Re: New 2.4 kernels in unstable when archive reopens?

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/debian/kernel/ those are Herbert's packages, archive isn't processing yet, so can get them from the above link. On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 17:49, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > It's clear that it's important to fix the brk vulnerability. > > It is intended to release s

Re: Migration to /usr/share/doc

that just solves a single instance, most people including me are not experts on this, and just want it to work, while I get around it by adding a '/' at the end of doc others might be just very annoyed. On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 14:25, Clint Adams wrote: > > might it be more friendly to tab'ers to ren

Re: Migration to /usr/share/doc

might it be more friendly to tab'ers to rename the dir base-doc instead of doc-base On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 02:01, Oliver Elphick wrote: > On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 23:11, Giorgio Mandolfo wrote: > ... > > I am trying not to use exclusively the simbolic link to /usr/share/doc/ > > but to look directly

Re: chroot administration

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 11:02, John Hasler wrote: > Russell Coker writes: > > If software can't be freely used for any purpose then it can't be > > released under the GPL. The NSA assert that they have the right to > > release under the GPL and that therefore the patent issues have been > > dealt wi

Re: chroot administration

On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 06:50, Sam Vilain wrote: > Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I have written SE Linux policy for administration of a chroot > > > > environment. That allows me to give full root administration > > > > access

Re: chroot administration

btw, when I said "stole" i didnt mean it to be harsh. sorry if it came off that way. shaya On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 04:26, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:35, Shaya Potter wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 22:09, Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Tue, 2002-0

Re: chroot administration

On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 22:09, Colin Walters wrote: > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 17:48, Russell Coker wrote: > > I have written SE Linux policy for administration of a chroot environment. > > That allows me to give full root administration access (ability to > > create/delete users, kill processes runn

Bug#156606: ITP: hebcal -- A Perpetual Jewish Calendar

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-13 Severity: wishlist * Package name: hebcal Version : 3.2 Upstream Author : Danny Sadinoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.sadinoff.com/hebcal/ * License : GPL Description : A Perpetual Jewish Calendar

Re: IBM "Key alliances" ?

On Wed, 2002-01-09 at 23:54, Adam Majer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 06:50:49PM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote: > > There's more, if you replace the RH system they pre-install, you're > > losing the warranty on the hardware. > > Where does it say that? IMHO, that would be _very_ stupid on IB

Re: mozilla 0.9.7 <-> galeon

I've updated my unstable galeon package with a pull from the cvs that compiles against mozilla 0.9.7 http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/galeon_1.1-1_i386.deb wget it, dpkg -i it it seems to work fine for me. Note that this is a cvs pull from 11am'ish EST on Dec 25th, so it could be unstable.

Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?

-Original Message- From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: >> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk? >> >> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about >> these toolkits s

Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?

-Original Message- From: John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lyx is currently in contrib. > Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically >linked against a non-free library (libforms) . > According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE >statement, this means w

Re: slashdot

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Private <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, October 09, 1998 11:49 AM Subject: Re: slashdot >John Lapeyre writes: >> Something that came up in the discussion. Does anyone have any idea what >> the U.S. legal system

Re: gdselect alpha 2

-Original Message- From: Tom Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >alpha 2 is released at http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/gdselect/ I was trying to compile it, had a little problem with some includes on glib, which I overcame, but it seg faulted (or something like that, said glib caught it) in the ini

Re: XEmacs, TeX, and Re: Lengthy Debian install procedures

>On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 09:27:29PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> I agree. It's too bad that he wasted time that he could have spent >> finishing _The Art of Computer Programming_ on trivia like typesetting. > >It's just that he realized that typesetting isn't trivia at all, but very >int

possible bug in xemacs20/w3-el

I was trying to install the updated w3-el package, but it wouldn't work with xemacs on my machine, it seemed not to do any of the compiliation that was done for emacs20. It also killed the w3-el that came with xemacs. Is w3-el meant to be installed with xemacs? Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Consesus on Linuxconf?

At 03:54 PM 6/3/98 +0200, Andreas Degert wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I was wondering if we have reached some sort of consesus on Linuxconf. >> >> The points that I see are >> >> *Linuxconf can't lose any info. >>

Consesus on Linuxconf?

I was wondering if we have reached some sort of consesus on Linuxconf. The points that I see are *Linuxconf can't lose any info. --This might mean that Linuxconf will error out if it can't parse the file, if you've made private changes to it. That's the tradeoff, you take a risk that you won't b

Re: Can w3-el be precompiled?

James Troup wrote: >[ QP brain-damage reversed ] > >"Rev. Joseph Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 01:12:25AM -0400, Gregory S. Stark wrote: > >> > Oh, one gotcha to watch for. If you package Custom you really >> > ought to package Gnus as well and build it against th

Re: Linuxconf not losing info.

At 10:44 AM 6/3/98 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Shaya Potter wrote: > >> Sorry for not responding directly, I only get debian-devel-digest, so I can >> only respond to what I catch. >> >> I believe linuxconf will version every change that it make

Re: Tools the Parse config files (was Re: Linuxconf)

At 12:46 PM 6/2/98 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >Hi, >>>"Shaya" == Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Shaya> Also, linuxconf shouldn't be used to configure a user's > Shaya> personal information, such as .bashrc, .pinerc, those shou

Re: Linuxconf

At 12:36 AM 6/3/98 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Jules Bean wrote: > >> Of course it's viable. It just becomes a package maintainer >> responsibility. In the vast majority of cases, the package maintainer >> ought to be able to use the *same code* as the package itself for >> p

Linuxconf not losing info.

Sorry for not responding directly, I only get debian-devel-digest, so I can only respond to what I catch. I believe linuxconf will version every change that it makes, i.e. if you make changes w/ linuxconf and see that it didn't work, you can go back to your previous configuration or any one of man

Tools the Parse config files (was Re: Linuxconf)

Ok, I see their has been a lot of talk on if the way linuxconf does its thing is good for debian. first things first, a user doesn't have to use linuxconf. If a user wants to edit the file by hand they can use the existing tools that we have. Even those aren't perfect, if I edit my sendmail.cf b

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 14:17 28/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> which is my point on, the fact that it's a little hypocritical (not very, >> but a little), for the FSF to make emacs compilable out of the box for >> Motif. They would neve

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

OS, then >> >everyone *except* Red Hat can distribute such a program. > >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I apologize in advance for anyone who thinks I'm trolling, but wouldn't that >> fail the discrimination part of the DFSG? > >Richard h

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 13:04 27/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But you did need a special license to compile for Motif. > >Good point. which is my point on, the fact that it's a little hypocritical (not very, but a little), for the FSF to make e

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 13:04 27/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, >> >> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared >> >> libraries, &

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Richard Braakman wrote: >Shaya Potter wrote: >> What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality is it's >> own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to distribute a >> GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? > &g

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 04:14 PM 4/26/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, >> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared >> libraries, "essential parts&qu

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 12:08 26-04-98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You're probably thinking of xemacs. > >[Or, as other people have pointed out, emacs for systems where you >don't need a special license to be legally entitled to use motif.] But you did need a special license to

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 09:40 26-04-98 -0600, James LewisMoss wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:52:32 +0300 (IDT), Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the > >> components of a program being free, what w

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 09:28 26-04-98 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote: >On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 09:06:56AM -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > >> Linking with Motif of GPL'd software only allowed on operating systems >> which get shipped with Motif as an essential part of it (like Solaris). >> Which means that linking with Mot

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 09:06 26-04-98 -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: >> >My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the >> >components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of >> >programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? >> >> Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF d

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:49:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >> David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? >> > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like >> > krpm..

Re:libc5 to libc6 auto-upgrade script

You should make sure that you record which -dev packages are installed. You also might be able to set up a script that can take a list of -dev packages from bo, and tell dpkg to install the comparable packages from Hamm. Shaya -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscri

RFC: ideas on Restructering the dist

Last week, I posted some ideas to debian-private, however, it seems to have been read widely, as not a lot of people have responded to it, and the people that have, have mostly been about the language used. I am therefore resending it, however, this time to debian-devel (which is probably more ap

Re: New official mirrors

>Debian has it's newest official mirror. This one is in Korea. We now >have a mirror on the mainland of Asia (yeah, I know that >Japan in in Asia too). South America and Africa are >being difficult. It'll be really be nice when we get >our first official mirror in space though. >Anybody got connect

please remove pgcc from the dist.

I think pgcc should be removed from the dist. because 1) the version in the dist is probably way out of date now, 2) because egcs probably contains everything that is in pgcc, and 3) because no one wants to adopt it. As I was the last/only maintainer of it, I reccomend that it should probably be r

dselect/new dist format

I just saw a post on this, but I deleted it. How are we suppose to use dselect with the new dist format. I have tried many things, such as setting the dist path to /pub/mirrors/debian/dists/unstable and using main non-free contrib as the ones I want to get. dselect chokes on this because the pa

Re: Calendars

My comment was about "Israel disregard for International law", that was inappropriate. If it has to do with computers or linux, then this is the proper forum, else it doesn't. I didn't mean to say end the posix time discussion, but end talking about Israel's place in politics. Shaya On Sun, 29

Re: Calendars

On 28 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Yukhimets) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I'd expect that to be a problem for people in both parts of Jerusalem, for > > > example. > > > > > > > I am very sorry but I just don't think that debian-devel is a prope

Re: How about e2compr? Was: fixhrefgz debate

On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > Christoph Lameter: > > There are just the elect few who can handle X. > > This comes from the man that says it's OK to require people > to have Pentium 200's... I'm sorry, but I can't really stand > idiots, especially ones who grasp any straw they ca

RE: fwtk should be removed IMO

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote: > It's out of question that the software is very useful. I do use it > myself (the 2.0 version that is). But we must not distribute that > version at all. I wonder if it's a good idea to distribute the old > version. I'd rather have an install package f

porting to libc6.

I got a free machine, that I can use to help the port to libc6. I have it running libc6-dev now, and also downloaded the ncurses stuff. so if anyone wants libs packaged up, tell me where to look, and I'll make a non-maintainer release (with the premission of the maintainer, of course). I would l

Re: problems with SHA-1

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Nathan E Norman wrote: > > On 25 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote: > > : > :> IBM developed a cypher called "lucifer". The NSA examined it, > :> recommended some changes to the algorithm, and the result was DES. > : > :Changes which, we now know, *strengthened* it against differ

Re: problems with SHA-1

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Nathan E Norman wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Shaya Potter wrote: > > :On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > : > :> The problem with SHA-1 is that it is a U.S. Federal Information Processing > :> Standard, and I don't trust that th

Re: problems with SHA-1

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > The problem with SHA-1 is that it is a U.S. Federal Information Processing > Standard, and I don't trust that the U.S. government will not place export > restrictions on it. I'm also wary of U.S. FIPS for the same reason I'm wary > about DES - various spy

RE: checker libs with debugging symbols

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote: > Sorry but I disagree here. For a user who only wants to debug his own > program debugging symbols in the libraries are not needed. > > I'd prefer to have several packages: checker-bin, checker-libs, > checker-dbg or something like that. Remember, we d

Whose packagin linuxconf.

I don't want there to be any overlap on packaging, but I hear now that someome else is packaging linuxconf, but I don't know who. I am (was) packaging it for libc6, and I had to make a couple of changes because either it's glibc support is broken or our header files are broken. I have it using a

Bugs (i think) in our glibc

In trying to compile linuxconf for libc6, I think I ran into a couple of problems with our header files, I'll send more info later, but mostly I needed always with , i.e. linuxconf had the #iclude for ipfw.h, but not if.h, and I got an error message of IFNAMSIZ not defined in scope, doing the prv

Re: Corel Wordperfect and Java Office

On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Raul Miller wrote: > On Jun 6, Colin R. Telmer wrote > > I just noticed that Corel is just in the process porting Wordperfect 7 to > > Linux and the following is on the web page > > : > > > > Certified Operating Systems > > > > RedHat 2.0

Re: Compiling with libc6

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote: > > There are some maintainers that must keep their machines on the stable > > tree (and thus libc5) for various reasons. > > > > Is there a machine somewhere these developers can log in to for the sole > > purpose of building release packages? > > I

Tri-Linux's discription

I think one thing we need to seriously work on for Debian 2.0, is our reputation. It seems we have a reputation for being hard to install, even though, IMO, 1.3 was very easy to install. Just look at this c.o.l.a announcment from tri-linux Our most popoular CD, TRI-LINUX has been completely re

Re: Packager needed for Freedom Desktop

I'll take a look at it, but I can't gurantee anything yet, with graduation in 2 weeks (yea), after that when I am working full time, I actually will have more time. Who knows, I might be able to get a Pentium pro 200, to do some work on. Well I'll look at it tomorow after I finish with my last f

Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)

Well, maybe the GPL is broken when it comes to situations like this. What I don't understand is, if something doesn't contain any GPL'd code, how can the GPL force me to put my product under it. So it has the interface calls to library/.dll, copyrights don't cover how something works, patents d

Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)

On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote: > > Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including > > portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being > > Umm, no, actually -- the whole point of dynamic linking is that you're > *not* including portions of libc5 in yo

Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)

On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote: > > > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically! > > Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL. > I'm not sure from a copyright standpoint how that works. A copyright means that you are protected from me using your copyri

www.debian.org isn't mirroring.

The website hasn't mirrored the mailing list archive (maybe everything) since last saturday. I checked cgi.debian.org and the lists were up to date there. Oh, just wondering when the search will work. Thanks, Shaya -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to

Re: Debian and Linuxconf (again :-) ) (fwd)

This is the message I got from the developer. If you have any comments cc: me, as I have resubscribed to the lists yet. Shaya -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 23:37:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Jacques Gelinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTE

I'm (almost) back (and Linuxconf)

I am almost finished with my AP's, only having Biology tomorrow. During my free time I have thaught up a way that may allow us to use Linuxconf, and all of it's starting/stoping features w/o replacing init. The author of linuxconf liked the idea so it looks like we might have an easier time