> They did with the wiki content, probably they will do the same thing
> or something similar with Rosetta translations. The question is if it
> will be free.
Everything related to Rosetta is currently assumed by me of *not*
being free.
> >The real problem, is that we have reports of peo
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nice, thanks. While we're at this subject, what's your view on the
> Ubuntu language packs? Are we going to extract the translations from
> the packages creating language packs? It has pros and cons, and
> the best thing i see is the possibility to ke
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/6/06, Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Agreed. Btw, it would be better keep Etch package descriptions updated
>> > during its support cycle, but i think it's impossible with the
>>
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. Btw, it would be better keep Etch package descriptions updated
> during its support cycle, but i think it's impossible with the
> infrascture we've, right ?
No. We already have the previous working structure all up and
running. What we want t
Christoph Haas wrote:
> Yes, of course. Besides some minor things I don't quite like about
> Subversion ([...] getting out old revisions of a file means typing
> the full URL for no reason)
svn cat -r
works for me...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> You believe that it's pretty clear that *SPI* is distributing the
> >> software? Could you trace your reasoning here?
> >
> > Nobody said
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
>> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
>> likely, then SPI could be liable.
>
> Oh, very good point. I ha
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> > > should be, and arguably IS, reserved solely for the SPI Board of
> > > Directors.
> > If
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
> likely, then SPI could be liable.
Oh, very good point. I hadn't thought of this.
> I can see what you're sayi
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:11:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN") IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
> > STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT ("JDK" - THE "S
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> You believe that it's pretty clear that *SPI* is distributing the
>> software? Could you trace your reasoning here?
> Nobody said that and you know it.
Uh, well, believe it or not, that really d
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> I think I lost a thread of the argument here. How does the acceptance
> >> into non-free of a package by the ftp-masters commit SPI
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think I lost a thread of the argument here. How does the acceptance
>> into non-free of a package by the ftp-masters commit SPI to a legally
>> binding agreement?
> The first paragraph o
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > First, I don't believe that SPI has ever granted anyone the ability to
> > enter into legally-binding agreements to indemnify (which means to use
> > our resources to defend) third partie
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First, I don't believe that SPI has ever granted anyone the ability to
> enter into legally-binding agreements to indemnify (which means to use
> our resources to defend) third parties. I may be mistaken, though.
> Could you please point out where you be
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> > should be, and arguably IS, reserved solely for the SPI Board of
> > Directors.
>
> If SPI wish to withdraw from their relationship with Debian, then that'
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:47:03AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am becoming increasingly concerned at the unilateral method in which
> you and/or the archive maintainers have taken this decision.
>
> The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> should be, and arguably
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns [...]
> > And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
> > like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license
> > is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts t
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While historical reasons are acceptable for users' dotfiles, I remain to
> be convinced that there is a logical rationale for them in any system
> location, or even anywhere under $HOME except the root.
"It's way too much of a pain to modify upstream code
Hi!
> I'm creating a meta package for install a lite desktop for old
> machines with poor hardware.
Hey, that's a really cool idea! Debian is one of the last modern (and
not specialised) Linux distribution feasible for old and slow
hardware, especially old PCs. But Sarge already made a big step a
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 05:39:21PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns [...]
> [snip]
> > 4. there's already working java in main; and
>
> Partly/somewhat/mostly working.
That's correct: Unfortunately, we've not complet
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO dotfiles are a historical artifact which we are stuck with. If we
> were just starting today, I'm sure we would be using ~/etc/bashrc
> rather than ~/.bashrc so the user's files match the standard
> locations. It's logical, simple, and would make many
In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
They do not need to.
>really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult
>developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before
>agreeing
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joey Hess wrote:
>> Linas ?virblis wrote:
>>> Let us imagine someone decides to introduce package X that contains a
>>> lot of files (let us say 50) in "/usr/lib" and half of them are dot
>>> files. And what about shipping hidden directories? Would such pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns [...]
[snip]
> 4. there's already working java in main; and
Partly/somewhat/mostly working.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joey Hess wrote:
> Linas ?virblis wrote:
>> Let us imagine someone decides to introduce package X that contains a
>> lot of files (let us say 50) in "/usr/lib" and half of them are dot
>> files. And what about shipping hidden directories? Would such pa
Anthony Towns [...]
> And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
> like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license
> is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the
> loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive
On 6/6/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 02:04:09PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> You wrote a good overview about the possible workflow, but i still
> miss exactly how we (or the coordinators) will merge from third
> parties (eg: Rosetta) and most important, ho
Linas Žvirblis wrote:
> Let us imagine someone decides to introduce package X that contains a
> lot of files (let us say 50) in "/usr/lib" and half of them are dot
> files. And what about shipping hidden directories? Would such packages
> be accepted into Debian?
I've had packages in Debian with m
Mike Hommey wrote:
> Here, we are talking about the empty file /usr/lib/xulrunner/.autoreg...
Are you saying it is fine for empty files? So what about
"/usr/lib/kaffe/.system" (a symlink to directory) or
"/usr/lib/jvm/.java-gcj.jinfo" (non-empty file)?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 02:04:09PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> You wrote a good overview about the possible workflow, but i still
> miss exactly how we (or the coordinators) will merge from third
> parties (eg: Rosetta) and most important, how we will push our
> translations back to the upstream
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 10:51:02PM +0300, Linas Žvirblis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > It'd be easier to take your claim into account if you actually brought
> > better facts than "I don't like it" or "stupid tools give false positives"
>
> Let us imagine someone decides
Mike Hommey wrote:
> It'd be easier to take your claim into account if you actually brought
> better facts than "I don't like it" or "stupid tools give false positives"
Let us imagine someone decides to introduce package X that contains a
lot of files (let us say 50) in "/usr/lib" and half of the
On 6/6/06, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2006 04:02 PM, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On 06/06/2006 02:04 PM, Gustavo Franco wrote:
>> > On 6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2006 04:02 PM, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On 06/06/2006 02:04 PM, Gustavo Franco wrote:
>> > On 6/6/06, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> > I think
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:32:34PM +0200, Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:05:31AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > It flags alarms, it is obscure, and generally it is bad form to have hidden
> > files anywhere but under user homes anyway. T
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 18:54 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> It is always bad practice to hide things from the user or system
> administrator, particularly outside their $HOME.
Indeed, I'd call that ``the principle of least surprise''.
Thijs
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On 6/6/06, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ Adding -i18n ]
On 06/06/2006 02:04 PM, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (this report is a little bit late as it took time to f
On 6/6/06, Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/6/06, Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Agreed. Btw, it would be better keep Etch package descriptions updated
>> > during it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ Adding -i18n ]
On 06/06/2006 02:04 PM, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (this report is a little bit late as it took time to finalize
>> it...sorry for the inconvenience)
>>
>> The work on internatio
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:05:31AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> It flags alarms, it is obscure, and generally it is bad form to have hidden
> files anywhere but under user homes anyway. There certainly is no excuse to
> have anything hidden inside the system hierarchies, you WA
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> It flags alarms, it is obscure, and generally it is bad form to have hidden
>> files anywhere but under user homes anyway. There certainly is no excuse to
>> have anything hidden inside the system hierarchies, you WANT
On 6/6/06, Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. Btw, it would be better keep Etch package descriptions updated
> during its support cycle, but i think it's impossible with the
> infrascture we've, right ?
No. We already have the previ
Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> 1. It generates false positives (as mention before). And to many false
>positives only ends in overlook the real bad files and directories.
Scanning for dotfiles is not an effective way to find files left behind
by exploits. People writing exploits are aware of programs t
On 6/6/06, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(this report is a little bit late as it took time to finalize
it...sorry for the inconvenience)
The work on internationalisation (i18n) and localisation (l10n) at
Debconf6 has been particularly interesting and productive.
(...)
You wrote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Di den 6. Jun 2006 um 18:12 schrieb Joey Hess:
> If you want to know what's really there, use ls -a ..
This is not the point. I think no of us do not know how to show that
files.
There are two reasons not to use hidden files in /usr, /var, /dev a
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:43:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:59:03PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> Mmm. The impression I got was that people were waiting for the packages
> to be removed from Debian and no one was really all that interested in
> responses from Sun,
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:43:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Mmm. The impression I got was that people were waiting for the packages
> to be removed from Debian and no one was really all that interested in
> responses from Sun, cf:
>
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00025.h
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> It flags alarms, it is obscure, and generally it is bad form to have hidden
> files anywhere but under user homes anyway. There certainly is no excuse to
> have anything hidden inside the system hierarchies, you WANT to easily know
> what is there.
Sure there
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libnet-httpserver-perl
Version : 1.1.1.
Upstream Author : Ryan Eatmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~reatmon/Net-HTTPServer/
* License : LGPL
Descripti
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libdata-optlist-perl
Version : 0.100
Upstream Author : Ricardo SIGNES, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://mirrors.kernel.org/cpan/modules/by-module/Data/Data-OptLi
Hello Mike,
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 07:41 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> Reading a proposed contract or license in any way other than
> literally and pedantically is "dumb". Some actions are so
> dumb that no nicer adjective is correct. Judges are like
> compilers. Modulo judge bugs (which can usually
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 04:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sun have made it very clear that they're trying to work with us on this
> for something that benefits our users, so that just leaves it to us
> to decide what's more important: taking a principled stand that we'll
> read every license literally
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Could you tell us what kind of harm can do a "hidden" empty file in /usr ?
It flags alarms, it is obscure, and generally it is bad form to have hidden
files anywhere but under user homes anyway. There certainly is no excuse to
have anything hidden inside
On 6/6/06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:47:10AM +0200, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> more and more packages use hidden files in /usr. I see this as an error.
> But before making a bug report for such packages I wish to ask if this
> is
Mike Hommey wrote:
> Could you tell us what kind of harm can do a "hidden" empty file in /usr ?
First of all, false positives in rootkit and security scanners. And too
many false positives lead to false negatives sooner or later.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libibatis-java
Version : 2.1.7.597
Upstream Author : Clinton Begin, Gilles Bayon, Ted Husted, et al.
* URL : http://ibatis.apache.org/
* License : Apache
Description :
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:47:10AM +0200, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> more and more packages use hidden files in /usr. I see this as an error.
> But before making a bug report for such packages I wish to ask if this
> is intended or really a bug? Some of the files are in
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, no, that's not actually true. Debian developers get a say in
> whatever they're responsible for. Whether that whatever is a bunch of
> packages on which they're listed as Maintainer, or a port they've been
> maintaining for a few years, or a prog
[Maximiliano Curia]
> After Marga's talk in Debconf6, I've been working in a program that
> starts the initscripts in parallel [1]. It's similar in some aspects
> to startpar (part of sysvinit package) but with two main goals: it
> must work, it must be as little intrusive as possible (in respect t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libsub-exporter-perl
Version : http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/Sub-Exporter-0.952/
Upstream Author : Ricardo SIGNES, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.example.org
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It has happened in the past that the DPL asked a DD and a NM to make
> together a team to deal with a problematic license and to give together
> official Debian statements. [...]
Whatever happened to that? July's coming, bringing a new FDL draft,
if the news re
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:59:03PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 09:57 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards
> > improving the current license
> There have been numerous issues with the current text pointed out
Otavio Salvador wrote:
>
> Of course we're interested in your help. If you have a partial package
> of it, provide it somewhere so anyone can check it and try to improve
> it while you're busy.
>
> About your church, you should try the new LTSP version NOW ;-) GO! hehe
>
OK. I will try them as
hi vincent,
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:11:00AM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Now, I would like to configure a "website" for my application.
> This involve modifying apache conf (adding a
> directive, ...).
fyi, there's a mailing list for packaging web applications:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060606 11:54]:
> No, it does not break. Analyzing software licensing does in fact not
> require any developer privileges _at all_, in the same measure _preparing_
> a full set of GNOME packages does not, either. But the same way those
> packages don't become "of
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:04:56 -0400]:
> > The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high
> > quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer
> > the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go
> > to the non-devel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
more and more packages use hidden files in /usr. I see this as an error.
But before making a bug report for such packages I wish to ask if this
is intended or really a bug? Some of the files are in the package some
are created in postinst and n
On 06/06/2006 Vincent Danjean wrote:
> I'm currently packaging a web application (php+mysql). I use
> dbconfig-common to manage my mysql database.
> Now, I would like to configure a "website" for my application.
> This involve modifying apache conf (adding a
> directive, ...).
please don't us
Hi,
I'm currently packaging a web application (php+mysql). I use
dbconfig-common to manage my mysql database.
Now, I would like to configure a "website" for my application.
This involve modifying apache conf (adding a
directive, ...).
I would like to support several versions of apache (ap
[Otavio Salvador]
> Of course we're interested in your help. If you have a partial
> package of it, provide it somewhere so anyone can check it and try
> to improve it while you're busy.
Yes, absolutely. Please package ltsp-utils for debian. It is
interesting and useful for all the existing ins
71 matches
Mail list logo
