On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
True enough, but as processors get faster, so does bandwidth.
I expect that ultimately, it will always need to be as fast as possible.
Possibly; however, I think bandwidth grows far slower than CPU speed and
overall system
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
True enough, but as processors get faster, so does bandwidth.
I expect that ultimately, it will always need to be as fast as possible.
Possibly; however, I think bandwidth grows far slower than CPU
Joel Baker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
True enough, but as processors get faster, so does bandwidth.
I expect that ultimately, it will always need to be as fast as possible.
Possibly; however, I think bandwidth grows far
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:28:01 -0700, John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
it says the package
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:11:24PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
If you build with different tools, you have a different package. X
built with gcc and X built with icc are very different things (just
as X and X with x.patch and x2.patch applied are different things).
I see your
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This package is buildable by tools in main. It meets the letter of the
law. The spirit seems a bit ambiguous. Good case in point, the m68k
cross-compiled stuff, where the cross-compiler used was non-free. (I
have not verified the accuracy of the
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Consider a major, practical reason we require that packages be buildable
with free tools: so people--both Debian and users--can make fixes to the
software in the future.
I agree with this. This is also not the point. You keep talking
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:01:05PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
I agree with this. This is also not the point. You keep talking about
pracakge that can only be built with a non-free compiler. The one in
question can be built with a free or non-free compiler.
No, that's not what I said.
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041019 00:40]:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would happen if
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
Software.
That is the title of that section.
If you bother to read it, you'll see We will
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:24AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041019 00:40]:
Wesley's software can be built using software in main. It will not be as
fast, but it will still do its job, flawlessly, without loss of
features, with the ability to modify
I know this thread has progressed beyond the actual situation
I asked about, but I wanted to just throw in my opinion too.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:24AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
A program is IMHO not only specified by the fact that it does certain
transformations from input to output,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:24:44PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
Exact words are:
In
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
Software.
That is the title of that section.
If
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:11:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:24:44PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Exact words are:
In addition, the packages in _main_
* must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or
execution (thus,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 05:47:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
A difference in optimization is not relevant to a package's freedom.
If compiling the program with a non-free compiler gains you users who would
not find the
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
[...]
This package is buildable by tools in main. It meets the letter of the
law. The spirit seems a bit ambiguous. Good case in point, the m68k
cross-compiled stuff, where the cross-compiler used was non-free. (I
have not
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 10:39:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, it is not. What you advocate is essentially that a later compilation
must result in the exact same binary, disregarding the fact that our
toolchain will change..
Please review this post:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:16:17AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
The only difference is in *performance*. If there are other differences,
then there is a bug in one of the two compilers. If you are equating
performance with functionality, then we are going to have a very hard
time
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only difference is in *performance*. If there are other differences,
then there is a bug in one of the two compilers. If you are equating
performance with functionality, then we are going to have a very hard
time communicating.
This is not
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you still insist, consider this: If I would know i386 assembler
(which I don't), I could theoretically hand-optimize software before I
upload it. Since I did hand-optimization, the resulting binary would no
longer be built using only Free
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
As a side note, I think the
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
Since there's one GPL question left, I am still posting to debian-legal.
The legal question is marked ** for those who want to skip the rest.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:49:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Whether your university owns a license or not does not
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:01:05PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
I'm saying that a package built with ecc (or icc or whatever) is not
the same package that you'll get if you build the same sources with
gcc; it's significantly functionally
I am developing a very CPU-intensive, open-source error-correcting code.
The intention of this code is that you can split a large ( 5GB)
file across multiple packets. Whenever you receive enough packets that
their combined size = the file size, you can decode the packets to
recover the file,
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml
compiler) some precompiled object files for i386? As long as the build
target is
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
I am developing a very CPU-intensive, open-source error-correcting code.
The intention of this code is that you can split a large ( 5GB)
file across multiple packets. Whenever you receive enough packets that
their combined size = the file size, you can decode the
Since there's one GPL question left, I am still posting to debian-legal.
The legal question is marked ** for those who want to skip the rest.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:49:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Whether your university owns a license or not does not really affect
Debian. icc
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml
compiler) some
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml
compiler) some
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not true.
It seems to me -- at least in the context of what Debian distributes and
calls Main -- that
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not true.
It seems to me -- at
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
you need a non-free compiler. The fact that you can also compile the
sources with a free
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
Software.
That is the title of that section.
If you bother to read it, you'll see We will never make the system
require the use of a non-free component.
It
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not true.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
you need a non-free
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
you need a non-free
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
it says the package in main must be buildable with tools in main.
That is still the case. The fact
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
Exact words are:
In addition, the packages in _main_
* must not require a package
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
Exact words are:
In
41 matches
Mail list logo
