Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. If a package causes a remote root exploit to be available, even
>> if it's only in a very specific configuration, I would say that it is
>> critical.
> No, it's grave. All security bugs are grave, it's part of the defini
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 03:35:12PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
>package itself due to problems with dpkg. One reasonable way to accomplish
>this is to put the following in the package's postinst:
>
>if [ "$1" = "configure" ]; then
> if [ -d /usr/doc -a ! -e /usr/doc
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Herbert Xu wrote:
> >>
> >> I disagree. If a package causes a remote root exploit to be available,
> >> even
> >> if it's only in a very specific configuration, I would say that it is
> >> critical.
>
> > No, it's grave. All security
* "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joey> (Note: grave is a _higher_ priotity than critical.
I don't think so.
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
The severity levels are:
critical
makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole system)
break, or caus
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:43:50AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> David Starner writes:
> > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful
> > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free
> > way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> What do other think, and have you seen seeing the same runaway bug severity
> inflation I have?
Yes. Submitters seem to think that if they crank up the severity, the bug
will get more/quicker attention. At least in my case, that just isn't true.
I'm
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:19:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 03:35:12PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >package itself due to problems with dpkg. One reasonable way to
> > accomplish
> >this is to put the following in the package's postinst:
> >
The bonobo framework for GNOME componentry has just hit its first
public release. I intend to package it up. See attachment for
details.
Mike.
--- Begin Message ---
Hello guys,
I have just released the first public version of Bonobo
(bonobo-0.4), the GNOME component system and compound do
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 05:30:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> >
> > Actually, it should be critical if it's a root exploit. Grave only includes
> > those that only comprise the user's account.
>
> Last I checked, root is a user. This is not a formal definition we're
> working from, please use com
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
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> if it's free and it's packaged then we accept it into the dist in the
> location defined by policy - at the moment, that's debian main. we
> probably should, as has been discussed before, have an etexts and a data
> section for this kind of stuff
On 27-Sep-99, 11:33 (CDT), Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> grave
> makes the package in question unuseable or mostly so, or causes data
> loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts of
> users who use the package.
>
> I've noticed that in many of
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Ed Boraas wrote:
> I can't help but infer from this statement that you feel the anarchism
> package is of low worth. If this was not your intent, please feel free to
> clarify.
For myself, no I don't. But it is only a concern of Debian if for
instance there was a real space
Steve Greenland wrote:
> It's clear to you, but perhaps not to the user who submitted it;
> for him/her, it "makes the package in question unuseable". You look
> at it, realize that it's unique to that user, and send a message to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to re-priotize it. What's the big deal?
Aside fr
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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 documen
Raul Miller wrote:
> Which implies that we should validate packages against developer's key
> before install, and that we should have some kind of list indicating
> which developers are working on which package for which architecture
> which is maintained under tighter control than the mirrors.
>
>
On 28 Sep 1999, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> More serious:
>
Hahaha.
> customer: I found a typo ...
> |I don't understand that ancient word (very likely in over here)
> | Luther's bible says ... but what you sold me is completely
> different.
>
> |Why do you incl
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 06:10:58PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> As of the latest upload of lintian, it does not like shell variables in the
> place of the package name.. it looks for "\w+" after the "/usr/doc/"
Please fix that. I'm not going to add to the possibility of a major
screwup by edi
My apologies if you replied to the mail quoted below; I never received one.
As far as I can tell, Red Hat's webpages have not been updated with the
corrected information. Are there any plans to do so?
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 12:30:04AM -0400, branden wrote:
> Hi Preston,
>
> In Red Hat's recent
Am 25.09.99 schrieb roland # spinnaker.de ...
Moin Roland!
RR> > Why? What is the advantage of using doc-base?
RR> It is always a good idea to use a generic format which can
RR> automatically converted to all useful formats instead of using one
RR> special format.
No, sorry, but this is wrong. W
Marco Budde wrote:
> No. A http daemon will never follow this symlinks. They#re 100% useless
> when using the http protocol.
Balderdash. http://www.apache.org/docs-1.2/mod/core.html#options
FollowSymLinks
The server will follow symbolic links in this directory. Note: even
though th
* "Marco" == Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Am 25.09.99 schrieb roland # spinnaker.de ...
RR> It is always a good idea to use a generic format which can
RR> automatically converted to all useful formats instead of using one
RR> special format.
Marco> No, sorry, but this is wrong. W
On Sep 27, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project?
I agree. I'd like to see another organization supported by SPI packaging
things like Project Gutemberg books and so on.
--
ciao,
Marco
Since I need a new version of libforms myself I will adopt the package.
However, I do not have the time to actively maintain it. I will try to fix
as many bugs as possible but then libforms will be up for adoption yet
again.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heu
Hi,
I've noticed when installing Debian that the installer always shrinks
my swap partition to 128MB, so I have to do a swapoff;mkswap -v1 ..;swapon
manually afterwards. Also, the message that it has done this is easily
missed.
Why doesn't the installer use -v1 so that larger swaps that 128MB can
> Is it okay to go into the primary distribution, or would it be forced
> into nonus? If it's okay for ftp.debian.org, I can sponsor it for you.
I am not sure about this. pptpd itself should be ok in main, but the
modified ppp and kernel packages (these are needed for the data
encryption) contain R
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 10:47:38PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> I get no error with lintian version 1.7
>
you are right. i was completely wrong last night.
i leaved #PACKAGE# entries despite of the real package name!!!
no comment
-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have read this morinig ,, that lizard from caldera has gone
open to the public.( I might be slow to discover this)
My question is : Has Debian got any interest in this , and is there
anny plans for future releases made to make use of the Lizard.
I am pretty sure that this software will give D
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 11:59:47AM +0200, wayne forrest wrote:
> My question is : Has Debian got any interest in this , and is there
> anny plans for future releases made to make use of the Lizard.
Personally, I would say Yes it is interesting, BUT: Lizard is released under
the QPL, which is inc
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 |
How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common installed, but I have to
if I want mtools installed...
Rationale?
If there's no good explanation, I'll submit a bug-report. And if there's
something in xlib6g that mtools real
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> b) if you know what you are doing, compile the packages by hand, fix their
> install scripts, and remove the conflicts. You are trying to circumvent the
> norm.
But I think, to be fair, that what he's proposing *isn't* necessarily
`not the norm'
Hi,
For a speech/sound related package `transcriber' I've decided to split
off two contrib parts of the code, snack and tclex. Snack is a tcl/tk
library for audio i/o (file formats etc.), tclex is a parsel for tcl/tk.
In my current plan the tcl/tk files (pkgindex and .so files) don't go
into /us
Package: lilo
Version: 22dev0-1
it bootet only 2.0.36, but booting 2.2.12 gave a "crc error - system halted"
when unpacking. after replaceing lilo with the old 21-5 version, it works
again.
andreas
Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RR> It is always a good idea to use a generic format which can
> RR> automatically converted to all useful formats instead of using
> RR> one special format.
> No, sorry, but this is wrong. Why should we convert files during the
> installation process? T
Hello,
I'm almost ready to upload a new release of PCCTS. It is based on a
new
upstream version in addition to containing some bug fixes. Also, the
upstream source now also includes sorcerer and is seems appropriate
to
include sorcerer as part of PCCTS. The questions that I have are:
1. Who needs
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, 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-base and be done w
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 01:31:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
> very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common installed, but I have to
> if I want mtools installed...
>
> Rationale?
If something supports X it should
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 11:59:47AM +0200, wayne forrest wrote:
> My question is : Has Debian got any interest in this , and is there
> anny plans for future releases made to make use of the Lizard.
>
> I am pretty sure that this software will give Debian a great boost.
I am not so sure. First, I
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
> > very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common installed, but I have to
> > if I want mtools installed...
>
> If something supports X it should be compi
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 01:12:06AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Alternate question: why do we even have to package up flat text files?
> Why can't we just import them into debian in some regular manner? [I can
> see that naming convention is important, but are there any other issues
> beyond tha
*- On 28 Sep, Josip Rodin wrote about "Re: mtools"
> On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
>> > very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common installed, but I have to
>> > if I want mtools inst
I finally decided to try out uscan and those debian/watch files,
but I can't get it to work:
$ more /opt/gri/src/deb/2.2.1/gri-2.2.1/debian/watch
# Example watch control file for uscan
# Rename this file to "watch" and then you can run the "uscan" command
# to check for upstream updates and more.
Just to verify, I also experienced the same problem. Did you assign a
bug
against the package yet?
Brad Hilton
VPOP Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> Package: lilo
> Version: 22dev0-1
>
> it bootet only 2.0.36, but booting 2.2.12 gave a "crc error - system halted"
> wh
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 11:22:34AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> ftp.phys.ocean.dal.ca users/kelley/gri/ gri-*.tgz debian uupdate
> Am I doing something obviously wrong?
IIRC you can use this:
ftp.phys.ocean.dal.ca /users/kelley/gri gri-(.*)\.tgz debian uupdate
See th
Subject: mtools: please put X related stuff in another package
Package: mtools
Severity: normal
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:16:20AM -0500, Brian Servis wrote:
> >> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
> >> > very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common inst
Chris Rutter wrote:
> The current `sub-release' (whatever) of Debian 2.1 is r3, right?
> I was just wondering, as all references on the web site are to r2,
> but I thought I received a message from the security team about
> r3 last week somtime. Just wanted to check before I filed a
> boring bug r
Steve Greenland wrote:
> I liked a lot of these ideas, but:
>
> On 12-Sep-99, 20:22 (CDT), Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Our current situation results in our stable release being hopelessly
> > out-dated and the unstable release not being releaseable. That's
> > quite bad for a l
I believe that this is the reason Joey Hess suggested that we start adding new
and tested packages as an addition to our last stable release. Many package
maintainers release new versions of their packages for both the stable, as well
as the unstable release. XFree is a perfect example of this, a
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Brad Hilton wrote:
> Just to verify, I also experienced the same problem. Did you assign a
> bug
> against the package yet?
short summary:
lilo v22 works only with 2.0 kernels; it won't boot a 2.2.x or a 2.3.y.
a v21 version has been reuploaded to master this morning.
> A
I took a few minutes to check what versions of gnome packages were in potato
and in /incoming to compare against the current gnome ftp site. The first
column shows the version in debian and the filename is the version on the ftp
site.
*** means it does not appear to be packaged yet.
-Chris
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.
The bug tracking system has a weird X-Debian-CC system set up so you don't
create several b
On 27-Sep-99 Clint Adams wrote:
>> a) I would not test a new daemon on a working machine, I would use a
>> separate
>
> So?
>
>> b) if you know what you are doing, compile the packages by hand, fix their
>> install scripts, and remove the conflicts. You are trying to circumvent the
>> norm.
>
severity 46184 wishlist
thanks
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:28:08PM -0500, David Starner 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.
>
> The bug tracking system has a weird X-Debian-
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Exactly. A better designed package manager would support modular package
> format handling. then we could simply do (let's call the package manager
> hpm for now):
>
> hpm -i blacksteel.etheme instead dpkg -i etheme-blacksteel.deb
> hpm -i realvid
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
floppyd is linked against xlib6g-
> If something supports X it should be compiled with X. This means exactly
> two packages (xlib6g and xfree86-common) are
> Because as everyone knows the last 10% takes 90% of the work and often ends up
> hurting the other 90%.
Then it's being done wrong.
> The point is Debian needs to work for as many people as possible. We are
> doing
Yes, that's exactly the point.
> apt-get source qpopper
[...]
> dpkg -i qpop
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Staffan Hamala wrote:
> I've noticed when installing Debian that the installer always shrinks
> my swap partition to 128MB, so I have to do a swapoff;mkswap -v1 ..;swapon
> manually afterwards. Also, the message that it has done this is easily
As an aside to this, I use two 6
Ok, let's bring this back to implementation. How would you propose we handle
this? Currently daemons install, set themselves up, and begin running.
a) we can prompt.
b) we leave everything off and let the admin turn it on (not an option for
obvious reasons)
c) first come first serve -- first dae
> Ok, let's bring this back to implementation. How would you propose we handle
> this? Currently daemons install, set themselves up, and begin running.
>
> a) we can prompt.
> b) we leave everything off and let the admin turn it on (not an option for
> obvious reasons)
> c) first come first serv
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 05:01:34PM +, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> short summary:
> lilo v22 works only with 2.0 kernels; it won't boot a 2.2.x or a 2.3.y.
But this will not stay this way, will it?
Thomas
--
GnuPG: ID=B0FA4F49, PGP2: ID=2EA7BBBD
http://www.debian.org/debian/doc/debian-keyring
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *** means it does not appear to be packaged yet.
Well, no, it just means you're not aware of Debian's naming schemes
for library packages.
> *** 541066 Aug 2 17:32 Gtk---1.0.2.tar.gz
look for *gtkmm
> *** 313788 Sep 20 17:58 gnome-objc-1.0.40.
> Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, no, it just means you're not aware of Debian's naming schemes
> for library packages.
>
> > *** 541066 Aug 2 17:32 Gtk---1.0.2.tar.gz
>
> look for *gtkmm
Ok I see it now. :)
> > *** 313788 Sep 20 17:58 gnome-objc-1.0.40.tar.gz
>
> lib
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > libgnobjc or something to that effect.
> I still don't see this package anywhere, I am either overlooking it
> or it is not packaged?
I'm sure it's packaged. Don't remember the exact name (don't use
objective-c much :-).
Mike.
On 27-Sep-99 Josip Rodin wrote:
> We are already doing that - the proposal on the policy list regarding
> a new, data section of the FTP server has passed.
>
> Hopefully, it will be implemented in practice soon.
Yes, but I think that it doesn't solve the problem. I think there are some
"data" not
Am 27.09.99 schrieb GalbraithP # dfo-mpo.gc.ca ...
Moin Peter!
PSG> I have a recent potato install and dhelp 0.3.14 and _don't_ have
PSG> http://localhost/fhs/ support.
I don#t have it, too :). Is this directory a Debian standard, Roland?
PSG> I could see http://localhost/doc/HTML/, but all new
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Brian Servis wrote:
> *- On 28 Sep, Josip Rodin wrote about "Re: mtools"
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
> >> > very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes:
> PSG> I could see http://localhost/doc/HTML/, but all new docs visible
> PSG> as file:/usr/share/doc/HTML/index.html could not be seen under
> PSG> the http://localhost interface to dhelp. Is `fhs' supposed to be
> PSG> a new Alias?
>
> localhost/doc/ sho
Marco Budde wrote:
> PSG> I have a recent potato install and dhelp 0.3.14 and _don't_ have
> PSG> http://localhost/fhs/ support.
>
> I don#t have it, too :). Is this directory a Debian standard, Roland?
It isn't.
> PSG> I could see http://localhost/doc/HTML/, but all new docs visible
> PSG> a
# apt-get install perl-5.005
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
perl-5.005-base perl-base
The following NEW packages will be installed:
perl-5.005 perl-5.005-base
1 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove an
Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Chris Cheney's letter:
> 0.4.1 1166853 Sep 24 16:56 glade-0.5.3.tar.gz
I have a package ready (I use glade heavily and I didn't wanted to
wait.) If the author doesn't have the time to update it, I can NMU.
Ciao,
Federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio [http://www
Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > libgnobjc or something to that effect.
> > I still don't see this package anywhere, I am either overlooking it
> > or it is not packaged?
>
> I'm sure it's packaged. Don't remember the exact name (do
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:17:22PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
Content-Description: Message Body
>
> I took a few minutes to check what versions of gnome packages were in potato
> and in /incoming to compare against the current gnome ftp site. The first
> column shows the version in debian and t
Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes:
>
> > PSG> I could see http://localhost/doc/HTML/, but all new docs visible
> > PSG> as file:/usr/share/doc/HTML/index.html could not be seen under
> > PSG> the http://localhost interface to dhelp. Is `fhs' supposed to be
> > PSG> a
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1.0.40 3196381 Sep 27 15:19 gnome-libs-1.0.42.tar.gz
>
> and recompile. Will be done in no time. Don't worry. But only if it is
> installed in the archive by now (last time I checked it was stuck in
> incoming).
I just uploaded 1.0.42. I believe 1
* "Marco" == Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marco,
please show a little common sense. You are beating a dead horse.
Marco> localhost/doc/ should point to /usr/share/doc. Please submit a
Marco> bug report for your http daemon.
The decision was made by the ctte, it is not yet implemented
I'm a little suprised. I found pine package in redhat-contrib which
has a few additional patches. The most interesting is
pine4.10-qtcolor-0.1.patch.
pine.README.colours:
---
To turn on the "pretty colours" patch set the PINECOL environment variable to
true.
08/02/99
Simon Liddington <[EMAIL
Quoting Piotr Roszatycki:
> BTW, other pine's version is a part of official RedHat distribution,
> but I don't know is it legal?
>
> Will the pine return back to distribution?
> Well, this is the mostly used mailer by my users (and me).
From http://linuxmafia.com/debian/tips (and based on
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 03:21:34AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 01:05:58PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > then don't install those services. installing a package *IS* an explicit
> > OK.
>
> You're saying that packages reliably say when they provide daemons?
no, but it sho
You may have noticed that the other distributions also have KDE included in
them. Because of the license "flaw", Debian does not allow KDE in main. Redhat
and others include it because there is little chance of legal action against
them for this inclusion. The same applies here, Redhat seems to
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
[snip]
> Guys, guys, guys... This is a discussion that was had quite a while ago,
> and which lead to the creation of xlib6. The whole point was that it was
> unnecessary glut to include a console version _and_ an X aware version of
> packages like emacs
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Ok, let's bring this back to implementation. How would you propose we
> > handle
> > this? Currently daemons install, set themselves up, and begin running.
> >
> > a) we can prompt.
> > b) we leave everything off and let the admin turn it on (not an
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> Quoting Piotr Roszatycki:
> > BTW, other pine's version is a part of official RedHat distribution,
> > but I don't know is it legal?
> >
> > Will the pine return back to distribution?
> > Well, this is the mostly used mailer by my users (and me).
>
>
"David" == David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
David> Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by
David> license agreements for incorporated libraries from third
David> parties, e.g. LDAP, GSSAPI.
Hm, what happened to this
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Guys, guys, guys... This is a discussion that was had quite a while ago,
> > and which lead to the creation of xlib6. The whole point was that it was
> > unnecessary glut to include a consol
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 11:13:53AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Ok, let's bring this back to implementation. How would you propose we handle
> this? Currently daemons install, set themselves up, and begin running.
>
> a) we can prompt.
> b) we leave everything off and let the admin turn i
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
> Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine,
No! Anyone is allowed to _locally_ modify Pine, but there's no statement
about distributing such modified versions. And "Redistribution of this
release is permitted as follows [...]" of course only c
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine,
>
> No! Anyone is allowed to _locally_ modify Pine, but there's no statement
> about distributing such modified versions. And "Redistribution of this
89 matches
Mail list logo
