On 7/23/19 6:49 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the
> following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible:
>
> ##
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus, l
On 6/11/19 9:57 PM, Liji Thomas wrote:
> visit this URL - https://blends.debian.org/junior/tasks/programming
>
> there is an url - http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/shoes/
>
> which redirects to a scammer's blog that promotes iCloud Unlock Service
> and Steal money.
>
> These are the scammers
>
Fernando Ike de Oliveira wrote:
Ok. The first step would be to test again? I can do it and report
debian-lsb, right?
Yup, that would be a start.
Is the process for LSB Certification is complex? My
employer is very interested in to help.
It's much better than it used to be. Here's a
Fernando Ike de Oliveira wrote:
Hi Folks,
I looked LSB Distribution Status of the LSB page[1] and there is
written that the Debian Etch is as planned to LSB 3.1, but I remember
that the Etch was launched[2] as compatible with LSB 3.1.
Change status to "certified" is easy? And as I can
I have more news on the LSB test regressions I reported on earlier.
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 18:22 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The two tests are:
>
> /tset/LSB.os/mfiles/msync_P/T.msync_P 7 FAIL
As far as I can tell, the test is correct. The test does an mmap() of
three pages from a l
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 23:16 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Jeff, please continue with your tests.
Unfortunately, I must report some bad news: etch has regressed.
I've tested powerpc and i386. I apologize for the delay, but initially
I had thought the regression was specific to powerpc, as I had
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 11:00 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Is etch now LSB compliant? Is it time to update policy to specify LSB
> 3.1 instead of 1.3?
I won't comment on the policy decision except to say that I'd love to
see that happen.
As for LSB compliance, etch i386 and amd64, at least,
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 10:50 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Anyone willing to run the tests themselves can contact me for
> assistance. Or, if you're willing to give me root access on your
> machine to run the tests for you, please contact me.
And I have been contacted; thanks to al
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:07 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> How about the init-scripts? Does LSB say anything about them, or is that
> a rather optional component?
Yes, I had forgotten those; there were conventions in 1.3, but they have
changed slightly since then.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:21 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I guess now is the time to fix cpio and update policy, then. :)
>
> Is there a BTS report describing the problem with cpio? I am not sure
> what to look for in
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=cpio>.
There is now.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 16:02 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The test results below were run on etch as of July 16.
Something I forgot to point out: these results were run on i386. While
I don't expect results to be much different for other architectures, it
would be helpful to run the tests
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:53 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060731 22:18]:
> > These failures are common to all distributions using X.org 7. Several
> > symbols have moved from one library to another.
>
> Would that failure also appear wi
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:21 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Jeff Licquia]
> > Most of the current tests pass. Of those that don't, most are
> > recognized deficiencies. In sum, there are two potential issues
> > with Debian and the LSB: a possible bug in cpio,
First of all, I apologize for the lateness of my report. I had intended
to evaluate some of the results I had found, but did not find time to do
so.
I have seen two questions asked about the LSB and Debian. First:
- Policy currently references LSB 1.3, while 3.1 is the current
version. What a
where sarge falls short (and if the same applies for etch)?
>
> This is probably also a good opportunity to see what the status is
> of LSB support. I'm BCCing Jeff Licquia who according to comments
> of Matt Taggart by IRC might be able to give a status overview.
Sarge has fo
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 02:31 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes...
> > It's ultimately Joey's call, but I think it would be far preferable to
> > try to fix these lapses in the core libs instead of shipping two
> > copies of libc and libpam with sarge r1.
>
> Well fixing the core wo
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 15:21 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> I propose that our etch goal be LSB 3.x. There are still some issues to fix
> but we're as close to implementing 3.0 as we are any other version. There's a
> 3.1 in plan for later this year, it mostly bug fixes and other stuff that
> shoul
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 14:54 +, Andre Felipe Machado wrote:
> Please, explain these issues.
The short explanation, I think, is that people often have different
ideas.
At DebConf, it was announced that there are somewhere around 130
different distros based on Debian. Do you think that bringing
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:44:00AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > tension between them. To many of us - indeed, a majority by my count
>
> Let us not try to decieve. Where did you get 'your count'
> and
[sent to -project instead of -devel]
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:15:50PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> ** On Jun 10, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> > *I* am not ready to make any guarantees. Most of that isn't software
> > I use.
> That you don't use those packages d
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:54:34AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> No, it isn't. I see that *right now* (and *right now* is when you created
> your GR) there is no morally honest way to take the software from our users.
This is not at all clear. After all, the entire argument for removing
non-fr
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:53:26AM -0700, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> I see the issue of pool integration as having the following sticking
> points:
Again at the expense of "tooting my own horn", may I humbly suggest,
once again, the proposal I made in debian-devel a short while ago
concerning an ap
22 matches
Mail list logo
