Bug#278243: ITP: libhttp-cache-transparent-perl -- cache http requests transparently
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Package name: libhttp-cache-transparent-perl Version : 0.4 Upstream Author : Mattias Holmlund URL : http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/HTTP/ License : Perl Description : cache http requests transparently HTTP::Cache::Transparent is an implementation of HTTP GET that keeps a local cache of fetched pages to avoid fetching the same data from the server if it hasn't been updated. The cache is stored on disk and is thus persistent between invocations. . The http-headers If-Modified-Since and ETag are used to let the server decide if the version in the cache is up-to-date or not. All http-requests are made through the LWP module. Data is stored on disk by the Storable module. Digest::MD5 is used for creating a hash of the URL. I'm packaging this because XMLTV 0.5.36 will recommend it. KEN -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-k7 Locale: LANG=en, LC_CTYPE=en_US (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US) -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgp6i41fH8Tbs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: If you really want Free firmware...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to > > design and go to full-custom fabrication of an FPLA with fully-open > > design. > > Mine is that one can get useful things done without having to spend > ridiculous amounts of money, or even any money at all. Yours is that > you can't. Debian proves you wrong every day. > > There is absolutely no reason why any money is needed for this. Design > the damn thing. Somebody will want to produce it. Manufacturing > companies would *leap* at the opportunity to make widely desireable > chips with zero royalty costs. I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. At the least, this is because testing your hardware "implementation" is not "free" (as in beer). Nor am I aware of many free (or even cheap) hardware development tools or "environments". Besides that, I don't personally know of any real "open source"-style movement within the hardware community from which to draw talent. And, even if there were one, I honestly don't see most manufacturing companies "leaping" at the chance to spend their own money testing prototype hardware from an unproven source. I'm not trying to be pessimistic here, just realistic. I think that you should be careful not to underestimate these fairly significant differences between hardware and software. I'm not a hardware expert myself, other than my general electrical engineering background. Are you perhaps speaking from hardware design/implementation experience that I don't know about? Anyway, I tend to agree with Bruce that money will likely be required to get some of this done. I'm not claiming any opinion on the rest of this thread, because I haven't been following it. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpSwNnXA8Mel.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: If you really want Free firmware...
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:26:46AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:43:37AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > > > > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to > > > > design and go to full-custom fabrication of an FPLA with fully-open > > > > design. > > > > > > Mine is that one can get useful things done without having to spend > > > ridiculous amounts of money, or even any money at all. Yours is that > > > you can't. Debian proves you wrong every day. > > > > > > There is absolutely no reason why any money is needed for this. Design > > > the damn thing. Somebody will want to produce it. Manufacturing > > > companies would *leap* at the opportunity to make widely desireable > > > chips with zero royalty costs. > > > > Manufacturing an ASIC involves NRE (non-recurring engineering) costs > > of hundreds of thousands to millions per revision. A manufacturing > > company is going to need to see a pretty good market before they > > invest that in an open design. > > Manufacturing an operating system involves NRE costs of hundreds of > thousands to millions per revision. > > Oh, wait. Actually, that's just *one* way of doing it. And yet you're > quoting Redmond propaganda as if it were the only truth. Do you have any actual hardware design experience to draw on here, or are you just blabbering? I'm telling you again -- regardless of whether these numbers are realistic -- you cannot draw directly on your software experience to come to a resonable conclusion about hardware of this sort. So, right back at you: name one other way you have known someone to do this, with context, or provide some documentation refuting these numbers, and you'll have some credibility. Pen off replies like this, and you're just some guy trying to cover up his own lack of knowledge with insults (and wow, what a surprise is coming from you). And no, I can't confirm or refute the numbers, which is why *I* didn't comment on whether they were realistic. You might want to try that sometime. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpsQcJC2ipR5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: If you really want Free firmware...
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:39:07AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:13:53PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > > > > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to > > > > design and go to full-custom fabrication of an FPLA with fully-open > > > > design. > > > > > > Mine is that one can get useful things done without having to spend > > > ridiculous amounts of money, or even any money at all. Yours is that > > > you can't. Debian proves you wrong every day. > > > > > > There is absolutely no reason why any money is needed for this. Design > > > the damn thing. Somebody will want to produce it. Manufacturing > > > companies would *leap* at the opportunity to make widely desireable > > > chips with zero royalty costs. > > > > I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing > > hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is > > similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. At the > > least, this is because testing your hardware "implementation" is not > > "free" (as in beer). > > Any commercial software company will tell you exactly the same thing > about software: testing is not free. We're *still* here. Consider why > this works (without resorting to things which are obviously not true, > like "current hardware doesn't ship with (many) known bugs", or > "proprietary software is more reliable"). The difference is that software testing is often "free" in a capital sense. I can volunteer my time to test or write open source software, and there is very little capital expense associated with it (my cable modem, my electricity, my PC, etc., much of which has other uses in my household). Testing hardware of this sort requires actually manufacturing it (which is a capital expense) and requires various pieces of test equipment (the purchase of which would also be a capital expense). One way or another, someone will have to bear these expenses. Put it this way: per my hourly rate, I might have "donated" the equivalent of thousands of dollars to Debian this year. However, were I to have to make thousands of dollars of purchases (for fabrication and other speciality hardware) this would be a completely different thing. One is relatively "free" (I have a certain amount of free time in a week) and the other is not (hardware fabrication still costs real money for every iteration no matter how much free time I have). I'm all for advocacy. The problem is that you speak of open source development as some sort of great Truth which has finally become revealed to the Chosen Few who have Seen the Light. I posit that open source development on today's scale did not become practical until PC hardware really became available at "commodity" prices. I do not believe that those sorts prices yet exist in the hardware development world. (Oh, I'm sure you're going to try to slap me with that one. I can't wait. ) > > I'm not trying to be pessimistic here, just realistic. I think that you > > should be careful not to underestimate these fairly significant > > differences between hardware and software. > > I think you're "underestimating" the difficulty of creating > software. The difference is merely that you happen to be familiar with > a more effective way to do it. Oh, give me a break. > Your point is quite amusing because historically any commercial > organisation would have told you the exact opposite: Yeah, yeah, amusing, right, mm-hmm. > Software is far more expensive to produce than hardware, by several > orders of magnitude. Again, you seem to have missed the difference between capital expenses and labor expenses. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpkxKoI8p6u4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: If you really want Free firmware...
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:17:24AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Kenneth Pronovici > > | I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing > | hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is > | similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. At the > | least, this is because testing your hardware "implementation" is not > | "free" (as in beer). Nor am I aware of many free (or even cheap) > | hardware development tools or "environments". > > You can get microcontroller development boards with a handfull of ICs > off atmel for around 30-40 euros. Etching 12x8cm boards costs you a > couple of Euros and you can get a lot done without going that far, > even, but just soldering stuff. Not free, but cheap enough that «it's > too expensive» isn't a real argument. I stand corrected on these costs. Again, I'm not claiming to be an expert here - can the development Bruce is suggesting really be done on this sort of development board? > FPGA equipment is on the same magnitude of cost -- still a bit off > «thousands of dollars» Not sure where "thousands of dollars" came from (not me), but OK. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpbqZpqhAPjX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: If you really want Free firmware...
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:51:43PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:57:20PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > And no, I can't confirm or refute the numbers, which is why *I* didn't > > comment on whether they were realistic. You might want to try that > > sometime. > > I cannot figure out what mail you were reading. The attributions were intact in my reply. I guess I can help you out, though. Let's see: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bruce said, "My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K..." Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You said, "There is absolutely no reason why any money is needed for this. Design the damn thing..." Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hamish said, "Manufacturing an ASIC involves NRE...of hundreds of thousands to millions per revision..." Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You said, "Manufacturing an operating system involves NRE costs of hundreds of thousands to millions per revision... you're quoting Redmond propoganda..." [This implied that Hamish's numbers were not valid.] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (This is the message you just replied to) I said, "Do you have any actual hardware design experience to draw on here...", in reply to your implication about Hamish's numbers. Clear now? KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpZmPM7Cr8Dy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: If you really want Free firmware...
[Yes, replying to myself.] On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:05:44AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:17:24AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > * Kenneth Pronovici > > > > | I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing > > | hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is > > | similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. At the > > | least, this is because testing your hardware "implementation" is not > > | "free" (as in beer). Nor am I aware of many free (or even cheap) > > | hardware development tools or "environments". > > > > You can get microcontroller development boards with a handfull of ICs > > off atmel for around 30-40 euros. Etching 12x8cm boards costs you a > > couple of Euros and you can get a lot done without going that far, > > even, but just soldering stuff. Not free, but cheap enough that «it's > > too expensive» isn't a real argument. > > I stand corrected on these costs. Again, I'm not claiming to be an > expert here - can the development Bruce is suggesting really be done on > this sort of development board? (I think someone else answered this in a different reply to my original note.) > > FPGA equipment is on the same magnitude of cost -- still a bit off > > «thousands of dollars» > > Not sure where "thousands of dollars" came from (not me), but OK. Aha, I see where you found this in my original note (although you didn't quote it). In that paragraph, "thousands of dollars" was just an example for illustration, although I chose the magnitude of the cost from one of the links Bruce posted (I recall seeing a $5400 fabrication cost listed on one of those pages). KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpvB5QF42RfO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: If you really want Free firmware...
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:27:45AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hamish said, "Manufacturing an ASIC involves NRE...of hundreds of > > thousands to millions per revision..." > > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You said, "Manufacturing an operating system involves NRE costs of > > hundreds of thousands to millions per revision... you're quoting Redmond > > propoganda..." [This implied that Hamish's numbers were not valid.] > > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (This is the message you just replied to) > > I said, "Do you have any actual hardware design experience to draw on > > here...", in reply to your implication about Hamish's numbers. > > > > Clear now? > > Ah, you misinterpreted my point in quite an impressive way. Valid > numbers or not, his statement was of the form "Here is how we do it, > and our way is the only way in which it is possible to do it". And > we've heard that one before. You seem to spend a great deal of time criticizing other people's methods and statements, and very little time analyzing your own. If you made any effort to back up your statements, it would be more difficult to misinterpret them. A good start would be to indicate exactly which hardware-development-related Redmond propogranda Hamish was supposedly quoting, rather than relying on this list's innate distrust of Redmond to make your point for you. Another good start would be to honestly answer when people ask your what experience you have with a subject, rather than silently ignoring the question. I really don't care about the numbers. I don't actually even care about this thread, especially now that Bruce and others have given us numbers that make most of the discussion moot. What annoys me is your constant pounding on other people's credibility, especially since you don't ever seem to accept anyone else's criticism of your credibility. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpKUOFmwtO3b.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: If you really want Free firmware...
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:40:30PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> > >> Ah, you misinterpreted my point in quite an impressive way. Valid > >> numbers or not, his statement was of the form "Here is how we do it, > >> and our way is the only way in which it is possible to do it". And > >> we've heard that one before. > > > >I really don't care about the numbers. I don't actually even care about > >this thread, especially now that Bruce and others have given us numbers > >that make most of the discussion moot. What annoys me is your constant > >pounding on other people's credibility, especially since you don't ever > >seem to accept anyone else's criticism of your credibility. > > That's just Suffield being an annoying prick, as usual. Common > consenus is that he's generally best ignored... Yeah, I know. I just feel better after saying it. :-) > Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there > must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the > far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled > knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer Heh. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpDKmKlXpM0k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another load of typos
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:11:39PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:32:10AM +0100, Florian Zumbiehl wrote: > > HPGL > > HTML > > HTTPS > > These three vary because the letter H is pronounced starting with either > a 'h' (haich) or an 'a' (aich). This is _probably_ a distinction between > American and British English, although it was originally a distinction > between social class of the speaker of British English. (cf. Pygmalion, > I believe) But I don't know which one's which. > > For me, "An aich-pee printer" sounds just as good as "a haich-pee > printer". I would say that in my experience (in American English, and I'm from the Midwest), one would typically use "an" in front of a pronounced "H", but "a" in front of words beginning with "H". So, "an HTML page", "a helper page". I don't think that this sort of thing is worth standardizing, given that there might be differences between typical British and American usage. We don't seem to standardize one way or the other on British vs. American spellings, like with "color" and "colour". In fact, believe it or not, the short description for the gimp-dimage-color package uses "colour" rather than "color"... > I just wanted to mention it, and also because this way I can have "pee" > associated with the Debian mailing lists in google. ^_^ Heh. That'll be funny until we get mail from the first person asking us to remove pee from their computer. (Damn! That probably made it worse.) KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpszcdiWZhiv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NEWS.Debian abuse
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 07:36:37PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Please remove the entry from NEWS.Debian and do not do this again. > Users should not care about who maintains the package. Why not? (Besides, I listed in the previous news item that the package was up for adoption, so it only seems sensible for Chris to indicate that he's taken it over officially.) KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: NEWS.Debian abuse
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:15:00AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 06:03:06PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 07:36:37PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > Please remove the entry from NEWS.Debian and do not do this again. > > > Users should not care about who maintains the package. > > > > Why not? > > IMHO, NEWS.Debian should cover things the users should know in order to > successfully operate the package. Knowing who is the maintainer does > not fall into this category. If they cared about changes for the Debian > packaging, they would read up on it in changelog.Debian.gz. Ok, after a quick look through the existing NEWS.Debian files on my box, I concede that this is the way most developers use the file. I still maintain that the information provided was useful, but it could probably go in some other place. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: NEWS.Debian abuse
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Ok, after a quick look through the existing NEWS.Debian files on my box, > > I concede that this is the way most developers use the file. > > It's not a question of "the way most developers use the file". It's a > question of what the file is _for_. I did not intend to dispute that. All I meant was that standard practice seems to be consistent with the position that all of you have taken in this thread. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: NEWS.Debian abuse
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:58AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-31 19:09]: > > Ok, after a quick look through the existing NEWS.Debian files on my box, > > I concede that this is the way most developers use the file. I still > > maintain that the information provided was useful, but it could probably > > go in some other place. > > Your entry for e.g. 0.5.39-3 is a typical example for something that > may go in the changelog but it certainly has nothing to do in the NEWS > file. Imagine people reading that when they upgrade to Etch... > Those people who care will read the changelog anyway and see what > features you backported. Yes, this is clear now. Chris will obviously make changes to XMLTV, which is his package now. I'll make sure the rest of my packages us the file properly. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu and its "appropriation" of Debian maintainers
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 01:48:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:34:09PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > > PS. This is not a troll against Ubuntu. > > In that case, can I ask why you addressed your concerns to debian-devel, > rather than to the parties responsible for the web pages you found > objectionable? > > The result (which may or may not have been the intent) seems to have been to > stir up emotion among Debian developers, rather than to have the Launchpad > website changed. Matt, I think that's kind of harsh. It's perfectly appropriate for him to ask on debian-devel whether anyone else cares about this sort of thing. After all, it does affect all of us. Besides that, I didn't see anyone from Ubuntu ever make a general announcement to Debian developers about who they should contact if they have concerns about things like this, and there isn't any contact information on the launchpad site. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpBLou5kqfuh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ubuntu and its "appropriation" of Debian maintainers
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 03:00:54PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 04:19:03PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > > Besides that, I didn't see anyone from Ubuntu ever make a general > > announcement to Debian developers about who they should contact if they > > have concerns about things like this > > I sent several of the early Ubuntu announcements to debian-devel, so that > everyone knew what was happening and would have a point of contact if they > had any concerns (me). Matt, I'm not looking to pick a fight with you here. It feels a bit like you're taking this personally, and I don't think you need to. You just have to keep in mind that even though all of *you* know what's going on at Ubuntu, most of *us* don't. I've tried to keep on top of this (as much as I can), but I sure didn't know you were supposed to be the main point of contact. Maybe I missed something obvious... but I did miss it. Others appear to have missed it as well. > There is also a "Feedback" hyperlink at the bottom of every page on > www.ubuntu.com (and given the subject of this thread, it is well known that > the Launchpad and Ubuntu projects are related). Well, ok, but that doesn't necessarily mean that whoever reads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cares about this particular problem or has any control over the Launchpad. You presumably know who reads the mail sent to that address; I don't. My first guess was that it was a marketing contact address, not an address used to get in contact with technical people. > I have asked the developers to correct this. As you can see by clicking > through many of the links, the site is not yet complete. Well, that's good to know - but it was not obvious to me that the site wasn't complete yet (not that I really care one way or the other). No worries, KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpnzWjOHILlW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go > > > in right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute > > > since they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF > > > over documentation. > > > > Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? > > > Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen. Odd. I'm a rational person, and I don't know that. Maybe I'm not really rational. I feel rational though. Hmm. > > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation > > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what > > can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what > > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free > > and say it is mostly OK. > > Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by Debian > itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see that, if > given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below). Ah, there we go with that word again... > > In one point you are right though: > > > > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With > > the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package > > that users missed so far. > > Right, only the relatively few users of this technically unofficial and > mostly > unknown-to-the-world official Debian port have noticed you left non-free > behind. So explain to us why you believe any copyright holder of one of > these problem packages OUTSIDE OF DEBIAN is going to find out about this, Well, first off, you just posted about it on a public list...duh. > and for some irrational reason bothers to sue amd64.debian.net, > because it isn't on debian.org (but its contents *is* Debian)? And there's that word AGAIN. > Geez, compared to that, I'd say me getting hit by a meteorite when I > next leave my apartment is a guaranteed certainty... heck, let me go > write my will before I go to the grocery store. Well, we can hope, because then this stupid thread might die. > All you need is official blessing from Debian proper, in writing, or at least > publicly announced on the net, that yes, the AMD64 port on amd64.debian.net > is officially part of Debian, and isn't on debian.org only because of > technical problems, but will be physically integrated soon (which is all > true). With that, you don't have to worry about any lawsuits. So please > stop with this weird excuse. And you can categorically state this on what authority? Can we assume you're a lawyer in whatever municipality has jurisdiction? Can you even tell me what municipality has jurisdiction? Sheesh, you might have a decent argument if you constrained yourself to facts instead of assertions... > But you do have the time to re-verify non-free all over again? So you've > wasted a whole week on this Oh my. A *whole week*? I can't believe it. Compared to how long it took to release sarge, that's... let's see... er... insignificant. That's the word I'm looking for. You know what - I don't give a shit about this subject, but I'm getting tired of posts like this one. Chill out. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpfSDySjC09N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#315808: ITP: cedar-backup2 -- Secure backup to CD-R and CD-RW media
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Kenneth J. Pronovici" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: cedar-backup2 Version : 2.4.2 Upstream Author : Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://cedar-solutions.com/software/cedar-backup/ * License : GPL Description : Secure backup to CD-R and CD-RW media Cedar Backup is a Python package that supports secure backups of files on local and remote hosts to CD-R or CD-RW media. Cedar Backup also includes extensions that understand how to back up MySQL databases and Subversion repositories, and it can be easily extended to support other data sources, as well. The package is focused around weekly backups to a single disc, with the expectation that the disc will be changed or overwritten at the beginning of each week. If your hardware is new enough, Cedar Backup can write multisession discs, allowing you to add to a disc in a daily fashion. Directories are backed up using tar and may be compressed using gzip or bzip2. This is my own software. I have been maintaining Debian packages in a private repository for a while now (since before woody was released) and I've been persuaded that I should include them officially in Debian for etch. I will be uploading the exact same package that is currently in my private repository, so the changelog won't list a closed ITP bug number or anything. KEN -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-k7 Locale: LANG=en, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US) -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpNTIfDRT6WS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#315808: ITP: cedar-backup2 -- Secure backup to CD-R and CD-RW media
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 12:34:43PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> First, this sounds like an interesting piece of software, and I'm happy
> to see it packaged.
Thanks.
> su, 2005-06-26 kello 01:51 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici kirjoitti:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: "Kenneth J. Pronovici" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > * Package name: cedar-backup2
>
> Why the 2 in package name? It is better to avoid embedded version
> numbers (even the major number) in package names if at all possible.
> (Instead, make the software upwards compatible.)
As I mentioned at the bottom of my ITP, I have been maintaining these
packages in my own repository for quite a while now. There was a
previous release (the v1.0 tree) for which the package was named
cedar-backup. I continue to support the "old" release for security
problems or major bugs because some users didn't want to upgrade. My
private repository offers both packages, but I am only uploading
cedar-backup2 to Debian.
The v2.0 release fully supports v1.0 configuration files, but the
command-line changed slightly, so the new version is not completely
"upwards compatible", as you say.
> > Description : Secure backup to CD-R and CD-RW media
>
> Why "secure"? The long description does not say anything that would
> justify the adjective, so it sounds like advertising, which package
> descriptions shouldn't be. Does the software encrypt the backups, for
> example?
Cedar Backup uses SSH ("Secure rlogin/rsh/rcp replacement") for remote
data transfer. The data ultimately written to disc is not encrypted.
If that is not enough to justify the adjective, I will remove it.
Perhaps you would prefer this?
Description : local and remote backups to CD-R/CD-RW media
It's probably more descriptive anyway.
Thanks,
KEN
--
Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpAfcAMUIXqJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#315808: ITP: cedar-backup2 -- Secure backup to CD-R and CD-RW media
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 07:59:32PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > su, 2005-06-26 kello 11:13 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici kirjoitti: > > Perhaps you would prefer this? > > > >Description : local and remote backups to CD-R/CD-RW media > > > > It's probably more descriptive anyway. > > Yep, I think that's better. Ok, I'll go with that, then. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpnulHPUY6Yq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#315903: ITP: evilfinder -- proves that any given subject is evil
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:27:21AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It's a novelty joke program. If that's a "great utility" in your view, > > then I find your opinion hard to take seriously ... > > So is debian "business apps only" now? Oh come on, of course not. But if you can't admit that this is a novelty application and not a utility, you're kidding yourself. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpfFVnS1q24L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#315903: ITP: evilfinder -- proves that any given subject is evil
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 01:37:25PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Oh come on, of course not. But if you can't admit that this is a > > novelty application and not a utility, you're kidding yourself. > > For the record, I _was_ kidding in my original message -- but I do think > it looks like a fun program, and certainly stand by the rest of my > message. Fair enough. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpGuNOvddT4w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Upstream requires forked Date::Manip
The upstream maintainer of XMLTV, which I package for Debian, has temporarily forked the Perl Date::Manip module. He says: Over the past six months or so I've accumulated various bug fixes to the Date::Manip module, most of them because of xmltv bug reports sent by users. Rather than wait any longer for the upstream Date::Manip to incorporate the fixes I have made my own release (intended as a temporary measure, not a permanent fork)... I've updated xmltv to require this version of the module (since it does fix several fairly important problems). I'm not entirely sure what to do with this. One option would be to roll these forked bug fixes into the offical Debian libdate-manip-perl package. There are no interface changes, so this really shouldn't cause problems for anyone (in theory, anyway). I have written the Debian libdate-manip-perl maintainer a few times in the last few weeks about this, but I haven't heard anything back from him. Another option would be for me to create a temporary libdate-manip-perl-fork package (or something) to temporarily provide the forked code, which wouldn't affect users who don't install the XMLTV packages. This would be OK, but I don't like the idea of adding temporary packages to the archive. As a final option, I could just take out Makefile.PL's checks on version and build the Debian XMLTV packages against the version of Date::Manip currently in Debian. This bothers me because it would leave us open to Debian-only bugs for which there's an obvious fix that Debian doesn't support. Does anyone have any opinions on the best way to deal with this? Thanks... KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgp8OcQw4Jhdt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Upstream requires forked Date::Manip
> The upstream maintainer of XMLTV, which I package for Debian, has > temporarily forked the Perl Date::Manip module. He says: > >Over the past six months or so I've accumulated various bug fixes to >the Date::Manip module, most of them because of xmltv bug reports >sent by users. Rather than wait any longer for the upstream >Date::Manip to incorporate the fixes I have made my own release >(intended as a temporary measure, not a permanent fork)... I've >updated xmltv to require this version of the module (since it does >fix several fairly important problems). > > I'm not entirely sure what to do with this. All sorts of things fell into place in the day since I wrote this. It turns out that upstream has managed to get most of the forked patches incorporated, and will release this week, so I guess I don't have anything to deal with after all. Thanks, KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgploLWfU8KnB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
> Uh, no. You have 3 possible pools. > > 1: Someone likes Debian. > 2: Someone dislikes Debian. > 3: Someone hasn't formed an opinion of Debian or doesn't care about Debian. > > Do you want contributions from 2 or 3? IE, someone who dislikes it or > someone who is uninformed or ambivalent to the whole process? There are (of course) other pools, for instance the pool of people who like Debian and have something *in particular* to contribute *today*. It's fair to stipulate that this pool is much smaller than pool #1 above, yes? Or are you being intentionally difficult? I've been trying to keep an open mind in this conversation (and I am even rather sympathetic) but I'm about to give up. > So, let me get this straight. You want people who will want to contribute > to a project which shuns them if they don't, shuns them if they do, expects > them to eat crap and like it. That about right? Yep. I've given up now. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgp5XbB8nFtu9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#206807: ITP: pythoncard -- PythonCard GUI Framework
Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-08-22 Severity: wishlist * Package name: pythoncard Version : 0.7.2 Upstream Author : PythonCard Developers * URL : http://pythoncard.sourceforge.net/ * License : BSD Description : PythonCard GUI Framework PythonCard is a GUI construction kit for building cross-platform desktop applications on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, using the Python language. It is based on the Python bindings for the WxWindows toolkit. I already have preliminary packages completed, and I'm in the process of having them beta-tested by users on the PythonCard mailing list. I intend to upload after the 0.7.2 release of the package early next month. The source package is split into several binary packages: pythoncard - Meta package pythoncard-tools- Scripts, tools, etc. pythoncard-doc - Documentation and samples python-pythoncard - Installs python2.3-pythoncard python2.3-pythoncard- Python libraries The license situation was what stopped me from uploading this the last time (in February); since then, they've settled on a BSD-style license, and someone will be putting together a list of contributors and making sure that everything is in order before I upload. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux agamemnon 2.4.18 #1 Sun Aug 17 17:40:33 CDT 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=en, LC_CTYPE=en_US (ignored: LC_ALL set) pgpGC223aLNhZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse
> This seems like a lot of argument over avoiding putting six more words > into the changelog file giving information that the maintainer clearly > already has (since otherwise they wouldn't know that they could close the > bug), and which is obviously useful for users. Hear, hear. You can't tell me that it's so much more difficult to write: * New upstream release - Fix such-and-such behavior (closes: #) instead of just: * New upstream release (closes: #) The question in my mind is, if you can make some of your users and fellow developers happier just by adding a few words of detail to your changelog, why would you *not* do it? What's the point? Add the six words and get on with life. Sheesh. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgp8xqIrEDcAe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Someone to take over XMTLV packages
Hi, I maintain the Debian XMLTV packages. I no longer use these packages, and I would like to give up maintaining them. I would normally just file an O: and be done with it, but there are a lot of XMLTV users, and I don't want to leave them completely hanging. So, I'm looking for someone to take over these packages, and then I'm willing to stick around as a co-maintainer for a while if that would be useful. The packages are clean and relatively bug free, with both existing bugs related to upstream problems. Anyone who wants to take these packages over should probably be willing to follow the upstream mailing lists (if possible), because the most frequent bug reports are for grabbers that are fixed in CVS but have not yet made it into an official upstream release (like #320409). The new maintainer should also consider maintaining a backport to sarge like I have been doing, since at least some of the grabbers are likely to break in a permanent way before etch is released. Upstream is reasonably active, although they have not been releasing as often lately as they were in 2003 and 2004. I have a good relationship with them and I'm listed as a SourceForge developer for the project, so I can make introductions as needed. I'm also willing to help with debugging in the future, even if I'm not listed as a co-maintainer. If I have to, I will also continue to host the backport APT repository, although I would prefer not to. Any takers? Thanks, KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpavjO4pmRVs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Someone to take over XMTLV packages
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 02:10:19AM +0200, Mathias Weyland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 06:48:39PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > I maintain the Debian XMLTV packages. I no longer use these packages, > > and I would like to give up maintaining them. > > I use xmltv and I'd like to adopt it. Ok. I'm glad to hear that. > > I'm willing to stick around as a co-maintainer for a while if that would > > be useful. > > That would be nice since I do maintain some debian packages but I'm not DD > yet. Would you need me to sponsor your uploads? The reason I ask is, I'm trying to give up maintaining XMLTV due to time constraints. Sponsoring someone else's packages would potentially take almost as much time as just maintaining them myself. It would be great if we could find another DD who had the time to work more closely with you than I can afford to. I could then stay on as co-maintainer just to help out a bit when needed. > > Anyone who wants to take these packages over should probably be willing > > to follow the upstream mailing lists > > That's no problem. Cool. I recommend following both xmltv-devel and xmltv-users, and traffic is low enough lately to be manageable. > > The new maintainer should also consider maintaining a backport to sarge > > like I have been doing > > I don't see any problem in maintaing such a backport. Where do you think you would host the backported packages? As I said, I'd prefer to avoid hosting them myself if possible (currently, they're served off my own site, cedar-solutions.com). KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpcMp7krqONJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Someone to take over XMTLV packages
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 03:00:40PM +0200, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote: > Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi, > > > I have to, I will also continue to host the backport APT repository, > > although I would prefer not to. > > Wouldn't this be a good candidate for volatile.debian.net? You know, I asked about that once, and received no reply. So, I dropped it. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpop5UUSKWL2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:25:22AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot > strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL > software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian > community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian > community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will > ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like > Ubunutu. Think about it. I'm getting really tired of this conversation going around in circles. I think that to avoid duplication of work, it would be wise for Sun to relicense OpenSolaris under the GPL. What? You don't think Sun would do that? Well, then why would you expect Debian to do something similiar? This whole thing has nothing do with Debian being "serious" about supporting non-glibc ports. Debian's goal is to produce a free operating system and make high-quality free software available for that operating system. Any discussion of whether we will generally support non-glibc environments is at best tangential. The only question at issue right now is whether you -- specifically! -- can use Debian's code in your particular non-glibc environment, Nexenta OS. Please don't mix issues like this! It only adds to the confusion -- or worse, creates the perception that you do not understand this distinction. It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian" thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license of some of its core infrastructure in order to solve problems your project has created *for itself* by choosing to work with CDDL-licensed code. Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great opportunity. I've got news for you: the great opportunity here was that *you* were able to base *your* software on Debian. And that only happened because Debian protected your rights to that software through the DFSG. Think about it. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:26:51PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian" > > thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what > > you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license > > of some of its core infrastructure in order to solve problems your > > project has created *for itself* by choosing to work with CDDL-licensed > > code. > > If you do not like CDDL license, it is your personal opinion. Nothing > more. I do not like Linux GPL nature, this is my personal opinion too. I have nothing against CDDL, or OpenSolaris, or your new operating system, and I never said I did. I simply point out that you may not have fully grasped the consequences of grafting Debian code into your CDDL-licensed system. > Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on > non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved. Again: please stop mixing these two subjects. This discussion has nothing to do with non-glibc ports in general; it is specific to your particular non-glibc port. If you don't understand the distinction, then ask for clarification! You really need to start concentrating on what people are saying, not what you think they mean. When it comes to legal matters like this, the Debian community generally expects people to be quite precise in their wording. The sooner you realize this, the better this discussion will go for you. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:39:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major > contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major > OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris, > BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the > fact that now four out of those five are free at their core? I don't mean to excuse the near-hostility that's evident now, and I agree that we should give OpenSolaris some time to get everything straightened out (that's only fair). However, I suspect that if the original announcement and subsequent conversation had been handled a little better on the OpenSolaris side, Debian people would have been more willing to cut them some slack. You'll note that even in the initial part of the thread when Debian folks were (generally) being polite, many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. This strikes me as a rather poor way to start a relationship with someone, especially when you've just based most of your userspace on that someone's source code. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, > > and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. > > Speaking of antagonistic... Huh? > > This strikes me as a rather poor way to start a > > relationship with someone, especially when you've just based most of > > your userspace on that someone's source code. > > That's a very proprietary attitude about source code, don't you think? Er, in what sense? KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:18:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:40:27PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > > > many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, > > > > and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. > > > Speaking of antagonistic... > > Huh? > > "Kenneth's responses have ranged from being dismissive to hostile." > > That would be antagonistic in that: > > * it makes the problem overly personal -- I'd be making you, personally, > out to be the problem rather than saying your arguments or claims are > wrong and should be abandoned; > > * it's overly critical -- portions of your responses might have been > dismissive or the OpenSolaris guys' work, and it might've been > possible to interpret your responses in a hostile manner, but that > doesn't mean such an interpretation is correct or the most important > aspect of your mails; > > * it's also blatantly dishonest -- not all of your mails have been > dismissive to hostile. > > The latter's the case for Erast too -- take [0] eg, which doesn't seem > remotely antagonistic, let alone showing a complete disregard for what > Debian is all about. Well, yes, but my statement wasn't that broadly worded - note I said "many of Erast's responses" not just "Erast's responses". Perhaps the word "many" is an overly broad characterization, but there were quite a few, especially in the part of the thread I originally replied to (which is why I replied to him in the first place). Anyway, I don't feel we need to go into this any deeper. I understand the point you're trying to make. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Looking for Moshe Zadka
Has anyone heard from Moshe Zadka lately, or know where I can find him? He hasn't responded to most of his currently-open bugs, and all of his bugs closed recently enough to still show up in the BTS have been closed by NMU. The developer database hasn't heard from him since June sometime. He hasn't replied to any of my emails over the last few months, including my NMU notifications. I'm looking for him regarding Epydoc. Thanks, KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpQkOyXzkPdp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#276606: ITP: libsub-override-perl -- Perl module used to temporarily override subroutines
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Package name: libsub-override-perl Version : 0.05 Upstream Author : Curtis "Ovid" Poe URL : http://cpan.org/modules/by-module/Sub/Sub-Override-0.05.tar.gz License : Perl Description : Perl module used to temporarily override subroutines This is the CPAN module Sub::Override. . Perl programmers sometimes have a need to override subroutines, particularly for testing purposes. Sub::Override provides a simple way to override subroutines instead of using heavier-weight methods such as Mock Objects. I'm packaging this because the latest libhtml-tokeparser-simple-perl requires it. KEN -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.4.25-1-386 Locale: LANG=en, LC_CTYPE=en_US (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US) -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpSLfKDpAotE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#140863: ITP: babygimp -- An icon editor in Perl-Tk
Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-01 Severity: wishlist * Package name: babygimp Version : 0.41 Upstream Author : Christian Lederer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://babygimp.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Description : An icon editor in Perl-Tk I've already packaged this for my own use. When it gets into Debian depends on when I can get someone to upload it for me. :-) -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux agamemnon 2.4.17-pre6 #1 Sat Mar 16 12:43:10 CST 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=en, LC_CTYPE=en_US -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#794036: ITP: cedar-backup3 -- local and remote backups to CD/DVD media or Amazon S3 storage
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Kenneth J. Pronovici" * Package name: cedar-backup3 Version : 3.0.0 Upstream Author : Kenneth J. Pronovici * URL : https://bitbucket.org/cedarsolutions/cedar-backup3 * License : GPL v2 Programming Lang: Python 3 Description : local and remote backups to CD/DVD media or Amazon S3 storage This is a Python 3 conversion of the existing cedar-backup2 package, which is targeted at Python 2. I maintain cedar-backup2 and I'm also upstream for Cedar Backup. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici signature.asc Description: Digital signature
