On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:30:11AM +0200, Norbert Nemec wrote:
>
> I'm not a debian developer myself (yet!!!), but I've following the
> project very close for some time, and I could imagine to, perhaps,
> getting involved right here. Right now, I only have a vague idea how
> this huge task could b
"M.C. Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What interface(s) does siag have ATM. I want to develop some gtk stuff
> (and more serious stuff than the virtual poohsticks) - so would this be
> something to cut my teeth on?
Last time I looked, it was using Athena widgets, but I think the
author is l
-Original Message-
From: John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Lyx is currently in contrib.
> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
>linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
>statement, this means w
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:51:29PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
>
> Boy, Mathias Ehtrich is going to think we have something against him. :)
So it was not only me who get the impression, reading between the lines.
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brin
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
>>
>> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge
about
>> these toolkits s
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:48:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This proprietary commercial software and if it is on any Debian servers it
> must be removed *immediately*. No waiting to see if they might change the
> license. It must be removed *now*.
>
A number of people would like to s
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:16:01PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> >There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
> >permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
> >be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
> >that
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 11:19:19AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Lyx does not go away just because there is a bug against it. When the bug
> is filed the maintainer has reasonable opportunity to fix it, or if not
> possible, to forward it upstream and let the upstream maintainers take a
> crack at
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:51:29PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > Lyx is currently in contrib.
> > Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
> >linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> > According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
> >statement, this mea
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:48:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
> > package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
> > to deal with this, please let me know.
>
> > New license:
> >
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:50:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
[..]
> In case some Debian developers read this mailing list: Guys, you don't like
> KDE
> since it encourages people to write software for it. Therefore yo
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 11:06:24PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Package: libpgjava
> >Version: 6.3.2-1
> >Severity: important
> >
>
> I cannot rebuild this package at present because javac always segfaults
> for me. If anyone would like to do a non-maintaine
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:33:15AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > If I ever thought Matthias needed to be bludgeoned severely with a cluebat,
> > it's now. I have little respect left for him. Fortunately, a few of the
> > non-core KDE developers show more promise. Hopefully a few of them wil
Debian has gone without xmem for a while. Am I the only one to have
noticed this? Do either the xproc or xcontrib maintainers want it?
If not, maybe they could indicate the source to make a seperate xmem
package. I don't know if I'd have time to maintain it, but I'd at
least shepard it through t
On 10 Oct 1998 16:48:44 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> This proprietary commercial software and if it is on any Debian servers
> it must be removed *immediately*.
It is as if you ignored the explanatory part of the message and just
read the license. That wasn't useful. I know the license doe
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx
> project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too
> much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it
> and opt to do the right thing. They may not,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On reading this paper, I discovered all of the reasons for why I knew
> that the M$ way is wrong.
Interesting, then, that Mr Lampson now works for Microsoft.
http://www.research.microsoft.com/lampson/33-Hints/WebPage.html
--
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:36:26PM -0700, David Welton wrote:
> Debian has gone without xmem for a while. Am I the only one to have
> noticed this? Do either the xproc or xcontrib maintainers want it?
> If not, maybe they could indicate the source to make a seperate xmem
> package. I don't know
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:18:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > In case some Debian developers read this mailing list: Guys, you don't like
> > KDE
> > since it encourages people to write software for it. Therefore you don't
> > want
>
> What does this mean exactly? Why would we be unhappy w
--- Begin Message ---
|- Failed addresses follow: -|
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... transport smtp: 550 relaying to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
prohibited by administrator
|- Message text follows: |
Received: at Infodr
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:43:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx
> > project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too
> > much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it
> > and opt to do the
> The big problem is that KDE includes GPLed code without asking and links it
> against qt. That is a not legal. I wonder what RMS would do if they provide
> an kemacs. :-)
I guess this is the part which I'm needing a bit more understanding with
(because I've not been the best at interpreting the
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 02:47:20PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Galbra>What I find strange if that I managed to download it without realising
> it
> Galbra>was non-free. I only *now* noticed that it's non-free by putting the
> Galbra>cursor on the
Geoffrey L. Brimhall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various
> efforts to port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows
> environments. Legally, this would imply stepping very carefully
> because who knows what proprietary libraries might be lin
At 13:13 +0200 1998-10-09, J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\) wrote:
IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
is only an issue if we intend to release one of the libc6.1 using ports.
glibc 2.1 (2.0.9x until release) does not change the soname, symbol
versioning prevents that
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:46:11PM -0700, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote:
> I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various efforts to
> port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows environments. Legally, this
> would
> imply stepping very carefully because who knows what proprietary
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:32:22AM +0100, John Lines wrote:
> > I believe this is adequate need to get dhcpcd moved into base,
> > and onto the boot floppies.
> Also in a corporate environment many people are running DHCP servers to
> provide network information to Windows 95 systems. It would be g
On Sat, 10 Oct, 1998, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roderick Schertler writes:
> > If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
> > package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
> > to deal with this, please let me know.
>
> > New license:
> > ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Andy Dougherty, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>After some thought, I think I'd recommend that perl5.005_xx retain the
>same directory structure that perl5.00[34]_xx did. (with 5.005 in place of
>5.00[34], of course).
That's good enough for me. I
At 21:19 +0200 1998-10-10, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In the next weeks my site will go on the 6bone and I plan using debian
for our IPv6 gateway box. Where can I find a libc6.1 for intel?
Will the current netutils just work with IPv6 after recompiling or
do I have to patch it?
My glibc-pre2.1 packaging s
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martin
Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>I wonder if there will be a new gtop in slink now that it has
>been moved out of gnome-core (or another core Gnome module).
I'm currently having problems compiling libgtop, so it looks unlikely
I'll have it done for the fr
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 02:20:14PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
> > > wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
> > > poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 11:22:58AM +0300, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> Last time I checked, pcmcia and dhcp didn't get along
> very well. Any ideas? (I'm interested in fixing this,
> but don't know where to start)
I didn't have the complete picture yet when I installed my laptop, but
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:
>
> * The new fmtutil has a config file (fmtutil.cnf) that controls which
>formats get remade with 'texconfig init' (which is now equivalent to
>'fmtutil --all'). The defaults are hyperconservative IMO (eg. no
>pdf*tex or amstex formats are made).
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote:
> > The big problem is that KDE includes GPLed code without asking and
> > links it against qt. That is a not legal. I wonder what RMS would do
> > if they provide an kemacs. :-)
>
> I guess this is the part which I'm needing a bit more understanding
Edward Betts writes:
> This is a new licence on a new version that has NOT been uploaded.
That was not clear to me.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
There's a long-standing bug against mysql that the server daemon
should run as a user, not as root. There's an upstream beta that makes
this a configure option, so my plan was to wait until it was stable
enough to release. It now is (but, no, I don't plan to put it in
slink... I'm putting it in exp
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:27:01PM +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:
> >
> > * The new fmtutil has a config file (fmtutil.cnf) that controls which
> >formats get remade with 'texconfig init' (which is now equivalent to
> >'fmtutil --all'). The d
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in any
> way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed source
> code. You have the source, you can do what you want with it. This is
> one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by
On 11 Oct 1998 03:08:22 -0700, "Darren/Torin/Who Ever..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Andy Dougherty, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>>
>> After some thought, I think I'd recommend that perl5.005_xx retain the
>> same directory structure that perl5.00[34]_xx did. (with 5.005 in plac
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 15:31:16 -0700, Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> ANTIVIRUS="/usr/lib/neta" exec /usr/lib/neta/uvscan $*
This should be "$@" (with quotes) rather than $*. Unadorned $* breaks
for args with embedded spaces.
--
Roderick Schertler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guy Maor wrote:
>
>
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 20:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: mail failed, returning to sender
>
> |- Failed addresses follow: -|
> <[EMAIL PROTECTE
[ Why on earth is this on devel? It's not relevant here. ]
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It provides:
[ Gratuitous advertisement for smail snipped ]
> The same setup should be installed on kullervo. If not, I might get
> over and remove exim there in order to install Smail, too
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
> non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
Much more important than a new list would be an archive reflecting
porting experiences and techniques developed during porting.
I'd be in favo
I intend to pack the Little Brother's Database package, an add-on for
the Mutt mail reader which collects mail addresses of received mails
and offers these addresses, the output of the finger command etc. to
Mutt's external query feature.
Tscho
Roland
--
* Internet: [EMAIL PROTECT
Hello! :-)
I ran into some troubles when I tried to compile the latest
lilypond_1.0.14 on my computer. When the build process tries to link
the final lilypond binary file:
c++ -o out/lilypond out/parser.o out/abbrev.o
out/abbreviation-beam-engraver.o out/abbreviation-beam.o out/afm-reader
> Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release. Don't hold it back for any
> > package.
>
> What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
> adds value, but I don't think it's something we desperately need _now_.
What needs to b
Hi Eloy!
I wrote:
> Please check out
>
> http://www.debian.org/~joey/goals/index.html or
> http://www.infodrom.north.de/~joey/Linux/Debian/master/goals/index.html
Since release goals were abandoned due to the hamm desaster no goals
for slink were accepted. All listed "goals" on my page reflect
Quoting Buddha Buck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release. Don't hold it back for any
> > > package.
> >
> > What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
> > adds value, but I don't think it's
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> See http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL for the current STL implementation.
And see
http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/string_discussion.html
for why you should probably be using ropes or vector instead.
We tend to use
typedef rope string;
now. The code
Milan Zamazal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any technical reason why LEIM (Emacs input methods) is not
> available as a Debian package? If not, I'll package it.
FWIW It's already part of the emacs20 package.
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:27:01PM +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
> So, which formats do you consider to be important for the defaults?
This is my preference:
All packages that install TeX formats (including tetex-*), do in
postinst a 'fmtutil -byfmt blah' for every format they include.
Ideally t
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
[..]
> And lots of people haven't kicked stuff back. Why doesn't *BSD run on an
> SGI Indy - its because the BSD license didnt force all the neat stuff
> to be contributed back. And there are thousands of other examples like it.
I fail to see how this is all th
> > And lots of people haven't kicked stuff back. Why doesn't *BSD run on an
> > SGI Indy - its because the BSD license didnt force all the neat stuff
> > to be contributed back. And there are thousands of other examples like it.
>
> I fail to see how this is all that much different from the GPL
>
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 02:34:28PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release. Don't hold it back for any
> > > > package.
>
> I still think that calling slink "a badly needed cleanup" implies that
> hamm is horri
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:25:27PM -0700, Alex wrote:
> [..]
> > And lots of people haven't kicked stuff back. Why doesn't *BSD run on an
> > SGI Indy - its because the BSD license didnt force all the neat stuff
> > to be contributed back. And there are thousands of other examples like it.
>
> I f
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
> non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
>
> debian-porting
>
> alternative names:
>
> debian-ports
> debian-porter
> debian-porters
> or sim.
I fully support this proposal (The n
Would this be enough for LyX? I think so.
- Forwarded message from Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
To: lyx@via.ecp.fr
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: copyright problem
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes)
Date: 11 Oct 1998 19:17:04 +0200
[...]
I agree that by using
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:01:48AM +0100, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> What interface(s) does siag have ATM. I want to develop some gtk stuff
> (and more serious stuff than the virtual poohsticks) - so would this be
> something to cut my teeth on?
How about trying LyX? With gnumeric and gsiag (hopefully)
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 02:20:14PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Then you'll just *love* to know that I noticed something called "KSiag"
> > on http://www.kde.org/news_dyn.html
>
> Do the siag people know about this? =>
Isn't siag a one person project? AFAIK the upstream author is working on a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:43:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Hmm.. did they agree ahead of time that the license could be changed
> with a vote? If Mathias is a significant author, and he disagrees with
> the license change, he has a right to object.
I beg to disagree. Please see my mail with t
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any way of using gtk--
with gnome at the moment. I was going to try packaging gnome-hack (for
my own use -- I'd want to check with the nethack maintainer before doing
anything more with it), but it seems to require gtk-- and gtk1.1, and
the two don't
James A. Treacy wrote:
> A number of people would like to see a 3dfx package of mesa. This can
> not be done unless there is a legal package of glide (under the
> current license I can't even get the libs since I don't own a 3dfx
> card).
Any reason, aside from the lack of volunteers, why we can'
memstat - Identify what's using up virtual memory.
memstat lists all the processes, executables, and shared
libraries that are using up virtual memory.
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Would this be enough for LyX? I think so.
>
>
> [...]
> I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> with XForms.
> [...]
I don't think so. It is not en
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL has a "feature" that with the exception of essential system type
> libraries (which is IMO far too vague to be terribly useful) any work
> derived from the GPL must also be under the terms of the GPL.
That's not really what it says, which is proba
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would this be enough for LyX? I think so.
>
> - Forwarded message from Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> To: lyx@via.ecp.fr
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: copyright problem
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes)
> D
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 08:24:15PM +, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>memstat - Identify what's using up virtual memory.
it is packaged
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 04:07:31PM +, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> I don't see how it follows. "we have implicitly allowed all users to
> link LyX with XForms" does not imply "we have implicitly allowed
> (re)distribution of the resulting LyX binaries", which I guess is the
> issue at hand.
Becau
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Chris Waters wrote:
> anything more with it), but it seems to require gtk-- and gtk1.1, and
> the two don't seem to work together at this point.
>
> I think it would really be nice to get a gnome-supporting version of
> gtk-- in before the slink freeze. Is anyone working on
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in
> > any way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed
> > source code. You have the source, you can do what you want with
> > it
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Chris Waters wrote:
> > I think it would really be nice to get a gnome-supporting version
> > of gtk-- in before the slink freeze. Is anyone working on this?
> Not really possible without hacking Gtk-- (which can be done, but
> it's work). Gtk-- ca
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> 'Bout what I figured, but wouldn't it be possible to produce two
> versions which conflict? Not a perfect solution, but it would make it
> possible for people like me who want to work on gnome-related gtk--
> stuff to do so. The conflicts could be cl
73 matches
Mail list logo
