Hi Neil,
* Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-24 22:52]:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:27:53 +0100
> Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-24 22:03]:
> > > A machine-interpretable format for debian/copyright is already
> > > available.
> >
> > Wh
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:27:53 +0100
Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-24 22:03]:
> > A machine-interpretable format for debian/copyright is already
> > available.
>
> Where?
http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
--
Neil Williams
===
Hi Lucas,
* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-24 22:03]:
> I've been thinking about ways to make contributing to Debian easier. I
> sometimes run into the situation where someone asks me "I'd like to
> contribute to Debian, what could I do?", and I have problems directing
> him to things
Hi,
This is going to be a long email. I am contemplating the
holiday festivities, and am getting into the zen mode for making
traditional egg nog. Where I live, traditional egg nog means
contemplating very old Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey, and single
cask Jamaican white rum, am
* Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-24 22:03]:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:51:13 +0100
> David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> > package?
>
> Why? What is the benefit?
>
> A machine-interpretable format for
On Monday December 24 2007 12:34:07 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 24, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > I have Postfix crash more often on my home machine (~ 10
> > mails / 24h - using an smarthost) than Qmail do on my main
> > mailservers (~ 10k mails / 24h).
>
> Maybe the p
Miros/law Baran wrote:
> Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
> installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
> qmail (if not the qmail itself).
That's becaused qmail needs/needed hardcoded uids, so we created them.
Later this changed to reserving th
David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> package? I mean, "apt-cache show foo" shows the fields defined in
> debian/control and some others. Would it be possible to parse the
> license from debian/copyright and add it to
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> reject at SMTP etc (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for
>> spams is rubish - it's only if/when configured incorrectly that this
>> becomes a problem)
qmail-smtpd in djb's stock distribution wit
Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> in my opinion the new [qmail] license is DFSG-free.
>
> There ain't no new license. DJB simply retracted his copyright. As of
> now, anyone can copy the qmail 1.03 code, make modifications at will,
> claim copyright for those
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:43:57 +0100
David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From a user perspective, there is no difference between any package in
> > main as far as a licence is concerned.
>
> It's not for users, it's for developers.
But you cannot separate the content of the Packages.gz fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking about ways to make contributing to Debian easier. I
> sometimes run into the situation where someone asks me "I'd like to
> contribute to Debian, what could I do?", and I have problems directing
> him
On Dec 24, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, come on!! Get a fng reality check! Have you ever even USED
> Qmail?! And actually READ it's code!?
Yes to both.
http://www.starbsd.org/misc/why-not-qmail.png
I rest my case.
> I have Postfix crash more often on my home machine (
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:06:16 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Brian M. Carlson]
>> Note that the w* packages provide word lists, which are important to
>> many programs. One could argue that a standard Unix system should
>> have a word list; at least, every Unix system I
Hi,
I've been thinking about ways to make contributing to Debian easier. I
sometimes run into the situation where someone asks me "I'd like to
contribute to Debian, what could I do?", and I have problems directing
him to things where he could actually help.
So I worked on two things:
== "Help De
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:08:42 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Anthony Towns]
>> Kind of reviving an old thread, but anyway: It also includes, but
>> afaics, probably doesn't need to (anymore):
>>
>> ispell, dictionaries-common, iamerican, ibritish, wamerican
> [Agustin M
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:49:05 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Russ Allbery]
>> See previous thread about old Unix users and what we expect. :)
> Well, some old unix users might expect it, but I've been using Unix
> and friends since I started with HP-UX 9 in 1992, and I
Il giorno Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:39:22 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 04:51:13PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> > would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> > package?
First of all, thank you for the kind reply. It seem
Il giorno Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:37:23 +
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:36:06 +0100
> David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> From a user perspective, there is no difference between any package in
> main as far as a licence is concerned.
It'
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 04:51:13PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> package?
I understand your need, but in this case (as opposed to the others you
mention) I believe a new field is not the right solution. The reason is
that in
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:36:06 +0100
David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A machine-interpretable format for debian/copyright is already
> > available. Why clutter the dpkg and apt-cache with licence lines?
>
> debian/copyright is not available via the APT cache, thus cannot be available
>
Il giorno Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:10:38 -0600
"Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On Dec 24, 2007 11:07 AM, David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If the license is free, but it's not a "standard" one, one could always
> > write:
> >
> > License: see debian/copyright.
On Dec 24, 2007 11:07 AM, David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the license is free, but it's not a "standard" one, one could always write:
>
> License: see debian/copyright.
> David
That seems unnecessary, being the effective default.
Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Il giorno Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:03:39 +0100
Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 16:51:13 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
>
> > Hi *,
> > would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> > package? I mean, "apt-cache show foo" shows the fields
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 16:51:13 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> Hi *,
> would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> package?
> I mean, "apt-cache show foo" shows the fields defined in debian/control and
> some others. Would it be possible to parse the license from debi
Il giorno Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:25:43 +
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:51:13 +0100
> David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi *,
> > would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> > package?
>
> Why? What is the benefit
On Sun Dec 23 15:26, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
> > package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
> > in the upstream tarbal
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 04:38:13PM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Pjotr Kourzanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Package name: kissdx
> Version : x.y.z
> Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.example.org
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:51:13 +0100
David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi *,
> would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a
> package?
Why? What is the benefit?
A machine-interpretable format for debian/copyright is already
available. Why clutter the dpkg and ap
Hi *,
would it be possible to have a "License" field in the information of a package?
I mean, "apt-cache show foo" shows the fields defined in debian/control and
some others. Would it be possible to parse the license from debian/copyright
and add it to that info? Or, at least, give the chance to de
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pjotr Kourzanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: kissdx
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.example.org/
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Programming Lang: (C, C++, C
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:19:43PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 24.12.2007 at 07:29:58 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
be done by an MTA (it isn't in the SMTP RFC that I know of).
What has this to do with RFCs? I didn't see any particular statement
demanding that mai
On Monday 24 December 2007, Jean-Christian BEDIER wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Jean-Christian,
> I subscribe on this mailling list a few weeks ago because i wanted to know
> a solution for publish my .deb on real debian mirror.
You need to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead and try to find a
sponsor (officia
Hi,
I subscribe on this mailling list a few weeks ago because i wanted to know a
solution for publish my .deb on real debian mirror.
In fact i realized a little tools for backup throw a ftp server and i will
be really happy to add it in official debian packages.
Maybe someone can give me some in
Hi Florian,
On Mon, 24.12.2007 at 09:41:22 +0100, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Turbo Fredriksson:
> > (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's
> > only if/when configured incorrectly that this becomes a problem)
>
> How can you configure DJB qmail s
Hi,
On Mon, 24.12.2007 at 07:29:58 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - all that send receipt on acceptance/delivery, reject at SMTP etc (and
> claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's only
> if/when configured incorrectly that this becomes a problem)
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 08:01:02PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> I thought this consensus was already a fact and that some maintainers
> just disagree and nobody forced them to change yet...
Well, before forcing them to change we need a place where it is written
that the practice is front, don't we?
(
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 09:06:07PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> [N.B. I am subscribed to -devel; please do not CC me if you are following
> up there. ]
[ As you wish, but notice that I didn't have the chance of knowing that
upon my first Cc. I Cc-ed you as bug submitter. Dropping the Cc now.
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 08:16:07PM +0100, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
> >>> Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
> >>> package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
> >>> in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream for gdome2-xslt and
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 07:29:58AM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> So, right, the argument we're left with is, it's quick and it doesn't
>> have many apparent security flaws.
> It have NO security flaws (especially not if patching it with the most
> obvious patches).
“No security flaws! And eve
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> in my opinion the new [qmail] license is DFSG-free.
There ain't no new license. DJB simply retracted his copyright. As of
now, anyone can copy the qmail 1.03 code, make modifications at will,
claim copyright for those modifications, and distribute the whole under
any li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M.A. Cater) writes:
> Smail?? [Debian mail agent pre-exim]. Don't think we've _ever_
> distributed qmail, just as we stopped distributing Pine once the licence
> restrictions became clear for similar reasons. You are making me think
> back to 1996-1997 here :)
qmail-sr
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:12:09PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
> > installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
> > qmail (if not the qmail itself).
>
> OK, that'
* Turbo Fredriksson:
> (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's
> only if/when configured incorrectly that this becomes a problem)
How can you configure DJB qmail so that it rejects mail for non-existing
local mailboxes at SMTP dialog time?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> reject at SMTP etc (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for
> spams is rubish - it's only if/when configured incorrectly that this
> becomes a problem)
How can you configure the QMail to send error messages only to
non-forged sender addresses?
45 matches
Mail list logo
