[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian White) wrote on 04.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > That depends on how you look at it.
> > >
> > > If the author does not do significant maintenence or has abandoned the
> > > package then this is true.
> >
> > What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i'm missing the same thing: debian should have a database with error
> reports and how to fix them. every big bug should be documented (we had
> this bud , and you can solve it this way : . it's
> also fixed in the new release debian and in the pa
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But your promise in not the point. The author wants this promise
> from everybody. It's the best way to be assured that improvements
> get distributed to everyone and not just a select group.
What if the author decides to not accept a change?
Say the au
> Regarding the assignment of copyright, I took that out of the draft
> document.
Yay! I knew you were a good guy! :-)
Cheers,
- Jim
pgptBXGtMKzg2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Regarding the assignment of copyright, I took that out of the draft
document. I think that every good license should include the provision
that modifications must have the same license as the original software,
not a more restrictive license, applied to them. The GPL includes something
like this, a
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Sam Ockman wrote:
| Sure...
|
| Start with an 80x24 xterm...
|
| Run top...everything works fine...
yes
| Grab corner...expand to 80x32...everything still works...number of lines
| shown expands...
yes
| Grab corner...expand to 90x32length of lines shown stays 80 (bu
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
> > this already. We also have some cases of "author rudely dropped dead
> > without first changing the copyright".
>
> This is a problem, I admit. What does the law say about copyrigh
> Well, it's fine for the author to _require_ that modifications in the
> program be returned to the author. It's just not acceptable for the
> author to not allow modifications to be distributed.
I don't think we should accept licenses that require modifications to be
returned
to the author, or
From: Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But your promise in not the point. The author wants this promise from
> everybody. It's the best way to be assured that improvements get
> distributed to everyone and not just a select group.
Well, it's fine for the author to _require_ that modifications i
> > That depends on how you look at it.
> >
> > If the author does not do significant maintenence or has abandoned the
> > package then this is true.
>
> What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
> this already. We also have some cases of "author rudely dropped dead
> wi
From: Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That depends on how you look at it.
>
> If the author does not do significant maintenence or has abandoned the
> package then this is true.
What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
this already. We also have some cases of "author
> > I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> > this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> > suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> > cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who might l
On Jun 4, joost witteveen wrote
> > Because the current slang0.99.34 and slang0.99.34-dev packages are
> > implicitly for libc5, we can't "re-use" them and therefore need to use
> > new package names for the new libc6 versions. I've been recommending
> > people simply append a "g" to the package n
The mirror on llug.sep.bnl.gov is almost caught up to master. However,
master is not accepting ftp connections at this time... :(
Happy release! :)
Tim
--
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.buoy.com/~tps
"Very Pete Townshendish." "Who?" "Exactly."
--
correct analysis except:
> As it happens xdm-shadow works fine on non-shadow systems, so I believe the
> maintainer has (or is about to) uploaded a copy where xdm and xdm-shadow are
> the same (shadow enabled) binary.
Not uploaded yet -- it's just one of the things I'll be sure the 3.3
upload g
Message from Helmut Geyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 6-4-97:
> Sam Ockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in the thread on ncurses):
>
> >: Now that I think about it, the program "top" is another offender that it
> >: would be nice to figure out someway to make it so the xterm-window can
> >: resize it.)
>
In your email to me, Andreas Jellinghaus, you wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, Jim Pick wrote
> > This flaw needs to be publicized a bit more. I'm sure I would have
> > figured out the problem via the bug system eventually - but I shouldn't
> > have to do that.
> >
> > Is there a document where "Errata" ca
From: Tomislav Vujec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But, do we realy distribute modified versions?
We distribute modified binary files. I've asked for an explicit permission
in the ncurses license that is something like paragraph 1 in our free
software guidelines, and Eric seems to be agreeable with that.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
About the link binary -> binary-i386:
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
> >Very old versions of dselect use it. It's meant for backwards
> >compatibility.
>
> Are these the same versions which have problems with Packages files
> with epochs in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
>
> > One possible solution is to link Xaw statically in the freeciv binary.
> > That's what I do with aXe.
>
> Or you can just use -rpath when you compile to force it to use a
> particular dynamically linked libXa*. I think that was the solution
> u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
> One possible solution is to link Xaw statically in the freeciv binary.
> That's what I do with aXe.
Or you can just use -rpath when you compile to force it to use a
particular dynamically linked libXa*. I think that was the solution
used in gv.
--
> I'm replying to this on debian-devel since many developers are
> probably still not clear on the issues that come up when converting to
> libc6.
Thanks, it's good to read this!
>
> On Jun 4, J.H.M. Dassen wrote
> >* Non-maintainer release (OK-ed by Chris); slang should now be usable
> >
On Jun 3, Jim Pick wrote
> This flaw needs to be publicized a bit more. I'm sure I would have
> figured out the problem via the bug system eventually - but I shouldn't
> have to do that.
>
> Is there a document where "Errata" can go? How about a release-specific
> FAQ that we can update after
I keep seeing icmp packets leaving my system, in the `diald` Dctrl
packet Q, from "hare.sea.ixa.net", and I don't know what they are
from.
Any ideas?
--
Karl M. Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.inetarena.com/~karlheg
Portland, OR USA
Debian GNU 1.3 Linux 2.1.36 AMD K5 PR-133
--
TO U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> > I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> > this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> > suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> > cause other than stickin
I'm replying to this on debian-devel since many developers are
probably still not clear on the issues that come up when converting to
libc6.
On Jun 4, J.H.M. Dassen wrote
> Description:
> slang0.99.34 - A C programming library for user interfaces - shared library
> slang0.99.34-dev - A C progra
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One package with misc/general manpages and another with development
>manpages. What do you think?
I think that (at least) the "undocumented.?" pages should go in a
separate package, or even back into the man-db package. I don't h
Tom Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ctrl+PrintScreen (=SysRq) should do a kernel info thing.
Have you heard of the GGI project? One of the things they have is a
SAK (secure attention key), which is guaranteed to kill all processes
running on the current VC. The key they're using at the moment f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Could anyone tell me where the difference between the linuxlibc1 reboot()
> function and the one in glibc is? The prototype has changed dramatically and
> I cannot find it in the info files.
I believe that the change
Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> In anticipation of Debian being released (publically)for platforms
>> other than ix86 it would be a good idea to phase out the use of
>> the binary -> binary-i386 link on the ftp sites as this could
>> cause confusion. Is there an
Could anyone tell me where the difference between the linuxlibc1 reboot()
function and the one in glibc is? The prototype has changed dramatically and
I cannot find it in the info files.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Projekt-Manager | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
topsystem Systemhaus Gm
> After extensive testing, some code rewriting, etc., I finally have
> determined that this problem only occurs when using Xaw3d or Xaw95. I
> am CCing this message to the relevant maintainers. (Xaw maintainers:
> package freeciv-1.0j that is in hamm causes coredump under Xaw3d and
> Xaw95 but no
Sam Ockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in the thread on ncurses):
>: Now that I think about it, the program "top" is another offender that it
>: would be nice to figure out someway to make it so the xterm-window can
>: resize it.)
Well, it surely works for me (I wrote most of the currently used co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should
> relax this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not
> being suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it
> helps a
Message from Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 6-3-97:
> Jim Pick:
> > dselect (our package selection tool) will have to be rewritten to use
> > some other library. This will probably take some time, though. I'm
> > not sure how we will resolve having the core of our packaging system
> > dependen
> > The fix is very simple: ctrl-alt-F1; log in as root; shadowconfig off;
> > return to x and log in normally. But you do have to know this.. and there
> > is no warning when installing shadow or xdm.
>
> Arrrghhh!
>
> I spent two hours yesterday (past midnite) on the phone with a client
> try
Brian White:
> I personally believe that Debian should relax
> this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who might like
> to keep some me
Bruce writes, replying to Brian White:
> > I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> > this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> > suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> > cause other than sticking a
After extensive testing, some code rewriting, etc., I finally have
determined that this problem only occurs when using Xaw3d or Xaw95. I
am CCing this message to the relevant maintainers. (Xaw maintainers:
package freeciv-1.0j that is in hamm causes coredump under Xaw3d and
Xaw95 but not the stan
and don't forget, there's *still* no written-down policy on shadow:
% grep -i shadow /usr/doc/dpkg/programmer.html/*
Exit 1
I mean, I will get this straightened out with 3.3, but the
picky-detail side of me is still miffed that debian's shadow policy is
still basically hearsay. :-}
--
TO UNSUBS
Jim Pick:
> dselect (our package selection tool) will have to be rewritten to use
> some other library. This will probably take some time, though. I'm
> not sure how we will resolve having the core of our packaging system
> dependent on a "non-free" package. Maybe we're going to have to
> stri
It went very well; I missed a few packages, and had to go back for a
few things, then `dpkg --configure --pending` three or four times,
while sorting out dependencies.
I'd installed the experimental shadow packages, and `dpkg` wouldn't
let me upgrade, since `shadow-login` was an essential packag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 3 Jun 1997, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
>
>1. The software may be redistributed by anyone. The license may
> restrict a source file from being distributed in modified form,
> as long as it allows modified binary files, and files that are
>
I'll take a look at it, but I can't gurantee anything yet, with graduation
in 2 weeks (yea), after that when I am working full time, I actually will
have more time. Who knows, I might be able to get a Pentium pro 200, to
do some work on. Well I'll look at it tomorow after I finish with my last
f
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Bruce wrote:
Bruce> There is a GPL-ed version of "Freedom Desktop Lite" at
Bruce> ftp://fsw.com/pub/fdlite/FDlite1.32.tar.gz .
Bruce>
Bruce> Someone please volunteer to package this. They GPL-ed it
Bruce> specifically at our request.
I will do it.
thks
borik
--
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
> Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg
> to cygwin32.
Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under
gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if
it wasn't, I don't understand how a gpl'd dll co
> On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
> > Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg
> > to cygwin32.
>
> Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under
> gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if
> it wasn't, I don't understand how
> The xserver packages want to setup x, this gets stuck because xinitrc is
> missing because it is part of xbase - which is not installed at that
Hmm. Yeah, I think I've probably always won because I use dpkg from
the shell, and with globbing get everything in alphabetical order :-)
The problem
> I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who might like
> to
> Eric then rightly pointed out that the way it is written, it *does*
> permit the redistribution of packages that do not allow modification
> of source---that is, in fact, the very first item. To wit:
>
>1. The software may be redistributed by anyone. The license may
> restrict a sourc
> I did find a serious problem after rebooting (ok, I could probably have
> done this more subtle) the machine to start xdm. From reading several
> debian related lists I already knew that xdm will break with shadow
> passwords. However, I doubt if everyone who just installed debian 1.3 will
> rea
> How can we cope with the fact that Slackware support of the Bo
> release of "alien" is broken then?
It's a bug. We'll have to release a bug fix in a later release.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
Brian White wrote:
> I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those
There is a GPL-ed version of "Freedom Desktop Lite" at
ftp://fsw.com/pub/fdlite/FDlite1.32.tar.gz .
Someone please volunteer to package this. They GPL-ed it
specifically at our request.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "J.P.D. Kooij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> We are in the process of releasing Debian 1.3 .
Tonight I made another attempt to install base + 300 packages. I've added
the list to the end of this message.
I experienced a _major_ problem with shadow and xdm,
> > However now that I *have* done what I should have done two years ago
> > and familiarized myself with the license, I think that there is a
> > significant problem with the ncurses license as it stands---in that it
> > does not guarantee anyone the right to distribute modified versions.
> >
> >
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian is getting more consistent on this all of the time.
> Obviously, we weren't too consistent when ncurses got into the
> distribution, with a license that doesn't permit modifications. It
> looks like it was introduced very early in the history of Debian
57 matches
Mail list logo
