpRrHhvwdmqC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Chris Halls wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > > We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word > > because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy > > Word documents. > > Is that still true for OOo 1.1beta2? Are there open bug reports upstream for > the problems? I know him through a mailing list and his comments are recent, in the last week or so. Please remember he is a working lawyer and must stick with stable versions of OOo. I have no doubt he will be testing stable versions as they come out. Phil. -- Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand +64 3 488 2818Fax +64 3 488 2875Mobile 025 267 9420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > > X-Spot: Who uses non-free software empoisons you, too. Say him to stop. > ^^^ > That's constantly in my header... so I'm ready to fight :-P > > M, that's the basis of freelosophy. Don't use proprietary formats and > don't > use proprietary software. The risk of being unable to use your own > documents is concrete. Who owns your docs? Corel does. Microsoft does. > You no more own your docs when you agree with any commercial EULA > and use a commercial product. You could be unable to use _current_ M$ doc > within a few years or less. > Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck. Take my wife's Ph.D., started seven years ago. We looked at MS Word and it could not cut the mustard so she stuck with WP 5.1. What free alternatives were there then? Maybe Lyx, certainly latex, but my wife is a musician not a geek. Anyway, her M.A. thesis was in WP 5.1. So when the Ph.D. was completed the journey was WP5.1 > WP8 (linux) > RTF > StarOffice 5.2 (OpenOffice was not quite ready then). We are both into OpenOffice.org now, but all her field-work is WP5.1 - she has a dual boot DOS/Linux machine. She is stuck unless, I do a lot of work. Many people, myself included, breathed a sigh of relief when WP8 for Linux became available, we had a conventional Word Processor we could use. I can remember the panic of one person when his WP8 fell over when he was running potato while it was still in testing. I am (slightly) involved in an Open Source advocacy group here in NZ and one problem that is a major stumbling block for individuals and enterprises making the shift to free software is legacy documents. I hate to think how many terabytes of these are sitting on HDDs. In our case (my wife and myself) the problem will probably resolve itself in a few years, in the case of the lawyer and most businesses it will be a few decades. > Also, none can ensure that whenever Sarge will be released, it will be > wp-compliant at alli (also with libc5). WP for Linux is in > End-of-support and End-of-life status. And surely Debian DOES NOT > support non-free (in DFSG sense) software, and that's also more true for > commercial one. If you need an ancient format/program like WP, use an > ancient Debian release. It is not a question of using non-free software, I use it almost exclusively, but that of accessing documents that were created with non-free software before there were free alternatives. Please remember this is 2003 and not 1983. People have accumulated a lot on their HDDs in twenty years. Phil. -- Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand +64 3 488 2818Fax +64 3 488 2875Mobile 025 267 9420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:03:52AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > Err, Zack, I say zlib1... zlib1g* is libc6 related. Ok, thanks, never mind. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/ " I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! " -- G.Romney pgpzhoH8wx8e6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word > because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy > Word documents. Is that still true for OOo 1.1beta2? Are there open bug reports upstream for the problems? Chris
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
X-Spot: Who uses non-free software empoisons you, too. Say him to stop. ^^^ That's constantly in my header... so I'm ready to fight :-P On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > > > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8 > > > documents. > > > > > > > That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing. > > Wordperfect 11 is now a windoze-only program. > > > > Also Applixware 5 (another dead product) will have problems. > > > > I will not be the only person in this situation. I have work I have done > in WP5.1 that goes back over ten years. > > We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word > because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy > Word documents. > > What I am saying is the problem is not dead products, but legacy documents > created by these products. Because of volume of such material it is often > not practical for someone to sit down and spend days/weeks converting them > all. In my case it would be possible, but for others it would not. > M, that's the basis of freelosophy. Don't use proprietary formats and don't use proprietary software. The risk of being unable to use your own documents is concrete. Who owns your docs? Corel does. Microsoft does. You no more own your docs when you agree with any commercial EULA and use a commercial product. You could be unable to use _current_ M$ doc within a few years or less. Also, none can ensure that whenever Sarge will be released, it will be wp-compliant at alli (also with libc5). WP for Linux is in End-of-support and End-of-life status. And surely Debian DOES NOT support non-free (in DFSG sense) software, and that's also more true for commercial one. If you need an ancient format/program like WP, use an ancient Debian release. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8 > > documents. > > > > That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing. > Wordperfect 11 is now a windoze-only program. > > Also Applixware 5 (another dead product) will have problems. > I will not be the only person in this situation. I have work I have done in WP5.1 that goes back over ten years. We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy Word documents. What I am saying is the problem is not dead products, but legacy documents created by these products. Because of volume of such material it is often not practical for someone to sit down and spend days/weeks converting them all. In my case it would be possible, but for others it would not. Phil. -- Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand +64 3 488 2818Fax +64 3 488 2875Mobile 025 267 9420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > zlib1 > The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev. > Which is the newer alternative to this package? That's zlib1 not zlib1g. We're not running a libc5 zlib. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." pgprrzntGZklz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8 > documents. > That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing. Wordperfect 11 is now a windoze-only program. Also Applixware 5 (another dead product) will have problems. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > zlib1 > > The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev. > Which is the newer alternative to this package? Huh ? What has that to do with it ? I thougt the proposal was only yo remove the old libc5 libraries, not their libc6 version, which zlib1g-dev is (because of the g and everything). But then maybe i am missing something. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > zlib1 > > The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev. > Which is the newer alternative to this package? > Err, Zack, I say zlib1... zlib1g* is libc6 related. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: >> zlib1 > The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev. > Which is the newer alternative to this package? There is none needed. zlib1(-altdev) and zlib1g(-dev) are different packages, the former ones are for libc5, the latter ones link against libc6. cu andreas
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > zlib1 The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev. Which is the newer alternative to this package? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/ " I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! " -- G.Romney pgpdZIXmgCNRS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8 > documents. In my experience, either AbiWord or KWord is able to read these documents. But of course, libwpd can't be perfect... you give some and take some :) -Josh -- New PGP public key: 0x27AFC3EE pgpGaJKc2WITp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote: > > And pester wordperfect^WCorel to use libraries from the current millenium. > > Or pester openoffice.org for a WP filter and booklet printing. I was going to mention OOo, but since I don't know what it can currently do, I wasn't about to put my foot in it one way or the other. But yes, WP converters would work very well. As for booklet printing, print it as PS from OOo and run it through the appropriate pstops script. That'll get booklets for you. -- --- #include Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote: > > > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8 > > documents. > > Note that the packages won't be removed from your system, they will simply > no longer be in the Debian archive. This *may* become a problem if you > clean-install a future version of Debian, but you should be able to get the > old xpm4.7 and it's dependencies from a Woody CD for some years to come. Should be no problem. This testing system started life as slink. > And pester wordperfect^WCorel to use libraries from the current millenium. Or pester openoffice.org for a WP filter and booklet printing. Phil. > > -- > --- > #include > Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence > http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16 > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand +64 3 488 2818Fax +64 3 488 2875Mobile 025 267 9420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote: > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8 > documents. Note that the packages won't be removed from your system, they will simply no longer be in the Debian archive. This *may* become a problem if you clean-install a future version of Debian, but you should be able to get the old xpm4.7 and it's dependencies from a Woody CD for some years to come. And pester wordperfect^WCorel to use libraries from the current millenium. -- --- #include Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8 documents. Phil. On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > Hi all > > Someone could already know this amazing bug: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015 > > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages > which are libc5 related: > > libc5 > libc5-altdev > libc5-altdbg > altgcc > libdb1 > libdb1-altdev > libdl1 > libdl1-altdev > zlib1 > ldso > libg++27-altdev > libregex0-altdev > svgalib1-altdev > xlib6-altdev > xpm4.7 > xaw3d > netscape-base-4-libc5 > svgalib1 > svgalib-dummy1 > termcap-compat > > and others, partially. > > This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries, > Comments, ideas, complaints? > > -- > Francesco P. Lovergine > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand +64 3 488 2818Fax +64 3 488 2875Mobile 025 267 9420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Someone could already know this amazing bug: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015 I've seen this before; it seems that sometimes when the package is built from source, the resulting library is missing some symbols for some reason. AFAICT, this happens completely at random (i.e. if I use pbuilder twice on the package, it might be broken one time and fine the next). > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages > which are libc5 related: I agree, especially considering that ldso can't be built from source because of bug #168592. -- Daniel Schepler "Please don't disillusion me. I [EMAIL PROTECTED]haven't had breakfast yet." -- Orson Scott Card
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages > which are libc5 related: > zlib1 This is going to vanish shortly anyway unless the libc5 bug is fixed since it breaks zlib builds. I'd only been continuing to build libc5 packages on the basis that it was no bother to continue doing so. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." pgp89ZDBi2aLU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages > which are libc5 related: > [SNIP] > > and others, partially. > > This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries, > Comments, ideas, complaints? I agree with this removal. I don't really see any reason to keep such old pieces of software anymore (specially when they don't work properly anymore or it looks like) Fabio -- Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol "We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html
Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
Hi all Someone could already know this amazing bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015 IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages which are libc5 related: libc5 libc5-altdev libc5-altdbg altgcc libdb1 libdb1-altdev libdl1 libdl1-altdev zlib1 ldso libg++27-altdev libregex0-altdev svgalib1-altdev xlib6-altdev xpm4.7 xaw3d netscape-base-4-libc5 svgalib1 svgalib-dummy1 termcap-compat and others, partially. This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries, Comments, ideas, complaints? -- Francesco P. Lovergine
