Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since > these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I > think that even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages > themselves, the result

Re: LWN subscription for Debian developers

On 01 Sep 2003 12:22:48 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:33:22PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow >> wrote: >> > Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > > Hello. >> > > >> > > Last October, I an

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:23:09 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just my 2 cents. I completely agree with Steve. If the only > freeness of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point > to make another installer, then that'

quick question: please help

Do you know who I could contact for a small business start-up grant? Also, I need to know if the majority of businesses that have recieved grants for start-up (in the past) had obtained a degree in Business. I am probably going to get an Assoicate's Degree. I need to know if this could help me g

Re: Snort: Mass Bug Closing

* Steve Kemp | (Essentially apt-get + apt-cache for snort rules. Clearly packaging a | single rule file within one package is a gross misuse of resources but | it might be sufficient if they were signed and hosted somewhere | sensible..) They could all be packaged into a single package

Re: Fwd: Processing of ferret_3.0-2_i386.changes

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:04:19PM -0400, Brian White wrote: > What do I have to do to fix this problem? My key is valid, has been > signed, and was uploaded to the keyserver via "gpg --send-keys". > > Why do I continue to get these messages? The only way I can upload > packages is to use SSH to

Bug#208339: ITP: greed - A UNIX-hosted, curses-based clone of the DOS freeware game Greed

retitle 208339 ITP: greed -- A UNIX-hosted, curses-based clone of the DOS freeware game Greed thanks * Package name: greed Version : 3.4 Upstream Author : Eric S. Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://catb.org/~esr/greed * License : BSD-like Descri

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 23:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since > > these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I > > think that even if there's

Re: .iso conflict, discussion of resolution

On Sonntag, 31. August 2003 00:08, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:34:39PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote: > > A quick summary of this bug: > > Arson, a KDE CD burning application, includes two .desktop files to > > associate certain files with it: > > /usr/share/mimelnk/application/x

authen sasl

Hello, Looks like nobody is packaging Authen SASL perl module that is required by the last versions of openwebmail. I am very surprised of not finding this module in Debian. Are there any special reason? If not and nobody is packaging it, I will ITP it. Thanks. Note: please Cc m

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms > > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed! > > > > Th

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > > > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms > > > >will not

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy: > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a > true debian package in non-free, to benefit t

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: [snip] > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a > true debian package in

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a > true debian package in non-free,

Bug#208405: ITP: ldap-account-manager -- LDAP Account Manager (LAM) manages Unix and Samba accounts in a LDAP directory.

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2003-09-02 Severity: wishlist * Package name: ldap-account-manager Version : 0.3 Upstream Author : Roland Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://lam.sourceforge.net * License : GPL Description : LDAP Account Manager

Bug#208406: ITP: ldap-account-manager -- LDAP Account Manager (LAM) manages Unix and Samba accounts in a LDAP directory.

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2003-09-02 Severity: wishlist * Package name: ldap-account-manager Version : 0.3 Upstream Author : Roland Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://lam.sourceforge.net * License : GPL Description : LDAP Account Manager

Packages-arch-specific update

Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] the best place to e-mail to get the latest version of Packages-arch-specific in CVS (with some GHC changes) to be used? Thanks Ian, curious as to why debian-autobuild was killed

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy: > > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does n

爱?

http://www.wy263.com/";>

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

I don't need to be CC:'d, thanks. Mathieu Roy wrote: > > Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may > have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the > possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools. my experience with the installer .deb's is l

Bug#208412: ITP: xmms-rplay -- RPlay Output Plugin for XMMS

Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-02 Severity: wishlist * Package name: xmms-rplay Version : 1.0.2 Upstream Author : lantz moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/rplay/ * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.) De

Any chance to get Debian-Med added to tasksel?

Hello, bug #186085 which asks for inclusion of Debian-Med into tasksel is now nearly half a year old. I wonder if there is any chance to get this fixed before Sarge will be released. While it is a wishlist bug per definition for the tasksel package it has quite an importance for the Debian-Med p

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the > installers made for pine and djbware. Strictly speaking those are not installers. The source is available in the debian archive, we just can't distribute compiled binaries from it. Installers for grat

Re: authen sasl

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:12:06PM +0200, Sergio Rua wrote: > Hello, > > Looks like nobody is packaging Authen SASL perl module that > is required by the last versions of openwebmail. I am very surprised of > not finding this module in Debian. > > Are there any special reason? If not

Re: vrms and contrib installers

Please follow up to debian-legal, where this belongs. Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > >> Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy: >> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a >> > "installer" package in

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

> > I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian, > > should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free > > software, when installing it. > > the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all > of them, though. If they all works this way

New version of ifupdown available

Marc Haber, Michael Weber and I have prepared a new version (0.6.4-4.5) of ifupdown. Because this is intended to go into sarge it includes only the safest changes, most of them fixing minor bugs in documentation. Bugs addressed are: 86895 88948 112012 122422 138403 138694 141634 154517 156789

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may Supposedly, it already does: needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that would switch over

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tue 16:34, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Supposedly, it already does: > Actually, my boss just installed that the other day and it apparently does work well. How much of it is just WINE is a pretty wrapper, I'm not to certain. -- ---

Norton AntiVirus failed to scan an attachment in a message you sent.

Recipient of the attachment: SEXCHANGE, RADIANT\RII, StellaHsieh(謝立欣)/收件匣 Subject of the message: Re: That movie No action was taken on the attachment. Attachment document_9446.pif was Logged Only for the following reasons: Scan Engine Failure (0x80004005)

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:56:51PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > > non-free? For instance, why the

Bug#208446: ITP: guile-db -- Berkeley DB module for Guile

Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-02 Severity: wishlist * Package name: guile-db Version : 0.1 Upstream Author : C. Ray C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.pyro.net/~crayc/ * License : GPL Description : Berkeley DB module for Guile

Bug in cron postinst

YES, I know that the postinst doesn't work if you don't have any user crontabs, feel free to stop reporting the bug -- I have enough. You can get the installation to complete by editing /var/lib/dpkg/info/cron.postinst and removing these three lines near the end: for ct in * ; do cho

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the > installers made for pine and djbware. > > they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the > result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a

@variables@ in debian/ scripts

Hello If there are multiple binary packages from one source package some developers use @variables@ in config and {pre,post}{inst,rm} scripts. Where those variables comes from? Where can I find any documentation about it? Waiting your help Artur -- "#gaduly to jak wenezuelski serial. Nie

! VIRUS VO VASEJ POSTE/VIRUS IN YOUR MAIL

UPOZORNENIE NA VIRUS V I R U S A L E R T Antivirovy system nasiel virus Our viruschecker found the (unspecified) vo Vasej poste urcenej adresatom: virus(es) in your email to the following recipient(s): -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skontrol

/var/run and scripts

The FHS is not clear on whether it is OK to put a script in /var/run. If a program wants to create a script and then run it, where should it be placed? Red Hat has apmd creating such scripts under /var/run. Is this correct? If not where should it be? -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My

Re: @variables@ in debian/ scripts

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 02:07:59AM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > If there are multiple binary packages from one source package some Well... I should read debian/rules for those packages more carefully. Please ignore this thread. Cheers Artur -- Czesiu: Dlaczego wypiłaś cały dzbanek

Re: /var/run and scripts

> If not where should it be? What about /usr/local/ or /var/opt/? The former seems to be the best one, to me... Quickly, le Moine Fou -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A pgprcp3ynRiSh.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#208463: ITP: tla-load-dirs -- Import upstream archives into tla/arch

Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-02 Severity: wishlist * Package name: tla-load-dirs Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://arch.complete.org/ * License : GPL Description : Import upstream arch

WARNING! Virus detected

This message was created automatically by virus scanning software (Exiscan). A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: VIRUS FOUND IN MESSAGE This message has been sca

Re: /var/run and scripts

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:25, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > > If not where should it be? > > What about /usr/local/ or /var/opt/? The former seems > to be the best one, to me... /usr/local is not good for files that will be created automatically from programs that are part of a package, it should be reserv

Re: /var/run and scripts

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:31:28AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:25, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > > > If not where should it be? > > What about /usr/local/ or /var/opt/? The former seems > > to be the best one, to me... > /usr/local is not good for files that will be created auto

hi我发垃圾

a

Re: /var/run and scripts

Pierre THIERRY dijo [Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 03:25:18AM +0200]: > > If not where should it be? > > What about /usr/local/ or /var/opt/? The former seems > to be the best one, to me... /usr should be mountable read-only... I would go for /var/opt or -if it is a disposable script- /tmp or /var/tmp (of