Roger Leigh writes:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:16:53PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Maybe we need a mass bug filing for programs not using 64bit file
>> offsets.
>
> I think that would be appropriate. At this point, I can't see a
> valid reason for any package to not have LFS enable
I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's
an invitation to create an account.
---
sonaly has invited you to open a free Gmail account.
To accept this invitation and register for your account, visit
h
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 11:48 +, Enrico Zini a écrit :
> uitoolkit::athena - Athena Widgets
> uitoolkit::fltk - FLTK
> uitoolkit::glut - GLUT
> uitoolkit::gnustep - GNUstep
> uitoolkit::gtk - GTK
> uitoolkit::motif - Lesstif/Motif
> uitoolkit::ncurses - Ncurses TUI
> uitoo
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 21:40 +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> Select one of cli-mono or ecma-cli and please also get me a short
> description :)
How about:
cli-mono -- The Common Language Infrastructure, the Mono implementation
and packages containing Common Intermediate Langua
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:59:27AM +, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:07:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > We plan on changing the current sections in the archive. With the rapid
> > growth of archive, many of them have become too big to be useful anymore.
> I propose 'oldl
Hi there!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:08:35 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Norbert Preining (27/02/2009):
>> Does anyone know anything about that license?
>
> Looking at the pool:
> | k...@gluck:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ grep -i cc-by-sa
> */debfiles/copyright
This does not match e
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 07:26:10PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> One source of confusion in Mexico was that people said at the Mexican
> embassy they were travelling "for a conference". Stupid as it might
> sound, that meant they were coming "on business", and it was a PITA to
> convince the Foreign
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> I have to say that for a person who doesn't know the exact details of
> the fork, this thread is quite vague (especially for its size).
>
> So I googled a bit. There's a bit of background here:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/
>
> And the bug report
Victor H De la Luz dijo [Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:29:51PM -0300]:
> And if you are rejected, then always exists the mexican "coyotes" to
> cross the border (is a joke but is real)...
I recognize you are Mexican, by your mail. And... Well, I advise you
not to even joke on this. Being related to ille
Jimmy Kaplowitz dijo [Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:31:24PM -0500]:
> Martin may have left the wrong impression. We don't have the issues fully
> solved, and of course can no more make guarantees that there won't be visa or
> border hassles than the Mexico local team was able to for DebConf6 (the first
>
Steve Langasek writes:
> In practice, we have the LSB definition of the interfaces that
> /usr/sbin/sendmail have to support; all but one of the MTA packages in
> Debian implement this interface (the odd duck is nullmailer, which
> Conflicts: lsb for this reason...)
>
> But perhaps that definitio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sjors Gielen wrote:
[...]
> I'm working on a project porting the Debian tools to Cygwin.
Yes, yes, I know I'm replying to a post over a month old. Nevertheless,
I recently found something that's relevant:
http://debian-interix.net/
This is a Debian
Enrico Zini writes:
> At the end of this mail is the list that I propose: it's 138 of
> them, but grouped as they are, they should be quite clear to grasp.
> I consider these groups of tags (debtags calls them facets) to be
> mature and uncontroversial enough to be made official and to ask
> main
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:32:51AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> I would prefer to create a real empty package:
>> default-mta (maybe in a source package debian-defaults), which depends
>> on exim.
> BTW "mta" is IMHO wrong. In most of the cases (IIRC) programs needs
> only a "sendmail" p
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 21:24 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> video
> > mplayer*
>
> That is already in.
>
> > vswitch*
>
> No hit for this match?!
Holger probably meant dvswitch. Which is in NEW, anyway.
Ben.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:46:15AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> Given that m-t-a is mentioned explicitly in policy, and that "default-mta"
>> will be a virtual package, I think this should be recorded in policy as well
>> - though if a clear consensus emerges on debian-devel, there's no ne
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:07:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> We also plan on adding a number of new sections.
wanna-build will need to be change for this too, and will
probably break if you give it an unknown section. Please
wait until the list is added to wanna-build.
Kur
Michael Biebl wrote:
[...]
> It's also a matter for what case we optimize:
>
> For users running unstable, who constantly update, it might/will happen
> that the update-desktop-database trigger is activated although
> unnecessary.
>
> For stable users, who only do distro upgrades, it might be qui
I demand that Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) may or may not have written...
[snip]
> I do believe that users are getting used to see the terms i18n/l10n, and if
> our users are able to find out what httpd and vcs mean, I'm pretty sure
> they will survive l10n. :-)
"Where's the t1g3r section?"
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antonio Radici
* Package name: libstring-bufferstack-perl
Version : 1.12
Upstream Author : Alex Vandiver
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/String-BufferStack/
* License : Artistic
Programming Lang: Perl
Descriptio
Michael Tautschnig writes:
> Seeing that the change of sections could pose some technical problems
> (not only challenges implementing them) as well, let me ask one
> (possibly stupid) question: Why do we need sections at all?
>
> All that policy states is that it simplifies some handling of pack
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:12:48PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:48:30AM +, Enrico Zini wrote:
>
> > - For packages with no tags in the control file, take the tags from the
> >review tag set as we have now
>
> Are packages supposed to do this? If they are it'd pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27-02-2009 08:41, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 02:53:04AM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> wrote:
>> On 26-02-2009 23:10, Darren Salt wrote:
>>> I demand that Frans Pop may or may not have written...
Joerg Jaspert wrot
El Vie 27 Feb 2009, Joerg Jaspert escribió:
> Thats ok, get me a good name and short description for it please.
> "r" is not a good name, i think.
gnu-r ?
Everything about GNU R, an statistical computation and graphics system
luciano
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian
>> Like the other poster, cli is very confusing. If we have enough
>> packages (get me a list/matches :) ), im not against a section for it,
>> but cli wouldnt be my favorite name for it.
> I’m not sure for the section name, but here is a list of matches:
Select one of cli-mono or ecma-cli and pl
On 11674 March 1977, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> As I mentioned directly to override-change before encountering this
> message, I'd argue that my goo package is a (somewhat exotic)
> candidate. In general, here's a first cut at a full list, including
> it and your initial proposals:
Thanks.
--
bye,
>> Get me a short description for it.
> "Compiler, libraries, and tools for OCaml: a static typed ML language
> implementation supporting functional, imperative, and object-oriented
> programming styles".
You have an interesting definition of short, i stopped after : for
now. :)
(Its a different
> You also want totem* and kaffeine*.
Done.
> *-dbg packages could go in their own section(s) (debug, or libdebug &
> appdebug?); otherwise, I think that they should remain with (the bulk of) the
> packages for which they provide debug data.
All debug packages will go in the debug section.
--
>> video
> mplayer*
That is already in.
> vswitch*
No hit for this match?!
--
bye, Joerg
I've annoyed Ganneff enough with that package already, no
reason to top it off by a build-depend on emacs for writing control
files
pgpLuKXMhKlrs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> Have sense to inaugurate a section with all the R modules? Nowadays
> many of them are in "math".
> $ apt-cache search r- | grep "^r-" | wc - l
> 133
Thats ok, get me a good name and short description for it please.
"r" is not a good name, i think.
--
bye, Joerg
* wiggy just looking at g
On 11674 March 1977, Edward Betts wrote:
> webfeed - RSS/Atom feed readers, aggregator and utilities
Not enough packages, can stay in web, especially as that gets rid of httpds.
--
bye, Joerg
cron.daily time, unlocking: slave_NEW
ftpbot: oh bugger off, slave_NEW isn't affected by dinstall :-)
On Friday 27 February 2009 21:29:01 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> > If you feel that the SFLC's opinion is wrong, you are of course free
> > to provide us with competent legal advice countering SFLC's opinion.
>
> opinions can only be proven right or wrong in court. It seems th
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> If you feel that the SFLC's opinion is wrong, you are of course free
> to provide us with competent legal advice countering SFLC's opinion.
opinions can only be proven right or wrong in court. It seems that Sun's
opinion is that the combination doesn't impose redistributi
Alberto Garcia wrote:
> So I googled a bit. There's a bit of background here:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/
>
> And the bug report is probably this one:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109
Which doesn't say anything more specific. It plays on the same level as this
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:35:56 +0100
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> > But then we are back at the issue of a 80-20 problem, and I see the
> > VCS solution as more flexible and more readily available.
>
> Agreed. But VCS solution is a 80% success/20% silent
> failure. Confi
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:37:19AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:51:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a number
> > > of packages, som
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:32:51AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> BTW "mta" is IMHO wrong. In most of the cases (IIRC) programs needs
> only a "sendmail" program. Should we split the dependencies on real-mta and
> only on a sendmail provider.
>
> BTW we should
[BTW, the only proper spelling is "GNUstep" -- not "Gnustep" or
"GNUStep".]
Vincent Danjean wrote:
> I maintain a page.app package.
You mean paje.app, I assume (innocent typo)?
> It is right it is a gnustep application (ie it uses the gnustep
> framwork). However, I never use the gnustep envir
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 06:48:01AM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > > There definitely _is_ a major legal problem with the fork.
> > > Please provide specific details, rather than vaguely defined
> > > "major problems".
> > Read the related entry in the Debian bugtracking system before
> > aski
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
>
> You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail me.
Stating a fact is not blackmail. As SFLC has determined that
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 01:35:56PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> I think your numbers are right. The main problem I see is that the
> automatic merge will not be able to inform the user whether the
> merge is correct or not. In case of merge failure, the application
> will exit on error and leav
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:01 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 08:31 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > This is of course broken. It breaks granting console users access
> > to the netdev or powerdev groups through pam_groups, which is really
> > really annoying when you get your u
>> We plan on changing the current sections in the archive. With the rapid
>> growth of archive, many of them have become too big to be useful anymore.
> According to my knowledge of dak, the sections are global. Which means
> that we don't have to worry about a possible kernel update for
> lenny+
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 16:02 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Anyway, versions 2.0 and 2.5 allow relicensing to 3.0
>
> By anyone?
§4b :
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally
On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Anyway, versions 2.0 and 2.5 allow relicensing to 3.0
By anyone?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 15:46 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> wow, I'm surprised to see 2.0 and 2.5 licences there. AFAIU (and I've read
> those licences...) and AFAIK, cc-by-sa 3.0 is fine for main, previous
> versions not. So I guess some bugs are in order to be filed...
Anyway, versio
Hi,
On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> ISTR (some of) -legal@ saying not DFSG-compliant,
some people on -legal will always disagree, what counts more is the (rough)
consenus...
> ftpmasters saying yes,
and ftpmaster, obviously :)
> Looking at the pool:
wow, I'm surprise
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Note: you still haven???t fixed your email client.
>
> Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 13:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > > Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > > Then it seems the right time
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 14:33 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > Like the other poster, cli is very confusing. If we have enough
>> > packages (get me a list/matches :) ), im not against a section for it,
>> > but cli
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
Steve> Actually, I was meaning to comment on this. Why would you
Steve> not simply point the shlibs at the component library
Steve> packages at this stage? The only side effect is that the
Steve> version of krb5 that includes the split lib
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Reto Buerki
* Package name: polyorb
Version : 2.4.0
Upstream Author : li...@adacore.com
* URL : https://libre.adacore.com/polyorb/
* License : GMGPL
Programming Lang: Ada
Description : The PolyORB schizophrenic m
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 14:33 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Like the other poster, cli is very confusing. If we have enough
> > packages (get me a list/matches :) ), im not against a section for it,
> > but cli wouldnt be my favorite name for
Norbert Preining (27/02/2009):
> it is quite hard to get definitive answer on the above license.
> Interestingly the Debian wiki says that
> In contrast to the CC-SA 2.0 license, version 3.0 is considered
> to be compatible to the DFSG.
> and there are many discussions about the CC-BY
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> the GNOME team is currently maintaining cheese, a program to take shots
> from a webcam. However, while we have no particular trouble to maintain
> it (it’s a small package), none of the maintainers currently owns a
> webcam.
I will be ha
I have a laptop with a webcam and would be willing to assist.
What version would i need to run. I am currently using lenny. I am willing
to upgrade to a newer version.
What documents would I need to familiarize myself with to be able to
assist. I am not a Debian Developer. But I am a UNIX admi
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Like the other poster, cli is very confusing. If we have enough
> packages (get me a list/matches :) ), im not against a section for it,
> but cli wouldnt be my favorite name for it.
I would suggest "c-sharp" for the section.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Hi,
the GNOME team is currently maintaining cheese, a program to take shots
from a webcam. However, while we have no particular trouble to maintain
it (it’s a small package), none of the maintainers currently owns a
webcam.
Therefore, it would be nice if someone with a webcam could give us a
hand
Hi Stefano!
Cc:ing again the Debian Common Lisp mailing list, please keep it!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:02:59 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
>> FYI, as Aaron already showed with his list, ome packages (especially the
>> "non-library"
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> I can agree, at least in theory. But as we all known, due to how
> source code tends to work, in 90% of the cases automatic merges do the
> right thing. Well, of course I cannot prove that number, but my
> personal feelings is that with a "high confidence" automatic me
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did
> > under
> > the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
> > appeared at Debian.
>
> Change y
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:38 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:38AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > William Pitcock wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
> > > > cdrecord as wodim; it is
Note: you still haven’t fixed your email client.
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 13:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch d
> Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:07:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > According to my knowledge of dak, the sections are global. Which means
> > that we don't have to worry about a possible kernel update for
> > lenny+1/2. Am I correct with that?
>
> The sections are define
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:48:30AM +, Enrico Zini wrote:
> - For packages with no tags in the control file, take the tags from the
>review tag set as we have now
Are packages supposed to do this? If they are it'd probably be worth
announcing more generally to let people know it's OK to
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did
> under
> the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
> appeared at Debian.
Change your license, and maybe we’ll be able to
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> FYI, as Aaron already showed with his list, ome packages (especially the
> "non-library" ones) do not have the cl-* suffix. StumpWM is missing,
> for example.
Note that the current language-oriented sections (python, perl, and
the ju
flaming, trolling and shitting on -devel is not useful for the general
audience, even is some people think it is.
/me fully agrees with <874oygdu1r@benfinney.id.au>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:38AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > William Pitcock wrote:
> >
> > > 2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
> > > cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
> >
> > There definitely _is_
William Pitcock wrote:
> > > Generally it is considered to be bad taste when you change the licensing
> > > rules abruptly.
> >
> > It is generally considered bad taste to offend and to try to blackmail the
> > Copyright holder. As this has been done by the Debian package maintainer,
> > Debia
Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:07:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> According to my knowledge of dak, the sections are global. Which means
> that we don't have to worry about a possible kernel update for
> lenny+1/2. Am I correct with that?
The sections are defined in the overr
[if help is needed with following the proposal below: a list of tags and
their description can be found at:
* http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/tags/vocabulary.gz
* /var/lib/debtags/vocabulary (if you have debtags installed)
* http://packages.debian.org/about/debtags (formatted on the web)
a
William Pitcock wrote:
> > are some "Debian maintainers" that rather attack software authors instead
> > of
> > colaborating.
>
> It is impossible to collaborate when you add invariant sections to the
> code. Well done.
This is a text that has been created in collaboration a former Debian
mai
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 02:53:04AM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 26-02-2009 23:10, Darren Salt wrote:
> > I demand that Frans Pop may or may not have written...
> >> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> [...]
> >>> The new sections are:
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 10:57 +, Benjamin M. A'Lee a écrit :
> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
> >
> > There are rights that _cannot_ be given away.
>
> Which of these rights do you consider is being infringed?
He’s talking about moral rights, which exist in several
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:38AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
>
> > 2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
> > cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
>
> There definitely _is_ a major legal problem with the for
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:26 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
>
> > > are some "Debian maintainers" that rather attack software authors instead
> > > of
> > > colaborating.
> >
> > It is impossible to collaborate when you add invariant sections to the
> > code. Well done.
>
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 09:03 +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> Like the other poster, cli is very confusing. If we have enough
> packages (get me a list/matches :) ), im not against a section for it,
> but cli wouldnt be my favorite name for it.
I’m not sure for the section name, but here is
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 11:56 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
>
> > > > > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> > > > >
> > > > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not
> > > > > be
> > > > > legally distribute
William Pitcock wrote:
> > > > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> > > >
> > > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not
> > > > be
> > > > legally distributed.
> > >
> > > If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly
On Fr, 27 Feb 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> that doesn't involve treating anyone as a “target”.
It's not "anyone", it is simply "one", and that "one" is making himself
anyway prime target with openly declaring all Linux developers as
completely incompetent programmers, and he (who has never written an
Hi there!
Cc:ing the Debian Common Lisp mailing list.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:02:03 +0100, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>> Its lisp. Not one special part of it, just lisp. So other dialects as
>> well, if someone gets me a list of packages (or matches) for it.
[...]
> cl-*
FY
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 01:19 +, Sam Morris a écrit :
> > I don’t like the name either, but can you think of a better one? We
> > could use “mono”, but it’s the implementation name.
>
> 'clr' (common language runtime)? It's the acronym that MS uses quite a
> bit.
CLR is the acronym for
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 07:13:07AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> localization is the spelling given by the OED, so it is correct in all
> locales. It doesn't even list localisation as an alternative spelling.
The OED lists plenty of examples of "localisation" and "localise";
whether you consider
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 12:58 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl a
> écrit :
> > Please, not again. The arguments have been exchanged ad invinitum
> > a couple of times already. So if there is nothing new to bring up,
> > please don't restart the discussion.
>
> Why?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:07:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> We plan on changing the current sections in the archive. With the rapid
> growth of archive, many of them have become too big to be useful anymore.
I propose 'oldlibs' to be renamed to 'deprecated'.
That would also fit, for example
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:40:45AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Benjamin M. A'Lee" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with
> > > free
> > > software, please try to inform you
"Benjamin M. A'Lee" wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with
> > free
> > software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you
> > change
> > things that are forbid
Hi,
On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> According to my knowledge of dak, the sections are global. Which means
> that we don't have to worry about a possible kernel update for
> lenny+1/2. Am I correct with that?
Can you/anybody please explain how this is related to the sections?
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and legal.
> Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the fork
> that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
>
> See my bug report from December 2006.
I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time
you are finished talking, type RET twice.
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 11:03:55 Joerg Schilling, vous avez écrit :
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > > The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is
> > > no longer
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 07:19:11AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Should Java libs be in lib or libdevel (they are both). This is one of
> the reasons we've wanted a Java section.
I wouldn't mind a proper discussion on the pros and cons of both.
That'd help me for debtags as well, where java li
Hi everyone,
it is quite hard to get definitive answer on the above license.
Interestingly the Debian wiki says that
In contrast to the CC-SA 2.0 license, version 3.0 is considered
to be compatible to the DFSG.
and there are many discussions about the CC-BY-SA but no definitive
an
John Goerzen wrote:
> > The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no
> > longer
> > because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
>
> When will you enumerate these?
>
> Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.
As long as
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a
number
of packages, some better solutions have been proposed in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/05/msg
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:51:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a number
> > of packages, some better solutions have been proposed in
> > http://lists.debian.org/de
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:07:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> We plan on changing the current sections in the archive. With the rapid
> growth of archive, many of them have become too big to be useful anymore.
According to my knowledge of dak, the sections are global. Which means
that we don't
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 00:18 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> > >
> > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > > legally distr
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
> software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you
> change
> things that are forbidden by law.
>
> Let me quote the license pe
Vincent Danjean wrote:
> What about creating a 'libs' section for different languages?
> Something like libs-ruby, libs-perl, libs-python, libs-java, libs-r, ...
>
> This would allow to split the big 'libs' section and this avoid to put
> libs (ie mostly automatic pulled packages) in sections wher
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> The new sections are:
>
> ruby Everything about ruby, an interpreted object oriented
> language.
> java Everything about Java
> videoVideo viewers, editors, recording, streaming
> fonts
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
