Hi,
The buildd log pages, e.g. [1], used to be sorted by package version
(or maybe build date). However that is no longer the case.
Can this be fixed? The current situation is less than useful since
the latest build is buried in other output.
Thanks,
-Steve
[1] http://buildd.debian.org/build.
Hi Norbert and Ben,
there have been cases in the past showing that sometimes our mailing lists have
a particular attention from email harvesters. It is therefore not so surprising
that we have complains like the one you answered to: some addresses stay
unnoticed on leaf nodes of the Internet, and
Dear Bernhard,
First of all I would like to apologise for the harshness of the answers you
received.
Nevertheless, by sending your request on our mailing lists, you just multiplied
by four the number of occurences of your address in our web archive. It is our
policy to not remove messages after t
Hi Brian!
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:16:07 +0100, Brian May wrote:
> You can edit PDF files with Adobe Acrobat too. They don't need to by
> hybrid documents.
>
> I think this is very dodgy and also requires proprietary software to
> do the editing. I don't know of any DFSG software that will do the
>
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Brian May wrote:
> Is there any requirement that says the source code must be editable
> in a sane manner (e.g. editing a PDF file with a binary hex editor
> would not be sane) with entirely DFSG compliant tools?
Source code is the (digitally-distributable) form of a work that
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Brian May
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can edit PDF files with Adobe Acrobat too. They don't need to by
> hybrid documents.
>
> I think this is very dodgy and also requires proprietary software to do
> the editing. I don't know of any DFSG software that will d
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:01 AM, David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the iwl3945 firmware, I do not know for sure whether it's written
> in C, assembler, or whatever else (I'm fairly certain it's NOT in some
> obscure 8-bit CPU or similar). Personally I wouldn't mind having
> the
Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This situation sucks. But we cannot claim to have a 100% free
> distribution while including sourceless firmware.
That is my main concern, yes.
> The obvious solution is to have official free and not-quite-official
> non-free variants of the installer.
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> A PDF _can_ be the source - If it uses OpenOffice's new Hybrid PDF
> format [1], which embeds an ODF. Of course, that is _very_ seldom the
> case. (and writing practically anything with OOo is... Bah, I just
> hate the Office mindset. It is an inefficient as it gets!)
>
You
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 18:01 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
[...]
> Please try to explain to a hardware manufacturer that free their
> hardware will only work with free software if they store their firmware
> on an eeprom, and they'll laugh you in the face (or possibly send you
> off to an asylum).
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 20:30 -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
[...]
> For example, lets say you have a pci device. If you don't load the
> firmware blob, the pins will just remain in an uninitialized state.
> That is; the chip default. Programming in the firmware blob will tell
> the chip how to work as a pc
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:01 -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
[...]
> In any case, all of this is theoretical; it's just doesn't make any
> sense to change the manufacturer firmware blob.
[...]
It can do. Firmware has bugs, and many hardware manufacturers have an
unfortunate habit of abandoning firmware af
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > That means: free access to exactly the same form of the work that
> > the vendor might use to make modification to any part of the
> > operating system
>
> So you consider the bits of code which runs on the har
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 20:17 -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
[...]
> If you did synthesize it, you might not have even "seen" it if you put
> it on a cpld. Then you might have just thought you were "programming"
> the chip.
You have to synthesise *from* something, be that Verilog or VHDL or
Handel-C.
> No
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 17:50 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear colleague,
>
> Could you please remove my email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - or the
> short version [EMAIL PROTECTED] from all parts from of your web portal?
>
> In particular, I found it here:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-dev
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> The requirement for the contents of Debian to be free is not a new
> burden.
What's new here is the number of firmwares which one need to make a
computer useful and the consequence on the perimeter of the Debian
project.
> It's spelled out in t
On Di, 28 Okt 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could you please remove my email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - or the
> short version [EMAIL PROTECTED] from all parts from of your web portal?
>
> In particular, I found it here:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/03/msg00239.html
Forget it.
Dear Debianists,
Here is a link toward a survey that I set up in order to understand
the uses and conceptions of the Debian Wiki within the Debian
community :
http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/labcmo/portraitdulibre/index.php?sid=65733&lang=en
My name is Anne Goldenberg, I'm a PhD student in communicati
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:21, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> How can that be? (That is an ernest question)
>
> Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you genera
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Maximilian Gaß" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libtest-lectrotest-perl
Version : 0.3600
Upstream Author : Tom Moertel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~tmoertel/Test-LectroTest-0.3600/
* License : GPL
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo (2008-10-28 16:07 -0200) wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 06:01:45PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>> Throwing out the firmware doesn't help our users, it makes things
>> worse for our users. And our users are our number one priority.
>
> Is it not providing them the
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:29:04 +0100
Stefano Avallone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while trying to install kdesvn from experimental, I got the following
> error:
Please report a bug against kdesvn - severity important would seem
appropriate for an experimental package.
debian-devel is
Hi all,
while trying to install kdesvn from experimental, I got the following error:
Unpacking kdesvn-kio-plugins (from .../kdesvn-kio-plugins_1.2.1-1_i386.deb)
...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/kdesvn-kio-
plugins_1.2.1-1_i386.deb (--unpack):
trying to overwrite `/usr/share/kd
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that I would like the Debian Blend distributions (formerly called CDDs)
to manage this smartly in the future. We could have some mechanisms that make
sure that for biologists, plink relates to SNPs, not to SSH. But this is a long
term goal with
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rene Mayorga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libhttp-response-encoding-perl
Version : 0.05-1
Upstream Author : Dan Koagai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTTP-Response-Encoding/
* License : GPL/
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 06:01:45PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
[...]
> some cases, the binary blobs *is* the source code; I've spent more than
> enough time programming 8-bit directly from a machine-code monitor).
And many people write non-modular programs; use non-usual constructs; do
not comme
Le mardi 28 octobre 2008 à 14:12 -0200, Alexandre Oliva a écrit :
> I hope the prevalent interpretation of Debian's rules and policies
> isn't so lax as to make room for such manipulation as packaging stuff
> in main that belongs in contrib or non-free just because it happens to
> be part of the sa
Dear colleague,
Could you please remove my email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - or the
short version [EMAIL PROTECTED] from all parts from of your web portal?
In particular, I found it here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/03/msg00239.html
Currently, I am really flooded with spam-emails
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:00:31AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:26:31PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> > True, I certainly feel like that at times with the opencores project
> > I've been trying to maintain.
> >
> > On the other hand, I sure know that I know a pile more t
On Oct 28, 2008, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Alexandre Oliva]
>> Say, if these drivers that require non-Free firmware *were* shipped
>> as separate packages (for whatever reason), would they really belong
>> in main, rather than in contrib?
> Now you've hit on it. If they were
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:48:21PM +0100, Steffen Möller a écrit :
> a) removing the newly package plink from the archive
> b) add an exception to Debian policy for the case that the two packages
> in name-conflict are not in the base distribution and the two
> maintainers agree that the conflict
Hi,
> At least, that's my understanding of some of the use cases presented
> here: that even the vendors of those blobs routinely modify the binary
> blob directly to generate a new version of it, much like
> bit-manipulating a machine-code executable and running it.
No, it's more a case of there
Thomas Weber dijo [Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:55:52PM +0100]:
> > > If the PDF is frozen documentation, it's probably worth the effort. If
> > > upstream changes the PDF with every new version, you should ask them for
> > > their sources instead.
> >
> > What if they use openoffice.org to edit the pd
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Luca Capello wrote:
FWIW both software have been published in scientific papers, thus
changing one name or the other can be more difficult.
Yes - but it can be made public on their website.
However, while Steffen's point is valid, it's not problematic ATM, since
we don't
Hi there!
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:58:20 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Steffen Möller wrote:
>> Except that snplink is taken by another program
>
> This is a valid point and should probably be discussed with plink
> (and snplink??) authors.
FWIW both software have been publishe
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Steffen Möller wrote:
Except that snplink is taken by another program
This is a valid point and should probably be discussed with plink
(and snplink??) authors.
and Debian remains incompatible for scripts shared in the community.
This is not really a valid point. In c
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:29:58PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)
Oh well. Some people write ugly perl code, some write ugly VHDL. Not
the language or tools fault, just bad programmers.
> Which is often not the case on cheap devices (often usb)
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:26:31PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> True, I certainly feel like that at times with the opencores project
> I've been trying to maintain.
>
> On the other hand, I sure know that I know a pile more than you do or
> we wouldn't be having this discussion :)
I have a different
Hello,
Teodor schrieb:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Steffen Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Charles Plessy schrieb:
>>
>>> Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:32:42AM +0200, Teodor a écrit :
>>>
I still believe it is best to rename 'plink' to 'puttylink' in
putty-tool
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the end, it comes down to "the preferred form for modification"
I am convinced that's the most useful place to draw the line, yes.
> and the reality that the preferred form *can* include binary code,
> machine code or any other data of a type that m
Dear Friend,
Satyabrata likes to invite you to join his network in
Indiashines.
http://www.indiashines.com/index.php?op=join&ref=Satyabrata&i=755984
- Upload your photos
- Share your videos & music
- Post your blogs
- Start a group
- Find interesting jobs/classifieds
By joining in Satyabrata
[Alexandre Oliva]
> Say, if these drivers that require non-Free firmware *were* shipped
> as separate packages (for whatever reason), would they really belong
> in main, rather than in contrib?
Now you've hit on it. If they were packaged _separately_, the drivers
that are non-functional without
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Steffen Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Plessy schrieb:
>> Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:32:42AM +0200, Teodor a écrit :
>>> I still believe it is best to rename 'plink' to 'puttylink' in
>>> putty-tools binary package. Anyway, this should be fixed for squ
Dear Friend,
Satyabrata likes to invite you to join his network in
Indiashines.
http://www.indiashines.com/index.php?op=join&ref=Satyabrata&i=755984
- Upload your photos
- Share your videos & music
- Post your blogs
- Start a group
- Find interesting jobs/classifieds
By joining in Satyabrata
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 22:51 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> What's relatively new is the realisation that some of those parts
> (such as firmware) have a programmatic function but can, in some
> cases, have *no* better form for making modifications than the binary
> blob itself.
OK, to my eyes, this me
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:51:55PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> *without* access to any specific extra data, vendor-specific programs,
> or other non-free software.
I agree here, although, I wouldn't say the DFSG requires that source
code should be modifiable with software distributed in Debi
Hi Steffen!
Disclaimer: I'm a biologist [1] and I performed genome-wide analyses.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:00:02 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Steffen Möller schrieb am Dienstag, dem 28. Oktober 2008:
>> To summarise things up: the renaming of the executable of plink to
>> snplink renders the pli
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008, Jeff Carr wrote:
> > have little flash chips holding these bits all over in your
> > machine now. You just don't know it. And now, because someone is
> > giving you the luxury of actually loading them via software (with
> > gpl softwa
Steffen Möller schrieb am Dienstag, dem 28. Oktober 2008:
> To summarise things up: the renaming of the executable of plink to
> snplink renders the plink package inferior to a manual installation of
> plink under the proper name. What I'll do now unless I hear some
> objections that I am mentally
Charles Plessy schrieb:
> Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:32:42AM +0200, Teodor a écrit :
>
>> I still believe it is best to rename 'plink' to 'puttylink' in
>> putty-tools binary package. Anyway, this should be fixed for squeeze
>> since in lenny there is no conflict (plink is not included in lenny)
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008, Jeff Carr wrote:
> have little flash chips holding these bits all over in your machine
> now. You just don't know it. And now, because someone is giving you
> the luxury of actually loading them via software (with gpl software no
> less) you seem to be all ticked off.
Right;
* Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 16:38:41 +1100]:
> > Still, the firmware blob that you load into the chip isn't x86 code
> > for the host -- it's raw junk for the chip.
>
> That “raw junk” is, if I understand you correctly, instructions and
> data for controlling the behaviour of the
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:32:42AM +0200, Teodor a écrit :
>
> I still believe it is best to rename 'plink' to 'puttylink' in
> putty-tools binary package. Anyway, this should be fixed for squeeze
> since in lenny there is no conflict (plink is not included in lenny).
Hi all,
Upstream documented
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Brian May
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steffen Möller wrote:
>> Teodor happened to have nicely explained my objections to rename plink.
>
> Except what he said is wrong, puttygen hasn't been renamed.
Yes, puttygen hasn't been renamed. It was a wrong assumption from
54 matches
Mail list logo
