Is it me, or are the Debian lists really quiet? My secondary list server
hasn't transferred a single thing from the primary server in several
hours, perhaps even a day.
Am I crazy, or did I break something?
I think I should suggest that we remove all of the editors except ae from
the entire D
> "Tom" == Tom Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> wget can do this. It sounds like snarf is similar to this.
I use wget to grab graphics via http for the 'imgsize.el' extension I
wrote for XEmacs. It will measure the size of a graphic, and fill in
the length and width attributes of
On May 29, Bruce Perens wrote
> I must admit to not understanding what that qmail alias file is for.
> I do _all_ of my aliases with .qmail-* files .
>
> What I was trying to achieve was to have qmail forward a message without
> messing around with the headers any more than necessary. Thus, I want
> (1) user-map [if all package maintainers are local]
If you just want to be delivering mail to @packages.debian.org
(rather than -@packages.debian.org), you can deliver
to remote addresses with:
In users/assign, create one line per package:
=:alias:70:65534:/var/qmail/alias:+:fwd-:
so in th
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > Next step: GNU's "configure" utility. I thought that we had agreed on
> > using
> > i386-unknown-linux
> > (and similar for the other architectures), but then I had just discovered
> > that GCC uses
> >
Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> > (Don't ask me what the historical reasons are, though. I might start to
> > whimper...)
>
> Sorry, but I couldn't resist :-) What are the reasons?
I don't know. That's why I whimper...
> If we make this policy, we sh
A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. Redistribution of
modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software
is NOT being commercially distributed.
Please
> Some background: In the '80s, Infocom produced a lot of excellent
> adventure games, and they published them all in portable, completely
> architecture-independant 'story files'. When you bought the game, you
> got an interpreter and a story file, (although you normally didn't know
> that). Si
> Right now, I believe we have an old version of the ITF interpreter in
> the "infocom" package. This should probably be scrapped, as it is
> highly obsolete given our current Z-machine knowledge.
I wasn't aware that the Z-machine knowledge had changed in the past
half-dozen years or so. The "in
> > E.g. boot-floppies. I regularly receive patches from the people doing
> > the ports to other architectures. If they could merge them into the
> > CVS repository, they needn't wait until I released a new version.
>
> What provision do you suggest for code-review? It's important for things
> lik
Brian White wrote:
> I wasn't aware that the Z-machine knowledge had changed in the past
> half-dozen years or so. The "infocom" program handles all the games
> I've ever tried with it, so I don't see why it is obsolete.
Oh, it works fine in normal cases. But we now understand certain
obscure v5
On Mon, 26 May 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > A few minor problems:
> >
> > In dselect, running "configure packages" multiple times, as suggested in
> > the documentation, did not seem to correct some of the misinstalled
> > packages (Xserver, xext).
> >
> The documentation should suggest re-ru
On Sat, 31 May 1997, Pete Templin wrote:
>
> Is it me, or are the Debian lists really quiet? My secondary list server
> hasn't transferred a single thing from the primary server in several
> hours, perhaps even a day.
This message is the only think I've got all day from any of the debian
lis
>
>
> Is it me, or are the Debian lists really quiet? My secondary list server
> hasn't transferred a single thing from the primary server in several
> hours, perhaps even a day.
>
> Am I crazy, or did I break something?
No you are not. During the last 24 hours I received only 2(!) debian
li
Everybody's holding their breath waiting for the release to come out.
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key.
PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST:
On Sat, 31 May 1997, Brian White wrote:
>
> None of the Infocom games can be distributed, however. You have to
> buy them.
Heh. I guess that means we cant package up any of these then
ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive
SirDibos
www.linuxos.com
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mai
On Sat, 31 May 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> Well, I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved in this kind of
> thing, but I'm about to get a private internet connection so I should
> be able to insulate my job from these discussions soon. I would like
> to make the following requests of
however, there *are* freely-written z-code games, which can be
distributed (and I think even have been already, for debian? I may
have seen them somewhere else.)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Besides, Qt is 'almost-free' software. If it doesn't become a runaway
> > commercial success, I'd bet Troll Tech would re-release it as free
> > software after a few years.
>
> Troll is using a different economic model for generating revenue than
> ot
On Sat, 31 May 1997, Leland Olds wrote:
> -Changes and patches to the Qt library itself can't be distributed
> without Troll Tech first integrating them into their product and
> "blessing" them. Qt wants to keep ownership and control of that.
> (This is true for the X Windows platform as
actually, a lot of us find the sound driver stuff objectionable too
(because it leaves us with practically useless sound code, almost
enough to drive one to NetBSD :-) I still don't have any way to use
*both* ESS1688's in my laptop (when docked), which should be *trivial*
if the module took argumen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> Troll is using a different economic model for generating revenue than
>> other free software companies. They get other people to write free
>> software (for zero cost to them) on one platform so they can sell it
>> under their own licen
On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> actually, a lot of us find the sound driver stuff objectionable too
> (because it leaves us with practically useless sound code, almost
> enough to drive one to NetBSD :-) I still don't have any way to use
> *both* ESS1688's in my laptop (when docked), which s
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Boris D. Beletsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can somebody help this guy. Problem is that pppd tells him that
> kernel lacks PPP support - I told him that he should recompile the
> kernel but seems like it didn't work. I think I remember that there
> was
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If we had Frotz, it would be simple to package up a large(ish) number
>> of the games available.
>
> Just so you know, I've already packaged up an Infocom parser (called
> "infocom") package.
Yes, but it's crap.
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
>
> Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
This puts the package into non-free. However...
> Redistribution of
> modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
We need at least
On May 31, Galen Hazelwood wrote
> Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> a good middle ground.
If I remember right, configuring for pentium leaves an executable
that might not run on 386 or
According to Yann Dirson:
> That just go fine, until you try to use 'halt' or 'reboot': as
> specified in the manpage (yes :), these only call shutdown when in
> runlevel 1-5. Quite strange IMHO. *BE CAREFUL* trying to reproduce it,
> it (probably among other unclean things) doesn't unmount cleanly
> On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
> >
> > Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
>
> This puts the package into non-free. However...
>
> > Redistribution of
> > modified versions by other people than myself is not allowe
> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > actually, a lot of us find the sound driver stuff objectionable too
> > (because it leaves us with practically useless sound code, almost
> > enough to drive one to NetBSD :-) I still don't have any way to use
> > *both* ESS1688's in my laptop (when docked),
In your email to me, Raul Miller, you wrote:
>
> I agree that configuration is lousy -- who ever thought that hard-coding
> interrupts, dma and io ports at compile time was a good idea?
Well, although you can't pass hw param at module load time, you
*can* pass params via LILO, so you don't have t
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On May 31, Galen Hazelwood wrote
> > Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> > configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> > a good middle ground.
>
> If I remember right, configuring for pentium leaves an execut
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) writes:
> > None of the Infocom games can be distributed, however. You have to
> > buy them.
>
> None of the ones by infocom can be distributed. There are lots of
> infocom-format games by other people, mostly produced by the inform
> compiler. In general the source
> Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>
> >> Troll is using a different economic model for generating revenue than
> >> other free software companies. They get other people to write free
> >> software (for zero cost to them) on one platform so they can sell it
> >> under their own license commercially on other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Galen Hazelwood) wrote on 31.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> > > (Don't ask me what the historical reasons are, though. I might start to
> > > whimper...)
> >
> > Sorry, but I couldn't resist :-) Wh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Sanders) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The config database should be regarded as a convenience for
> {pre,post}{inst,rm} scripts and /etc/init.d/ boot time scripts only.
Well, that was what started the discussion, anyway. Then the general-admin-
tool stuff
On Jun 1, Leland Olds wrote
> "free" means different things to different people. Personally, I like
> the Debian/Gnu definition. But if someone else uses it in another way,
> that doesn't mean that they are scammers and are trying to mislead us.
Um... in principle. On the other hand, that doesn'
Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> a good middle ground.
I think the only optimization gcc 2.7.* does for i486 is instruction
alignment. Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
> Yes, if a modifying the package isn't allowed, then it cannot go
> into the main archive, and has to go into non-free, even if you're
> allowed to make money distributing it.
If modifying the package isn't allowed, it can't go anywhere! You
better wr
> But if OSS, X-Free and QT all operate along similar lines, thats 3, there
Umm, no, XFree86 does *not* work that way. Though they do release
non-source timebombed betas, they always release full-source "real"
releases. You can ignore the betas (as debian does, I mean they are
*betas* after all
> As for OSS -- I had the impression that if I submitted patches to make
> the modules *accept* command line arguments, they wouldn't be
> included. But yeah, if they're straight GPL'ed that's good enough; I
> could still distribute such patches even if they weren't included.
> (and actually, ev
yeah, cygwin32.dll is under the GPL. So? It's a DLL, like libc5 and
libc6 are... [the *only* thing I'm aware of that actually uses the
LGPL is libg++; it was as much of an experiment as anything, and I'm
not aware of any not-otherwise-free software taking advantage of those
terms...] Just because
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
>
> Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. Redistribution of
> modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
> However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software
>
> yeah, cygwin32.dll is under the GPL. So? It's a DLL, like libc5 and
> libc6 are... [the *only* thing I'm aware of that actually uses the
> LGPL is libg++; it was as much of an experiment as anything, and I'm
> not aware of any not-otherwise-free software taking advantage of those
> terms...] J
Guy Maor wrote:
[gcc 2.7.2]
>I don't think it does any optimization at all for pentium.
Correct. Of course, there's the experimental pgcc (http://www.goof.com/,
if anybody wants to look).
I'd like to pack this up and stuff it into experimental, if I had a
little more time *sigh*.
--
Thomas Ko
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
> > On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> >
> > > A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
> > >
> > > Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
> >
> > This puts the package into non-free. However...
> >
> > > Redistribution of
> >
Hi!
Can someone tell me why shared libs should be installed executable?
(Actually, Christoph Lameter wants to know this, cf. #7129, but since I
don't know this either I'll redirect the question to this list.)
This is current policy and I want to add a small note to the paragraph
stating the reas
On Sat, May 31 1997 20:15 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sat, 31 May 1997, Brian White wrote:
> >
> > None of the Infocom games can be distributed, however. You have to
> > buy them.
>
> Heh. I guess that means we cant package up any of these then
>
> ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-arch
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Just butting in on this thread to ask a question. Is there a
> de-compiler for Infocom games? Would such a de-compiler produce
> readable source code? Just a thought... (I know nothing about the
> Infocom game language or the binary format.)
Check out "txd" in the ztools pac
Guy Maor wrote:
> I think the only optimization gcc 2.7.* does for i486 is instruction
> alignment. The Pentium has a better fetch unit so doesn't need any
> alignment (it never incurs a misfetch penalty) so optimizing for i486
> will at least give some code bloat.
I think it also chooses some in
Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> yeah, cygwin32.dll is under the GPL. So? It's a DLL, like libc5 and
> libc6 are... [the *only* thing I'm aware of that actually uses the
> LGPL is libg++; it was as much of an experiment as anything, and I'm
> not aware of any not-otherwise-free software taking advantage of
> I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
> want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
> link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
> that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
Two questions: (1) in what way is cygwin3
Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
> > want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
> > link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
> > that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
>
> Two que
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > > actually, a lot of us find the sound driver stuff objectionable too
> > > (because it leaves us with practically useless sound code, almost
> > > enough to drive one to NetBSD :-) I still don't have any way to use
> I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Of course if I GPL my patches then they cannot do this. If my patches are
> very complex then they also may not want to spend the time to integrate
> it. All in all it really looks like the code is GPL but the development is
> closed.
Has anyone actual
On 1 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Galen Hazelwood) wrote on 31.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> > > > (Don't ask me what the historical reasons are, though. I might start to
> > > > whi
On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
>
> I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to me
to be very limiting of commercial so
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >
> > On May 31, Galen Hazelwood wrote
> > > Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> > > configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> > > a good middle ground.
> >
> >
> Two questions: (1) in what way is cygwin32.dll different from libc5.so
> in this regard (since the license for both is the same: GPL)
libc5 appears to be under the GPL, while libc6 appears to be under
the LGPL. Weird. Does that mean that anything that is linked
against libc5 has to be GPL'd?
Has any of you had a look at this:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/Incoming/pttyd-0.9.tgz
[its LSM file says:
Description:The Pseudo-tty Daemon. Changes ownership on the slave
pseudo-tty's in an appropriate manner, mainaining security
without a suid root scr
On 1 Jun 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> > configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> > a good middle ground.
>
> I think the only optimization gcc 2.7
On Jun 1, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> 2. We need a general system administration tool. Lots of other Unix and
>Unix-like Systems already have those, with varying quality. This thing
>should ideally be able to configure everything that is globally
>configurable on a Debian system, probably v
Raul said:
>
> On Jun 1, Leland Olds wrote
> > "free" means different things to different people. Personally, I like
> > the Debian/Gnu definition. But if someone else uses it in another way,
> > that doesn't mean that they are scammers and are trying to mislead us.
>
> Um... in principle. On t
Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it also chooses some instructions differently for a 486, and
> these choices are also good on the pentium. That's why, when building
> binaries for my use, I use -m486 but add flags which turn off the
> alignment.
Right, I had heard that thes
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> >
> > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
>
> Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to
Rob Browning wrote:
>
> Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think it also chooses some instructions differently for a 486, and
> > these choices are also good on the pentium. That's why, when building
> > binaries for my use, I use -m486 but add flags which turn off the
> > align
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> >
> > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
>
> Yep, the copyright f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Where is the arch specification string used, i.e. what will break if we
> change it to be "i386-linux" on intel systems?
I'm not competent enough to answer this. Anything tightly integrated with
gcc, but is there
> Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Cheers,
- Jim
pgp6b75kk1gUm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
70 matches
Mail list logo
