On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Travis Crump wrote:
> all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled. If the maintainer
> cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that
> the program is DFSG-free.
THEN it is not DFSG-free, and needs to be dropped from Debian, or upstream
needs
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Ernst Kloppenburg wrote:
> yes. So maybe one of the packages should have its amavisd renamed.
I have no problem with that (heck, it is a daemon). But this does not
solve the entire Debian-wide problem that the amavis-* packages hit.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> > Share an initscript between them, if that's possible?
>
> No, that would cause more problems trying to rename
> the existing amavisd-new conffile.
Agreed. This is not something we should b
> I am curious, how are we (err, Debian) supposed to deal with old
> libraries? I have been using uvscan by NAI, and aside from its being
> non-free it unfortunately depends on libstdc++ 2.8, which was previously
> available through the package libstdc++2.8_2.90.29-2.deb. This doesn't
> seem to be
Trimmed CC: little; I can't imagine why this should go to -testing ...
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:49:36AM +0200, Marcel Weber wrote:
> All I can say to this is: use what you like, resp. if you don't like
> bloated software or spamware do not use it. My point is, that it should
> be a right of th
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:24:09AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> > the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> > remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> > this unduly restricts the freedom to
Package: gdm
Version: 2.2.5.5-2
That version of gdm is fscking ancient! maintainer of that package
really needs a clue. I got version 2.4.1.3-1woody1 with these apt-lines:
deb
http://ftp.acc.umu.se/mirror/mirrors.evilgeniuses.org.uk/debian/backports/woody/
gnome2.2/
deb http://mirror.raw.no/ g
> >> Thank you for your time, and you want to tell me I'm paranoid, don't
> >> bother, it is not worth your time :) Better tell me what I might have
> >> missed in the observing the subject.
> AS> A point. What *is* yours?
>
> The point is actually that debÑan (and others) doesn't care much about
Gap4 is a computer algebra system, specifically designed for working
in group theory. The version in Debian is slightly out of date
and orphaned; I have posted an ITA earlier today.
Gap4 is quite big and I could use some advice on how to split it up.
Upstream, gap4 (version 4.3) is distributed in
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:15:23AM +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> % netscape
> netscape: error while loading shared libraries:
> libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file
> or directory
>
> That is Netscape 4.8 and I still need it to testing my WWW-pages.
>
> In t
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all emacs is pure bloat so who cares what it does...
Don't be an ass. There are a lot of people who would say the same of
KDE, so it's silly for one of the main Debian KDE maintainers to be
saying such a thing.
Craig
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 04:11:29AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> I fully agree that as many questions as possible should be asked before
> unpacking the package. And I also agree it would better if the "replace
> the configuration file" questions also came at that point of the
> upgrade,
% netscape
netscape: error while loading shared libraries:
libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file
or directory
That is Netscape 4.8 and I still need it to testing my WWW-pages.
In testing and unstable that file is inside none of those packages. In
stable (Woody) i
* Tore Anderson
>> I see your problem when you insist on asking on asking all questions
>> at the configure stage -- personally, I don't think delaying the actual
>> generating of the configuration file (and asking the question about
>> overwriting the old file) to the postinst stage is *t
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 23:13:59 +0200
Anders Widman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow.. what an reaction :). Hans's original message was that the
> credits were not included with the distributed files, nothing else.
> Or am I completely mistaken?
I interpret his original message as saying
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-19
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: pork
Version : 0.7.0
Upstream Author : Ryan McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://pork.ojnk.net
* License : GPL
Descri
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thank you for your time, and you want to tell me I'm paranoid, don't
>> bother, it is not worth your time :) Better tell me what I might have
>> missed in the observing the subject.
AS> A point. What *is* yours?
The point is actually that debÑan (and o
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:07:03PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> > Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions
> > from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.
>
> It appears that, in all l
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:07:03PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions
> from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.
It appears that, in all likelihood, the credits were inadvertently omitted,
and not intentionally remo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sonntag, 20.04.03, um 01:06 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Chris Cheney:
First of all emacs is pure bloat so who cares what it does... Vim has
one line about Ugandan orphans at startup, until now I didn't even
notice it was there. If had been pages of c
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:20:00AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman
>
> > As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with that
> > information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the proposed
> > changes to the configuration file. It is completely unhelp
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:50:23PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I've read the changelog and the bug report closed by that earlier
> change, and removing the version still makes no sense. If earlier
> versions of debiandoc-sgml produce incorrect output, as reported, then
> the versioned build-dep sh
* Matt Zimmerman
> As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with that
> information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the proposed
> changes to the configuration file. It is completely unhelpful to say:
>
> "You have modified this configuration file, and it has a
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> Share an initscript between them, if that's possible?
No, that would cause more problems trying to rename
the existing amavisd-new conffile.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:06:58AM +0200, Ernst Kloppenburg wrote:
> yes. So maybe one of
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:24:09AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> > the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> > remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> > this unduly restricts the freedom to
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:54:53 +1000,
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>modutils >= 2.4.17 is not available for woody. You
>have two options: 2.4.15 for stable or 2.4.21 for unstable.
>
>This means you would have to recompile 2.4.21.
>
>Recompiling is easy, I have a version at
>http://www.microc
#include
* Andrew Suffield [Sun, Apr 20 2003, 12:29:49AM]:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:26:04AM +0200, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> > Thank you for your time, and you want to tell me I'm paranoid, don't
> > bother, it is not worth your time :) Better tell me what I might have
> > missed in the ob
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> - Provide 3-way merge functionality to incorporate changes without losing
> modifications in the common case (I hear this is coming for conffiles as
> well)
Great!
Actually what I would like (and is similar in ways to the above
Andre Luis Lopes wrote:
> Hmm, future plans really seems to be quite interesting. Is there a
> mailing list dedicated to discussing debconf ideas and implementation I
> could subscribe to ?
>
> I saw that there's a link to an ancient "Config" mailing list at
> kitenet, but it seems not to be activ
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:34:06PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> binutils was changed around July 15 2002. Unfortunately the binutils
> Changelog does not mention the change, nor does it say which releases
> of binutils were issued around that time. Does upgrading to modutils
> >= 2.4.17 fix your p
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 04:25:57PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I'm sure all the FSF/Debian folks would be thrilled if someone changed the
> code in [x]emacs to not output anything about the GPL at startup, or if vim
> didn't include any info about helping Ugandan orphans.
> I'm not saying that
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:26:04AM +0200, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> Thank you for your time, and you want to tell me I'm paranoid, don't
> bother, it is not worth your time :) Better tell me what I might have
> missed in the observing the subject.
A point. What *is* yours?
--
.''`. ** Deb
Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> this unduly restricts the freedom to distribute modified versions.
Uhm.
From the GPL, section 2:
c) If
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:05:18AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> As far as I know, ucf is created exactly for this purpose; to mimic
> dpkg's conffile handing. I assume you want to know if the configuration
> file is unmodified prior to asking all the debconf questions, and making
> use o
* Matt Zimmerman
> Did you read my sample configuration scenario (xserver-xfree86),
> or the threads that I referenced? They explain in more detail.
I did, and I can't see why ucf can't be done for this purpose,
too;
> As I said, I am suggesting we mimick the conffile mechanism. conffile
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 04:25:57PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2003 16:55 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled. If the maintainer
> > > cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that
> > > the program is DFSG-fr
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:13:59PM +0200, Anders Widman wrote:
Wow.. what an reaction :). Hans's original message was that the
credits were not included with the distributed files, nothing else.
Or am I completely mistaken?
Who knows. The original message was an non-specific rant.
Mike Ston
Hello,
I really don't know how to express what I want to say :) It has come
to my mind a few days ago when the Vera fonts were released to public.
My problem was: everybody was acting like mad, screaming "at last,
some good fonts for linux!", whereas, as far as I remember, these
fonts lacks many m
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:54:36PM +0200, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> #include
> I cannot see what exactly he was talking about. The only serios thing
> that has been removed in the Debian package is his spam (for
> SuSE&MP3.com) from the mkreiserfs executable code.
>
>
On Apr 19, 2003 16:55 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled. If the maintainer
> > cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that
> > the program is DFSG-free.
>
> Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:40:07PM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
>
> Additionally, it might be a good idea to provide a shoreter list of authors
> in
> addition to the detailed one for easier copying to 'standard copyright files'
> like 'copying' in Debian.
>
GNU folks generally use a Credits fi
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:41:58PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Hey, you just described how how ucf can be used.
I am aware of ucf. I described some things that ucf does, and some things
that it does not.
> Lo and behold! We've just achieved your goals, using tools already in
> the arch
retitle 188800 ITA: gap4 -- computer algebra system
retitle 188803 ITA: gap4-doc-dvi -- DVI-Docu files for GAP4
retitle 188801 ITA: gap4-doc-html -- HTML-Documentation for GAP4
retitle 188798 ITA: gap4-doc-ps -- Postscript files for GAP4
retitle 188802 ITA: gap4-gdat -- Group data libraries for GAP
#include
* Ben Collins [Sat, Apr 19 2003, 05:09:58PM]:
> > Wow.. what an reaction :). Hans's original message was that the
> > credits were not included with the distributed files, nothing else.
> > Or am I completely mistaken?
>
> Sorry, I had read into some other peoples comments an
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:17:16PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> > Or maybe realize that Joey might perhaps know what he's talking about
> > with regard to debconf ... you could go find the text of his talk at the
> > last Debian Conference if you like.
> I realise he has an opinion on how things shou
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 15:17, Matt Ryan wrote:
> > Or maybe realize that Joey might perhaps know what he's talking about
> > with regard to debconf ... you could go find the text of his talk at the
> > last Debian Conference if you like.
>
> I realise he has an opinion on how things should be done.
>> all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled. If the maintainer
>> cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that
>> the program is DFSG-free.
> Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free
> software. What if I want to use parts of the code a
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:17:16PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > Or maybe realize that Joey might perhaps know what he's talking about
> > with regard to debconf ... you could go find the text of his talk at the
> > last Debian Conference if you like.
>
> I realise he has an op
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:13:59PM +0200, Anders Widman wrote:
> >> all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled. If the maintainer
> >> cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that
> >> the program is DFSG-free.
>
> > Amen. Making part of the code immutable is n
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 15:41, Tore Anderson wrote:
> cat << _eof > /usr/share/fnord/managed-conffiles/fnord.cf
/var
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
> > clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
> > time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of t
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:24:21PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> > Now I hope you stop with your trolling and consider speaking
> > respectfully to us. I am pretty sure that if you emailed the maintainer
> > of the package and pointed out the facts to him, he would revert the
> > change.
>
> Dude,
>
> all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled. If the maintainer
> cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that
> the program is DFSG-free.
Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free
software. What if I want to use parts of the code and I re
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 02:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Or, simply generate the file using debconf or whatever, and
> call ucf directly; then ucf handles storing the md5sum and comparing
> it for you seamlessly.
/me uses "staying up too late" as an excuse for that one...
signature.asc
De
* Matt Zimmerman
> There was a more recent discussion about the same idea. A summary of the
> goals:
>
> - Don't try to parse every program's configuration file format
>
> - Notice that a non-conffile, autogenerated configuration file has been
> modified by the user, and don't lose their
Hello Martin and Robert,
can you please inform the list and me about the current status of the
mICQ code audit you two wanted to do? It's been a while and I didn't
hear anything further from you since then.
However, since it is my principle to finish the things I've started,
i'm writing this m
* Sami Haahtinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "lex" is the better word, as it is not only known in English, but also
> > in most other (roman) Languages for law.
>
> Oh right, in finland there is a site finlex.fi, which is ofcouse
> obviously a site that contains the finnish law. This is the first ti
* Jarno Elonen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030419 21:05]:
> > "lex" is the better word, as it is not only known in English, but also
> > in most other (roman) Languages for law.
> The first things "lex" brings in my mind are "lexicon" and parser generators
> like 'flex'.
Well, that's for you as an comp
> Now I hope you stop with your trolling and consider speaking
> respectfully to us. I am pretty sure that if you emailed the maintainer
> of the package and pointed out the facts to him, he would revert the
> change.
Dude,
You really need to calm down. Twice now recently you have opened your
> Secondly, this isnot a witch hunt. What is being done is that
> a policy violation in older practice is being pointed
> out. Alternatives are being discussed; a witch hunt would have
> involved mass RC bug filings.
The TEX discussion is definitely in witchunt territory. Maintainers (on the
wh
> Or maybe realize that Joey might perhaps know what he's talking about
> with regard to debconf ... you could go find the text of his talk at the
> last Debian Conference if you like.
I realise he has an opinion on how things should be done. Depending on your
own viewpoint this may be more influe
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Andre Luis Lopes wrote:
> > Could you (or someone else) give me a hint on where one could find
> > Joey's talk ? I've already tried googling for it and looking at [1] but
> > couldn't find it.
>
> Hmm, I don't have it online that I know
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 07:24:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * David Goodenough ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030419 19:20]:
> >> [debian-lex]
> > In England there is a move to remove all the Latin and obscure language
> > from the Law, so I would suggest that the project should be called
> > Debian-law
Marcel Weber wrote:
Hans, I hope that the removal of these credits was a mistake and that
they're going to be included in future releases of testing. ReiserFS is
a really fine piece of software and anyone who helped with it's
development should have the right to be credited if he or she wants so
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 02:07:04PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> Personally I use the ask-about-overwrite question in debconf because the
> last time this thread came up the only sensible solution was put forward
> in the attached email. Now, I'm all for a better solution when it is
> determined what
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:10:54PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Why not simply make a imlib1p that conflicts with old imlib1 and rebuild
> the remaining 11 sources that still use imlib1 with old libpng2? There
> are fewer that would cause trouble in that batch, afaict only: chameleon,
> ebview, end
whats up with you? havent talked to you in awhile, same thing here pretty much.
I am updating some info on the website and need your help. Can you hook me up
with some info about your local skateshop and or skatepark? We are still adding
skateparks to the list so if yours isnt in there let me
> I'd hardly call it plagiarism. Your copyright is, by will of our own
> policy and to abide by authors wishes, distributed with the tools in
> /usr/share/doc//copyright.
Ah.. I guess Hans is referring to the author list in README?
The package maintainer probably looked at COPYING (contains GPL, a
> > In England there is a move to remove all the Latin and obscure language
> > from the Law, so I would suggest that the project should be called
> > Debian-law not Debian-lex.
>
> "lex" is the better word, as it is not only known in English, but also
> in most other (roman) Languages for law.
Th
Marcel Weber wrote:
> I think Hans has a good point. The inclusion of credits is something
> that should be respected. Free software does not mean that you can do
> what you want with a piece of code, but that you're allowed to use,
> modify and redistribute it freely, respecting it's license.
IMHO
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
> clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
> time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL
> out the door.
Oh, I think it's natural to as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
First I have to say, that I even did not realize, that the credits had
been removed.
I think Hans has a good point. The inclusion of credits is something
that should be respected. Free software does not mean that you can do
what you want with a p
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:11:59AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 18-Apr-03, 10:28 (CDT), Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the package maintainers are correctly using the debconf priorities,
> > and the admin has chosen a debconf priority that accurately reflects
> > their pref
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 06:23:13PM +0200, Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:57:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > I am interested in coordinating a new sub-project called Debian-Lex,
> > Could you please explain the naming "lex" for non English
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Andre Luis Lopes wrote:
> > Could you (or someone else) give me a hint on where one could find
> > Joey's talk ? I've already tried googling for it and looking at [1] but
> > couldn't find it.
>
> Hmm, I don't have it online that I know
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:07:03 +0400
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
> clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
> time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL
> out the d
* David Goodenough ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030419 19:20]:
>> [debian-lex]
> In England there is a move to remove all the Latin and obscure language
> from the Law, so I would suggest that the project should be called
> Debian-law not Debian-lex.
"lex" is the better word, as it is not only known in E
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:07:03PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions
> from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.
>
> You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
> clauses that forbid removal of
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-19
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libapache-mod-auth-radius
Version : 1.5.7
Upstream Author : Alan DeKok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : ftp://ftp.freeradius.org/pub/radius/
* License : Apache Software License
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > So everytime we have to restart all binaries which use a library
> > involving security-problem. In additionm this problem affects not
> > only debian packages, but user-built binaries.
>
> Well, this is why it is most often described in the secur
On Saturday 19 April 2003 17:23, Christian Surchi wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:57:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > I am interested in coordinating a new sub-project called Debian-Lex,
> >
> > Could you please explain the naming "lex" for non English speakers?
>
> It's latin, not englis
On Sat Apr 19, 11:18am -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 19-Apr-03, 06:47 (CDT), Steve Kowalik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 7:22 pm, Saturday, April 19 2003, Denis Barbier mumbled:
> > > I do not understand exactly what is good and bad use of debconf.
> > > For instance all questions asked
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:57:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2003, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> > I am interested in coordinating a new sub-project called Debian-Lex,
> Could you please explain the naming "lex" for non English speakers?
s/English/Latin/
cheers,
Michael
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:57:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I am interested in coordinating a new sub-project called Debian-Lex,
> Could you please explain the naming "lex" for non English speakers?
It's latin, not english. :-) It means "law".
--
Christian Surchi, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAI
Andre Luis Lopes wrote:
> Could you (or someone else) give me a hint on where one could find
> Joey's talk ? I've already tried googling for it and looking at [1] but
> couldn't find it.
Hmm, I don't have it online that I know of, it was mostly extemporaneous
anyway. (Here, I've linked the slides
On 19-Apr-03, 06:47 (CDT), Steve Kowalik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 7:22 pm, Saturday, April 19 2003, Denis Barbier mumbled:
> > I do not understand exactly what is good and bad use of debconf.
> > For instance all questions asked by the debconf package have good default
> > values, so there
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:07:04 +0100,
>> Matt Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Personally I use the ask-about-overwrite question in debconf
> because the last time this thread came up the only sensible
> solution was put forward in the attached email. Now, I'm all for a
> better solution whe
On 18-Apr-03, 10:28 (CDT), Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the package maintainers are correctly using the debconf priorities,
> and the admin has chosen a debconf priority that accurately reflects
> their preferences, why do you care? By definition, any prompts at
> priority mediu
One more thing that I didn't notice until purging the package. In the
purge question, you refer to "selecting yes" and "answering no". Don't
do that, some debconf frontends do not use yes or no; the user might be
staring at a check box when they see that text. Just ask the question,
something like
Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions
from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.
You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
time I have been telling Stall
Arthur de Jong wrote:
> Ok, could you review my cvsd package for me for correct debconf usage and
> tell me what you do and don't like?
Thanks for taking advantage of that offer. (So far you're the only one.)
I am ccing this to -devel just because.
All of the debconf questions are pretty well wor
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:46:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Or maybe realize that Joey might perhaps know what he's talking about
> with regard to debconf ... you could go find the text of his talk at the
> last Debian Conference if you like.
Could you (or someone else) give me a hint on wh
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:05:49AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> So everytime we have to restart all binaries which use a library
> involving security-problem. In additionm this problem affects not
> only debian packages, but user-built binaries.
Well, this is why it is most often described in th
On 19 Apr 2003, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> I am interested in coordinating a new sub-project called Debian-Lex,
Could you please explain the naming "lex" for non English speakers?
In general I really like your idea because I think those internal
projects are an important way to fit the needs of our
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:43:56PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 10:44:52AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > [ obDebianDevel: just in case this has become popular beleif or
> >something like that ]
> >
> > from menu's 2.1.7-3 changelog:
> >
> > * debiandoc-sg
Steve Kowalik wrote:
> Well, not all use of debconf is bad. For example, libnet-perl is a terrible
> misuse of debconf, *but* it can be remedied by dropping the priority of the
> questions from medium to low.
At least libnet-perl is actually asking questions and preserving some
(though not all) us
At Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:24:17 +0200,
Markus Amersdorfer wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:06:07 +0900
> GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.postinst checks for "$1" ==
> > > "configure"
> > > (which is the case when updating, isn't it?). If true it
> > > aft
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 02:08:27PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> >Enough already.
> >
> >Folks, if you don't stop abusing debconf with useless notes that belong
> >in README.Debian and config file overwriting, I will stop maintaining
> >it.
> >
> >Stop slapping incorrect uses of deb
Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 07:14:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Enough already.
> >
> > Folks, if you don't stop abusing debconf with useless notes that belong
> > in README.Debian and config file overwriting, I will stop maintaining
> > it.
> >
> > Stop slapping incorrect
I am interested in coordinating a new sub-project called Debian-Lex,
which would be Debian for Lawyers, akin to the Debian-Med, Debian-Jr and
DebianEdu projects. Hopefully, these sub-projects will evolve into
Bdale's idea of flavours (flavors, but I'm Australian) of Debian.
I am a lawyer and also
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
