On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:44:11PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +020
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Tell me, you seriously think that there i
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
> > > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It
> > > doesn't hang like NS though
* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
> > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It
> > doesn't hang like NS though.
>
> There are some sites that still require Netscape 4.77. A good example
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
> > > that uses DRI ? Hel
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> me wrote:
> > some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to reboot, to
> Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
navigator is mu
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
> > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed.
>
> the only libc5
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> > which are libc5 related:
> >
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > and others, partially.
> >
> > This could impact potentially very old (commercial
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:45:21AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]:
> > > On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:14:51PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in
> > > the
> > > kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a
> > > wh
* John Goerzen
| Since providing this capability requires only free software on
| Debian's part, where exactly is the problem?
Manpower.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in the
> > kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a whole
>
> Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
>
the
package if they really care.
> And I don't remember to read anything from the current maintainer
> either.
Obviously you haven't looked too closely at who started this thread
then?
From: "Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Proposal: removing li
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]:
> On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
> >reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
> >the package.
> This looks like a
On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
>reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
>the package.
This looks like a good enough reason to me.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [1676 advirpG9
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:26:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries?
> I really don't understand why this is such a difficult problem. If, for
> instance, gcc 2.7.2 could build these things three years ago, why can't it
> now? It'
Le sam 21/06/2003 à 19:26, John Goerzen a écrit :
> > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
> > work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
>
> Assuming it supports your hardware. Which it is n
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
> that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed.
the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is compatible to
some pages w
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:26:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Alternative 1:
> >
> > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
>
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries?
There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
the package.
--
Debian GNU/Lin
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> Alternative 1:
>
> You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
> work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
Assuming it supports your
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:57:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> M, that's the basis of freelosophy. Don't use proprietary formats and
> don't
> use proprietary software. The risk of being unable to use your own
> documents is concrete. Who owns your docs? Corel does. Microsoft does.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:27:57AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> >
> > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
> > work.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:33:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine
> wrote:
>
> >And surely Debian DOES NOT support
> >non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
>
> No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See cl
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
> work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
>
Also woody...
--
Francesco P. Lovergi
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:35:18PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> As long as these doc's exist someone will make money by providing the
> means of reading them, if OOo does not.
That someone is Microsoft.
> IMHO, the problem has been resolved.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it
> > was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck.
> >
>
> If he was really interested in his
On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine
wrote:
And surely Debian DOES NOT support
non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See clause 1 of
the Social Contract.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
|| Debian can continue to drag along support for libc5-binaries (hey,
|| nobody out there with need for libc4?)
(raises hand)
Ciao. Vincent.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
[lots of text snipped]
> It is not a question of using non-free software, I use it almost
> exclusively, but that of accessing documents that were created with
> non-free software before there were free alternatives.
>
> Please rememb
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:59:46AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> > which are libc5 related:
>
> I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to
> can install the old libc5
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> >
>
> Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it
> was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck.
>
If he was really interested in his data, he should convert them in a
standard and portable format s
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to
can install the old libc5 support packages from archive.debian.org
without breaking their system
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Chris Halls wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
> > because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
> > Word documents.
>
> Is that sti
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
>
> X-Spot: Who uses non-free software empoisons you, too. Say him to stop.
> ^^^
> That's constantly in my header... so I'm ready to fight :-P
>
> M, that's the basis of fr
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:03:52AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Err, Zack, I say zlib1... zlib1g* is libc6 related.
Ok, thanks, never mind.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/za
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
> because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
> Word documents.
Is that still true for OOo 1.1beta2? Are there open bug report
X-Spot: Who uses non-free software empoisons you, too. Say him to stop.
^^^
That's constantly in my header... so I'm ready to fight :-P
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Fran
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> > documents.
> >
>
> That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing.
> Wordperfect 11 is no
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > zlib1
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
That's zlib1 not zlib1g. We're
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> documents.
>
That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing.
Wordperfect 11 is now a windoze-only program.
Also Applixware 5 (another dead produ
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > zlib1
>
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
Huh ? What has that to do with
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > zlib1
>
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
>
Err, Zack, I say zlib1...
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>> zlib1
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
There is none needed. zlib1(-altdev) and zlib1g(-dev) a
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> zlib1
The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
Which is the newer alternative to this package?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debi
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> documents.
In my experience, either AbiWord or KWord is able to read these
documents. But of course, libwpd can't be perfect... you give some and
take some :)
-J
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
> > And pester wordperfect^WCorel to use libraries from the current millenium.
>
> Or pester openoffice.org for a WP filter and booklet printing.
I was going to mention OOo, but since I don't know what it can currently do,
I wasn't about to put my foot
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
>
> > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> > documents.
>
> Note that the packages won't be removed from your system, they will simply
> no longer be in the Debian archive. Thi
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
> xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> documents.
Note that the packages won't be removed from your system, they will simply
no longer be in the Debian archive. This *may* become a problem if you
clean-install a future v
xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
documents.
Phil.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Someone could already know this amazing bug:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015
>
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all t
"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someone could already know this amazing bug:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015
I've seen this before; it seems that sometimes when the package is
built from source, the resulting library is missing some symbols for
s
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
> zlib1
This is going to vanish shortly anyway unless the libc5 bug is fixed
since it breaks zlib builds. I'd only been co
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
>
[SNIP]
>
> and others, partially.
>
> This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries,
> Comments, ideas, complaints?
I a
Hi all
Someone could already know this amazing bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
which are libc5 related:
libc5
libc5-altdev
libc5-altdbg
altgcc
libdb1
libdb1-altdev
libdl1
libdl1-altdev
zlib1
ld
54 matches
Mail list logo
