On 6/12/06, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
"last post wins" school of debate. People
On 2/21/06, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a specific counter example, consider
> > http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> > which is a project porting a windows driver
On 2/20/06, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib.
This proposal is clear enough.
> My reasons are:
>
> - The sole purpose of these packages is allowing the use of non-free Windows
> drivers.
>
> - There are
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
> even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
> I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
> write any code for it.
I don't know what
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in compliance wi
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
> constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
> ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
> in a sense, by continuing to leave bu
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> > > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
> or not?
The constitution says:
"... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4)."
I think that's pretty clea
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
>
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
> > between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
> > t
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> require a supermajority.
This comment seems insincere.
If the GR is adopted by Debian, ther
It seems to me that we have some responsibility for the licenses used
on these presentations.
It also seems to me that we should structure our approach to these
licenses similarly to the way we approach other license issues.
That is: we should encourage people to use a DFSG license, and we
should
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps that is indeed what you would do. I don't consider lawyers to
> be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves. They
> are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice
> and legal representation,
> > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> >
> > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
> > an interesting commentary --
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
> believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
> the "FSF FAQ".
For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
It is, in places, a bi
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
> code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
> *that* code under the GPL.
There are some exceptions to this. For example, if you're not th
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
Most of this is focused on contract law issues. I've written a
separate post suggesting the obvious alternative (Tort law)
> > Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
> No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
> terms of the law
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'm not going to say that your point of view isn't perfectly valid
> as your own point of view; but I don't have any reason to believe that
> it's a good predictor of how a court case involving the FSF suing
> FooSoft for linking agains
On 5/11/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL did not use the word "equals".
> > Neither "that is to say" nor "namely" are equal to "equals".
>
> Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic
> distinctions as claiming that "that is to say" does not conn
On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
> retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
> is clearly non-free *without* any such stretching or contriving.
I don't think the issue at tha
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >That's another re-statement of what "a work based on the Program"
> >means.
> >
> The GPL just equated the two, before the colon! It states, clearly, that
> the "a w
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
> that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under
> copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a work
> containing...", which is NOT a re-statement of a "deriv
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to
On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define "work based on the
> Program" in terms of "derivative work under copyright law", and then,
> after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what is a
> "derivative work under copyright law
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
> paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matte
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:16:25AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> However, if somebody writes a graphviz-client which just pushes the
> dot file over the network to graphviz.example.com on some port and
> gets a postscript file back, it can go into main. No matter what
> software said server is r
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 11:33:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Please suggest any case which you don't think this criteria adequately
> covers.
The bios.
Unless, we decide that the bios we put in non-free isn't the bios we
need to boot the machine.
--
Raul
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:02:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> The social contract says "...but we will never make the system depend on
> an item of non-free software." not "but we will never make the system
> depend on an item of non-free software /which we must distribute/."
We don't ma
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:33:41AM -0500, I clumsily wrote:
> I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
> contained in the API was designed to work with.
That should have read:
I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
contained in t
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse
> > with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not
> > known to us.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:51:22PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> I don&#x
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the
> > software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an
> > opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into
> > a context where we can&
[just some minor additions.]
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:14PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > No, I argue that because you've pried chips off the board, the
> > hardware is broken.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:39:59PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Er, no. Flash can be overwritten with i
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
>
> Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
> To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
> Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:41:46AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> You are currently saying that the GNU in GNU/Linux is justified by the
> glibc and not by any other GNU software, because these GNU software
> are common on other unixes.
Maybe what he was saying, but that's obviously not the real issu
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:57:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > "Hard to understand"? We'd require a certain level of voter approval
> > before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
> > can't win. How is this "
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:57:13PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I don't believe that it's acceptable for an otherwise beaten option
> to win due the the otherwise winning option being discarded due
> to a quorum requirement, as John suggests might happen.
Under the proposed system, we would do ex
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > At this point; under my version; I can express my opinions
> > with no fear of harming my candidate. Under your amendment; if I do
> > not vote; the vote is nullified. However, if I vote against the
> > option -- the opt
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:39:08PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> example: quorum of 20, two ballots on the measure, plus the default
> option. two major schools of thought: those that support option A, and
> those that support option B.
If the quorum of 20 is significant, neither school of
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>The amendment uses the concept of a Quorum requirement to inhibit
>"stealth decisions" by only a handful of developers. While this is a
>good thing, the per-option quorum from the amendment has a tendency to
>fur
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:
[lots of stuff deleted -- basically a bitch about new maintainer]
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:57:41AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Good point :-)
Not really:
[1] This point (if it really erik's point -- hard to tell) is
not well expressed by erik's subj
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Stallman) writes:
> > Meanwhile, you don't seem to be concerned about the mob of people
> > who are attacking me.
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:06:53PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
> I may now be even more concerned that you seem to consider the authors
> of free KDE software
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:35:44AM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
> 'explorer' also depends on it (using the old qt1g package name)
Explorer also has nine bugs, some important, six over two years old.
Note especially:
#29053: package explorer depends on obsolete library libstdc++2.8 (1y, 308d)
#53
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:52:04PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Fortunately, my part of it is done - KDE is being uploaded to Debian
> now to join Qt in main. Unfortunately, not by any action of KDE. Troll
> Tech made the decision. KDE and Debian both benefit. I can speak
> for a sizable portion o
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:47:01AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> I don't see us making this kind of check for code written in perl, or
> code wirtten in C, or any other language.
Perl is available under two licenses: GPL + Artistic. Not much room
for a reasonable person to introduce conflict there.
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 09:06:55PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i think you misread what i said. i said that missing or incorrect
> reverse DNS is *NOT* a good reason for bouncing mail.
I guess I did.
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 06:09:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> nobody's telling anyone to get any particular ISP or that they have to
> pay for a premium quality service.
True.
> it's simple - if you want a service that's worth having, you pay
> whatever it costs. if you don't want that, then p
> > There's no legal difference between "Debian" and "people who recieve
> > it from us". [Legally, there's no such entity as "Debian".]
> >
> > Nor is there a difference from the viewpoint of our social contract.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:35:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Then why do we
> > Their position was that the words "permission to copy, distribute and
> > modify" do not grant permission to distribute a modified version. In
> > other words, they say you can distribute the software, and you can
> > modify the software, but you can't modify it and then distri
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
> version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they
> too ask permission ("We do expect and appreciate..."). Non-free. If
> she had written just "
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 03:39:05PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> I don't see why Debian (or GNU, or "Linux") bothers with the IMAPD of
> UofW so much at all. Aren't there quite some replacements by now?
[1] The copyright appears to meet our standards (DFSG).
[2] The only alternative imap daemon doe
> I've an outstanding, unanswered question which I've sent to UW in a
> related context (IMAPD): what specific clause of the copyright is being
> violated, when modified versions are distributed.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:46:40PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Their position was tha
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:40:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In other words, I think the choice of directory should be controlled by
> factors intrinsic, not extrinsic, to the program in question.
I think this is a reasonable viewpoint.
--
Raul
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:34:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> We can put everything in /bin and make /sbin a link to /bin.
> This way the utilities the FHS liste can be found in /sbin, but there
> physical place is elsewhere. This does not violate the standard.
This has nasty implications wi
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:23:11AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > For simplicity's sake, I think it's just good enough to include /sbin,
> > /usr/sbin and /usr/local/sbin in user's default path.
>
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:42:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think if someone has to do such
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:30:08PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
> documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
> to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentation", as in free
> spe
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 09:03:25PM +0100, Richard P. Groenewegen wrote:
> [2] Logging in is still impossible: my password is accepted but
> apparently I cannot connect to the X-server (here is my
> .xsession-errors:)
>
> Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
> Xlib: Clie
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:27:00PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> What am I supposed to do? I could make debconf depend on perl-5.005, but it
> really works with any version of perl 5. Also, if only perl-5.004-base,
> perl-5.005, and perl-5.005-base were installed, and the alternatives pointed
> /usr/bi
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:00:46AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> > > So how many other developers are not using unstable?
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Perhaps this should be taken up on another list, if you expect input
> > from more than a few people.
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 0
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:00:46AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> So how many other developers are not using unstable?
Perhaps this should be taken up on another list, if you expect input
from more than a few people.
For what it's worth, I'm using a slink system with potato in my
apt/sources.list,
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:58:06AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Or simpler:
>
> grep-status -P netscape | grep-dctrl -FStatus -sPackage -n \
> 'install ok installed' | xargs dpkg --purge
Or simpler, and closer to the original intent:
dpkg --get-selections | grep 'netscape' |
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:31:42PM -0700, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > b) give the Project Leader the ability to stop stupid things like the
> >/usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc debate, and just pick an option.
>
> That's been the case at some point. Isn't it true anymore?
The DPL has this ability. In t
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:58:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> One benefit always moving it has, is that it tests all code paths on upgrade
> (including the "add a /bin/sh symlink") which makes it more likely to catch
> any bugs while we're still working on potato.
>
> I don't see how this makes
> > to minimise downtime, the proper way to do it IMHO is to have
> > > certain packages flagged as daemons, and they should be upgraded
> > > (by whatever program that is in charge) one by one.
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:06:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Under
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:13:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> it may be an important tool, but that doesn't give you or anyone else
> the right to pester people in their own homes. it really does no good
> to apologise or even to promise not to call back - by that time, the
> damage has been don
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 02:10:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (What is the problem with --rename, btw? I'm curious, and dpkg-divert is
> horribly underdocumented)
>From dpkg-divert --help:
--rename causes dpkg-divert to actually move the file aside (or back).
There's no reason to remove the /
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:57:12AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > As far as I know, leaving inetd accepting connections would,
> > worst case, fail -- which is no different from having the service
> > disabled. In other words, I don't see that disabling the daemon
> >
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:06:02AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> [ as I understand it, a security 'breach' could only occur with this
> system if a user had execute permissions but *not* read permissions
> on a file that wasn't of a normal executable format; in other words:
> rwx--x--x /usr/bin/ha
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:44:25AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 12:30:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Just having /bin/sh included in the .deb is Good Enough -- diversions
> > > work as designed.
> > Good Enough is not good enough (TM
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 03:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> In any case, I fail to see how pressing `_' in dselect before any
> unnecessary daemons are installed could possibly be less secure than
> saying "No, I don't want services activated by default" and then
> installing them anyway.
How
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 08:06:10PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i show no regard for those who demonstrate they are fools. i show
> contempt for those who demonstrate that they are annoying fools. guess
> which category you fall into.
Ok, try this on for size:
How many network services do you ge
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:07:03AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:44:25AM -0400, Raul Miller was heard to say:
> > A wonderfuly horrible hack has occurred to me, by the way: A cron job
> > which runs every minute: /bin/sh -c exit || /sbin/rebuild-bi
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 02:59:38AM -0400, Rick wrote:
> I'm uncertain whether this is a good idea or not. I have helped many
> people install redhat linux and, frankly, the daemon enable screen
> confuses them. They don't know what all these things are or which ones
> they may need. If this gets
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 08:56:23AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> The idea is that when you upgrade the package like telnetd, there
> may be new shlib dependencies, etc. which means that you should stop
> spawning new daemons until it is configured. Of course, this may
> not happen for every release, b
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 08:36:01AM -0400, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > > yea...I just did an update today and something decided to remove
> > > /bin/sh during the upgrade...and didn't put it back before it
> > > was needed... so if something hoses for you just recreate it by
> > > linking it to like
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 07:36:28PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Consider if we have bugs 0->199 and you take the first digit. You end up
> with 10 bugs in each bucket except bucket '1' which has 110. Put that on a
> broader scale and account for expired bugs and you see the trouble.
Why not bas
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 03:00:51PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> If somebody could come up with a better method of handling this it would be
> most welcome.
I'd suggest releasing a bash (which doesn't use #!/bin/sh scripts for
install/remove) that, in postinst, divert's bash's /bin/sh. Leave
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 07:31:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> Ok, you#re right. But the classic http daemons (cern for example) used/use
> chroot() for security reasons. You#re right, the current apache package
> supports symlinks, but will all users use apache? Will all users use
> FollowSy
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 05:01:05AM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote:
> Yes, probably; but no. RMS is referring to the fact that many authors
> of many pieces of xemacs haven't assigned copyright to the FSF,
> meaning that copyright remains with them, or possibly even their
> employer, depending on sticky
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:53:44AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i'm talking about the current practice of postinst scripts in various
> packages enabling the services that they provide (if any). i am not
> talking at all about which packages are base or required or extra or
> whatever - i'm talkin
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 09:05:43PM +0200, Marcel Harkema wrote:
> I am going to rename the poc (portable object compiler) package to objc if
> no-one objects. The upstream author requested this. Also, libgc4 (boehm
> gc) support is dropped. A new additional package will be introduced with
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 07:23:53PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:50:40AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Treaties are different from laws.
>
> On the contrary, ratified treaties are a binding part of the Finnish
> legislation, as if they were or
> > There is currently no default -- it varies on a per-package basis.
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 09:21:29AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> I note that
>
> ### to run vtund as a server on port 5000, uncomment the following line:
> #--server-- 5000
>
> isn't uncommented by default.
Sure, but in the co
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:46:38AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:56:53PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > PGP is legally classified in the same category as atomic weapons.
>
> No, it's not. Atomic weapons are controlled by international trea
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 02:16:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> to paraphrase: i am against messing with the current default. i am not
> against (indeed, i am in favour of) increasing choice.
There is currently no default -- it varies on a per-package basis.
> ... there are already way too man
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:08:39PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Pseudonymes have been used throughout the history, so that's not
> a problem. For our protection, however, I'd recommend that you and
> tftp work out a agreement so that at least one Debian developer (you,
> for example) alw
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 06:01:00PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> But who said mtools need to depend on floppyd package?
$ dpkg -L mtools | grep floppyd
/usr/bin/floppyd
/usr/bin/floppyd_installtest
/usr/share/man/man1/floppyd.1.gz
--
Raul
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 08:25:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> ROTFL, why should I change dhelp to support a broken file format?
...
> dhelp supports all formats.
...
These statements contradict each other.
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 09:57:53PM +1000, Drake Diedrich wrote:
>One way to minimize the harm of unintentionally installed or
> misconfigured daemons would be to add a default ipchain/ipfwadm policy
> rejecting all TCP SYN (incoming initialization) and non-DNS UDP packets
> except those from lo
[about a flat-file installation tool].
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:58:02PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> If you make such a tool and people start to use it on a large scale, you'd
> better be sure you get the package dependencies right.
The context was data files which have no particular adminis
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:18:43AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks
> for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe
> them to be pretty reasonable.
Or you could.
--
Raul
P.S. you made this suggestio
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 04:23:22PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Then we'll have to agree where we register docs. I have the
> following directories on a fresh potato system (with few packages):
>
> /usr/share/doc/HTML/
> /usr/doc/HTML/
>
> And they are _not_ symlinks. They get created by d
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:08:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Correction: mtools in slink does *not* depend on anything but libc6, so
> > there is still time to do it, cleanly.
> >
> > Maintainer, please do it.
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:28:08PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
...
> First, I belie
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 06:56:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> RR> I just installed it, but as far as I can see this doesn't integrate
> RR> FHS and FSSTND
>
> Right, because this is not possible.
Counter-example:
(
dump() {
lynx -dump -source -width=1000 $1 |
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:05:37AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Why even involve debhelper? At least in the case of the Project Gutenberg
> files some of which I have, they are just long ascii files so the rules
> file could just stick them into (for example) /usr/share/doc/etexts call
> doc-ba
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:22:32AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> I think the key difference is that if some one screws with the BTS or
> the Debian web site, it's not going to *me* any harm during the time
> it takes to discover and undo the damage. If someone installs a bad or
> malicious libc6
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main?
> I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available.
Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project?
We'd need to provide them a stable
1 - 100 of 513 matches
Mail list logo
