Re: libc6 (security) update does not restart system-services?

At Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:52:51 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > > [1 ] > Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > or use tools like "lsof" or my package of "memstat" to find loaded > > and deleeted libraries. > > I believe this process to be much to complicated to be used > successfully in the general case. You woul

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:34:25PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote: > What if the full statment was shown once on installation, but not every > time the program is used, would that be an acceptable compromise to you ? Again: this is the least of the problems; more important is 1: what are the real dist

Re: libc6 (security) update does not restart system-services?

GOTO Masanori wrote: > Well, it's hard to display package name. However > > lsof | grep dpkg-new | awk '{print $1, $8}' | sort +0 > > make a list which describes what binary uses old libraries replaced by > dpkg. To show more user friendly, it needs to remember that what > library files ar

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

Glenn McGrath wrote: What if the full statment was shown once on installation, but not every time the program is used, would that be an acceptable compromise to you ? Glenn Maybe, but not very many people run mkreiserfs frequently. For most users, mkreiserfs is performed once on installation,

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:40:50AM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote: > Maybe, but not very many people run mkreiserfs frequently. For most > users, mkreiserfs is performed once on installation, or close enough to > not matter a lot. What about the fact that most installers don't even show the output o

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

Hello! On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:05:16PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: > You mean a bug report like > ? Oh, wait... > What if someone wanted to write a gtk frontend to mkreiserfs? The Last time we spoke with EVMS folks about this kind o

If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits who are discomforted. As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:08, Hans Reiser wrote: > I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge > him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who > use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits > who are discomforted. > > As fa

Recently orphaned packages

Here's a listing of packages I orphaned recently. If you're interested in any, check the bug report if the package is still available and retitle the bug (see http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp for instructions). Bug#189528: O: ttfprint -- A utility to print Chinese text using truetype fonts Bug#18

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

Hi Hans. How about setting the "feelings towards Stallman" issue aside for a moment an focusing on the problem of how Debian handles the credits in you program. I'm not sure whether, for example, moving the Credits to sponsors from being displayed by the programs themselves to the man page and /

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

> (Hans Reiser wrote:) > I look forward to the release of GPL V3 which will hopefully cover fair > crediting of code as well as documentation, and stem this rising tide of > plagiarism and political bowlderization by distros. I think nobody here has anything against keeping all the credits in doc

Re: md5 checksums

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:08:00PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Sun, 2003-04-20 at 12:16, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > > Which, IMHO should be required by now. IMHO it's bad enough that dpkg does > > not handle this itself (#155799 and, better, #187019). > > And even better than

Re: multiarchitecture binaries - technical obstacles?

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 04:37:06AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 10:41:08PM -0400, Shantonu Sen wrote: > > >reduce the burden on the autobuilders; > > > > Using cross building like this would indeed allow a farm of x86 > > machines to compile all architectures, instead o

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

We are having a small debate about wheter a user has freedom to modify code of free software when it concerns where a long version of author & sponsor list is displayed. It has also been speculated that GPL v3 will have a say on this. Could elaborate what will be in it? (The following message w

Re: Recently orphaned packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Bug#189952: O: device3dfx -- Device driver source for 3Dfx boards for 2.2+ > kernels I don't use it anymore but I still have a working 3Ffx. If anyone wants the package i can donate the card to the futu

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:04:50 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: > Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr > 2003 20:52:43 -0500 >> > Without the current cheme all TeX system breaks so, in s

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:28:38 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: > Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr > 2003 20:52:43 -0500 >> > Sorry to say but I should say that you don't have enough

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:38:25 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: > Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr > 2003 20:57:11 -0500 >> > I don't understand why you say "an admin may no longer f

Unidentified subject!

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 04:41:43AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > This code partially funded by DARPA, SuSE, MP3.com, bigstorage.com > and others > > would be entirely acceptable to you? What about: This code partially funded by DARPA, SuSE, MP3.com, bigstorage.com and other

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

Jarno Elonen wrote: the frontend's "About" box? "About" buttons are an abomination, like the term open source, they gutlessly pretend to be what they are not in an attempt to please by dissembling.;-) First time users go to them expecting to find out what the program does, and instead they g

Unidentified subject!

help

hi.i have an request please help me.i want to know what the sherkan meaning is.thanks,bye __ Yahoo! Plus For a better Internet experience http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

Oleg Drokin wrote: Hello! On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:05:16PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: You mean a bug report like ? Oh, wait... What if someone wanted to write a gtk frontend to mkreiserfs? The Last time we spoke with EVMS folks

Re: libc6 (security) update does not restart system-services?

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 11:14:41PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > GOTO Masanori wrote: > > Well, it's hard to display package name. However > > > > lsof | grep dpkg-new | awk '{print $1, $8}' | sort +0 > > > > make a list which describes what binary uses old libraries replaced by > > dpkg. To

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:13:50 -0500 > > Perhaps you are happy because you would live happily with only > > original TeX. Did you ever try to install jadetex, xmltex, > > alml,jtex, ptex, d

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:18:35 -0500 > So you do not understand the value of being compatible with > other TeX installations? You think it is not arrogant for Debian to > assume the

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give > for their actors. So you are concerned with the missing ad when mkreiserfs runs? In this case, your analogy is wrong. The message does not give proper credit to developers (actors), b

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

> ["About" menu item] > First time users go to them expecting to find out what > the program does, and instead they get the name of the author and remain > just as puzzled about what the program itself is for as they were > before. I hate them. I see.. :) It has become a GUI idiom though, so most

Re: stop abusing debconf already

> > Apologies, 'reply-all' is not clever enough in Outlook Express to > > evaluate the sender preference on being copied on list emails. Any > > suggestions for a MUA that can perform this feat are appreciated. > > Any mailer that honours the Mail-Followup-To: header that I set would do > nicely. T

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Subject line shortened and cc: list cut down] On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 08:08, Hans Reiser wrote: > I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge > him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who > use his software, and to ensure that they are not remo

Re: stop abusing debconf already

> True, however it seems clear that he is not running Debian. This is the case as you have noticed. > (the irony is almost too much to bear) Why? I have 5 PC's here (at home) and 4 of them run Debian (mixture of stable, testing and unstable). I have one Windows box that I use for email and web

Re: stop abusing debconf already

> > No offence taken. I joined when Debian wasn't run by anal > > retentives. Sure there was the whole free software part - but not > > the SS Nazi version of free software that is being prompted > > recently. I have to say that I'm beginning to think that your > > assessment is right and I should

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

> The difficulty of their character unfortunately often seems to correlate with > the important of their software. ;) So even if the upstreams sometimes heats > up easily, please spend extra patience on them for the sake of the users. > Pretty please.. I'd really hate to lose something like Reiserf

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > The current texmf.cnf of Debian is completely the same as the one > upstream teTeX provided, if no local modification files are put in > /etc/texmf/texmf.d/ There is no specific for Debian at all. Gosh, read what Manoj's been

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

> Ah, pissing contest. OK, I have been building TeX since 1989, > when we used to buy tapes and compile TeX on a dozen Unix systems at > the university. This was before TeTeX, before Debian, and even Before > Linux. So, I have 14 years of experience with TeX -- how much more do > I need to hav

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So you do not understand the value of being compatible with > > other TeX installations? You think it is not arrogant for Debian to > > assume the rest of the world also runs Debi

Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness

> Perhaps it would, if it had not come on the tails of a string of unwarranted > insults against other developers (most of whom seem to agree with my ideas > on the technical subject under discussion). The closest I got to an insult was accusing Manoj of having a prune up his rear. In comparison I

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

On Sunday 20 April 2003 22:30, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > If the upstream author is rude to me, he does not deserve any > consideration from myself. If he chooses to alienate his clientele, > he should expect to reap what he sowed. Buit, this doesn't get any problems solved. Using 'an

Re: stop abusing debconf already

On ma, 2003-04-21 at 13:03, Matt Ryan wrote: > As another developer has pointed out, I'm not running Debian on this box. > There are plenty of other email clients for Windows, but I suspect that all > of them are going to be somewhat lax in following follow-up headers in > email. I would like to p

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

> It's also worth considering that perhaps there is a language difference > (does Hans have English as a first language?) that make it seem that the > email seem harsher than it really is. Many Europeans are naturally very > honest with what they say and at first this comes across as been rude/blun

Re: stop abusing debconf already

> I would like to point out that support for the Mail-Followup-To header > is not required. It is sufficient that the mail client lets you edit the > headers before sending the mail. This works in all mail clients I'm > aware of, even if some of them make things a bit awkward. Trouble is I need to

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:25, Hans Reiser wrote: > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for > their actors. 30 seconds after the movie ends the cinema is 95% empty and the credits are only just started. Only the first few names get seen, and those are the ones that a

Re: Debian for x86-64 (AMD Opteron)

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Anything to do with the ability to mix-and-match 32 and 64-bit code in this >> processors? > > Yes. Is there a reason for mixing 32 and 64 bits ? Isn't it just a feature included in the processor because other proprietary operating systems (and all th

Re: stop abusing debconf already

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 12:07:24PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: > Trouble is I need to know what the sender of the email, I'm replying to, > wanted in regards to getting copies of the response to both list and direct. > One could manually parse the email headers and set the reply appropriately > but thi

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:14:05AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: > It's also worth considering that perhaps there is a language difference > (does Hans have English as a first language?) that make it seem that the > email seem harsher than it really is. Many Europeans are naturally very > honest with wha

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 12:58, Jarno Elonen wrote: > > It's also worth considering that perhaps there is a language difference > > (does Hans have English as a first language?) that make it seem that the > > email seem harsher than it really is. Many Europeans are naturally very > > honest with what

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

This issue has degenerated to name calling at this point, and in other threads, Godwin's law has even been invoked, perhaps not to great effect. I agree with you Manoj, as I suspect most people who have commented on this list, but perhaps this is time to refer the issue to the Technical Committee,

Re: GDM is ancient version

On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 23:36, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: > Package: gdm > Version: 2.2.5.5-2 > > > That version of gdm is fscking ancient! maintainer of that package > really needs a clue. I got version 2.4.1.3-1woody1 with these apt-lines: > > deb > http://ftp.acc.umu.se/mirror/mirrors.evilgeniu

Outlook Express (Re: stop abusing debconf already)

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:08:04AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote (and CC'd me): > > (the irony is almost too much to bear) > Why? I have 5 PC's here (at home) and 4 of them run Debian (mixture of > stable, testing and unstable). I have one Windows box that I use for email > and web browsing as I happen t

Re: md5 checksums

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:05:58AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > It doesn't tackle the issue of dpkg _not_ storing filesystem permissions. > This makes it not feasible to easily recover the system after a 'chmod -R > go-rwx /' besides reinstalling all the packages (that's why I p

Re: multiarchitecture binaries - technical obstacles?

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:17:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > I know many people think so, and were amazed when i ran a ppc kernel > cross compiled on m68k on my apus amiga. Which ran very stably indeed. Kernels, and the toolchain, are amoung the few things which can be cross-compiled fairly reli

Non-debian running DD's (Was: Re: stop abusing debconf already)

I use both Mutt and OE to read my E-mail (mostly mutt). The one feature OE has (on both mac and windows) that NO other client I've seen matches (Mozilla 1.0 came close, haven't tried since then) is its support for offline IMAP. This e-mail comes to you via putty on my laptop being NAT'd via my debi

Re: Status of mICQ code audit

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:43:05PM +0200, Martin Loschwitz wrote: > can you please inform the list and me about the current status of the > mICQ code audit you two wanted to do? It's been a while and I didn't > hear anything further from you since then. > > However, since it is my principle to f

Re: stop abusing debconf already

Matt Ryan (2003-04-21 11:03:49 +0100) : > Again, if anyone knows of another client that supports both > requirements I'll give it a go. A good mail client that works on Windows, provides IMAP and obeys standard headers? I suggest Gnus. It does all that, and more. Roland. -- Roland Mas Sauvez

Re: stop abusing debconf already

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:03:03AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Denis Barbier wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 07:14:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Enough already. > > > > > > Folks, if you don't stop abusing debconf with useless notes that belong > > > in README.Debian and config file overwrit

Re: stop abusing debconf already

* Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Matt Ryan (2003-04-21 11:03:49 +0100) : > > > Again, if anyone knows of another client that supports both > > requirements I'll give it a go. > > A good mail client that works on Windows, provides IMAP and obeys > standard headers? I suggest Gnus. It does all

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:10:47AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > This aside, it's very clear to me that responding to Hans is a complete > waste of time. He's trolling. If he's just going to keep ranting aimlessly, > I'd say Debian can only assume we're in violation of whatever the license > is,

Re: Debian Usability Research

[Enrico Zini] > What would a Debian Usability project do? What about looking at the new installer, and give suggestions to how it can be made easier to understand and user for new users?

[OT]Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:25, Hans Reiser wrote: > > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for > > their actors. > > 30 seconds after the movie ends the cinema is 95% empty and the credits are > only just started. Only the f

Re: stop abusing debconf already

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:07:24 +0100, Matt Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> I would like to point out that support for the Mail-Followup-To >> header is not required. It is sufficient that the mail client lets >> you edit the headers before sending the mail. This works in all >> mail clients I'm a

Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:21:59AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: > > Perhaps it would, if it had not come on the tails of a string of > unwarranted > > insults against other developers (most of whom seem to agree with my > > ideas on the technical subject under discussion). > > The closest I got to an

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:36:10 +0200, Ulrich Eckhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sunday 20 April 2003 22:30, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> If the upstream author is rude to me, he does not deserve any >> consideration from myself. If he chooses to alienate his >> clientele, he should expect to re

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:53:09 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: > Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr > 2003 02:18:35 -0500 >> So you do not understand the value of being compatible wit

Re: stop abusing debconf already

On 19-Apr-03, 11:44 (CDT), David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From debconf-devel(8): "low: Very trivial items that have defaults that > will work in the vast majority of cases; oinly control freaks see > these." >From Debian policy, 11.7.3, regarding how to achieve the requirement of

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:04:38 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > This issue has degenerated to name calling at this point, and in > other threads, Godwin's law has even been invoked, perhaps not to > great effect. Yeah, I lost it in the last exchange. > I agree with you Man

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

Florian Weimer wrote: > Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give > > for their actors. > > So you are concerned with the missing ad when mkreiserfs runs? > > In this case, your analogy is wrong. The message does not give

Re: Debian for x86-64 (AMD Opteron)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:18, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Why don't we consider the x86-64 as beeing a 64-bits-only architecture Because we want to run Netscape, commercial games, Frauhofer MP3 en/decoders, Oracle, and other binary-only i386 software. If AMD had made a 64bit only CPU and devoted thos

Re: stop abusing debconf already

On 20-Apr-03, 21:14 (CDT), Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Windows-centric"? FFS, where do you think the term "registry" /comes/ > from? While the term registry comes from Windows, it's worth noting that AIX had the equivalent ('object manager') (which has nothing to do with OOP)

Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:21:59 +0100, Matt Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > All I have said to date is that the overwrite question was suggested > in the past by another developer as a way of dealing with the > problem when it came up before. Some of us implemented the > suggestion and it seems no

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [...] > Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking > users if it is ok with them if we violate policy is not good > enough. [...] I would be glad to learn why ucf does it right. In your opinion, is proftpd a

Re: stop abusing debconf already

On Mon Apr 21, 10:05am -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 19-Apr-03, 11:44 (CDT), David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From debconf-devel(8): "low: Very trivial items that have defaults that > > will work in the vast majority of cases; oinly control freaks see > > these." > > If you

Re: stop abusing debconf already

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 03:49:43PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: [...] > Honestly you should not be so upset by these debconf abuses about > configuration files overwriting, this is a difficult issue and AFAICT > documentation does not help. Correction, debconf-devel(7) explains how to do it right,

Re: GDM is ancient version

Scott Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > The maintainer of gdm doesnt want to upload it till some key components > build on all archs. Basically he doesnt want to leave certain > archs(which he uses) without a gdm. Also I believe he is one of the FTP This is false because even if the l

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 10:08:57AM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote: > I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge > him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who > use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits > who are disco

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:25:11 +0400, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give > for their actors. Now imagine if ls or grep wanted the list of contributors to be scrolled past, slowly, on every invocation, and insisted t

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:31:10 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > [...] >> Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking users if >> it is ok with them if we violate policy is not good enough. > [...]

Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:15:46 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:21:59AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: >> > Perhaps it would, if it had not come on the tails of a string of >> unwarranted >> > insults against other developers (most of whom seem to agree with >>

Re: md5 checksums

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:52:18PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:05:58AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a > wrote: > > > It doesn't tackle the issue of dpkg _not_ storing filesystem permissions. > > This makes it not feasible to easily recover the system after a 'chm

Re: md5 checksums

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:16:01PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > That's what Tiger calls 'signatures'. It's pretty easy to do at the moment, > but I have not updated signatures for Debian for quite some time. If you > intend to keep a database you also have to consider that for

Re: New project proposal: debian-lex

On 20 Apr 2003, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > OK, thanks. Here (http://people.debian.org/~terminus/debian-lex/) is a > rough Web page which I have shamelessly plagiarised from your Debian-Med > project. I just builded the Debian-med pages just for this purpose by shamelessly plagiarising from Debian-Jr

Jumped up developers [Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness]

Unfortunately your choice is rather weak and doesn't back up your argument so I feel obliged to continue the thread a bit further (plus its giving my brain some exercise). [Oh yeah, the quotes are from some developer who's name I've promised not to use in my emails] > ...and telling Ben Collins t

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:40:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:31:10 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > [...] > >> Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking users i

Re: New project proposal: debian-lex

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:48:08PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On 20 Apr 2003, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > OK, thanks. Here (http://people.debian.org/~terminus/debian-lex/) is a > > rough Web page which I have shamelessly plagiarised from your Debian-Med > > project. > I just builded the Debian-me

Re: md5 checksums

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 06:27:33PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote: > > I agreed to take over this checksecurity package, when the maintain > finds the time to split it out from cron. There was some discussion > about it recently upon debian-devel. Missed that mail. I remember the discussion on what

Re: Debian for x86-64 (AMD Opteron)

At 01:18 22/04/2003 +1000, you wrote: On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:18, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Why don't we consider the x86-64 as beeing a 64-bits-only architecture Because we want to run Netscape, commercial games, Frauhofer MP3 en/decoders, Oracle, and other binary-only i386 software. If AMD had mad

Re: Jumped up developers [Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 06:33:49PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: > [more of the same] Plonk. -- - mdz

Re: Jumped up developers [Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness]

* Matt Ryan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There are no ranks in Debian, no one gets paid (AFAIK) and so no view is > more or less valid than another. I think a small minority of developers can > easily get identified as pushing their own agendas if we did an informal > poll on this list. Those are t

Re: md5 checksums

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:50:11PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > Missed that mail. I remember the discussion on what should checksecurity > include though. Please notice I have include many of the modules we wanted > in Tiger. It may have been a private mail; the way I rememb

Re: Jumped up developers [Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 06:33:49PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: > And the bit that the "jumped up developers" don't seem to understand is the > co-operation and consensus. I constantly see comments on how we should > restrict the number of maintainers, how we need to make sure everyone's > packages meas

Re: Debian for x86-64 (AMD Opteron)

Le lun 21/04/2003 à 19:52, José Luis Tallón a écrit : > IMVHO, there is an intermediate alternative: why not ... > ... create a new x86-64 architecture > ... tweak dpkg so that ${DEB_ARCH}=="x86-64" admits both i386 and x86-64 > binaries; > Naturally, x86-64 ("native") would be preferred to i386

Re: Jumped up developers [Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness]

"Matt Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately your choice is rather weak and doesn't back up your > argument so I feel obliged to continue the thread a bit further > (plus its giving my brain some exercise). > > [Oh yeah, the quotes are from some developer who's name I've > promised not

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer: > > the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to > > remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then > > this unduly restricts the freedom to distribute modified v

Fwd: Re: Debian for x86-64 (AMD Opteron)

( forgot to Reply to the list, sorry ) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:58:20 +0200 To: Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: José Luis Tallón <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Debian for x86-64 (AMD Opteron) At 20:23 21/04/2003 +0200, you wrote: Le lun 21/04/2003 à 19:52, José Luis Tallón a écrit : >

Re: Debian for x86-64 (AMD Opteron)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 21 April 2003 19:52, José Luis Tallón wrote: > IMVHO, there is an intermediate alternative: why not ... > ... create a new x86-64 architecture > ... tweak dpkg so that ${DEB_ARCH}=="x86-64" admits both i386 and x86-64 > binaries; > Naturally,

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

> > c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively > > when run, you must cause it, when started running for such > > interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an > > announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a > > notice th

Glide co-maintainers request

retitle 189820 ITA: glide -- development files for libglide3 retitle 189952 ITA: device3dfx -- Device driver source for 3Dfx boards for 2.2+ kernels thanks Hi, I'll adopt those packages, and will start triaging all bugs. But I only have a Voodoo3 2000 PCI, so I would like to have one or more co-

Re: Do we need policy changes?

Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote: > Hello, Thanks for your input. > I really don't know how to express what I want to say :) It has come > to my mind a few days ago when the Vera fonts were released to public. > My problem was: everybody was acting like mad, screaming "at last, > some good fonts for li

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:07:19AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote: > Well, I certainly hope he doesn't want the kind of visibility that the > studio and producer have. Can you imagine it? > > # mkreiserfs > > [clear screen] > > > > > N A M E S Y S [...] Dude,

Re: apache php4-imap Segmentation fault (help needed)

mandag 21. april 2003, 02:35, skrev Steve Langasek: > Please see the bug list for the php4 and php4-imap packages. The > appropriate place to inquire about package-specific bugs is the BTS, not > debian-devel. > > This bug is being worked on; in fact, it seems the believed-fixed > package has just

  1   2   >