On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:53, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
On 03 Jul 2003 23:45:56 -0500
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > | Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software",
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > | Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software", you
> > | be sure and let us know.
> > How about "anything included in Debian"?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
> be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
> install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
> have intelligent defaults.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:49:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> If I ever add filtering to the notes debconf allows to be displayed,
> notes that refer the user to README.Debian will be at the top of the
> list to never be displayed.
>
> Of course, I am much more likely to bow to the pressure of n
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:18:10AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > What do you propose ?
> > > Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for
> > > compatibility
> >
> > Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incomp
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> It's more acceptable to me than the alternative: to move a good portion
> of documentation to non-free where it will not be distributed by
> vendors, will not be considered "part of Debian" and thus will be under
> threat of removal, a
Hello all,
I would like to announce a new project. The projects homepage is
at http://gate-bunker.p6.msu.ru/~berk/router.html.
My goal was to take Debian and make it boot from flash and work
from filesystem in memory, but to do it very carefully to change
as little as possible. What comes out is
Hi,
I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a
quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result:
find -name "*diff.gz" | xargs zgrep ':+[[:space:]]*dh_undocumented' \
| cut -f 1 -d"_" | sort -u | cut -f6- -d"/"
./dists/potato/main/source/devel/fda
./dists/pot
Christoph Berg wrote:
> For most (some?) of these, the syslog could be used. I'd find it
> convenient if the syslog (which I read through logcheck) contained
> messages like "dpkg: foo 1.2.3 replaced by 1.2.4" etc. Each package
> could also emit some more messages (in the style they use echo now, b
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > You have some free software, and it comes with a manual. You modify
> > the software in a manner which suits you... but you're not allowed to
> > modify the manual to reflect this change; the license of the manual
> > requires that
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:10:32AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:37, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > > Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> > > more "user friendly" migration who did not break backwards compatibi
On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > What do you propose ?
> > Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for
> > compatibility
>
> Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incompetent and have
> decided to gratuitously break compatibility, that sounds li
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:19:59PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>> >> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>
Re: [devel] logging for package installs [Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thu,
Jul 03, 2003 at 05:38:46PM -0400, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> - Display various fairly unimportant warnings, which are often not
> useful until after the package is installed and you're using it.
> - Display error messages,
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:58:37PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:49:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:21 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
> >>itself uninstall
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:46:36AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> How about linuxgazette?
Junk, which is only barely excused because it's free.
> Or any of the /usr/local/doc/ non-software based packages?
No packages in Debian have files in /usr/local/doc. Doing so would be
an RC bug.
> Prehaps
This one time, at band camp, Christian Marillat said:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:53:28PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> >> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > The cause of the bug is essentially the lack of gnome-terminal i
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:16:15PM -0700, David Schleef wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:53:55AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>>
>> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
>> | If there are th
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:06:26AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > > First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> > > about debconf in debian-devel.
Hi
On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:37, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> > more "user friendly" migration who did not break backwards compatibility.
> > My answer is that I have no time to implement command li
On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> > about debconf in debian-devel.
> >
> > Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should ha
On Thursday 03 July 2003 22:49, Joey Hess wrote:
> Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf
>
> It's a pity you ignore the express wishes of the author, and the consensus
> on this list as to their use.
I ignore nothing and nobody, I read all
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:53:55AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
> | If there are things "in Debian" that are "not free" or "not software",
> | then we
Maybe this is a good time to present this idea I've been kicking around,
but never really got anywhere with, for as long as I've been working on
debconf. My idea is to add an abstraction layer for package install-related
logging in debian.
It seems that many maintainers like to do some or all of t
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:19:59PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
> >>
> >> Where do you draw the line between softw
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>>
>> Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
>> get the impression that you are readin
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:54:20PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > Without foundation, your remark serves as sloganeering, perhaps
> > calculated to intimidate or silence those who are simply viewing the
> > RFCs' licenses in an objective light.
>
> Do you always read the most malicious and mani
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:53:28PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
>> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The cause of the bug is essentially the lack of gnome-terminal in
>> > testing:
>>
>> No, a menu can call gnome-terminal directly
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:53:28PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The cause of the bug is essentially the lack of gnome-terminal in
> > testing:
>
> No, a menu can call gnome-terminal directly, if this happen then this is
> a bug in bsdgames.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:03:47AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
>
> Since the doc-rfc packages have been moved to non-free, I have just cloned
> the doc-rfc RC bug (#92810) and assigned it to some other packages whic
Hello all,
Thanks to everyone who responded, I was able to set up the chroot. Indeed
debootstrap was the problem. I apologise for not realizing it was fixed in
the BTS. I also ran into the weird upgrade problem with libpam0g. To avoid
this I had to setup the chroot using woody, then upgrade to s
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:02:59PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
>
> > If the separation between main and non-free is intended primarily as a
> > guarantee that everything in main is DFSG-free, and that no part of the
> > core distribution depends on n
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:32:28AM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
>> reassign 199197 bsdgames
>>
>> This bug isn't a gnome-terminal bug.
>
> By the same token, how can you pretend it is a bsdgames related bug ?
This bug has been filed against this p
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:32:28AM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> reassign 199197 bsdgames
>
> This bug isn't a gnome-terminal bug.
By the same token, how can you pretend it is a bsdgames related bug ?
The cause of the bug is essentially the lack of gnome-terminal in
testing:
auric% madison
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > I think non-free removal will seem more radical if it means that
> > Debian will no longer distribute RFCs on the basis that their
> > licensing is not permissive enough.
>
> After
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf
It's a pity you ignore the express wishes of the author, and the consensus
on this list as to their use.
> * To set up stunnel for server use, read the
>/usr/share/doc/stunnel/README.Debian file.
Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> | Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software", you
> | be sure and let us know.
> How about "anything included in Debian"? That way we won't be in danger
> of violating the Social Con
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:02:59PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> If the separation between main and non-free is intended primarily as a
> guarantee that everything in main is DFSG-free, and that no part of the
> core distribution depends on non-free software, I completely agree with
> you. To t
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
This one time, at band camp, Joey Hess said:
> reassign 199197 general
> thanks
>
> I do not know what package this bug belongs to. I know only that it's
> not bsdgames, which does not contain the string "gnome-terminal" in it.
> I suspect that it's a screwup in gnome-terminal, the user's window
>
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:17:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMA
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software", you
| be sure and let us know.
How about "anything included in Debian"? That way we won't be in danger
of violating the Social Contract #1.
Cameron.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
| If there are things "in Debian" that are "not free" or "not software",
| then we may be violation of our guiding principles.
The anarchism package is an e
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:07:59PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Yet we let them in because they are called licenses. And no, I'm not
> asking to be able to change the _contract_ between the copyright owner
> and the licensee. I'm talking about the file. I'm talking about this:
>
>
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Well, of *course* we do. It would be idiotic and hypocritical to
> interpret it as "The software in Debian will be free, but the
> documentation doesn't have to be".
>
> We have historically allowed some free non-software things in
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:39:21AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:20:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> |
> | When the program is run, it gets put in read/write memory.
> |
>
> So embedded firmware running from an EPROM doesn't count as a program
> then?
Well, once y
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> about debconf in debian-devel.
> Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> more "user friendly" migration who did not br
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>
> Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation?
Easy. I don't. I've w
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:12:02PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:54:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> > If they are not software, then under clause one of the Social Contract,
> > they don't belong in debian.
> >
> > This has been debated several thousand time
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> Keep in mind that this hard-line stance of applying the DFSG to
> everything in the archive will probably make it more difficult to gain
> support for the non-free removal resolution.
So be it. The Social Contract and the traditio
Sebastian Rittau wrote:
>There's no need to. But I want to have the right to change a standard
>slightly, and hand it around, telling people that this is how I would
>have liked the standard. I also want to have the right to enhance or
>even change a standard, and use it e.g. for some internal pro
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:10:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
>
> > RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
> > Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
>
> But...but...what if you want to make your own "R
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:35:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban? Netscape
> | Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
>
> Of course not. They're software.
>
> RFCs aren'
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:15:19AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> I like this DFDG idea (Debian Free Documentation Guidelines) :-)...
Feel free to propose a General Resolution to amend the Debian Social
Contract. The Project Secretary will probably tell you to wait for the
GRs to disambiguate Con
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I believe this whole case of RFC standard
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:47:07PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:03:38PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> > Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
> >> itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
> > Becaus
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 13:58 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Replacing foo-1.0.6-4 with 1.0.7-1 would make foo uninstallable
(becasue there is no glibc-2.4.0 in testing)
Please check the update_excuses, it would make package foo _not_ a
valid candidate, if that happens.
Hmmm, you have a go
Mail received and welcome to my e-mail adventure.
You need to have the Subject: aaa (3 a's) and then I can read it.
Too many spammers.
Jim Penny dijo [Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:34:53PM -0400]:
> > My original argument stands: we should not be telling our users that
> > we broke their system, because we shouldn't be breaking it in the
> > first place. In this instance, it sounds to me like a bout of
> > upstream bogosity has result
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> > >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:49:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:21 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
>>itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
>
> Easily. Example:
>
> P
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:20:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
|
| When the program is run, it gets put in read/write memory.
|
So embedded firmware running from an EPROM doesn't count as a program
then?
CP.
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:21 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
Easily. Example:
Package: foo
Version: 1.0.6-4
Depends: libc6 >= 2.2.0
vs.
P
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 199197 general
Bug#199197: bsdgames debian X menu entries depend on gnome-terminal, not in
testing (Sarge)
Bug reassigned from package `bsdgames' to `general'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Deb
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:03:38PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
>> itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
>
> Because it breaks testing rule #5: "The operation of installing the
> package
Hi Sebastian!
You wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
> > I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
> > stunnel package.
>
> [...]
>
> > [1] "4. Our Prior
Hi.
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> about debconf in debian-devel.
But then, the last one didn't favor your opinion.
> Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> more "user friendly" migration
Herzlichen Dank für Ihr eMail. Meine eMailadresse hat geändert und ich bitte
Sie deshalb, eMails künftig an folgende Adresse zu senden:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Herzlichen Dank!
Denis Nordmann
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>
> Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
> get the impression that you are reading "Debian Will Remain 100% Free
> Software" to mea
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:14:49PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > software
> >n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or
> >rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
> >operatio
Herbert Xu wrote:
> And getting hundreds of emails after a mass upgrade? No thanks.
Admin-Email
The email address Debconf should send mail to if it
needs to make sure that the admin has seen an important
note. Defa
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How many Debian users are there that will use lm-sensors and i2c
> modules for a prepackaged kernel on a non-i386 architecture?
I've had at least one user ask me about support for powerpc, which is
the big thing that's driving me to ask. If it makes you h
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:54:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If they are not software, then under clause one of the Social Contract,
> they don't belong in debian.
>
> This has been debated several thousand times on -legal...
I don't recall a consensus that software documentation does
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
> Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
But...but...what if you want to make your own "RFC 2661" by embracing and
extending the existing one, and redistribute it to
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:01:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Or else, if the standards are not free, let them in non-free. We're not
> going to let non-free documents enter main just because they are called
> RFC's or W3C recommendations.
Yet we let them in because they are called lice
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gpe-taskmanager
Version : 0.13
Upstream Author : Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License : GPL (version 2 or later)
Description
Le jeu 03/07/2003 à 13:00, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an updated ver
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gpe-filemanager
Version : 0.09
Upstream Author : Damien Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License : GPL (version 2 or later)
Description
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:35:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban? Netscape
| Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
Of course not. They're software.
RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
Guidelines to them seems a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:21:53PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:50:50PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
> > Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >> Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
> >> testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
> >> li
Hi.
(My apologies if -devel is the wrong place to put this - hints for better
locations are appreciated.)
While I understand that new packages need to be checked, I wondered whether this
rule could be relaxed somewhat for soversion-changing of libraries (i.e. the
advance from lib(.*)\d+ to lib\1\
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
> >understanding of the value of stan
Quoting Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 05:13:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Also, the Debian implementation of XML
> > catalogs will very likely be included as one example in the OASIS
> > implementation guide for XML Catalogs. So we _are_ making a difference
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libdm
Version : 0.25
Upstream Author : Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License : GPL
Description : display migration support
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> In the past years, I have found it annoying that the eicar anti-virus
> testfile is not available as aptable Debian package.
Why is this annoying? The virus cannot be detected without it?
> I find it disturbingly impolite to say "sorry
Sorry, I will try to learn to reply to the correct list.
(Incidentally, on my first attempt, I claimed that I will learn but wrote only
to myself...)
Cheers
T.
pgpqgdnAkSlw7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:10 +1000, Herbert Xu
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I for one am sick and tired of useless Debconf messages popping up
>>during installation or being sent to me via email when I'm upgrading
>>hundreds of machines automatically.
> Just go ahead and pre-s
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libtododb
Version : 0.02
Upstream Authors: Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luis Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:00 US/Eastern, Petter Reinholdtsen
wrote:
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software.
If they
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
> >understanding of the value of standards, and should
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
> I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
> stunnel package.
[...]
> [1] "4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software "
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> software
>n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or
>rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
>operation of a computer system and that are stored in
>read/w
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an
#include
* Xavier Roche [Thu, Jul 03 2003, 04:15:22PM]:
> I was looking for the very simple "crc32" binary to compute checksums for
> files, and couldn't find it. There is a crc32 perl lib, but no crc32 package.
> I know that md5 (or even sha-160) hash fingerprints are better, but in many
> cas
Hello,
First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
about debconf in debian-devel.
Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
more "user friendly" migration who did not break backwards compatibility.
My answer is that I ha
#include
* Herbert Xu [Thu, Jul 03 2003, 12:27:24PM]:
> >> I'd prefer no interaction at all during installation. I'm perfectly
> >> able to read documenation thank you very much.
> >
> > Happily, the noninteractive debconf frontend exists.
>
> And getting hundreds of emails after a mass upgrade
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
get the impression that you are reading "Debian Will Remain 100% Free
Software" to mean "everythin
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Frank Küster wrote:
> * License : non-free (academic type "use me, but cite men in
> publications")
The license has a statement:
This package may only be bundled in other software packages with the
explicit permission of the copyright holders.
Please make sure
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Thanks for the great script. It shows me that the testing script seems
> to be buggy, because:
>
> > - Updating sidplay-base makes 1 packages uninstallable on alpha:
> > sidplay-base
>
> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
> itself uni
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
