Widely used, highly relevant for both programs and libraries (which both
utilise other libraries).
Thoughts?
Anand
--
`When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
forbidden to know," the
What is the opinion of this group?
Anand
--
`` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think.
When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never
leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:34:48AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
>
> > > I would like to propose ladspa-host and ladspa-plugin as names of virtual
> > > packages which
> > >
> > > ladspa-h
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 06:21:50PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
> RMS just asked me if it was true that all our packages don't include
> the GPL, just a reference to it, since that is a violation of the
> GPL itself. In his words:
>
> rms> I'm told that (some or all)
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:08:13AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 06:50:38PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva (KoV) wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Wichert... you *must* do it or you are
> > illegal.
>
> Chapter and verse of the GPL please.
Ignore
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 06:50:38PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva (KoV) wrote:
>
> I agree with Wichert... you *must* do it or you are
> illegal.
Chapter and verse of the GPL please.
Anand
--
Linux.Conf.Au -- http://linux.conf.au/
17th - 20th January,--
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:40:11PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > I read it, I just don't agree that it matters in this case.
>
> A more authoritive source disagrees with you.. RMS wrote the GPL
> so I'll trust his opinion above yours.
Okay, well RMS ca
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:43:24AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Anand: if you're going to set Reply-to: on your email, try not to make
> typos -- the message I'm replying to had "debian-polict" instead of
> "debian-policy".
Apologies.
> On Tue, Nov
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:25:26PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With a fairly small amount of work, I have managed to get a couple of
> menu hints semi-standardized within Debian. (See the documentation on
> the menu package if you don't know what menu hints are. The quick
> answer is th
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 11:09:54PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > > happened in the versions you can no longer see [1.1 to 1.3 in this
> > > example]. That reduces the usability of the feature to about the level
> > > of a cheap hack..
>
> > I know
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
>
>
> So? I didn't say it was. I didn't say that Debian maintainers
> should clean up upstream documentation.
>
> I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains
> a mess of upstream files, there should be a file tha
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > > Who is expecting 0 here? We expect this for Debian 2.3, but not
> > > for potato. In potato we expect, that every documentation is
> > > available as /usr/doc/ (
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> Well it wouldn't have taken you much time[1], I did check and 13 out
> of 159 packages have symlinks in /usr/share/doc/package pointing to
> /usr/doc. From what I remember that was the
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 07:58:39AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > Okay, I'll email a few people, who are maintaining a lot of those
> > package, asking/informing them about the problem.
>
> this isn't a
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > ... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
> > $ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
> > 162
> > instead of the expected 0?
>
> Who is e
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 11:58:56PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> >
> > ... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
> >
> > $ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
> > 162
> >
> > i
... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
$ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
162
instead of the expected 0? Should a mass bug report be filed against
these (ls -l /usr/doc/ | grep ^d | awk ' { printf "%s ", $9 }
') packages?
Or is there some other mechanism I should
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
> > I'll stick my hand up for option (c). The effort involved in
> > modifiying configurations is marginal.
>
> And by what means does the package determine whether or not
> another package has "gotten there first?"
Try to use whatever resource they want.
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Ok, let's bring this back to implementation. How would you propose we
> > handle
> > this? Currently daemons install, set themselves up, and begin running.
> >
> > a) we can prompt.
> > b) we leave everything off and let the admin turn it on (not an
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Now I do agree with your initial statement, not all things should conflict.
> > wmcdplay and xmcd both play cd's -- they dont conflict. However a deamon
> > provides a known service that only one should be performing at ALL times.
>
> That is a very n
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> Because as everyone knows the last 10% takes 90% of the work and often ends up
> hurting the other 90%.
In this case though I've already seen two simple solutions which won't
hurt anyone except the person doing the `odd' setup ...
> The point
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:14:44AM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > > > That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be
> > > > added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms.
> > > >
> > > > Packages that are `too bu
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Shaleh wrote:
> >I would like to second this. I already had to set my machine up this
> >way by hand. It simply makes more sense. When I want XDM I switch
> >run-levels. Simple, easy. That is the whole point of run-levels. Put
> >different
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 1998 at 06:02:54PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think we should indeed have such a new priority level. I like the
> > label `preferred'.
Another possibility could be `recommended'.
> > This should include the `best example' of ev
On 24 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Just like you can never get to choose the one true editor, one
> can never decide on the one true documentation format.
Oh, I think you can. In the foreseeable future I see SGML emerging as the
one true format for documentation. Fortunately, with t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 22 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> and we've found a new use for the machanism, well, great! That
> Joey> just means conffiles are a nice general solution to a general
> Joey> problem that has manifestations the implementor didn't
> Joey> envision.
26 matches
Mail list logo
