On Wednesday 07 June 2006 05:11, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns [...]
> >
> > > And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
> > > like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license
> > >
Scripsit Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There are two reasons not to use hidden files in /usr, /var, /dev and
> other:
> 1. It generates false positives (as mention before). And to many false
>positives only ends in overlook the real bad files and directories.
> 2. There is absolutely no
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
> They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other
directions in debian policy, but it's
* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-07 02:20]:
> We did pick two compiler warnings and scanned the build logs of one
> archive rebuild on alpha (64bit), where wrong code may be generated.
> These warnings can be found in 1600 packages [4]; they are:
> [4] http://people.debian.org/~tbm/log
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just as /etc/bashrc is not hidden, whereas ~/.bashrc is, *why*
> > should any *system* files be hidden?
>
> IMO dotfiles are a historical artifact which we are stuck with. If we
> were just
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 01:22:56AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> I have no idea what it would take to persuade you that I am who I say I am,
> but if you _only_ accept National Passports then it would appear to be
> impossible in my case (which I realise is something of a corner-case).
I would probably n
Anthony Towns
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20
>
> That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a
> decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there
> is absolutely
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
> > They do not need to.
>
> No, there's no absolute *need* to do that,
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns
> > [...] If people have
> > weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
> > that's entirely their choice.
>
> Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's
> entirely my c
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:45:28AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> This argument is valid only for configuration. There are more
> reasons to have files which are not displayed unless you ask for
> them. For example:
> * .svn
> Storing this metadata somewhere else would mean you have to
> expli
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns
> > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all
> > > the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee liable
> > > for the effects of everything in our operating system?
> >
> > If y
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 03:21:45PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Nice, thanks. While we're at this subject, what's your view on the
> Ubuntu language packs? Are we going to extract the translations from
> the packages creating language packs? It has pros and cons, and
> the best thing i see is the
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns
> >
> > > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn
> > > > all the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee
> > > > liabl
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 02:15 +0200, Axel Beckert a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> > I'm creating a meta package for install a lite desktop for old
> > machines with poor hardware.
>
> Hey, that's a really cool idea! Debian is one of the last modern (and
> not specialised) Linux distribution feasible for o
On 6/7/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
>> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
>> likely,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
> suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy
s2.3. It is a
At 1149646535 past the epoch, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Why gdm and not wdm? gdm depends on a horribly large bunch
> of libraries including GNOME. wdm depends on way less
> libraries, looks not as bare as xdm by default does and
> still is fast and easy to use. (We use it on all our
> Debian workstati
+++ Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [06-05-25 20:00 +0200]:
>
> That being said I (personally) already decided
...[people]
> not showing any passports or showing passports:
>
> - which did not had the *same* spelling as the name in the key (letter by
> letter)
>
> will not get a signature fr
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
> > suggested by the Developer's Reference.
>
> Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
Right, so I was mistake
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in
> > only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
> > (so they would most likel
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> > > > should be, and argu
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence
> 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'.
I don't believe that those claims are consensual on debian-legal. The
MIT/X11 licence is frequently recommended by participant
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it doesn't say that: it says "If in doubt, send mail to -legal". It
> doesn't say "if the license is doubtful", which is a different matter
> entirely.
We've been told "both James and Jeroen extensive contact with
Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
> > > in only Sun's Java to break rather
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is definitely wrong. SPI should not be involved in licence
> approval. Firstly, because licence approval is often a political
> decision for Debian. And secondly because SPI is not the licencee and
> it is very important for thi
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> > The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
> > announcement:
> >
> > SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN") IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
> > ST
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 14:04 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> I don't understand why, as SPI President, you'd bring up concerns
> regarding SPI's legal position in the middle of a thread on -devel and
> -legal, without having discussed it on spi-board, having consulted SPI's
> attorney as to th
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:21:13PM +0200, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
> > (the graphics card is no more supported in XFree 4.x and there
> > no more supported in Sarge) to get it running.
> To my knowledge, at some point, the XFree86 Team treated the
> no-longer-existing-in-4.x drivers as bugs.
Tha
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream
> > changes, but not upstream changes of parts of
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Nobody was suggesting that, and I fail to understand why it is in
> > anyone's interests for you to ratchet up the heat on this issue
> > another notch by making remark
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
> > > in only Sun's Java to break rather
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
> ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
> is that the above is good advice and the closer we can make the
> relationship between SPI's l
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:45:27AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an ups
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
> > >
> > > "the use or distrib
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > > seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes a
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > > > seen repeated claims that w
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libwiki-toolkit-plugin-locator-grid-perl
Version : 0.05
Upstream Author : The Wiki::Toolkit team
* URL : http://www.wiki-toolkit.org/
* License : Dual GPL/Artistic
D
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libwiki-toolkit-plugin-diff-perl
Version : 0.10
Upstream Author : The Wiki::Toolkit team
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Wiki-Toolkit-Plugin-Diff/
* License : Dual
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:25:27AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Christoph Haas wrote:
> > Yes, of course. Besides some minor things I don't quite like about
> > Subversion ([...] getting out old revisions of a file means typing
> > the full URL for no reason)
>
> svn cat -r
Oh, thanks. I
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 18:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > > If you are not misguided, then why DLJ
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Why do I need a case where some other application breaks?
> > The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System,
> > not only for Sun Java.
>
> Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you
Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 02:15 schrieb Axel Beckert:
> + The dropping of the 2.4 kernel line: This will drop AFAIK support
> for e.g. active ISDN cards.
The other way round: active cards are still supported as before, at least the
AVM B1 cards and all others that already support CAPI.
What lac
Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 15:21 schrieb Axel Beckert:
> I have a laptop with a GD 7543 chip. And I won't throw away a working
> laptop just because its graphics card isn't supported and can't be
> exchanged either.
What about using the vesa of fbdev drivers? Maybe slow but working.
HS
pgpR476Jn
On 6/7/06, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 03:21:45PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Nice, thanks. While we're at this subject, what's your view on the
> Ubuntu language packs? Are we going to extract the translations from
> the packages creating
> Well, when the DPL is ignoring the developers' opinions, why would the
s/the/some of the/ ?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Mike Bird writes ("Re: Sun Java available from non-free"):
> Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a "small cabal" -
> - a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has
> placed Debian in the position of indemnifying Sun.
This is obviously not possible.
Debian is not a le
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Sun Java available from non-free"):
> Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to
> indemnify Sun
Who is purporting to commit SPI to indemnifying Sun ?
AFAICT ftpmasters are indemnifying Sun. This is silly of them but
probably not actually fatal.
OK, I'll chime in. I just hope I'm not making matters worse.
First, obligatory disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a Debian
developer, I'm not a new maintainer applicant either. And I'm certainly
not going to make demands on anybody. I'm a resident of Norway, so that
is the legal system I am
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> First, I don't believe that SPI has ever granted anyone the ability to
> enter into legally-binding agreements to indemnify (which means to use
> our resources to defend) third parties. I may be mistaken, though.
> Could you plea
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
> announcement:
>
> SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN") IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
> STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT ("JDK" - THE "SOFTWARE") TO YOU ONLY
Yes, b
Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
> I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
> on d-l?
Actually, I think they should not participate, in general.
The arguments that are had on
"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/7/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any o
Dear Debian developers,
it seems that there is a little problem with the NFS client
in Debian sarge. I hope this is the best place to post this
problem. I have discussed this on
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-german/2006/06/msg00130.html
before but no solution has been found.
The situation:
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Gordon Grubert wrote:
> I have a file server running on Sarge AMD64 connected
> with a 1GBit interface to a GBit uplink off the switch.
> Do not think that this sounds like a common problem. It isn't!!!
...
> The most interesting fact is, that I obtain about 10MB/s with
> my
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libwiki-toolkit-plugin-categoriser-perl
Version : 0.04
Upstream Author : The Wiki::Toolkit team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Wiki-Toolkit-Plugin-Cat
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libwiki-toolkit-plugin-rss-reader-perl
Version : 1.5
Upstream Author : The Wiki::Toolkit team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Wiki-Toolkit-Plugin-RSS-R
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in this regard
is faulty. Is it?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
> of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
>
> I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in this regard
> is faulty. Is it?
Depends on how you
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
>> of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
>>
>> I have recently been told by a maintainer that m
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 19:04 +0200, Hendrik Sattler a écrit :
> Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 15:21 schrieb Axel Beckert:
> > I have a laptop with a GD 7543 chip. And I won't throw away a working
> > laptop just because its graphics card isn't supported and can't be
> > exchanged either.
>
> What
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And hi to everyone from /.!
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing along
> at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity, not announcing the inclusion of 'Sun
Java' on debian-devel-announce would hav
Trading alert!
Just do yourself a favor and watch A B S Y tomorrow morning, and
don't say we didn't tell you...
Talk about flying under the radar? Isn't that what we look for?
Trade Date : Monday, June 7th, 2006
Company Name : AbsoluteSKY
Ticker : A B S Y
Price : $0.95
8month Target : $1 -
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 07:08:00PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
> > of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
> > I have recently been told by
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>> I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
>>> of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I demand that Martin Michlmayr may or may not have written...
> * Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-07 02:20]:
>> We did pick two compiler warnings and scanned the build logs of one
>> archive rebuild on alpha (64bit), where wrong code may be generated. These
>> warnings can be found in
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the above link point to your post, you can only blame yourself for
> its content.
It's not strictly necessary to bitch about Anthony's actions at every
opportunity. If you disagree with his course of actions, perhaps
dropping him a private mail
I demand that Henning Makholm may or may not have written...
[snip]
> But I don't think I have ever used ls from an interactive shell _without_
> the -a flag.
I use -A rather than -a - it filters out "." and "..".
--
| Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I don't think I have ever used ls from an interactive shell
> _without_ the -a flag.
I use -a (or -A) very, very rarely.
(Not that I don't agree that the concept of hidden files should be
replaced by using ~/etc/ for "dotfile", but when we do thi
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nope. A corner-case bug in a compiler may break compilation of a single
> package. The build failure of this package is a serious bug for this
> package; it is not a serious bug for the compiler.
Well, except that it seems to me that any code generat
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:28:29AM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-07 02:20]:
> > We did pick two compiler warnings and scanned the build logs of one
> > archive rebuild on alpha (64bit), where wrong code may be generated.
> > These warnings can be fou
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You probably hit a soft spot there because suddenly the bug became RC
> and blocks the package from entering testing. The destinction between
> normal and important is purely visual while serious and above have
> real effects.
This may be true, b
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 07:04:40PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 15:21 schrieb Axel Beckert:
> > I have a laptop with a GD 7543 chip. And I won't throw away a working
> > laptop just because its graphics card isn't supported and can't be
> > exchanged either.
>
> What a
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Nope. A corner-case bug in a compiler may break compilation of a single
> > package. The build failure of this package is a serious bug for this
> > package; it is not a serious
Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 10:28 schrieb Martin Michlmayr:
> Hendrik Sattler
> obexftp 0.19-4
Those can be ignored for now, as they are double casts:
uint32_t -> char* -> int
Not nice but won't harm, I guess (or do we have 16bit architectures?).
And not related to GCC-4.1 at all.
HS
pgpdUjcVT
Le Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:32:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Given the above link point to your post, you can only blame yourself for
> > its content.
>
> It's not strictly necessary to bitch about Anthony's actions at every
> opportunity.
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns
> > > [...] If people have
> > > weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
> > > that's entirely their choice.
> > Yes, that pack
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the early 2006, I complained privately about the sarcastic tone of
> one of the answers he made to me on -devel, and I guess that I hurted
> him more strongly than if I had done this publicly, because I received
> insults on his blog in return.
I sai
On 7 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell verbalised:
>
> I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the
> severity of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug
> Y.
I don't think so.
> I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in this
> regard is faulty. I
Jérôme Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To my knowledge, at some point, the XFree86 Team treated the
> no-longer-existing-in-4.x drivers as bugs. They requested anybody who
> noticed that its graphics card worked with previous versions of XFree86
> but no longer with 4.x to submit a bug and it
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:15:12PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And hi to everyone from /.!
> > http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing
> > along
> > at home.
> If you wanted to avoid publicity, no
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> So what am I trying to do?
> Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to
> serious legal risks.
Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI board yourself?
> As I've said already, I don't want SPI to be involved
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:18:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
> > I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> > like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
> > on d-l?
> Actually, I think t
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:28:29AM +0200, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-07 02:20]:
> > We did pick two compiler warnings and scanned the build logs of one
> > archive rebuild on alpha (64bit), where wrong code may be generated.
> > Thes
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:53:24PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
> The others are trivially fixable; of these, the one in libavcodec is already
> fixed in CVS. I've committed the rest (they're basically s/int/long/) and am
> forwarding them appropriately.
long is not appropriate to save pointers, you
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and
> elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where
> these decisions are taken.
Who did that? I must have missed a few posts.
FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful res
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Colin Tuckley
> ploticus 2.20-4
This and several other benign warnings will be fixed in the next upload.
Colin
--
Colin Tuckley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP/GnuPG Key Id
+44(0)1903 236872 | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0x1B3045CE
"Apple" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir
86 matches
Mail list logo
