Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The last time I posted my unofficial release issues status I received
> several requests to change the formatting, and so I have. I plan to find a
> site to host this html document (preferably alioth), but I haven't ironed
> out the details yet. It sh
Last I mentioned my intention to package CLEAN for Debian. Someone
(Sorry I lost your email.) replied me that there is already a CLEAN
package for Debian. But I can't find the package from apt-cache. I
thought it was still waiting in incoming queue so I waited for awhile,
but it's still not there.
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:53:57PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> Joey Hess has mentioned, and I agree (see 199722), that debconf notes
> should really be named (and should always be interpreted as) warnings.
Huh. I thought it was supposed to be even stricter than that; errors
only.
E.g.:
Template: x
I intend to package Moscow ML and later HOL theorem prover for Debian.
This is not a fromal ITP because I'm not eager to prevent others from
doing the same. :) I won't compete with you too.
The purpose of this mail is that I want to know if there is already
these packages somewhere and why they're
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:21:26 -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> I didn't see any noise in debian-devel
see debian-gtk-gnome
--
.''`. Mark Howard
: :' :
`. `' http://www.tildemh.com
`- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:12:02PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
[...]
> Now I'm left at a loss as to what to do with the file. I want the
> half-finished work to remain in the package so that someone picking up the
> package and customizing it (or in future, adopting it, should I decide to
> eve
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:02:26PM +0800, ZHAO Wei wrote:
> I intend to package Moscow ML and later HOL theorem prover for Debian.
> This is not a fromal ITP because I'm not eager to prevent others from
> doing the same. :) I won't compete with you too.
I remember vaguely that there used to be a l
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > > And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work
> > > harder? For *you* ?? Get real.
> >
> > Regardless of whether it was right to NMU sysvinit without you being
> > notifie
Re: Re: [devel] Debconf or not debconf [Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wed, Jul
02, 2003 at 10:50:29AM -0400, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> It breaks 100% of stunnel installations. The old stunnel was command
> line oriented, the current one is configuration file oriented. It would
> be very difficult
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:12:02PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Now I'm left at a loss as to what to do with the file. I want the
> half-finished work to remain in the package so that someone picking up the
> package and customizing it (or in future, adopting it, should I decide to
> ever give
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 17:23, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> I'd prefer no interaction at all during installation. I'm perfectly
>> able to read documenation thank you very much.
>
> Happily, the noninteractive debconf frontend exists.
And getting hundreds of emails af
Kai Timmer wrote:
> Stelle ich nun die Zeile mydomain = kaitimmer.local funktioniert das
Schon mal daran gedacht, das local.kaitimmer.de zu nennen?
Dann sollte es dem Relay egal sein.
Gruss
T.
pgpQd9BwbMqix.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 12:30:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Hopefully, Debian Policy (and FHS) will allow the use of libexec some
> >day...
>
> Debian's not a BSD, regardless of the kernel that it's running on.
AFAIK, /libexec is used by the theoretical GNU system as well.
Michael
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:57:54PM +0800, ZHAO Wei wrote:
|| Last I mentioned my intention to package CLEAN for Debian. Someone
|| (Sorry I lost your email.) replied me that there is already a CLEAN
|| package for Debian. But I can't find the package from apt-cache. I
|| thought it was still w
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:51, Vincent Zweije wrote:
> Are you on the Clean mailing list? If not, go to
> http://www.cs.kun.nl/~clean/. You can ask on the mailing list about
> debianising Clean.
I'm subscribing right now. Thanks for the reminder.
> It will not go into main because of license rest
hi,
this is test msg. pls ignore.
tks.
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:47, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> I remember vaguely that there used to be a licence problem with
> Moscow ML. What is its exact licence now?
Under the mosml/copyright directory, there are three license files:
1. gpl2 - which is exactly a copy of GPL v2
2. copyright.att - which c
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:36:30 +0800, ZHAO Wei wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:47, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > I remember vaguely that there used to be a licence problem with
> > Moscow ML. What is its exact licence now?
>
> Under the mosml/copyright directory, there are three license files:
>
> 1. g
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:24:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Somehow, you managed to miss the point entirely in your first line,
> *even though* you restated it later.
I don't miss the point at all.
> You have assumed that it is ok to break the user system and warn
> people about it.
> It
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 17:53, Michał Politowski wrote:
> It looks like
> a) possible GPL incompatibility - so no distribution would be possible at all,
> b) even if not, no paying distribution means non-free IMHO.
I see your point. But I think it should be resolvable.
Since that part of the clause
Hi!
Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
libsidplay doesn't enter testing.
The following packages depend on it: xmms-sid, mp3blaster, xsidplay,
sidplay-base (from the same source) and gst-plugins. O
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: clustalw-mpi
Version : 0.13
Upstream Author : Kuo-Bin Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://www.bii.a-star.edu.sg/~kuobin/clustalg/clustalw-mpi-0.13.tar.gz
* License : non-free
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
> testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
> libsidplay doesn't enter testing.
I've written a little script that tries to answer precisely this type of
question. You can run it here: http:/
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
> (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the
On 03 Jul 2003 13:00:47 +0200
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
> > (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
>
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not
(Please don't CC: me, I'm in the list)
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
> > (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
>
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 02:05 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:53:57PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
Joey Hess has mentioned, and I agree (see 199722), that debconf notes
should really be named (and should always be interpreted as) warnings.
Huh. I thought it was supposed to
Julien LEMOINE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 July 2003 22:51, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Julien LEMOINE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
>>> complained about the fact that I didn't warning about the new
>>> /etc/default/stun
I was looking for the very simple "crc32" binary to compute checksums for
files, and couldn't find it. There is a crc32 perl lib, but no crc32 package. I
know that md5 (or even sha-160) hash fingerprints are better, but in many cases
(like tar archives on tapes, or ftp files) you have only CRC-3
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was looking for the very simple "crc32" binary to compute
> checksums for files, and couldn't find it. There is a crc32 perl
> lib, but no crc32 package. I know that md5 (or even sha-160) hash
> fingerprints are better, but in many cases (like tar archi
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: kahakai
Version : 0.2.1
Upstream Author : The Kahakai Team
* URL : http://kahakai.sf.net/
* License : GPL, v2 or later
Description : a highly customisable and script
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:36:10 +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 07:57:55AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
>> So what is the single command to apt-get install all the GNU versions
>> of everything?
>
>Just create and maintain a meta-package that Conflicts/Depends on
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:10 +1000, Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I for one am sick and tired of useless Debconf messages popping up
>during installation or being sent to me via email when I'm upgrading
>hundreds of machines automatically.
Just go ahead and pre-seed your debconf database
Hi,
In the past years, I have done quite a bit of work with virus scanners
on Linux. The company I used to work for has funded most of amavis-ng
development before being borged. In the past years, I have found it
annoying that the eicar anti-virus testfile is not available as
aptable Debian packag
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:37:06AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
> testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
> libsidplay doesn't enter testing.
It can (or at least it could a few days ago), it just needs a manual
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:25:25PM +0200, Benjamin Drieu wrote:
> Doesn't cksfv does the job ?
Absolutely - I did not find it in the first time, as the primary goal was to
generate sfv files (but you can get the CRC inside it)
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:36:10 +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 07:57:55AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
>>> So what is the single command to apt-get install all the GNU versions
>>> of everything?
>>
>>Just create and
David Z Maze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My kernel module packages (lm-sensors and i2c) both build-depend on
> kernel-build-2.4.20-1, which provides enough bits to build packages
> (as far as I can tell, successfully). Problem is, evidence suggests
> that kernel-build-2.4.20-1 is i386-only. I'm
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:50:50PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
>> testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
>> libsidplay doesn't enter testing.
>
> I've written a little script that tri
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an updated version of
Am Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2003 16:51 schrieb Marc Haber:
[...]
> Additionally, I would like to seriously propose establishing a
> pre-upload interface to ftpmaster so that a developer could learn that
> he is writing a package pending rejection after upload _before_
> spending time on building that pa
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:27:24PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 17:23, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> I'd prefer no interaction at all during installation. I'm perfectly
> >> able to read documenation thank you very much.
> >
> > Happily, the no
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: molmol
Version : 2k.2.0
Upstream Author : Reto Koradi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> et al.
* URL : http://www.mol.biol.ethz.ch/wuthrich/software/molmol/
* License : non-free (academic type
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Penny wrote:
> > Now, this breakage happens to be somewhat benign, in that without
> > configuration, it does not function at all. But it is also somewhat
> > difficult to test for many uses. Further, when the u
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:36:30PM +0800, ZHAO Wei wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:47, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > I remember vaguely that there used to be a licence problem with
> > Moscow ML. What is its exact licence now?
>
> Under the mosml/copyright directory, there are three license files:
>
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software.
That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003, Marc Haber wrote:
> Since eicar.com has no license and eicar doesn't seem to be interested
> in clarifying its license, inclusion of the eicar test string in
> Debian proper is out of the question, even for non-free.
Ick. They are included in the amavisd-new _source_ packages
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
Package name: rhyme
Version : 0.9
Upstream Author : Brian (tuffy) Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/rhyme
License : GPL
Description : console base
On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
>Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
>understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected.
>Standards are not software, nor softwar
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Thanks for the great script. It shows me that the testing script seems
> to be buggy, because:
>
> > - Updating sidplay-base makes 1 packages uninstallable on alpha:
> > sidplay-base
>
> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
> itself uni
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Frank Küster wrote:
> * License : non-free (academic type "use me, but cite men in
> publications")
The license has a statement:
This package may only be bundled in other software packages with the
explicit permission of the copyright holders.
Please make sure
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
get the impression that you are reading "Debian Will Remain 100% Free
Software" to mean "everythin
#include
* Herbert Xu [Thu, Jul 03 2003, 12:27:24PM]:
> >> I'd prefer no interaction at all during installation. I'm perfectly
> >> able to read documenation thank you very much.
> >
> > Happily, the noninteractive debconf frontend exists.
>
> And getting hundreds of emails after a mass upgrade
Hello,
First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
about debconf in debian-devel.
Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
more "user friendly" migration who did not break backwards compatibility.
My answer is that I ha
#include
* Xavier Roche [Thu, Jul 03 2003, 04:15:22PM]:
> I was looking for the very simple "crc32" binary to compute checksums for
> files, and couldn't find it. There is a crc32 perl lib, but no crc32 package.
> I know that md5 (or even sha-160) hash fingerprints are better, but in many
> cas
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> software
>n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or
>rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
>operation of a computer system and that are stored in
>read/w
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
> I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
> stunnel package.
[...]
> [1] "4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software "
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
> >understanding of the value of standards, and should
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:00 US/Eastern, Petter Reinholdtsen
wrote:
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software.
If they
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libtododb
Version : 0.02
Upstream Authors: Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luis Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:10 +1000, Herbert Xu
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I for one am sick and tired of useless Debconf messages popping up
>>during installation or being sent to me via email when I'm upgrading
>>hundreds of machines automatically.
> Just go ahead and pre-s
Sorry, I will try to learn to reply to the correct list.
(Incidentally, on my first attempt, I claimed that I will learn but wrote only
to myself...)
Cheers
T.
pgpqgdnAkSlw7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:49PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> In the past years, I have found it annoying that the eicar anti-virus
> testfile is not available as aptable Debian package.
Why is this annoying? The virus cannot be detected without it?
> I find it disturbingly impolite to say "sorry
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libdm
Version : 0.25
Upstream Author : Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License : GPL
Description : display migration support
Quoting Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 05:13:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Also, the Debian implementation of XML
> > catalogs will very likely be included as one example in the OASIS
> > implementation guide for XML Catalogs. So we _are_ making a difference
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
> >understanding of the value of stan
Hi.
(My apologies if -devel is the wrong place to put this - hints for better
locations are appreciated.)
While I understand that new packages need to be checked, I wondered whether this
rule could be relaxed somewhat for soversion-changing of libraries (i.e. the
advance from lib(.*)\d+ to lib\1\
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:21:53PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:50:50PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
> > Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >> Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
> >> testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
> >> li
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:35:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban? Netscape
| Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
Of course not. They're software.
RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
Guidelines to them seems a
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gpe-filemanager
Version : 0.09
Upstream Author : Damien Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License : GPL (version 2 or later)
Description
Le jeu 03/07/2003 à 13:00, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an updated ver
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-03
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gpe-taskmanager
Version : 0.13
Upstream Author : Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License : GPL (version 2 or later)
Description
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:01:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Or else, if the standards are not free, let them in non-free. We're not
> going to let non-free documents enter main just because they are called
> RFC's or W3C recommendations.
Yet we let them in because they are called lice
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
> Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
But...but...what if you want to make your own "RFC 2661" by embracing and
extending the existing one, and redistribute it to
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:54:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If they are not software, then under clause one of the Social Contract,
> they don't belong in debian.
>
> This has been debated several thousand times on -legal...
I don't recall a consensus that software documentation does
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How many Debian users are there that will use lm-sensors and i2c
> modules for a prepackaged kernel on a non-i386 architecture?
I've had at least one user ask me about support for powerpc, which is
the big thing that's driving me to ask. If it makes you h
Herbert Xu wrote:
> And getting hundreds of emails after a mass upgrade? No thanks.
Admin-Email
The email address Debconf should send mail to if it
needs to make sure that the admin has seen an important
note. Defa
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:14:49PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > software
> >n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or
> >rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
> >operatio
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>
> Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
> get the impression that you are reading "Debian Will Remain 100% Free
> Software" to mea
Herzlichen Dank für Ihr eMail. Meine eMailadresse hat geändert und ich bitte
Sie deshalb, eMails künftig an folgende Adresse zu senden:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Herzlichen Dank!
Denis Nordmann
Hi.
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> about debconf in debian-devel.
But then, the last one didn't favor your opinion.
> Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> more "user friendly" migration
Hi Sebastian!
You wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
> > I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
> > stunnel package.
>
> [...]
>
> > [1] "4. Our Prior
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:03:38PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
>> itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
>
> Because it breaks testing rule #5: "The operation of installing the
> package
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 199197 general
Bug#199197: bsdgames debian X menu entries depend on gnome-terminal, not in
testing (Sarge)
Bug reassigned from package `bsdgames' to `general'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Deb
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:21 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
Easily. Example:
Package: foo
Version: 1.0.6-4
Depends: libc6 >= 2.2.0
vs.
P
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:20:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
|
| When the program is run, it gets put in read/write memory.
|
So embedded firmware running from an EPROM doesn't count as a program
then?
CP.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:49:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:21 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
>>itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
>
> Easily. Example:
>
> P
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> > >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a
Jim Penny dijo [Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:34:53PM -0400]:
> > My original argument stands: we should not be telling our users that
> > we broke their system, because we shouldn't be breaking it in the
> > first place. In this instance, it sounds to me like a bout of
> > upstream bogosity has result
Mail received and welcome to my e-mail adventure.
You need to have the Subject: aaa (3 a's) and then I can read it.
Too many spammers.
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 13:58 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Replacing foo-1.0.6-4 with 1.0.7-1 would make foo uninstallable
(becasue there is no glibc-2.4.0 in testing)
Please check the update_excuses, it would make package foo _not_ a
valid candidate, if that happens.
Hmmm, you have a go
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:47:07PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:03:38PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> > Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
> >> itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
> > Becaus
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I believe this whole case of RFC standard
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:15:19AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> I like this DFDG idea (Debian Free Documentation Guidelines) :-)...
Feel free to propose a General Resolution to amend the Debian Social
Contract. The Project Secretary will probably tell you to wait for the
GRs to disambiguate Con
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:35:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban? Netscape
> | Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
>
> Of course not. They're software.
>
> RFCs aren'
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:10:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
>
> > RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
> > Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
>
> But...but...what if you want to make your own "R
Sebastian Rittau wrote:
>There's no need to. But I want to have the right to change a standard
>slightly, and hand it around, telling people that this is how I would
>have liked the standard. I also want to have the right to enhance or
>even change a standard, and use it e.g. for some internal pro
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> Keep in mind that this hard-line stance of applying the DFSG to
> everything in the archive will probably make it more difficult to gain
> support for the non-free removal resolution.
So be it. The Social Contract and the traditio
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:12:02PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:54:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> > If they are not software, then under clause one of the Social Contract,
> > they don't belong in debian.
> >
> > This has been debated several thousand time
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
