At Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:12:07 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 1 ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment
> [ ] Choice 2: Further Discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it
> > was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck.
> >
>
> If he was really interested in his
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-19
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gtk-industrial-engine
Version : 0.2.26
Upstream Author : Owen Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Lahey <[EMAI
On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine
wrote:
And surely Debian DOES NOT support
non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See clause 1 of
the Social Contract.
On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 02:30 US/Eastern, Sven Luther wrote:
o It does not clutter the desktop with a GUI. Thus the author claims
it is anti-GUI, but i don't find that a very intuitive description.
o It is composed of a backend and a frontend, and thus survive the
killing of the curre
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
|| Debian can continue to drag along support for libc5-binaries (hey,
|| nobody out there with need for libc4?)
(raises hand)
Ciao. Vincent.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:36:49AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> i am very sure, I did never have touched this file, so why is dpkg always
> asking me if i want to overwrite it? IS this a dpkg problem, is it a
> packaging problem, or is is a script which is modifying those files?
I believe this
Hello
I am trying to read the docs in the Documentation/DocBook directory of a
linux kernel.
I do this: make pdfdocs and I get an error about need to install docbook
style sheets. I think the error is really because I dont have db2html
installed.
I noticed that in the docbook-utils director
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
[lots of text snipped]
> It is not a question of using non-free software, I use it almost
> exclusively, but that of accessing documents that were created with
> non-free software before there were free alternatives.
>
> Please rememb
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-19
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: positron
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Stan Seibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.xiph.org/positron/
* License : BSD
Description : A synchronization mana
Hello developers,
For those interested by dpkg hooks, I have rewritten the emulation
process used by update-menus in the above perl script.
This is supposed to be used as follows:
fnord-*.postinst:
if [ -x /usr/bin/update-fnord ]; then
dpkg-hook /usr/bin/update-fnord
fi
Now, I don't know wh
Marc Haber (2003-06-19 17:13:10 +0200) :
> Is it possible to rename a project on alioth, or should one prepare
> to live with a project name for all time being, or risk losing
> project history?
There is currently no sure-fire automated or manual way to accomplish
this. Changing the name of the
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-19
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: zynaddsubfx
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Nasca Otavian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://zynaddsubfx.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Description : realtim
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:59:46AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> > which are libc5 related:
>
> I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to
> can install the old libc5
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> >
>
> Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it
> was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck.
>
If he was really interested in his data, he should convert them in a
standard and portable format s
Hi,
suppose that there is a package foo, packaged for debian as foo.
Unfortunately, foo's upstream has gone commercial a few years ago, so
there is not much progress in foo's upstream sources. Since foo has a
wide user base, some other people have started to maintain foo-patched
which has not yet
Branden Robinson wrote:
> True enough, but I've long hence given up trying to persuade people to
> make their package descriptions useful. They'd much rather be cute,
> clever, and opaque.
I'm open to suggests for a more cute, clever, and opaque short
description for intercal than the current one
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:50, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 10:13:17PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If a company wants to make a commercial distribution based on Debian then
> > providing that they accept certain kernel patches and comply with a
> > rigorous test program then I th
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to
can install the old libc5 support packages from archive.debian.org
without breaking their system
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:30:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:12:37PM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> > * Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030618 10:11]:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 11:59 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Descr
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:39:25PM +0200, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2003 08:30, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The upstream author is not so happy about the FIFO controlled stuff,
> > since it sounds as if using quark is difficult.
>
> Right, the FIFO(implementation) is irrelevant for
debian-admin: Could you please answer this question?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:19:00 +0200
Subject: The spam discussion
It should be clear to all by now that there are developers with
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 10:13:17PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> If a company wants to make a commercial distribution based on Debian then
> providing that they accept certain kernel patches and comply with a rigorous
> test program then I think that SAP would be interested in dealing with them.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Chris Halls wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
> > because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
> > Word documents.
>
> Is that sti
On Wednesday 18 June 2003 17:46, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Description: audio player, for geeks, by geeks.
> > Mmm, doesn't sound all that descriptive.
>
> But hardly because of the removal of the "an".
> (i.e. what business has "by geeks for geeks" rather than something
> inf
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
>
> X-Spot: Who uses non-free software empoisons you, too. Say him to stop.
> ^^^
> That's constantly in my header... so I'm ready to fight :-P
>
> M, that's the basis of fr
On Thursday 19 June 2003 08:30, Sven Luther wrote:
> The upstream author is not so happy about the FIFO controlled stuff,
> since it sounds as if using quark is difficult.
Right, the FIFO(implementation) is irrelevant for most users.
> I was thinking of something along the lines of :
>
> Descrip
From: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>It seems the simplest solution is to just use
>http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/~cz210552/aptrsync.html
>But why does he do at the bottom
>
># Get anything we missed due to failed rsync's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24 Mar 2002.
>os.system('apt-get update')
># Used to hav
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:36:49AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> But currently I am quite annoyed about all those questions I got asked.
>
> i am very sure, I did never have touched this file, so why is dpkg always
> asking me if i want to overwrite it?
I just wanted to say
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:03:52AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Err, Zack, I say zlib1... zlib1g* is libc6 related.
Ok, thanks, never mind.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/za
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:10:21AM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> Thanks, problem noted. I'll do something when I next work on PCRE, but
> that won't be for a while.
Mark, could you look for a fix in the debian version?
Otherwise I can have a look at it ...
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Mast
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
> because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
> Word documents.
Is that still true for OOo 1.1beta2? Are there open bug report
X-Spot: Who uses non-free software empoisons you, too. Say him to stop.
^^^
That's constantly in my header... so I'm ready to fight :-P
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Fran
Hi, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> 2.4.21 contains some fixes for linkage errors, which are created due to
> extern _inline_ declarations. You just need to remove the extern
> modifier and it will work for 2.4.20.
s/extern/static/, actually. Gcc will then happily not emit the inline
function's body if
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> > documents.
> >
>
> That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing.
> Wordperfect 11 is no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerfried Fuchs) wrote on 02.06.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> See, it is nothing personal (you seem to take it that way), but
> packages with similar functionality should be questioned, and if the
Says who? I reject that assertion.
> A long description in an ITP would
> a) re
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:19:50PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > but it does not seems to work. In fact the documentation
> > is unclear whether a struct flock can be passed at all
> > (some form of fcntl use a long arg instead).
>
> You have to pac
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:06:46PM +0200, Antonio Pïrez Pïrez wrote:
> A "little" question from an user:
> What could Debian do to be supported by Oracle?
Nothing. Sorry, but that's the way it is. To become supported by Oracle
you have to make sure enough of your people are sitting at the Oracle
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Mark Baker wrote:
> Philip, I have CC'd you on this mail as the upstream author, because I
> believe this counts as a bug in pcre. I would suggest as a minimum
> removing the printing of the study size from the test.
Thanks, problem noted. I'll do something when I next work o
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > zlib1
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
That's zlib1 not zlib1g. We're
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> documents.
>
That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing.
Wordperfect 11 is now a windoze-only program.
Also Applixware 5 (another dead produ
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > zlib1
>
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
Huh ? What has that to do with
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > zlib1
>
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
>
Err, Zack, I say zlib1...
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:04:24AM -0600, Eric Schwartz wrote:
> On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 00:30 America/Denver, Sven Luther wrote:
> >I have almost a ready package, i just now need a fine short
> >description.
>
> How about:
>
> simple audio player with detachable GUI
Mmm,
> It's not per
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>> zlib1
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
There is none needed. zlib1(-altdev) and zlib1g(-dev) a
On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 00:30 America/Denver, Sven Luther wrote:
I have almost a ready package, i just now need a fine short
description.
How about:
simple audio player with detachable GUI
It's not perfect, I know. This sounds pretty nifty, actually, but hard
to categorize.
But this still
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> zlib1
The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
Which is the newer alternative to this package?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debi
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:12:37PM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030618 10:11]:
> >
> > On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 11:59 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Description: audio player for geeks, by geeks
> > >
> > >...is just right.
> >
48 matches
Mail list logo
