Bug#321586: texi2html images licence
> Personally, I feel that this could be better: > * Just use GPL in Debian for these images (solve problem immediately). > * Work out what programs use texi2html with the images (I do not > believe very many do). These images are not to be automatically used, they are there only for the convenience of a user that would want do use the images instead of text for the buttons. A user has to do manually tweak his init file to use the images. However my idea was that to save time for those who want to use images it should be nice to provide them a selection of allready existing images. > * In a months time, see for possible re-dual licensing of the images > to fix problems for these packages, or give packages the opportunity > to either not use the images. (In which I believe is possible) The images are not needed at all (except in the singular manual). I don't know personnaly of a manual that use those images. The autotool manual use another set of images. > > Maybe the simplest thing would be to let the images under the GPL such > > that it is clear that there is no issue regarding redistribution, and > > have a README in the images directory that states clearly that these images > > cannot be used (even in the manual if the manual is under the GFDL)? > Not sure if this would be allowed, d-legal may be able to give us a > pointer on it. When I reread my paragraph it seems that I didn't explained myself correctly. I wanted to say We should licence the images under the GPL, or under a double licence CC-SA/GPL and add a README stating something like: These images are licences under a CC-SA/GPL licence. These licences are such that when combined with other works the whole work should be under the GPL or CC-SA. So you cannot combine the images with other materials, for example a manual text if the manual text is under a licence that doesn't allows to be relicenced under the conditions of the GPL or the CC-SA. For example a manual licenced under the GFDL or the artlibre licence cannot be combined with the image. Otherwise the casual user will violate the images licence without even knowing he is doing so. -- Pat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#321586: texi2html images licence
On 10/08/05, Patrice Dumas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally, I feel that this could be better: > > * Just use GPL in Debian for these images (solve problem immediately). > > * Work out what programs use texi2html with the images (I do not > > believe very many do). > > These images are not to be automatically used, they are there only for the > convenience of a user that would want do use the images instead of text for > the buttons. A user has to do manually tweak his init file to use the > images. However my idea was that to save time for those who want to use > images it should be nice to provide them a selection of allready existing > images. > > > * In a months time, see for possible re-dual licensing of the images > > to fix problems for these packages, or give packages the opportunity > > to either not use the images. (In which I believe is possible) > > The images are not needed at all (except in the singular manual). I don't > know personnaly of a manual that use those images. The autotool manual > use another set of images. > > > > Maybe the simplest thing would be to let the images under the GPL such > > > that it is clear that there is no issue regarding redistribution, and > > > have a README in the images directory that states clearly that these > > > images > > > cannot be used (even in the manual if the manual is under the GFDL)? > > Not sure if this would be allowed, d-legal may be able to give us a > > pointer on it. > > When I reread my paragraph it seems that I didn't explained myself correctly. > I wanted to say > > We should licence the images under the GPL, or under a double licence > CC-SA/GPL > and add a README stating something like: > >These images are licences under a CC-SA/GPL licence. These licences >are such that when combined with other works the whole work should >be under the GPL or CC-SA. So you cannot combine the images with other >materials, for example a manual text if the manual text is under a >licence that doesn't allows to be relicenced under the conditions of >the GPL or the CC-SA. For example a manual licenced under the GFDL >or the artlibre licence cannot be combined with the image. > > > > Otherwise the casual user will violate the images licence without even > knowing he is doing so. I believe this is all ok, and above board. d-legal: can you please make sure that this is not risking breach of the DFSG/etc and advise me so I can package this an a DFSG package when the above suggested changes are made upstream. > > -- > Pat > -- N Jones Proud Debian & FOSS User Debian Maintainer of: html2ps, ipkungfu, dvorak7min & windowlab
Bug#322306: bbpager fails to start under blackbox and fluxbox (possibly others)
Package: bbpager Version: 0.3.1-4 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable Bbpager is unusable since the following happens all the time: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10:44:46 ~> bbpager Could not open blackbox style file Cannot connect to window manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10:45:03 ~> (Note the time it took to figure this out!) This is *possibly* related to xserver-xorg, since the problem never occurred before upgrading to X.org on 08.08.2005. Fluxbox and bbpager were also updated at the same time, so I cannot be certain. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.10+juhaj+v1.0 Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Versions of packages bbpager depends on: ii blackbox 0.70.0-4Window manager for X ii fluxbox 0.9.12-1Highly configurable and low resour ii libc62.3.5-3 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libgcc1 1:4.0.1-4 GCC support library ii libice6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-4 Inter-Client Exchange library ii libsm6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-4 X Window System Session Management ii libstdc++6 4.0.1-4 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 ii libx11-6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-14 X Window System protocol client li ii openbox 3.2-7 standards compliant, fast, light-w ii xlibs6.8.2.dfsg.1-4 X Window System client libraries m bbpager recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#322391: rxvt: non-POSIX in debian/rules
Package: rxvt Version: 1:2.6.4-7 Severity: minor Tags: patch I get a FTBFS on my system because I have dash as standard shell instead of bash. Here's a simple patch that makes the offending line in debian/rules POSIX compliant. diff -rN -u old-rxvt/debian/rules new-rxvt/debian/rules --- old-rxvt/debian/rules 2005-08-10 12:47:59.0 +0200 +++ new-rxvt/debian/rules 2005-08-10 12:56:12.0 +0200 @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ install -d debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/html install -m644 doc/*.html debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/html/. install -d debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/examples - install -m644 doc/menu/[^C]* \ + install -m644 doc/menu/[!C]* \ debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/examples/. gzip -9v debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/examples/* gzip -9v debian/tmp/usr/share/man/*/* -- Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing of rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1_i386.changes
rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1.dsc rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1.diff.gz rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing of rxvt_2.6.4-8_i386.changes
rxvt_2.6.4-8_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: rxvt_2.6.4-8.dsc rxvt_2.6.4-8.diff.gz rxvt_2.6.4-8_i386.deb rxvt-ml_2.6.4-8_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1.diff.gz to pool/main/r/rxvt-beta/rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1.diff.gz rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1.dsc to pool/main/r/rxvt-beta/rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1.dsc rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt-beta/rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rxvt-beta override disparity
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1_i386.deb: package says priority is extra, override says optional. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please reply to this mail and explain why. [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you replied to one like it before and have not received a response yet, please ignore this mail. Your reply needs to be processed by a human and will be in due course, but until then the installer will send these automated mails; sorry.] -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rxvt-beta override disparity
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 08:17:07AM -0700, Debian Installer wrote: > There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the > override file for the following file(s): > > rxvt-beta_2.7.10-1_i386.deb: package says priority is extra, override says > optional. I think the package right here since rxvt-beta conflicts with rxvt and only one of them should be optional. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rxvt_2.6.4-8_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: rxvt-ml_2.6.4-8_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt-ml_2.6.4-8_i386.deb rxvt_2.6.4-8.diff.gz to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-8.diff.gz rxvt_2.6.4-8.dsc to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-8.dsc rxvt_2.6.4-8_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-8_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: retitle 299146 to O: phpwiki -- an informal collaborative website manager, bug 299146 has no owner
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.4 > # correct title > retitle 299146 O: phpwiki -- an informal collaborative website manager Bug#299146: O: phpwiki: an informal collaborative website manager Changed Bug title. > noowner 299146 Bug#299146: O: phpwiki -- an informal collaborative website manager Removed annotation that Bug was owned by Tomas Fasth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#208670: marked as done (efax segm faults when sending faxes)
Your message dated Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:17:38 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line efax segm faults when sending faxes has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Sep 2003 11:33:06 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 04 06:33:03 2003 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from dhcp-79-219.uni-paderborn.de (pb.steinmann.cx) [131.234.79.219] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 19usMF-0003OB-00; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 06:32:59 -0500 Received: by pb.steinmann.cx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 79A185691E; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:21:59 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Uwe Steinmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: efax segm faults when sending faxes X-Mailer: reportbug 2.26.1 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:21:59 +0200 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_10,HAS_PACKAGE version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) Package: efax Version: 1:0.9a-13 Severity: normal If I call 'fax send ' efax quits with signal 11. This can be fixed by changing line 890 of /usr/bin/fax from $NICE $EFAX -v "$VERB" -v "$VERBLOG" \ to $NICE $EFAX \ The problem exists now for several versions of efax. The last working version was a self compiled version 0.9.x. I have not tried a self compiled version recently. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: powerpc Kernel: Linux pb.steinmann.cx 2.4.21-ben1 #1 Die Jun 17 18:04:47 CEST 2003 ppc Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ignored: LC_ALL set to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Versions of packages efax depends on: ii debconf 1.3.13 Debian configuration management sy ii libc6 2.3.2-4GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libpaper-utils1.1.13 Library for handling paper charact ii libpaper1 [libpaperg] 1.1.13 Library for handling paper charact ii libpaperg 1.1.13 Library for handling paper charact ii make 3.80-2 The GNU version of the "make" util -- debconf information: efax/dialout_note: false * efax/config_note: --- Received: (at 208670-done) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Aug 2005 17:17:57 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 10 10:17:56 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from m26s25.vlinux.de [83.151.30.59] ([uOP0T0lOByLfMDiJT1moKAA2XMD2OSXF]) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1E2uDE-0001tD-00; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:17:56 -0700 Received: from adsl-052.219.166.194.arpa.as1901.net ([194.166.219.52] helo=argenau.downhill.at.eu.org ident=[ESw2MsPFwJH/Y/Lj5TdbFSBYAbxzAb7R]) by m26s25.vlinux.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.50) id 1E2u96-kS-KP for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:13:50 + Received: from ametzler by argenau.downhill.at.eu.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1E2uCw-xC-Ob for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:17:39 +0200 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:17:38 +0200 From: Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: efax segm faults when sending faxes Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-GPG-Fingerprint: BCF7 1345 BE42 B5B8 1A57 EE09 1D33 9C65 8B8D 7663 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: efax Version: 1:0.9a-15 On 2004-12-02 Uwe Steinmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:02:32PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: >> On 2004-12-02 Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [...] >>> would like you to test whether >>> http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~
Bug#151566: # 1 HOME BASED PROGRAM
Hello Carmella , Would you like at least $1500.00 to $3500.00 per day just for returning phone calls? I do! If you have a telephone and can return calls you are fully qualified for this program. Give Us A Call 800-671-9012 polaris costa pounce myopia planetesimal discussant fatigue needlework irrelevancy style measure weaken rotenone anastasia electroencephalography moan comedian fasciculate deregulate candy dishevel gas alison vomit placebo thatch claimant categoric shrunken recompense compensate cutoff curlicue conserve spectator morel vitreous anomie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
