Thomas Hood wrote:
> Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be
> full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to
> delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But
> what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
> Off to read about 100 messages ...
... and a tedious experience it was.
I would like to make the following points which I didn't
see mentioned in the hundreds of messages (many of them
snipes and flames).
1. Document
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:39:31AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Software." Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
> > Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an
>
> It must be free software,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:46:48PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> I'm packaging a library that includes three separate binary packages.
> 1) the shared library (libnjb0)
> 2) the dev library (libnjb-dev)
> 3) sample code (libnjb-samples)
>
> I would like debhelper to create three separate package.s
Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> I'm packaging a library that includes three separate binary packages.
> 1) the shared library (libnjb0)
> 2) the dev library (libnjb-dev)
> 3) sample code (libnjb-samples)
>
> I would like debhelper to create three separate package.substv
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Software." Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
> Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an
It must be free software, even if it's documentation?
So any documentation, if included in Deb
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:17:28PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I asked:
> > Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
> > that should be read?
>
> To answer my own question:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
>
> Off to read about 100 message
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
> "Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
> Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:09:11PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
> >
> > When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
> > that one definition of software is "programs plus documentation though
> > this do
This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
>that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
>
>I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
>the license are not exercised. Using this lan
also sprach Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.09.0112 +0200]:
> | really? are you aware how buggy it is?
>
> No. According to the stuff I've seen it gives problems on non-UNIX
> platforms, but that shouldn't be a concern to us.
okay, well then i'm misinformed. good for us. PreservePer
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> >
> > Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> > in Debian.
>
> Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc. So,
> if we'
This one time, at band camp, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>> http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdg.html
>
>Well written. Thanks.
>
>One issue though:
>The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
> --^^^
>
>Should
This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
>modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
>referred to. Flame away.
>
>http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html
Of course, I meant
http://people
Il mar, 2002-04-09 alle 00:49, Colin Watson ha scritto:
> To clarify, not all of these packages are buggy in sid. The ones (by
> source package) that have a problem appear to be something like this at
> the moment:
>
> courier-ssl dbf2sql ddt gql gtksql guile-pg libch libnss-pgsql
> netsaint-
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
> >
> > By the definitions we have given "non-free", it is exactly that.
>
> If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about
> software. The
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> > from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
> > a big mistake with t
* martin f krafft
| also sprach Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.08.1943 +0200]:
| > | we're talking about the PreservePermissions configuration option,
| > | which is something different. i should have been more clear.
| >
| > Uhm, that is actually just not enabled. I might enable
it is an error reported by qmail, NOT ssmtp, so it is either mutt or
gpg's fault. maybe it is just a setting in mutt as it works fine here
for me with mutt, gpg, ssmtp and postfix.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:18:15PM +0200, wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I use ssmtp and mutt but I'am unable to sign mail wi
> That is Horms-versioning. He starts version numbers at 0 instead of
I was questioning the "exactly one release which hasn't been touched
in 14 months", rather than the actual number; it is a general rule
that the first public exposure of something is *not* good enough for
real use, and I find it
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:09:49PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> update_output.txt says:
>
> trying: postgresql
> skipped: postgresql (134+2)
> got: 46+0: a-46
> * alpha: courier-authpostgresql, dbf2pg, ddt-server, gda-postgres,
> gphotocoll, gtksql, guile-pg, libapache-mod-auth-pgsq
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
> the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
> with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW)
>
> Jeroen Dekke
> As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
> invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.
Gcc 3 docs do: gcc-3.0/gcc/doc/gcc.texi has (1) the GPL itself [which
we already need some way of dealing with, the text of the GPL isn't
DFSG but we include it...] (2) the three
"Bao C. Ha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
>
> Hi Donald,
>
>>
>> Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and
>> this morning I discovered that it dies with:
>>
>> VMware Workstation PANIC:
>> AIO: NOT_IMPL
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> > Let's replace movl %eax,%ebx with xorl %ebx,%ebx ;-) Apply
> > ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-1455-update12.tar.gz.
> > It fixes issue for VMware 3.0 an
I'm packaging a library that includes three separate binary packages.
1) the shared library (libnjb0)
2) the dev library (libnjb-dev)
3) sample code (libnjb-samples)
I would like debhelper to create three separate package.substvars files, but
it's only creating the one substvars. I've read all th
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:22:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > > if I'm
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:28:19PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > >
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the docum
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:44:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
> > because I don't understand why masqmail has to go:
>
> This is "had had to go".
> AJ mailed "over the past few weeks". note the plural.
Well, the last RC bug o
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: cccp
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Hampus Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://members01.chello.se/hampasfirma/cccp/
* License : GPL-2
Description : Console front
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:24:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Package: xbase
> > Version: 2.0.0-1
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > xbase |2.0.0-1 | unstable | source
> > xbase | 3.3.6-11potato32 |stable | all
> >
> > This seems pretty broken to me ... it's a source
Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit :
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain
> clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using thi
also sprach Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.08.1943 +0200]:
> | we're talking about the PreservePermissions configuration option,
> | which is something different. i should have been more clear.
>
> Uhm, that is actually just not enabled. I might enable it post-woody.
really? are yo
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08
Severity: normal
Sorry, folks, but it is clear I have not enough time to work seriously
on a package like dupload, which is important and should be handled
with care.
I leave it to someone more active.
There are many bugs reported but most are mino
* Michael Stone
| On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:08:10AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
| > I have this sneaking suspicion that we need a tool more appropriate than
| > the BTS to handle the WNPP. The BTS seems rather fragile for this
| > purpose - the format for bug titles and to a greater extent the way
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
> > documentation?
>
> Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
>
I asked:
> Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
> that should be read?
To answer my own question:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Hi all,
I use ssmtp and mutt but I'am unable to sign mail with GnuPGP I always
have the following error :
sendmail: 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html
so is it a bug in ssmtp or in GnuGP (I dont think so because pgp
signature works fine with sylpheed) ?
thanks
best regards
--
R.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:14:17PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> May you should consider VMware's current beta of 3.1?
That might have been an option if my VMWare sessions weren't
"suspended". To upgrade, they first have to be restarted with
version 2.0 and shut down properly. Then they can be u
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
> > some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem
> > seemed to be with corner case
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Jeff, you might want to read:
Noted.
> People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
> subscribe to -legal.
And I have (though only recently).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...
>
> The lice
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:51, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
>
> When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
> that one definition of software is "pr
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
> >DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
>
> I wrote this up last night after getting fed up w
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
> that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses.
The simple fact is, a work licensed under versio
begin Dale Scheetz quotation:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
> >
> > Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
> >
> > In a nutshell:
> >
> > 1) The current version of t
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they
> contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered
> non-free.
Your objection is true of the OPL, but RMS argues
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00017.html
that that is not true
Donald J Bindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> VMware Workstation PANIC:
> AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081
> This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was
> running fine last week. Is this the same issue, and does that
> leave me in the "sorry" category?
Yes, you're screwed
May you should consider VMware's current beta of 3.1?
Good luck
Harri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:40:04AM -0700, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> Just wondering why libpam-pgsql was removed from the woody lineup.
It has not. Check madison's output on pandora.
> As of libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3, libpam-pgsql has been built against
> libpgsql2, not libpgsql2.1.
>
> Also, CJ Wats
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 08:34:45AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 03:17:02PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > Yes, of course. It only says a newer version is in sid, and that it will
> > be considered tomorrow.
>
> It also says:
>
> Depends: galeon mozilla
>
> galeon 1.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Phillips) writes:
> > Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> >
> > > As SUSv2 mandates that new nice return value is correct,
> > > please use [EMAIL PROTEC
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
Hi Donald,
>
> Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and
> this morning I discovered that it dies with:
>
> VMware Workstation PANIC:
> AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081
>
> This is on a relatively curr
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Michael Piefel wrote:
> clear to someone who takes the easy path like me. It would also help if
> I could see your current source; the CVS archive on cvs.debian.org does
> not seem to be current.
It is current.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
* martin f krafft
| > See #10448 and #15516 (and my comments to them).
|
| we're talking about the PreservePermissions configuration option,
| which is something different. i should have been more clear.
Uhm, that is actually just not enabled. I might enable it post-woody.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free
> license, then we will need to redefine "free" or watch our project
> splinter into uselessness.
The GNU FDL is a license, period. It can applied in a manner co
Title: Untitled Document
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> > Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
> > software, for the purposes of the DFSG.
[...]
> In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the pos
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> > from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
> > a big mistake with the GFDL.
>
> I'm curious about your reasoning. Have y
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
> > that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
> > non-free license. While I disa
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
> GCC, for example.
How does the GFDL stop that? I can add a section to the GCC
documentat
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
that one definition of software is "programs plus documentation though
this does not correspond wi
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, since there are these other issues being raised
> (specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen
> to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we
> should wait for the dust to settle down before mo
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:35:57PM -0400, JPS wrote:
> There is something that has always bothered me about the scripts in
> `/etc/init.d'. Every once in a while I attempt to execute one of these
> scripts while logged in as a non-root user. For example, I might type
> `/etc/init.d/foobar restart'
Just wondering why libpam-pgsql was removed from the woody lineup. As of
libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3, libpam-pgsql has been built against libpgsql2, not
libpgsql2.1.
Also, CJ Watson erroneously filed a bug against that version simply
because it depended on libpgsql. He erroneously assumed that that meant
On Saturday 06 Apr 2002 7:35 pm, Will Newton wrote:
> Quite simple fixes:
>
> - Fixes build on hppa and quite possibly others.
> - Bump version number to replace older packages correctly. (RC bug)
> - Fix a minor bug in the description.
>
> Packages and diff are here:
>
> http://www.misconception.o
debian-devel:您好!
互联网从无到有，在短短的几年时间里迅速发展壮大，各大网站也由开始的大把大把烧钱，到现在逐步走向
成熟，一夜之间，我们发现，现在网上有用的免费资源已经少的可怜了。各大门户网站纷纷推出了收费服务，
收费电子邮件，收费主页空间，收费注册搜索引擎，其实这也无可厚非，网站要生存，就要有盈利，但我们网
民该怎么办呢？面对昂贵的上网费用已经是捉襟见肘了，再想去享受那些优质（收费）服务就更难了，因此，
我们普通网民也要学会在网上来养活自己，传统的网络广告商也不会再轻易的给你发来支票了。现在，国外最
火的网上赚钱模式MLM（多层次信息网络营销MULTI-LEVEL M
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Phillips) writes:
> Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>
> > As SUSv2 mandates that new nice return value is correct,
> > please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or @GLIBC_2.2.6 as it is in CVS
> > only) for new nice() interface, so o
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > A little knowledge of series tells me to apply n*(n+1)/2 to sum an
> > arithmetic
> > progression of common difference 1, starting at 1. This seems even quicker:
> > 100*101/2 becomes 5*101*10 becomes 505*10 = 5050.
>
> Yep, but you aren't teache
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:08:10AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> I have this sneaking suspicion that we need a tool more appropriate than
> the BTS to handle the WNPP. The BTS seems rather fragile for this
> purpose - the format for bug titles and to a greater extent the way
> followups for bug repor
Quoting Jerome Petazzoni ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'll consolidate this opinion : last time I really NEEDED dsniff's arpspoof,
> it did not work. I don't know why ; maybe it was because my host had many
> eth. interfaces, some of them with "redundant" routes and other crap ; but
> arpspoof died imme
> As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
> because I don't understand why masqmail has to go:
This is "had had to go".
AJ mailed "over the past few weeks". note the plural.
Greetings,
Erich
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:48:51PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:38:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:13:38PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > after the dust settles after the CD stampede
> >
> > Speaking of which, what's the tactic to get thi
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:12:07PM +0200, Thimo Neubauer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:33:11PM +0200, Thimo Neubauer wrote:
> > > None of these packages have RC bugs. masqmail itself just has two
> > > important bugs which will
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> > option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
> > in the long term, as proje
King "Leo (Martin Oberzalek)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> The alternative will be packing all required libraries of this package
> into this package too.
This would be rather painful.
> Or maybe creating a package bar-shared which contains all required
> libraries and the packag
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:33:11PM +0200, Thimo Neubauer wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > kvdr masqmailxtell
> >
> > As much as I like to have woody rele
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
> > DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
>
> Why? What freedoms are important for software th
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:28:12PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Jeroen Dekkers
>
> | It does also other things, like making distribution creation more
> | flexible. I'm thinking of having a some kind of package file for every
> | source package. That would include the current information and
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:43, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
>
> Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> in Debian.
Documentation isn't software. Neithe
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> > status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> > interpretat
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into the co
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:33:11PM +0200, Thimo Neubauer wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > kvdr masqmailxtell
>
> As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
> because I don't understand why masqmail
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
> in the long term, as projects follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
> GFDL docs.
O
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:30:29AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> Two quotes come to mind:
[...]
You left out my favourite :)
"Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself."
- A. H. Weller, according to the first google hit.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi,
in case someone's curious about the current status of subversion, you
can fetch packages for i386 from:
http://people.debian.org/~mmagallo/packages/subversion/
These are just an update of David Kimdon's packages. I only tweaked
stuff here and there to get it to build with current ve
Wouter,
Thanks for the upload of openh323gk hopefully it should clear testing now.
While I'm sure there is some history and some good reasons for the m68k
autobuilders list on nocrew.org. It does make it difficult for non-m68k
maintainers to find out where to forward their email such as mine.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:12:12AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 02:09, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I'm currently in the process of filing bugs on those packages in
> > unstable that still depend on libpgsql2.1 rather than libpgsql2, or
> > upgrading bugs to grave where they'd al
Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> Quite the contrary. I think he makes a fine treasurer. However, there
> is an improtant difference between the treasurer and the DPL. If the
> treasurer runs amok, then the DPL can replace him.
Wrong, the DPL can not change the SPI board membership.
Wichert.
--
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> kvdr masqmailxtell
As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
because I don't understand why masqmail has to go:
masqmail (- to 0.1.16-2)
* Maintainer: Debian QA Group
Hi,
I've noticed that some reports around libmagick5 incompatibility
are floating around -bugs-dist.
It's unnerving considering that we are trying to release,
and apparently, a new upstream version has been uploaded today.
There needs to be some checking,
a. if the program runs
b. if the progr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Hornburg (Racke)) cum veritate scripsit:
> > No, pre-depending on python will not ensure that your package's
> > config script has python available at preconfgiuration time.
>
> So we are really restricted to a fix set of packages at preconfiguration
> time ? Hmm, that's
Am Son, 2002-04-07 um 21.35 schrieb Matthias Klose:
> King "Leo (Martin Oberzalek)" writes:
> > Hello,
> >
> > it's not possible linking a C++ library compiled with g++-2.9x to a C++
> > application compiled with g++-3.0.
> >
> > We all no the reasons...
> >
> > My question is how I should handl
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:53, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> Just of curiosity, is the queue for the autobuilders available anywhere,
> either on the web or by logging into the machines?
Yes (kind of) - see http://auric.debian.org/~pb/shame/arm.html and
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/arm-all.txt
p.
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 10:15, Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sun, 7 Apr 2002 13:48:51 +0200:
> > Don't worry, ./ will be faster. There's nothing we can do about it... ;)
> >
> You can always ask them not to post it before the mirrors are ready,
> not?
>
Hah, it is their
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:33, Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 10:00, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> > Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > python-gnome: Depends: python-gdk-imlib (>= 0.6.8-17) but it is not
> > going to be installed
> > E: Sorry, broken package
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JPS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is something that has always bothered me about the scripts in
>`/etc/init.d'. Every once in a while I attempt to execute one of these
>scripts while logged in as a non-root user.
This is Unix. It gives you enough rope to hang y
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 02:44, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Since I had to use grep to find it in the mail, it was well hidden
> and I don't consider this a proper call for help like done by other
> people who actively seek for help and receive them. Personally, I
> don't wonder why only two people volun
Sayin Internet Kullanicisi,
Turkiye'de yayin yapanlar basta olmak uzere, Dunya'daki tum sifreli TV
kanallarini cozen ve basit bir TV kartiyla bu yayinlari bilgisayarinizdan size
izleme olanagi saglayan, sifre kirici programlarin kayitli oldugu,
DECODER CD (v2.0)" satisa sunulmustur (40 EURO +
also sprach Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.07.1306 +0200]:
> It does not disable anything. If you had read the info file it states
> pretty clearly:
>
>All `,v' files are created read-only, and you should not change the
> permission of those files. The directories inside the r
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
