Re: be my own official primary debian source

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:42:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What I really want to know, is what script is run on the official > mirrors that parses the pool directories and generates > the Packages and Release files all on one go. The scripts used on ftp-master.debian.org are called "katie". The

Re: Why isn't apt internationalized?

In Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:01:08 +0100 Gregor cum veritate scripsit : > > This is to say: In some instances, even no translation is better than a > bad translation. Having the choice is a good idea. Having a choice of setting the locale to C and getting no translation, or the locale to the native l

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are > free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything > but id's game data. I think it depends on whether there are any actual game levels around which are free.

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > a discussion on debian-devel is not policy. and even if it was > established as policy, i would as a matter of principal refuse to accept > anyone's idiosyncratic spelling rules. No, of course not. Policy is policy. But policy does not come first. Di

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > yawn. you're wrong. again. I have seen no quotes from you, of other, *outside* sources, that show 'zonefile' in widespread use. I *have* seen posts saying that 'zone file' is, however. > i'm just pissed off by trivial bug reports about bugs that are

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are > free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything > but id's game data. Are you sure? I have sarien, a interpreter for old Sierra games, in contrib because I

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:55:13AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > > yawn. you're wrong. again. > > I have seen no quotes from you, of other, *outside* sources, that show > 'zonefile' in widespread use. I *have* seen posts saying that 'zone > file' is, how

Re: [VAC] 26th Dec to 2nd Jan

Daniel is my sponsor, so I can watch his packages for him until january 2. On Sat, 2001-12-22 at 00:25, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > Please NMU with the obvious CC'ing of patches if need be, although I don't > think there will be a need. -- Lars Bahner, http://lars.bahner.com/ Nihil est sine ra

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:55:13AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > yawn. you're wrong. again. > > > > I have seen no quotes from you, of other, *outside* sources, that show > > 'zonefile' in widespread use.

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

> [ drivel deleted ] in a word, No. btw, learn to spell "authoritative". OTOH, it's kind of amusing to read someone who can't spell attempt to harangue me over spelling. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch

Re: thomas's trivia crusade

Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sat, 22 Dec 2001 03:50:08 +0100: > they are actually *REAL* bugs that affect the operation of the package, > not trivial items like spelling mistakes that affect nothing. > And because developer x does not fix his bugs, you think you shouldn't fix your bugs either? Think

Re: thomas's trivia crusade

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:17:34AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sat, 22 Dec 2001 03:50:08 +0100: > > they are actually *REAL* bugs that affect the operation of the > > package, not trivial items like spelling mistakes that affect > > nothing. > > And because develope

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

> Does this include any game levels? >From John Carmacks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) .plan: "As with previous source code releases, the game data remains under the original copyright and license, and cannot be freely distributed." -- Jonas Moberg

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:52:41PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > OTOH, it's kind of amusing to read someone who can't spell attempt to > harangue me over spelling. It's kind of amusing to observe someone who can't perceive the practical differences between package descriptions and conversational m

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from > id, then it belongs in contrib. But that's obviously not the case. A game engine, especially one coded in large part by a luminary in the fieldlike John

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:42:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from > > id, then it belongs in contrib. > > But that's obviously not the case. A game en

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On 21 Dec 2001 19:57:43 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: > Does this include any game levels? > > If it doesn't include any levels that a person can play, then it only > belongs in contrib. Only the engine has been GPL'd; all the artwork is still copyright Id Software. The

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's no reason why the engine itself can't be included in Debian, as > far as I'm concerned. It doesn't absolutely *have* to have game data, to But thats is an argument for putting all the stuff in contrib into Debian main. -- Når folk spørger mig

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 10:10:14AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: > I have sarien, a interpreter for old Sierra games, in contrib because > I havn't found any games I could distribute in main. Should that be > moved to main? No. Free programs that require data which is not freely available belong in

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:35:34AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: > Come on ... this is a cool-factor thing, at least partially :) Having > Quake II source in Debian would be pretty spiffy, if you ask me. And > like I said, it'd be nice to be able to 'apt-get source quake2' and read > what they've wr

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Regarding packaging the Quake sources for educational benefit; If the Quake sources could go into main without any free data then why can't any other package in contrib go into main because the code could potentially be educational. (Sarien for exanple

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:37:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > It's kind of amusing to observe someone who can't perceive the practical > differences between package descriptions and conversational mail > messages. However, conversational mail messages can demonstrate actual language usage; e

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

Hamish writes: > Regarding packaging the Quake sources for educational benefit; is that > really of any benefit? Would the Quake package include everything one would need to create a Quake game? Perhpas those who wish to package it could write and include a simple "Hello world" type example. --

Re: Installed dtaus 0.5.1-1 (i386 source)

Previously Martin Schulze wrote: > Do I have to use brackets for you? Well, jokes aside, a somewhat more clear description would be helpful, I couldn't figure out what it really was immediately. Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:37:48 +0100, Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's no reason why the engine itself can't be included in Debian, > > as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't absolutely *have* to have game > > data, to > > But thats is an argument for putting all the stuff in cont

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:44:39 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:35:34AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: > > Come on ... this is a cool-factor thing, at least partially :) > > Having Quake II source in Debian would be pretty spiffy, if you ask > > me. And li

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

In Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:51:17 -0500 David cum veritate scripsit : > But yeah, I see your point. I think in my mind the big difference is in > probability. Look at Lyx. It's in contrib because it requires libforms. > Upstream isn't interesting in rewriting it to not use libforms, and I > don't see a

Re: Why isn't apt internationalized?

In Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:01:42 +0100 Michael cum veritate scripsit : Hi, > I noticed several occasions where patches were proposed, as in: > http://lists.debian.org/deity/2001/deity-200108/msg00031.html I've verified that this patch does not have enough information in it to be useful. Has anyone

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But with Quake2, you can be pretty damned sure that there will be at > least dozens of people coming up with fully Free stuff that can be used > as quake2-data. When that day comes, then we could move quake2 to main. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg e

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > But yeah, I see your point. I think in my mind the big difference is in > probability. Look at Lyx. It's in contrib because it requires libforms. > Upstream isn't interesting in rewriting it to not use

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:37:48 +0100, > Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There's no reason why the engine itself can't be included in Debian, > > > as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't absolutely *have* to have game > >

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are > > free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything > > but id's game data. > >

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create > them, then is it none-free? Can it be used for its intended purpose without the data files? For anything? If these tools are out there, then presumably someone will use them to create a m

Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

Hi, I noticed gsmlib has failed on sparc for a long time. The last log, http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=gsmlib&ver=1.7-1&arch=sparc&stamp=1006071760&file=log&as=raw, says in the end that g++-3.0 is a cross compiler: checking whether the C++ compiler (g++-3.0 -Wall -D_REENTRANT -O2 ) wo

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

[Mikael Hedin] > checking whether the C++ compiler (g++-3.0 -Wall -D_REENTRANT -O2 ) is a > cross-compiler... yes If the compile host fails to run it's fresly compiled hello world program, it is assumed to be a cross comiler. The config.log file would tell you why.

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, > then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, > doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has > much more uses

Re: thomas's trivia crusade

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 10:16:15PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:17:34AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sat, 22 Dec 2001 03:50:08 +0100: > > > they are actually *REAL* bugs that affect the operation of the > > > package, not trivial items li

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: > I just heard it through the www.linuxgames.com > > ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/quake2.zip > > Can we include that in Woody before too deep freeze? That's neat, but I wish we at least had quake 1 in contrib for woody. Woody will be the first release of debi

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [ drivel deleted ] > [Real drivel removed] > OTOH, it's kind of amusing to read someone who can't spell attempt to > harangue me over spelling. It's NOT amusing to read this thread any more. Get real! Stop being such an a...e. Start doing som r

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:49, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:37:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > It's kind of amusing to observe someone who can't perceive the practical > > differences between package descriptions and conversational mail > > messages. > > However, conversat

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 05:19:27PM +0100, Mikael Hedin wrote: > > Hi, > > I noticed gsmlib has failed on sparc for a long time. The last log, > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=gsmlib&ver=1.7-1&arch=sparc&stamp=1006071760&file=log&as=raw, > > says in the end that g++-3.0 is a cross comp

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

Ben Collins writes: > Your package better use gcc, not gcc-3.0. Using anything other than the > default supported compiler gets you a bug report. But it doesn't build with g++-2.95. > Other than that, check the config.log output to see why it failed. Where do I find that one? Cant see it on

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:23:31PM +0100, Mikael Hedin wrote: > > Ben Collins writes: > > Your package better use gcc, not gcc-3.0. Using anything other than the > > default supported compiler gets you a bug report. > > But it doesn't build with g++-2.95. Then fix the build with that compiler.

Re: [The good, the bad and] The Ugly -- the cosmetic rant

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:08:32 -0800, David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >These both are verbatim from the output of dh_make. Maybe it would a good idea to habe dh_make issue _specially_ _marked_ comments where maintainer interaction is desired. That way, one could grep for a marking like this

Re: package lists for older machines

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:15:58 +0100, Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >A P166 should be a great mp3 player, but gnome probably is overkill... >So you'll need another Packages.gz for mp3-players, another for servers >(which do not need gnome ;) usw. So every package should have a control fi

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

Ben Collins writes: > Start you own build on vore.debian.org and find it there. Smart. You should be our leader ;-) Sorry for being rather stupid. Anyway, g++-3.0 seems to be completely broken on sparc. int main(){return(0);} gets a bus error. So I guess I'll just don't build on sparc. Unle

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are > > > free, than it is considered

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:07:02PM +, Jules Bean wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > > > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > That's not true. If it is possi

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:07:02PM +, Jules Bean wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > > > > > > Ben Collins <

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:07:06PM +0100, Mikael Hedin wrote: > > Ben Collins writes: > > Start you own build on vore.debian.org and find it there. > > Smart. You should be our leader ;-) Sorry for being rather stupid. > > Anyway, g++-3.0 seems to be completely broken on sparc. int > main(){

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins writes: >Don't discount sparc just because the code is broken. That's a bug in >itself. Fix the code, get it to compile. SPARC is one of the most tested >archs we have, so if it is broken there, you have some serious issues >anyway, and covering it by not

[ARM buildd] cannot install cpp-3.0

Hi, gsmlib build-depends on gcc-3.0. On arm, the build fails while installing the source as follows: ** Using build dependencies supplied by package: Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 2.0.0), automake, autoconf, gcc-3.0, g++-3.0 Checking for already installed source dependencies... debhelper: missi

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:54:10PM +, Philip Blundell wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins writes: > >Don't discount sparc just because the code is broken. That's a bug in > >itself. Fix the code, get it to compile. SPARC is one of the most tested > >archs we have, so if it i

openoffice in debian?

Hello, What exactly is the situation with regard to openoffice going into debian sid? I ask because OpenOffice 641C seems quite robust now (I've been doing some statistical data analysis in it this weekend and it works as well as Excel). The only current problem I see in it is that the new forma

Re: [ARM buildd] cannot install cpp-3.0

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mikael Hedin writes: >Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: > gcc-3.0: Depends: cpp-3.0 (>= 1:3.0.2-4) but it is not going to be installed > Depends: cpp-3.0 (< 1:3.0.3) but it is not going to be installed >E: Sorry, broken packages >

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins writes: >On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:54:10PM +, Philip Blundell wrote: >> G++ 2.95 is pretty broken in its own right. Just because it won't compile >> something doesn't necessarily mean that the source is at fault. I wouldn't >> regard it as unreaso

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are > plenty of free levels out there for quake2 right? We don't have to > distribute that same code just to put quake2 in main. And do you realise that none of those level

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:35:59PM +, Jules Bean wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are > > plenty of free levels out there for quake2 right? We don't have to > > distribute that same code j

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

> The code simply won't load levels, as it stands, unless it has loaded > the game data. Even if that protection feature was disabled (trivial, > certainly) it still wouldn't work: all such free levels require some > stuff from the commercial data, the weapons, the models, the textures, > etc. Ar

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > > [ drivel deleted ] > > in a word, No. So, you refuse to fix a bug. You refuse to provide reasons why. > btw, learn to spell "authoritative". I never said that my spelling of that was correct. And seen Branden's response(mail(like irc) is conversat

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, > then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, > doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has > much more uses than just to play ga

Re: thomas's trivia crusade

Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > i said that there are real bugs that are actually worth spending time > on...as opposed to non-bugs like whinges about the words "zonefile" and > "usenet". Except it's a real bug that the packages don't all agree on the spelling, because it makes search

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:40:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, > > then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, > > doesn't preclude that it i

Quake2/GPL: At least source should go into main

At least the Source _is_ useful for novice programmers that are interested in 3d game programming. So at least the source should go into "main". Maybe there is no complete free dataset available right now; but there should be enough "free" models and textures to make a one-room game with this engin

Re: Quake2/GPL: At least source should go into main

Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The software is free; If gimp didn't include any free brushes, would it > have to go into contrib too??? > Actually it would be better to ask if GIMP didn't include any tools, filters or scripts (ie you couldn't do anything), would it have to go into co

Re: Quake2/GPL: At least source should go into main

Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At least the Source _is_ useful for novice programmers that are > interested in 3d game programming. How does Quake differ from any other projects in contrib in this way? Contrib consists of free things where the source is available and therefore can

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

If there are "tools" available for building game levels, I'd certainly build at least one level... But I wouldn't dream of trying to do such a thing without a game engine to test it on. How else to you test what you built? Why would you ever build a game without an engine to run it on? Lets not g

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But I wouldn't dream of trying to do such a thing without a game engine to > test it on. How else to you test what you built? Why would you ever build > a game without an engine to run it on? How is preventing you from installing quake from contrib or in

XSB Prolog, a Logic Programming and Deductive Database system

Hello all, I'm interested in becoming a Debian developer + package maintainer. I'm about to package XSB Prolog 2.4 from xsb.sourceforge.net (LGPL License). I queried the packages database and noticed that there are already two Prologs: GNU and SWI. XSB adds certain features that are not present in

Re: Quake2/GPL: At least source should go into main

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 10:18:33PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote: > At least the Source _is_ useful for novice programmers that are > interested in 3d game programming. > So at least the source should go into "main". Any reason why we should package it at all if only the source is useful? Just downl

Re: Quake2/GPL: At least source should go into main

> > At least the Source _is_ useful for novice programmers that are > > interested in 3d game programming. > > How does Quake differ from any other projects in contrib in this way? Software in contrib needs non-free software to run. But the source of quake2 certainly is useful without the commerc

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: > Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that, at least morally, it's > allright to put Quake2 in main. Why not wait until there really is free data? Doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience. If we assumed all non-free data or soft

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > blimpo:~# gcc > gcc: No input files > > You have to write or get code for gcc. Should we deliver a hello.c with > gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are You might be surprised to learn that we actually ship

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:17:51PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 05:19:27PM +0100, Mikael Hedin wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I noticed gsmlib has failed on sparc for a long time. The last log, > > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=gsmlib&ver=1.7-1&arch=sparc&stamp=10060

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:48:09AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > blimpo:~# gcc > > gcc: No input files > > > > You have to write or get code for gcc. Should we deliver a hello.c with > > gcc to meet those same requirements? You d

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:45, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: > > Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that, at least morally, it's > > allright to put Quake2 in main. > > Why not wait until there really is free data? Doesn't seem like > much o

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 03:56:54PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > I think that's rediculous. Education is not a smokescreen, and you can't > argue that there will never be free data available for quake2 (or know > for sure that there isn't already). Several emulators (apple2, atari800, gnuboy, gsnes9

Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:54:10PM +, Philip Blundell wrote: > > G++ 2.95 is pretty broken in its own right. Just because it won't compile > > something doesn't necessarily mean that the source is at fault. I wouldn't > > regard

Re: package lists for older machines

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:57:54PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:15:58 +0100, Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >A P166 should be a great mp3 player, but gnome probably is overkill... > >So you'll need another Packages.gz for mp3-players, another for servers > >(whic

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:52:35PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > The point is that quake2-engine is a building block. If I create a > library for developing programs, does it go into contrib until someone > writes a program that uses it? Certainly not. It goes into main so that > it can be used. How

Re: Quake2/GPL: At least source should go into main

On Sat, 2001-12-22 at 18:44, Erich Schubert wrote: > But you didn't understand completely what i was talking about; > i was considering not packaging the quake2 engine as binary, but > packaging the _source_ for developers to look at. How much value is there really in packaging the source, when on

Re: package lists for older machines

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:15:11PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:57:54PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > and a tool should be able to filter Packages.gz according to these > > requirements. "Give me all packages that will run satisfactorily on my > > P166 with 32 MB". > How w

man pages for SE functions

The man pages for system calls in NSA SE Linux include pages for common system calls such as sendto(2)/sendmsg(2) because there are new functions sendto_secure(2)/sendmsg_secure(2) which are documented on the same page. How should I handle this? Should I divert the existing files (in this case

Re: Flamewars & Why pedantic spelling is good.

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:37:47PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > I never said that my spelling of that was correct. And seen Branden's > response(mail(like irc) is conversational, similiar to spoken speech, and > therefor has no need for spelling rules to be applied to it). I wouldn't go that far.

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:53:06AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Several emulators (apple2, atari800, gnuboy, gsnes9x, gtkiemu, nestra > pose, uae, vice, and xtrs) from contrib should also move to main > immediately then, as you can't argue that there will never be free > ROMs for those either. Fu

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:45:51AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: > > Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that, at least morally, it's > > allright to put Quake2 in main. > > Why not wait until there really is free data? Doesn't se

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

This one time, at band camp, Joey Hess wrote: >That's neat, but I wish we at least had quake 1 in contrib for woody. >Woody will be the first release of debian in years and years without the >possbility of quake at all (in main, contrib, or even non-free), I think. (I'm not yet a d-d, I'm currentl

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:39:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Not to me. As long as these packages had a debconf note that warned of > the problem, I wouldn't consider it a big deal. These packages are all > priority "extra", right? I checked a handful and they are all optional. Optional s

Re: Quake2/GPL: At least source should go into main

This one time, at band camp, Erich Schubert wrote: >Software in contrib needs non-free software to run. >But the source of quake2 certainly is useful without the commercial game >data. This is a silly assertion; the source to *any* program is useful without the data files. As others have pointed

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:23:58PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > Lets not get the chiken/egg problem so screwed up we can't ever have > chicken _or_ eggs! Damn. I'm hungry now. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't speak for anyone save myself.