Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the same (to
> retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary package maintainer
> during the build (to reflect that it is a different build, and also display
> a more appropriate name in "apt-cache show" e
On Friday 06 May 2005 02:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[ thanks for this summary ]
> Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be:
>
> If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian
> sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source
> package,
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:38:39PM +0200 , Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:23:51PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> > The NMU is very simple... I don't have a problem with doing it myself in
> > a week or two.
> >
> > Just try to catch Petr first.
>
Hi,
> Eh, (1) there is a
Hi,
just send him SMS. Most prolly he is very busy due to his job.
O.
--
Ondrej Sury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
We have just initiated Stateless Debian Project and we are looking
for active volunteers/developers
Detail of project are given below
Summary
This project was started by Fedora (Redhat) but is no longer in active
development and will not be included in next release of fc4 , this
projects
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 05:54:01PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian
>unchanged (example: tetex-base).
>
> 2. Some source packages in Ubuntu are modified relative to Debian. These
>are assigned a version number of the form
>
Hi
I'm offering a link from our directory at http://www.studio-103.co.uk
on the most relevant page in exchange for links from your page at
www.your-legal-advice.co.uk/mortgagelegaladvice and/or any other sites
or pages that you may run and be relevant, to
http://www.mortgagesforbusiness.co.uk.
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:56:52 +0200, Martin Geisler wrote:
>
>> * Do the PHP4 maintainers find PHP5 too buggy for inclusion in
>> Debian?
>
> Yes. Hell, I consider php4 too buggy for Debian. php5 is even
> worse. Have you seen the changelog[0]? Th
Hi,
We have just initiated Stateless Debian Project and we are looking for
active volunteers/developers
Detail of project are given below
Summary
This project was started by Fedora (Redhat) but is no longer in active
development and will not be included in next release of fc4 , this
Daniel J. Axtens a écrit :
>>and not
>>"apt-get upgrade "
>>
>>
>
>Possibly because apt-get upgrade is used to upgrade the whole system,
>not just one package. My guess is that the developers didn't want to
>overload the upgrade command.
>
>HTH,
>Daniel
>
>
>
Yes, ok for that. But when I wan
Hi Petr,
It's good to hear from you (I've been looking for a while).
I orphaned your package (sorry for that). Since it was done in the wrong
way - Jeroen closed it. Please orphan it yourself. Thanks.
Any chance you'll at least fix the rc bug so phpdoc will enter sarge?
It's a very small fix to
Martin Braure de Calignon schrieb:
> Daniel J. Axtens a écrit :
>
>
>>>and not
>>>"apt-get upgrade "
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Possibly because apt-get upgrade is used to upgrade the whole system,
>>not just one package. My guess is that the developers didn't want to
>>overload the upgrade command.
>>
>>HT
Re: gaurav p in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We have just initiated Stateless Debian Project and we are looking for
Is the project itself also stateless such that it doesn't know whether
it already sent out an announcement?
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Descript
Guido Heumann a écrit :
>Martin Braure de Calignon schrieb:
>
>
>>Daniel J. Axtens a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
and not
"apt-get upgrade "
>>>Possibly because apt-get upgrade is used to upgrade the whole system,
>>>not just one package. My guess is that the dev
On 5/6/05, Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Re: gaurav p in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> We have just initiated Stateless Debian Project and we are looking for
its Stateless project by State full people ;-)
Is the project itself also stateless such that it doesn't know whetherit already sent
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:15:13AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 10:30:36 -0400 (EDT), "Jaldhar H. Vyas"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> >> I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number "3.1"
> >> appears /etc/debian_versi
On Friday 06 May 2005 06:04 am, Martin Braure de Calignon wrote:
> Yes, ok for that. But when I want to upgrade a package, it is not really
> logical to use "install", because the package is already installed, no ?
Yes.
Daniel
--
/--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
> paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matte
Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, it tries to define "work based on the Program" in terms
> of "derivative work under copyright law", and then incorrectly
> paraphrases that definition.
It's probably worth noting that "derivative work" and "work based on
the Program" are spelled differently. What's
On 05-May-06 00:24, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:58:27AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> A few things you might want to do with this list here:
...
> - post it to debian-devel so people can poke through these for the BSP this
> weekend
The new list of FTBFS bugs will still
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
> bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of that "when it
is ready" nonsense. The release version number was
On Fri, 6 May 2005 13:54:29 -0400 (EDT), "Jaldhar H. Vyas"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem isn't a concern for quality, it is people like you and Andrea
>who don't follow process, who don't contribute when the actual decisions
>are being made, but who come out of the woodwork at the last mi
Scusa il disturbo Gentile Utente del Web,
Excuse the trouble Nice Users of the Web
Un euro per un mattone! Aiutaci a costruire il canile!
One Dollar for a brick! Help to build the kennel!
Vogliamo lanciare un appello a tutti coloro che vorranno aiutarci nell'impresa
per cui ci battiamo da quando
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> #287985: O: cantus -- Gnome tool to mass-rename/tag mp3 and ogg files
> Reported by: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 123 days old.
> obsoleted by cantus3 which is packaged already
>From what I can tell, cantus3 doesn't actually provide all of the
functionality
Ari Pollak wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
>>#287985: O: cantus -- Gnome tool to mass-rename/tag mp3 and ogg files
>>Reported by: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 123 days old.
>>obsoleted by cantus3 which is packaged already
>
>
>>From what I can tell, cantus3 doesn't actually prov
Last night (when I should have been working a project for my advanced
algorithms class) I decided it was time to upgrade my personal server
from Woody to Sarge. I am writing this email im the hopes that the
release team and devs find it helpful and that other users who upgrade
can make use of the
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
> > paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
>
> Who is sorry? How sorry?
>
> Let's assume, for the sake
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
I have made this transition a lot lately, too, and I would like to offer
some insight about the following process:
2. The standard yes, no, diff, shell approach could probably use
some tweaking. What I mean is that with so many config files being
updated, there should
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ??? Let's try again:
All of this discussion of legal minutia misses (and perhaps supports)
what, to my mind, is the most compelling argument for accepting the
FSF's position on the subject. The fact is that the question does
depend on a lot of legal m
unsubscribe
--
Joe Bowman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're Invited
Thanks to a nomination by an associate of yours, there are potentially three
deals that will be offered to you.
Notice - past credit history is NOT a factor for this promotion as long as we
recieve word from you within 24 hours.
In accordance with our terms please verify yo
On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of this discussion of legal minutia misses (and perhaps supports)
> what, to my mind, is the most compelling argument for accepting the
> FSF's position on the subject. The fact is that the question does
> depend on a lot of legal minutia
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > > > The GPL simply defers to copyright law to define
On 06-May-05, 15:21 (CDT), "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no indication that if I change
> the config, the change will stick.
If you shell out, edit /etc/foo.conf to merge the updated from
foo.conf.dpkg-new (or in any other way), then return to the conffile
menu, then
On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define "work based on the
> Program" in terms of "derivative work under copyright law", and then,
> after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what is a
> "derivative work under copyright law
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to any
> > such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either
> > the Program or any derivative work
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You may not be qualified (as I am not) to offer legal advice. But
> you're certainly qualified to have an opinion.
Sure. But it's not relevant to this discussion -- despite what many of
the participants seem to believe.
> And there isn't
> nec
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The new toolset(tentatively called dbs-ng while I'm developing it) supports
> > what I call pre-patched source.
>
> Was this a April-fools joke, or do you have some code that we can look at?
While there is no code to look at, xen 2.0(in experi
On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You may not be qualified (as I am not) to offer legal advice. But
> > you're certainly qualified to have an opinion.
>
> Sure. But it's not relevant to this discussion -- despite what m
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 01:45:52PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 25 avril 2005 à 01:03 -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
> Leader a écrit :
> > Woody Security Update Challenges and Progress
> > -
> > The ARM problems we've had have also
eSecure Online Pharmacies
http://tvxlce.kznvo3kvzc2s6l2.paishnkmd.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to any
> > > such program or work, and a "work based o
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe you're objecting to the "that is to say" phrase, which restates
> > > what
> > > "work based on the Program": means.
>
> I don't, except insofar as C - "the Program" attempts to paraphrase E
> - "the Program" (= D).
Oh for Pete's sake, (E - "the Program") (= D). What a great place for
a word wrap.
- Michael
44 matches
Mail list logo
