On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 13:57, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:58:08AM -0600, Ed Boraas wrote:
>
> > As a result, I've privately emailed Hans to try to resolve the issue. I
> > would like to apologize to debian-devel for the traffic this has
> > gen
Hello, all.
I've only just returned from spending the long weekend out of town. Of
course, I've awoken to find a rather large thread on debian-devel
regarding attribution issues with my packages of reiserfsprogs. You can
imagine my excitement :)
As a result, I've privately emailed Hans to try
> At this time being, there's no official XFS kernel images nor patches in
Debian, however there is xfsprogs as far as I know in Woody & Sid. I am
willing to work on an XFS kernel floppy boot disk, but it would be pointless
cine a kernel image with XFS is bloated by about 300K if I'm not mistaken,
> Hello,
>
> any news from the Interbase Debian packages?
It's coming, slowly. I'm also evaluating firebird packages.
The problem with InterBase specifically, is the curiosities involved in
doing a bootstrap build (as opposed to a build that depends on an
already-installed set of InterBase binari
> Previously Matthias Berse wrote:
> > Are there any plans in supporting the usage of SGI's xfs filesystem in
> > debian? Are there kernel patches available and/or userspace tools
> > being packaged?
>
> The userspace tools have been in unstable for a while already actually.
And the kernel patche
blic Field Test" has recently been released
in binary-only form, and can be found at www.interbase.com. I have no
plans to package any non-free releases of IB6, but if people feel strongly
about it, I may be convinced to investigate the legality (not sure if
redist is permitted) of it and package
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>Some packages are "worth" more than others. Worth is often hard to define
>but not impossible. Debian may not want to get into the definition
>business but that doesn't mean it can't be done and circumstances may
>force it too.
I can't help but infe
> Taking the risk to burn like hell: I think the "exhaustive exploration"
> of ANY political theory and practice is VERY misplaced in ANY Linux
> distribution. I would say the same thing about "The top 1000 FAQ on
> home-made apple pie", but nobody has packaged that (yet).
>
> To give a positive fo
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
>On 23-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>> license.
>>
>
>The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other
>reason but to remove the expiration date.
Note t
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
>Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>> license.
>
>I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd
>like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily
>wa
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>license.
I think this is a good idea. If this proposal needs to be seconded,
consider this my "seconded!".
If it needs to be seconded somewhere else (debian-vote?) i'll do so
there :)
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
>> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
>>
>Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
>current pppd that would be compatible with the new k
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, David Welton wrote:
>I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to
>download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was
>released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there
>may be problems, it might eat your computer... w
13 matches
Mail list logo