> Taking the risk to burn like hell: I think the "exhaustive exploration"
> of ANY political theory and practice is VERY misplaced in ANY Linux
> distribution. I would say the same thing about "The top 1000 FAQ on
> home-made apple pie", but nobody has packaged that (yet).
>
> To give a positive fo
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>Some packages are "worth" more than others. Worth is often hard to define
>but not impossible. Debian may not want to get into the definition
>business but that doesn't mean it can't be done and circumstances may
>force it too.
I can't help but infe
blic Field Test" has recently been released
in binary-only form, and can be found at www.interbase.com. I have no
plans to package any non-free releases of IB6, but if people feel strongly
about it, I may be convinced to investigate the legality (not sure if
redist is permitted) of it and package
Hello, all.
I've only just returned from spending the long weekend out of town. Of
course, I've awoken to find a rather large thread on debian-devel
regarding attribution issues with my packages of reiserfsprogs. You can
imagine my excitement :)
As a result, I've privately emailed Hans to try
On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 13:57, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:58:08AM -0600, Ed Boraas wrote:
>
> > As a result, I've privately emailed Hans to try to resolve the issue. I
> > would like to apologize to debian-devel for the traffic this has
> > gen
> Previously Matthias Berse wrote:
> > Are there any plans in supporting the usage of SGI's xfs filesystem in
> > debian? Are there kernel patches available and/or userspace tools
> > being packaged?
>
> The userspace tools have been in unstable for a while already actually.
And the kernel patche
> Hello,
>
> any news from the Interbase Debian packages?
It's coming, slowly. I'm also evaluating firebird packages.
The problem with InterBase specifically, is the curiosities involved in
doing a bootstrap build (as opposed to a build that depends on an
already-installed set of InterBase binari
> At this time being, there's no official XFS kernel images nor patches in
Debian, however there is xfsprogs as far as I know in Woody & Sid. I am
willing to work on an XFS kernel floppy boot disk, but it would be pointless
cine a kernel image with XFS is bloated by about 300K if I'm not mistaken,
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, David Welton wrote:
>I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to
>download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was
>released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there
>may be problems, it might eat your computer... w
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
>> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
>>
>Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
>current pppd that would be compatible with the new k
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>license.
I think this is a good idea. If this proposal needs to be seconded,
consider this my "seconded!".
If it needs to be seconded somewhere else (debian-vote?) i'll do so
there :)
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
>Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>> license.
>
>I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd
>like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily
>wa
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
>On 23-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>> license.
>>
>
>The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other
>reason but to remove the expiration date.
Note t
13 matches
Mail list logo
