Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis
* Package name: ocaml-lame
Version : 0.3.0
Upstream Author : The Savonet Team
* URL : http://savonet.sf.net/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: OCaml
Description : OCaml bindings for the lame
This ITP was (obviously) an attempt at an April's Fool joke. Some time
ago I played a bit with Markov Chains, which are a method for taking an
input text, and generating output that uses words from the input, but is
gibberish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_Chain). I got the idea
that it would
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name : python-lame
Version : 0.0.20040331
Upstream Author : Alexander Leidinger
* URL : http://apt.freespire.org/
* License : BSD-like
Description : Pyt
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 05:23:51PM +0200, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
I am for the radical way, to keep Debian completely free, libre.
If I'm understanding you correctly on this (i.e. remove from Debian
every software which has parts covered by software patents), this is
a
c for "decoder" or "encoder", these are different
things as I understood. Enforcement has been different.
...
> Since now i haven't really understood what makes vlc, xine, gstreamer,
> ffmpeg, ect. acceptable in Debian. Or, that is the same, what makes
> mplayer, lame
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Only if they are enforcable in court. Regarding many multimedia related
> software, there is indeed an ugly lot of software patents around, and it
> is very unclear if they would succeed in court if somebody would
> distribute software which implement ideas described by a
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 05:23:51PM +0200, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
> I am for the radical way, to keep Debian completely free, libre.
If I'm understanding you correctly on this (i.e. remove from Debian
every software which has parts covered by software patents), this is
a complete nonsense. It will
he same is true
for AAC, MP4 and so on.
Since now i haven't really understood what makes vlc, xine, gstreamer,
ffmpeg, ect. acceptable in Debian. Or, that is the same, what makes
mplayer, lame and similar, not acceptable in Debian.
For me this continue to be a mistery and an incoer
Chris Walters wrote:
> Software code can be copyrighted, but that is an easy thing to get
> around - even if you got your original idea from some copyrighted code.
> Patents are not easy to get around. They totally protect all
> implementations of the procedures used to do x (whatever x is).
Onl
> The existing European software patents were granted based on the
> assumption that you can differentiate between a computer program and
> its underlying ideas. I think such a distinction is indeed possible,
> and granting theese patents does not contradict Article 52. But I
> strongly believe t
> I'll dare to take the other route and ask: what is now holding back
> software such as mplayer/mencoder, transcode and mjpegtools from
> entering Debian?
Last time mplayer came up on debian-legal (the proper place for
questions like this), the problem was unclear licensing.
If the unclear lic
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Frederik Dannemare:
>
> > I'll dare to take the other route and ask: what is now holding back
> > software such as mplayer/mencoder, transcode and mjpegtools from
> > entering Debian?
>
> Same as ever, sufficiently influential people oppose it.
W
* Frederik Dannemare:
> I'll dare to take the other route and ask: what is now holding back
> software such as mplayer/mencoder, transcode and mjpegtools from
> entering Debian?
Same as ever, sufficiently influential people oppose it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 03:57, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > * Chris Cheney
> >
> > | Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
> > | strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me
> > | that ff
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> * Chris Cheney
>>
>> | Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
>> | strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that
>> | ffmpeg was allowe
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Chris Cheney
>
> | Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
> | strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that
> | ffmpeg was allowed into main.
>
> According to rumors I heard, it
I demand that Tollef Fog Heen may or may not have written...
> * Chris Cheney
>> Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that strictly
>> deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that ffmpeg was
>> allowed into main.
> According to rumors I heard, it was allowed
* Chris Cheney
| Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
| strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that
| ffmpeg was allowed into main.
According to rumors I heard, it was allowed in since other
applications (xine at least, I think) already inclu
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:03:37PM +, Will Newton wrote:
> On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 15:46, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > > And every set top box manufacturer pays for their MPEG-2 (or MPEG-4)
> > > licenses.
> >
> > Those are the patents for the transport mechanisms. Still not the decoders.
>
>
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 15:46, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > And every set top box manufacturer pays for their MPEG-2 (or MPEG-4)
> > licenses.
>
> Those are the patents for the transport mechanisms. Still not the decoders.
Sigh. You seem to have a talent for picking subjects for argument that you
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:01:53PM +, Will Newton wrote:
> On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 12:56, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
>
> > > > It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
> > >
> > > Encoders only, not decoders. Decoders for anything probably cannot be
> > > patented.
> >
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 12:56, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > > It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
> >
> > Encoders only, not decoders. Decoders for anything probably cannot be
> > patented.
>
> Really? AFAIR every producent of mobile mp3 player had to pay patent
> gr
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:56:43PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:06:53PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
> > > > How about the other MPEG stuff ?
> > > > I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
> >
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:06:53PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
> > > How about the other MPEG stuff ?
> > > I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
> >
> > It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
>
> Encoders onl
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:32:41AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
> > How about the other MPEG stuff ?
> > I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
>
> It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
Encoders only, not decoders
Florian Weimer wrote:
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
Yes, but how is then there a ton of MPEG code in debian (Sarge),
but LAME is &q
es, but how is then there a ton of MPEG code in debian (Sarge),
> but LAME is "banned" ?
Historical reasons.
> Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
> How about the other MPEG stuff ?
> I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:32:45PM +0100, xerces8 wrote:
> Hi!
>
> ( sorry for not properly replying, I'm using a webmail )
>
> Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
> How about the other MPEG stuff ?
> I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
>
> Regards,
> David Balazic
Its
Hi!
( sorry for not properly replying, I'm using a webmail )
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
Regards,
David Balazic
* Jose M. Fdez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030822 21:05]:
> Patent on LZW algorithm expired so the support for GIF and TIFF
> images is now back in the main Gimp package.
I hope this is not true, otherwise it would be a RC-bug.
According to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html the unisys patent
Hi,
Jose M. Fdez wrote:
> Patent on LZW algorithm expired so the support for GIF and TIFF
> images is now back in the main Gimp package.
Only in the US...
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/
Josip Rodin dijo:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:50:54PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> > >BTW gimp(1.2)-nonfree was recently obsoleted.
> >
> > Because it is making way for 1.3 presumably?
>
> No, I believe it's gone because libtiff linkage has been declared non-free
> by mistake since libtiff was
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:50:54PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> >BTW gimp(1.2)-nonfree was recently obsoleted.
>
> Because it is making way for 1.3 presumably?
No, I believe it's gone because libtiff linkage has been declared non-free
by mistake since libtiff was never made to include actual pat
Josip Rodin wrote:
BTW gimp(1.2)-nonfree was recently obsoleted.
Because it is making way for 1.3 presumably?
Hi,
Is there anyone working on trying to package lame ?
It can do vorbis now, so I believe that it can be packaged without the mp3
stuff.
How the source will be dealt with, is something that I would like to
figure out.
viral
--
There's someone in my head but its not me.
pgp8grGcXD9w
Hi MaD!
You wrote:
> this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
> package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
> package and was wondering if there are an
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:29:17PM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:22:33PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
> > package and was wondering if there are any objections? is there
> > already a
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:22:33PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
> package and was wondering if there are any objections? is there
> already a maintainer? can this packet be debianized?
Alas, you hit on a faq.
Please look a
MaD dUCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
> package and was wondering if there are any objections? is there
> already a maintainer? can this packet be debianized?
Please read http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/un
On Mon, 07 May 2001, MaD dUCK wrote:
> already a maintainer? can this packet be debianized?
See:
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
People should be using ogg instead of mp3 anyway (unless an ogg-less
hardware device is involved in the chain).
--
"One disk to rule them all, On
also sprach David Whedon (on Mon, 07 May 2001 01:10:02PM -0700):
> Lame cannot be included in Debian, please see:
> http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
thanks for the reply(ies). i hope i didn't inconvenience anyone with
my ignorant post. i'll be better in the
Lame cannot be included in Debian, please see:
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
-David
Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:22:33PM -0400 wrote:
> hi developers,
> this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> on on the users mailing list about l
hi developers,
this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
package and was wondering if there are any objections? is there
hi developers,
this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
package and was wondering if there are any objections? is there
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I understand fully that using the name "non-US" for patent-encumbered
> >software is wrong. However, the machine pandora.debian.org is in an
> >excellent position to also host a "non-Software-Patents" section of the
> >archive, which can again be subdivide
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:10:49AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> The problem is not "patents", it's that this particular patent also
> applies in Germany, meaning we can't distribute from non-us either.
Pandora is not in .de, it's in .nl and is non-us. The issue is .de (and
the rest of the world
At 07:40 PM 9/5/00 +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
What frustrates me is that there's software that's
- useful
- free
- legal (at least for quite a few millions of people)
but not officially available for Debian.
I understand fully that using the name "non-US" for patent-encumbered
software is wrong. H
[this is debian-devel, where we don't Cc unless explicitly asked]
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 05:24:12PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The policy says about non-US:
>
> 2.1.5. The non-us server
>
That's in the context of "how to categorize a package", not a list of
Debian mach
>>"Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adrian> The non-US server is only for packages that include
Adrian> cryptographic program code.
Adrian> non-US has NOTHING to do with patents or other restrictions
Adrian> on the use of the packages. You are even allowed to use these
Ad
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Bart Schuller wrote:
> > The problem is not "patents", it's that this particular patent also
> > applies in Germany, meaning we can't distribute from non-us either.
>
> Yes we can, but not to or from Germany. Non-US is in The Netherlands,
> which doesn't have software patents
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:10:49AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> The problem is not "patents", it's that this particular patent also
> applies in Germany, meaning we can't distribute from non-us either.
Yes we can, but not to or from Germany. Non-US is in The Netherlands,
which doesn't have softw
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:06:38PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 05, Michael Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If it was legal for lame to be distributed with debian, I can tell you now,
> >it would be in the archive overnight. - But it isnt, so it won
On Sep 05, Michael Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If it was legal for lame to be distributed with debian, I can tell you now,
>it would be in the archive overnight. - But it isnt, so it wont.
We have pandora for that, and I remember Wichert agreed to this use.
What still need
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:48:36PM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> But I'd really love to see an MP3 encoder in Debian. On the
> other hand, we now have Vorbis (players, plugins for XMMS and
> encoders) on woody, so the situation is alleviated.
If it was legal
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:53:32PM -0300, Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> > Of course the other problem is the code not yet being optimised (and
> > I'm not complaining but..) and bogging down my poor P133.
>
> Unfortunately, I have no experience here with older proces
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:48:36PM -0300, Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> But I'd really love to see an MP3 encoder in Debian. On the
> other hand, we now have Vorbis (players, plugins for XMMS and
> encoders) on woody, so the situation is alleviated.
I t
On Sep 04 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> lame/vorbis works alright. The problem I'm facing is lack of a good CLI
> ogg player.
See the ogg123 package in woody. It works perfectly well with
my potato.
> Of course the other problem is the code not yet being optimi
On Sep 04 2000, John O Sullivan wrote:
> I'm surprised that lame hasn't been packaged already. Was it
> discussed and rejected previously?
Well, there aren't official packages AFAIK, but, for instance,
I have a reasonably well-made package of lame 3.86beta an
On Sep 04 2000, Peter Allen wrote:
> All vorbis tools are very young, and as most work goes into
> libvorbis the encoder is missing some features and has a few
> unwanted features.... Lame is mature, and although I haven't
> checked out the ogg encoding bit of lame I guess it has
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:35:00PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have one wav file that when vorbis-encoded does not play correctly with
> ogg123 but plays with the xmms plugin. Plus there is not any native esd
> support.
>
My memory is flakey, but I believe there *is* esd support, (liba
I have one wav file that when vorbis-encoded does not play correctly with
ogg123 but plays with the xmms plugin. Plus there is not any native esd
support.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:03:15PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > la
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:03:15PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> lame/vorbis works alright. The problem I'm facing is lack of a good CLI
> ogg player.
Whats wrong with ogg123?
--
Michael Beattie ([E
lame/vorbis works alright. The problem I'm facing is lack of a good CLI
ogg player.
Of course the other problem is the code not yet being optimised (and I'm
not complaining but..) and bogging down my poor P133. But then abcde could
go into main. ;)
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Peter A
Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:37:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
> > Lame could be compiled with vorbis support enabled and mp3 disabled,
> > perhaps, and go into unstable/main. But would we have to excise the
> > mp3-specific parts
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:37:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
> Lame could be compiled with vorbis support enabled and mp3 disabled,
> perhaps, and go into unstable/main. But would we have to excise the
> mp3-specific parts in the source package in order to do so?
Lame could be compiled with vorbis support enabled and mp3 disabled,
perhaps, and go into unstable/main. But would we have to excise the
mp3-specific parts in the source package in order to do so?
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Samuel Hocevar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, John O Sullivan wrote:
>
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, John O Sullivan wrote:
> I'm surprised that lame hasn't been packaged already. Was it discussed and
> rejected previously?
You're right about the Fraunhofer problem. See the WNPP page at
http://www.debian.org/doc/prospective-packages.html (at the bott
LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder
I'm surprised that lame hasn't been packaged already. Was it discussed and
rejected previously?
Original source available from http://www.sulaco.org/mp3
Licence is 100% GPL'ed code since May 2000
There is a possible problem with the Fraunhoffer (sp?)
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Debian Developerslist
> Subject: Roxen virtual servers, was: Re: ProFTPd being lame
> Resent-Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:23:17 -
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
>
> * "David" == Da
* "David" == David Bristel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David> I was refering to the equivilant of a section
David> in Apache...to just send Roxen the information for a new
David> account, including IP address and directories, and have it do
David> it automatically without admin intervention. Whi
Robert Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chris Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: ProFTPd being lame
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, David Bristel wrote:
>
> >
> > The only feature it lacks is the ability to do automated account s
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, David Bristel wrote:
>
> The only feature it lacks is the ability to do automated account setup from
> another script. (Which is the ONLY thing that apache does better than Roxen).
> Maybe I'll tinker a bit and make a module for auto-creation of new web
> accounts
> from a
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 12:18:53 +0200
> From: Anders Arnholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Robert Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Chris Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: ProFTPd
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:29:10 -0400
> From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Robert Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Chris Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: ProFTPd being lame
> Roxen does, at least if you have different IP numbers, I can't get IP-less
> vistual hosting to work with ftp sessions. And as a ISP the security issues
> of
You can't get name-based virtual hosting with FTP. The protocol doesn't
transmit a hostname.
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 06:49:55PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> I use Roxen exclusively as a httpd where I have a say on the matter,
> but it is mainly a httpd, and lacks configuration features (like
> chrooting some selected users into different roots) I use with
> proftpd, although I have a
* "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Raul> On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:21:34PM -0700, Robert Stone wrote:
>> Virtualhosting in proftpd is far easier than with wu-ftpd. As it
>> stands now, I don't believe any debian ftp server supports virtual
>> anon ftp sites as provided besides pr
>>>Robert Stone wrote:
> Virtualhosting in proftpd is far easier than with wu-ftpd. As it
> stands now, I don't believe any debian ftp server supports virtual anon ftp
> sites as provided besides proftpd.
Roxen does, at least if you have different IP numbers, I can't get IP-less
vistual
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:21:34PM -0700, Robert Stone wrote:
> Virtualhosting in proftpd is far easier than with wu-ftpd. As it
> stands now, I don't believe any debian ftp server supports virtual
> anon ftp sites as provided besides proftpd.
roxen does.
--
Raul
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:46:52AM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote:
> Most people I know prefer using the OpenBSD-derived server, because
> it seems to be more stable and less buggy than the rest -- why is
> it being deprecated by Debian (or Herbert, I don't know) in this
> way?
>
The OpenBSD f
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:41:01PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 17, "J.H.M. Dassen Ray\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Speaking of FTP servers, has anyone taken a good look at troll-ftpd
> >(ftp://ftp.troll.no/freebies/ftpd)?
> I did. IMO it's still unsuitable for big servers (it lacks fe
On Sep 17, "J.H.M. Dassen Ray\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Speaking of FTP servers, has anyone taken a good look at troll-ftpd
>(ftp://ftp.troll.no/freebies/ftpd)?
I did. IMO it's still unsuitable for big servers (it lacks features like
"site exec" and a log analyzer) and it does not look desig
On Sep 17, Chris Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Most people I know prefer using the OpenBSD-derived server, because
>it seems to be more stable and less buggy than the rest -- why is
>it being deprecated by Debian (or Herbert, I don't know) in this
>way?
It lacks a lot of features needed
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:46:52 +0100, Chris Rutter wrote:
> Most people I know prefer using the OpenBSD-derived server, because it
> seems to be more stable and less buggy than the rest -- why is it being
> deprecated by Debian (or Herbert, I don't know) in this way?
Speaking of FTP servers, has
Re: all the bug-finding in ProFTPd (I just read the SuSE notice about
it being dropped for lameness reasons, including it *still* being
vulnerable to remote exploit) -- if it is, indeed, *that* bad
(and the common consensus among admins I know is that it is), perhaps
the netkit ftpd shouldn't come
86 matches
Mail list logo
