Something strange has happened to the bash version in sarge:
version inconsistency between source and binary package:
source package: bash, version: 2.05b-2-26
binary package: bash, version: 2.05b-26
If I read policy correctly, the upstream version is "2.05b-2".
Something (debhelper?) drops t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Michal Čihař" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: wmmp
Version : 0.10.0
Upstream Author : Anthony Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.musicpd.org/WMmp.shtml
* License : GPL
Description : Window Maker dock
Dear Friends,
the idea to have some sort of incremental update support for the
archive index files (Packages,Sources) in the archive and in apt has
been around for some time now [1].
Anthony Towns analysed the problem in [2] and came up with the idea to
use ed-style diffs to solve the problem.
A
Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 2. merkel does not have the actual package files
> To work around (2) and make it possible to still download packages
> (even with merkel as the only entry in sources.list) a hack was added
> to apt called: "APT::URL-Remap::". This allows one to rema
On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want
> (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to
> enter the scene... all over the world.
Not "now". Debian (and I think every other dis
On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > it's up to you explaining why.
> here they are:
So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a
discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> [...] Even if in the last two years it has become
> popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the
> project was not looking [...]
Yes, the debian-legal cabal has been working in secret on its
public mailing list and has devised a plot
reopen 318590
severity 318590 serious
thanks
So my package, libofx, builds a binary that wants to use curl. My
package is GPL'd. Getting a libssl exemption is not the right thing,
nor should it be necessary.
I would like to build the package against libcurl3-gnutls-dev which
will be just fine.
Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A GPL package (which only depends on libcurl3-gnutls) is installed:
> libcurl3-gnutls gets pulled in
>
> A package that can't work with gnuTLS version of libcurl (and
> therefore libcurl3-gnutls conflicts with it) is installed:
> libcurl
On Saturday 10 September 2005 07:46 am, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Having to specify this at the commandline is messy, is there a way to put
> this in /etc/apt.conf.d/? I've tried in vain using
>
> APT::URL-Remap::http://merkel.debian.org/~aba/debian/
> {"http://ftp.at.debian.org/debian";};
I would
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then
> applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead
> of the current approach, which totally breaks, violates policy, and
> doesn't really help much of anyone.
I real
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Christoph Ulrich Scholler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libcgns
Version : 2.4-3
Upstream Author : CGNS Steering Commitee
* URL : http://www.cgns.org/
* License : CGNS-License
(http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/cgns/charte
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Moray Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gpe-calendar
Version : 0.64
Upstream Author : Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gpe.handhelds.org/
* License : GPL
Description : calendar for GPE
gpe
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:21:51PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then
>> applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead
>> of the current approach, which totally brea
On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:54, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you
> > want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane
> > cases' to enter the scene... all o
On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
> > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
> > apparent ill effect on users.
> Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star
> > is
> > weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug.
> While it is obviously true that the
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:57:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
> > > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
> > > apparent ill effect on
18 matches
Mail list logo
