On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> www.debian.net is currently an alias for www.debian.org - this needs to
> get entangled
Do you mean dis-entangled? (Otherwise agree!)
> and a page put there to tell people clearly that anything below debian.net is
> not an officia
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-03-13 09:47:43 CET]:
> Thus far, no objections have been raised on the above proposal. Also, it
> has been pointed out that past privacy concerns were related to the way
> in which the entries were published, rather than to the actual
> opportunity of doing so.
>
> Barr
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:40:33AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> While we are at it, I also think we should provide an index of
> *.debian.net entries on that splash page.
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains is just too prone to outdateness
> and incompleteness. The index can be automati
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 10:35 +1100, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:19:09 +0100
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the
> > > archive, too.
> >
> > Cracking ZIP pas
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:19:09 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the
> > archive, too.
>
> Cracking ZIP passwords doesn't fall under the auspices of DMCA or your
> equivalent $
On 12-03-06 at 11:24am, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Le 06/03/2012 01:56, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> > Debian now has a *changed* hard line against patent infringing
> > software - resulting in more codecs supported in official Debian
> > packages.
>
> Perhaps, it is time to look at each package i
Le 06/03/2012 01:56, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Debian now has a *changed* hard line against patent infringing software
> - resulting in more codecs supported in official Debian packages.
Perhaps, it is time to look at each package in d-m.o and list all
that are now equals (or better ?) in term
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> It's not *always* published.
> Try with ipv6 or mozilla.debian.net for example.
>
> Making this as a rule seems relevant and a good idea to me.
> It'd be even better if we could publish a list instead of only
> an individual if we want to (bu
On 03/06/2012 03:55 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>
>> Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the
>> entry <-> registrant association (provided the above conditions are
>> met)?
>>
> That is already published
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the
> entry <-> registrant association (provided the above conditions are
> met)?
That is already published in DNS:
pabs@chianamo ~ $ dig -t txt mentors.debian.net | g
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:30:02AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> In a non-public mail, Rhonda explained an argument against publishing
> such automatically generated lists. A short summary is:
> An other argument against publishing the list is that this information
> used to be non-public. Publish
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Er ... MP3 encoding ?
>
> [Is that available in debian-official now?]
lame is in squeeze-backports and later:
http://packages.debian.org/lame
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Andres Mejia wrote:
> MDL should be supported by libmodplug, which gstreamer uses.
The symptoms I am seeing are that Rhythmbox says "The MIME type of the
file could not be identified". I guess I need to file a bug against
file since file --mime-type returns applica
Reinhard Tartler writes:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
>> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
>> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
>> because I don
On 12-03-06 at 11:33am, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your
> > > customer would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming
> > > enough technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages in
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your customer
> > would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming enough
> > technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages into working.
>
> ...or use another source which plays
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-03-05 08:40 +0100]:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> While we are at it, I also think we should provide an index of
> *.debian.net entries on that splash page.
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains is just too prone to outdateness
> a
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the archive,
> too.
Cracking ZIP passwords doesn't fall under the auspices of DMCA or your
equivalent $county_specific_law (and there are quite a few around the
world, unfortuna
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
S
On 2012-03-05, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> This is not a codec but a software package that cracks an encryption
> algorithm. It has been packaged for debian proper, uploaded and got
> rejected by ftp-master. BTW, the reason did not involve patents,
> AFAIUI.
The reason being what? We have ZIP pass
Reinhard Tartler writes:
> the libdvdread maintainer removed that really handy script.
Not really related but it did have a security issue:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=554772
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>>> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
>>> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I d
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
>> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
>> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best
On Mar 5, 2012 11:00 AM, "Paul Wise" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
> > Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian
packages?
>
> The Voxware decoder is the one codec I've encountered that doesn't
> work in Debian. AFAICT there is no fre
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:45, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> > For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
> > Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
> > blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best
On 12-03-05 at 04:32pm, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:49:18PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > >> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on
> > >> both desktop and server side.
> > >>
> > > You added deb
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages?
The Voxware decoder is the one codec I've encountered that doesn't
work in Debian. AFAICT there is no free decoder for it and the Windows
DLL from w32-codecs is n
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
> because I don't want/have time to package it
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:49:18PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> >> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
> >> desktop and server side.
> >>
> > You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would s
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> I noted. That said, people still take debian.net domains in general
> and mentors.d.n in particular as an example how people (ab-)use Debian
> trademarks among different non-affiliated projects despite of being
> entirely orthogonal targe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 05.03.2012 15:17, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> Please note nobody is comparing m.d.n to d.m.o. There are two
> discussions going on in this thread.
I noted. That said, people still take debian.net domains in general
and mentors.d.n in particular a
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> On 05.03.2012 14:31, Fernando Lemos wrote:
>> I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it
>> redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash
>> for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 05.03.2012 14:31, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it
> redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash
> for debian.net, people that visit mentors.debian.net, for example,
On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
>> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
>> desktop and server side.
>>
> You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would start
> by
> blaming myself for the problems.
>
Not me, my custo
On 03/05/2012 06:52 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> I don't agree with you here.
> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
> because I don't want/hav
On 03/05/2012 06:26 PM, Florian Reitmeir wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
>>> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
>>> to the activ
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users
> what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It
> is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously
> doubt most of our users
> I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community.
> Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience.
> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
> desktop and server side.
You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would sta
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 17:56, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
> > website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
> > to the activity of official Debian multime
Florian Reitmeir writes:
> to expect that any third-party package archive is "stable" enough to
> survive an debian dist-upgrade is just brave.
It can be done, though, and it should be the norm. That it is not so,
that's unfortunate, and something we (both the Debian maintainers and
the third-pa
Hi,
Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
a qu
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
> to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
> a question for the Debian
2012/3/5 Stefano Zacchiroli :
> What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users
> what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It
> is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously
> doubt most of our users know. For me, the most appro
On Mon, March 5, 2012 08:40, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today,
>> I don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
> I also find disturbing that the website seeks f
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today,
> I don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
Agreed.
I also find disturbing that the website seeks for donations without
making clear that donated money
Ben Hutchings writes:
> Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today, I
> don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
There are a ton of hints, nevertheless. I'd like to think that someone
who's adding sources.list entries to his config will spend a moment or
two a
46 matches
Mail list logo
