Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:27:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of >> "system runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as >> per GPL). > You use these quotation marks in t

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:47 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:52:07PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

* Erast Benson: >> Are you seriously saying that whatever Sun does must be ok, so we can >> do the same? > > i'm not claiming anything. > > But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL? In the past, Sun shipped the GNU components on separate media. (I don't know if you had to order them sep

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:52:07PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The > > > numerous-our-examples issue? > > > > Of course,

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL? I don't know. I've asked the FSF. It depends on the details of exactly what they are doing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:50 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Michael Banck wrote: > > > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 22:01 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship > > GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc, > > tar, sed, awk etc... btw, Solaris 10 i

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Michael Banck wrote: > > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug > > >> tracking system for development? > > >

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

* Bill Gatliff: > From this: > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html > > Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) > > >This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it >has some complex restr

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship > GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc, > tar, sed, awk etc... btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for > download, so, one could try to install

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The > > numerous-our-examples issue? > > Of course, that's an issue. > > Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solari

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

[Henning Makholm] > Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on > debconf questions is policy-buggy? 'conffile' is dpkg jargon that has a specific meaning: configuration files that dpkg handles specially w/r/t upgrades and removals. Editing a conffile at install time ma

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible. You are incorrect. The BSG license most certainly is GPL-compatible. > Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system > runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler,

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The > numerous-our-examples issue? Of course, that's an issue. Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solaris. But I'm not sure they do so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: iso2mirror

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >On 11/3/05, Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I submitted a patch to apt-move to do this to the Debian BTS. > >Does it also provide the "symbolic links only" functionality the >parent poster mentioned? No. -- Blars Blarson

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 19:34 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta > > OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in > > their list besides GNU/Linux? > > I h

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port. > > > > > >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which >

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Alex Ross wrote: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which i

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is shipped with Sol

Re: Dummy packages and metapackages (call for consistency in the descriptions)

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >Well, I'd expect meta packages to have nothing on them > > Why? Was there any other definition than the link I posted that leads to > this assumption? The link you posted has never bothered me b

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port. > > > >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which > >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. > > > > There i

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta > OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in > their list besides GNU/Linux? I have no problem with it, provided it fits the legal requirements. It seems t

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:20 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > If you want to be part of Debian, one of the requirements is that you > help convince us when there is doubt that there isn't a licensing > problem. Repeated assertion does not convince us. Pointing at > websites that require registr

Re: iso2mirror

On 11/3/05, Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submitted a patch to apt-move to do this to the Debian BTS. Does it also provide the "symbolic links only" functionality the parent poster mentioned? -- Andrew Saunders

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Thomas: Alright then, enlighten me. Let us suppose that you have a GPLd application "foo" which links against "libbar". You can only distribute the binaries for foo under section 3 of the GPL, which requires you to provide the complete source for libbar, and you must do so providing all

Re: iso2mirror

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Some time ago I searched for a tool to convert my already downloaded and >mounted stable Debian CDs into a mirror structure. However I failed (the >ways was able to find didn't seem feasible or couldn't find the actual >way, please tell me

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port. > >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play. > > There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are > simili

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is > not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system... Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port. > on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which > brings ma

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Matthew Garrett wrote: Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: """The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> If application A is deployed as a standalone application built >>> using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a >>> Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything >>> oth

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > """The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source > code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any > associated interface definition files, plu

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Thomas: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the app

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the > major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package, > I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the > application itself. Wrong. > Furt

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

But yes, GPL is more restrictive than CDDL. More accurately, the GPL preserves more end user rights than CDDL. That's hardly restrictive--- especially if you're an end user. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsub

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

The words "executable runtime" are not present in the text of the GPL. What the GPL *does* say is that kernels are only exempted from being considered part of the GPL definition of source code for a work *if* the GPLed work is not distributed together with the kernel. I think you're stre

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson quotes from the GPL: > "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not > include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary > form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the > operating system on which the executable ru

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We *do not* mix GPL-based and CDDL-based projects within Nexenta OS. You don't link CDDL libraries into GPL'd programs? At all? I disbelieve. > Please read some more details on license which allows closed binary > re-distribution at http://www.opensol

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's > likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the > kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance. But only with the licensing question sorted out first. -- To UNS

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:05 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > CDDL is a good open source license and "blessed" by R.S. > > That does not make it compatible with the GPL. You cannot combine > code from two licenses unless the licenses are compatibl

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless > > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not > > reasonable to expect Debian ma

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > CDDL is a good open source license and "blessed" by R.S. That does not make it compatible with the GPL. You cannot combine code from two licenses unless the licenses are compatible, and the CDDL is not compatible with the GPL. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRI

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, > > you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: > > http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Authorization Required This server could not verify that you are authorized to acce

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at > http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Authorization Required This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Eith

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt, > you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible: > http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is > shipped with Solaris distribution. Ho

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:37 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > > """The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > > making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source > > code means all the sour

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Banck wrote: > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug > >> tracking system for development? > > > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists. > > It's unlikely t

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > """The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source > code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any > associated interfac

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:18 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:41:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrot

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:41:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > >

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Banck wrote: >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug >> tracking system for development? > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists. It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless you're willing to

Re: todos: command not found

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, João Silva wrote: > Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? > I had this error in a debian-cd try: > tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found File a bug on that package for not using a depends. Also, this is a -user question, not a -devel question.

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:21:45PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote: > Nexenta OS: Debian based GNU/Solaris > == > > This is to announce Nexenta: the first-ever distribution that combines > GNU and OpenSolaris. As you might know, Sun Microsystems just opened > Solaris kernel under CD

[Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Michael Banck wrote: Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation? Yes. Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once it stabilizes? Yes. If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug tracking system for development? No. We have ours: svn, Trac

iso2mirror

Hello, Some time ago I searched for a tool to convert my already downloaded and mounted stable Debian CDs into a mirror structure. However I failed (the ways was able to find didn't seem feasible or couldn't find the actual way, please tell me if something along the same lines exists). Thus I put

Re: Transition time: KDE, JACK, arts, sablotron, unixodbc, net-snmp, php, ...

Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [051101 17:23]: >> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: >> > So, would anybody object if I set up a cronjob that emails the PTS >> > whenever a (source) package propagates to, or is re

Bug#337153: ITP: linsmith -- a Smith charting program, mainly designed for educational use.

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: linsmith Version : 0.9.1 Upstream Author : John Coppens * URL : http://jcoppens.com/soft/linsmith/index.en.php * License : GPL Description : a Smith charting pr

Re: todos: command not found

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:24:16PM +, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote: > >Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? > >I had this error in a debian-cd try: > >tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found > > sysutils > > try something like 'apt-file search todo | grep bin' De

Re: Bug#337052: ITP: denyhosts -- script to block SSH brute-force dictionary attacks

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Andrew Lau wrote: > DenyHosts is a python program that automatically blocks ssh attacks > by adding entries to /etc/hosts.deny. DenyHosts will also inform > Linux administrators about offending hosts, attacked users and > suspicious logins. Some discussion/comparison as to how

Re: todos: command not found

João Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? $ apt-file search bin/todos sysutils: usr/bin/todos -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info. -- To UNSUB

Re: todos: command not found

Le 02.11.2005 22:20:15, João Silva a écrit : Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? I had this error in a debian-cd try: tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found sysutils try something like 'apt-file search todo | grep bin' Thanks Jean-Luc pgpkND6vrqfTX.pgp Desc

Re: todos: command not found

On Wednesday 02 November 2005 22:20, João Silva wrote: > Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? > I had this error in a debian-cd try: > tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found Try http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages#search_contents Christoph -- |\ _,,,---,

todos: command not found

Anyone knows what package brings the todos command? I had this error in a debian-cd try: tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found Thanks-- Cumprimentos,João Carlos Galaio da Silva

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Erast Benson wrote: in short, the answer on your "legality" question is in GPL itself. Look for "executable runtime" explanations. This is the reason for Cygwin, www.blastwave.org and others to exists. Or rather, in cases where code is linked with glibc, the LGPL. See "a work that uses th

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > > People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating > > > the license on their code? > > > >

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating > > the license on their code? > > We wanted to get as much feedbacks about the layout, > contents, usa

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:54:30AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > * Alex Ross: > > > > > > > 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. > > > > > > How do you solv

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:32AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing. Why is criticism disappointing? The goals of Linux and the Linux development model do not fit everybody's needs. Having an alternative that takes a different

Re: Key signing in Dhaka, Bangladesh!

Quoting Matthew Grant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Hi HTere~! > > > I am in Dhaka for a week, and have organised a key signing party with > the local Bangladesh Linux Users Group (BDLUG) Hopefully we will end up > with 1 or 2 maintainers from there! Don't hesitate pointing them at the current efforts

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:54:30AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Alex Ross: > > > > > 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. > > > > How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute > > software which is

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on >> debconf questions is policy-buggy? > Of course, see 10.7.3: > | These two styles of configuration file handling must not be mixed, fo

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Alex Ross: > > > 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. > > How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute > software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is > linked against a lib

Re: ITP: pcmciautils -- PCMCIA userspace utilities (Linux 2.6.13+)

Marc Haber: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:00:37PM +0200, Per Olofsson wrote: > > retitle 319583 ITP: pcmciautils -- PCMCIA userspace utilities (Linux > > 2.6.13+) > > thanks > > > > I'm the maintainer of pcmcia-cs so I'm intending to package > > pcmciautils. > > May I ask for the status of this I

Bug#337083: ITP: bse-alsa -- ALSA plugin for BEAST

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Sam Hocevar (Debian packages)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: bse-alsa Version : 0.6.6 Upstream Author : Tim Janik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://beast.gtk.org/beast-ftp/v0.6/ * License : LGPL Description

Re: Clarification of NMU policy

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: > For the record: there currently is not a 0-day NMU policy in effect. There > was a 0-day NMU policy through the sarge release, and there are 0-day NMU > policies during BSPs, but the default NMU policy has reverted to that in the > developer's referenc

Re: Clarification of NMU policy

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:12:18AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 07:21:48PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I have been in a discussion with a fellow developer about the exact > > meaning of the "0-day NMU policy" that is currently in effect. > > For the record: ther

Bug#337074: ITP: as2api -- API documentation tool for ActionScript 2

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: as2api Version : 0.3 Upstream Author : David Holroyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.badgers-in-foil.co.uk/projects/as2api/ * License : GPL Description : API docum

Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch

Hello Humberto, Am 2005-10-26 14:30:32, schrieb Humberto Massa: > Problem being, if daemons don't remove their (supposedly exclusive-use) > accounts, you can end in two years with 100 unnecessary accounts in a > workstation. Realy interesting... I have counted the System-Users on my 146 Machines

Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch

Am 2005-10-26 14:51:00, schrieb Humberto Massa: > It seems that you still did not get my point. > My point is, in a SoHo workstation, this is exactly the most common > scenario nowadays (example: "hmm. let me try this new dvd-player... I > open synaptic, install it, ... nah, it does not work as

Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch

Am 2005-10-26 14:51:00, schrieb Humberto Massa: > It seems that you still did not get my point. > My point is, in a SoHo workstation, this is exactly the most common > scenario nowadays (example: "hmm. let me try this new dvd-player... I > open synaptic, install it, ... nah, it does not work as

Re: pbuilder help (bug 334877)

Hi, > > Well, this build takes a long time (at least 45 minutes from start to > failure). I'm getting tired of trying over and over again; it took me > about four hours of compiling to prove certainly that Blars suggestion > wouldn't work. > > Can you give me a hook script that will give an int

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> In the long run, the user-friendly solution is probably to offer (via >>> a debconf question that defaults to 'yes') to automatically rewrite >>> the conffile

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

Hamish: I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing. I read most of his points as being factual, some of which might be comparisons to and constructive criticisms of Linux. Not disappointing at all. I don't think anyone could argue that Linux's interfaces ar

Re: Clarification of NMU policy

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 07:21:48PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I have been in a discussion with a fellow developer about the exact > meaning of the "0-day NMU policy" that is currently in effect. For the record: there currently is not a 0-day NMU policy in effect. There was a 0-day NMU po

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:59:22PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > Another obvious benefit is that OpenSolaris licensed under open sourced > license which allowes to HW vendors to write their own drivers for all > that variety of existing specific hardware and yet not to open their IP. Why would this

Re: Bug#328423: must be moved from recommeds to suggests

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Florian Weimer [Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:26:30 +0100]: > > * Luca Capello: > > > I'm in the process of debianize some CL software [1] and I've the same > > > problem as bug #328423: some extra features of the package needs other > > >

Re: How to get rid of a poised version

* Peter Van Eynde: > So is there anything else I can do? Bootstrap with one of the other supported Lisp implementations? MLton recently solved a similarly problem by manually building the supported architectures outside the buildd network. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a

Bug#337052: ITP: denyhosts -- script to block SSH brute-force dictionary attacks

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andrew Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: denyhosts Version : 1.1.2 Upstream Author : Phil Schwartz * URL : http://denyhosts.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Description

Re: Bug#328423: must be moved from recommeds to suggests

* Florian Weimer [Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:26:30 +0100]: > * Luca Capello: > > I'm in the process of debianize some CL software [1] and I've the same > > problem as bug #328423: some extra features of the package needs other > > packages to be installed, so I don't know if the package should use > > S

Bug#337039: ITP: libdbix-class-loader-perl -- Dynamic definition of DBIx::Class sub classes

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libdbix-class-loader-perl Version : 0.01 Upstream Author : Sebastian Riedel, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/DBIx/ * License

How to get rid of a poised version

Hello, Mea culpa. I did a stupid thing with sbcl: in version 1:0.9.6.0-1 I used the following construction: Package: sbcl Depends: sbcl-common (= ${Source-Version}), ${shlibs:Depends} ... Package: sbcl-common Now it turns out that the buildd network cannot build new packages[1]: |The followin

Re: Evolution Contacts

Il giorno mer, 02/11/2005 alle 09.15 +, Ross Burton ha scritto: > On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 15:14 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote: > > Someone sent an email I dunno if here or in evolution-hackers ML but I also > > lost All my contacts after upgrading yesterday in Sid! ;0( > > Close Evolution and

Re: Bug#328423: must be moved from recommeds to suggests

* Luca Capello: > I'm in the process of debianize some CL software [1] and I've the same > problem as bug #328423: some extra features of the package needs other > packages to be installed, so I don't know if the package should use > Suggests or Recommends. Use Recommends: if the functionality ad

Re: Bug#328423: must be moved from recommeds to suggests

Hello! I posted to debian-devel because I think it's a general question and I cannot figure out the answer with the manuals. Sorry if I was wrong. I'm in the process of debianize some CL software [1] and I've the same problem as bug #328423: some extra features of the package needs other packages

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

* Alex Ross: > 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is linked against a libc which is covered by the CDDL? Have you ported GNU libc? > 3) Develo

Re: Evolution Contacts

On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 15:14 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote: > Someone sent an email I dunno if here or in evolution-hackers ML but I also > lost All my contacts after upgrading yesterday in Sid! ;0( Close Evolution and killall evolution-data-server-1.4, then restart Evolution. That *should* work

Key signing in Dhaka, Bangladesh!

Hi HTere~! I am in Dhaka for a week, and have organised a key signing party with the local Bangladesh Linux Users Group (BDLUG) Hopefully we will end up with 1 or 2 maintainers from there! Regards, Matthew Grant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In the long run, the user-friendly solution is probably to offer (via >> a debconf question that defaults to 'yes') to automatically rewrite >> the conffile to take the change into account. > That can only