Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that is the main issue here. I would like to believe that
> Debian is capable of showing more respect for other people than
> including hotbabe in the distribution would indicate.
First, I'm not saying that I personally feel that hotbabe should
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Source code is source code. Obfuscated or not does not change that. It
> fullfills at least the letter of DFSG#2. For it to violate DFSG#2 you
> would have to show that it is not source and the gcc already prooves
> you wrong there. If you use 'obf
[debian-release dropped]
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But do you notice when the same packages keep showing up at the end of
> the queue for weeks? The queue can be as small as 1 package inbetween
> and that 1 package could still never get build.
Just out of curiosity, what
Before filing any bugs on this matter to the BTS, I'd like to check
who is responsible for changing the priority of a package? Is it the
ftpmasters or the package maintainer?
The package in question is k3b, which should depend on cdrdao, but
cdrdao is too low priority for that. So, either k3b need
[Moving this to -devel, please reply only there, this is not really
voting related stuff. We are talking about things to improve keyring
maintenance, for those not reading -vote.]
Anthony Towns writes:
> So first one was the spam problem, keyring-maint is a well-known address,
> and mails that ar
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is things/websites/etc that "many" parents don't think
> are appropriate for their children.
These parents are free to install whatever traffic blocker they feel
appropriate. Debian doesn't seem to contain one, though.
--
* Sufficiently advan
"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> every parent [1] will have to go through the list of available comics,
> evaluate them and disable them.
Isn't that required in any case, if the parent wants to do content
checking? There is absolutely no guarantee that whatever grouping
Stig Sandbeck Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've got experience with use of greylisting for a mail platform with
> over 1M accounts. Enabling greylisting for this platform reduced
> delivered spam with 80-90%. This is simply because most of the
> infected machines does not attempt a secon
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why would it be such a problem if you use a non-Debian email address for
> Debian correspondence? As far as I recall I have never used my Debian email
> address in the From: field of an email or in a Debian package maintainer
> field.
Like I said, it
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Request for help are usually very ineffective; examples: apt's
> maintainer asked for help and didn't get any (with the exception that
> mdz has started more apt work, but he worked on apt before so
> effectively there are no ne
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:19:20PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> I would much prefer the current system where the elected
>> DPL has the absolute power over the delegates.
> (In fact, even in theory your statement is incor
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You do realise that all parts of SMTP are generally completely
> unauthenticated and can be trivially forged? A system like this has no
> option but to work with unauthenticated data.
Why cannot the C-R system issue the challenge during the SMTP session
(r
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The part where SMTP is completely unauthenticated means that this
> doesn't help - the SMTP envelope sender can be forged just as easily as
> the From: inside the message.
You're right, I forgot to say that the idea only applies to
non-relayed mail where th
"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As in real life: good news are no news, bad news are news.
> That's the reason to see so often just complaints about ftp-masters
> issues and not appreciation for their regular job. Well done.
Yeah, this usually applies to all work, especial
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In most places we already call our operating system simply "Debian". I
> think we should just go through the website (and CD generation scripts
> and such) and remove the few remaining references to "GNU/Linux".
This is an annoying problem for us, in m
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess that depends on the viewpoint of the reader what the results
> were. It is hard to tell if there is a vocal minority making a lot of
> noise, or if there is a majority disagreeing with the criteria.
It's actually pretty easy. Count the num
"Ingo Juergensmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The proposal make some very exact guidelines like the 98% rule whereas
> it is very unprecise in other regards. I find this quite irrating and
> thus asking for clarification.
Actually, the 98% rule is not in the proposal. It was given as a
possibl
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> libhibernate-java?
libhibernate-java is correct as per the Debian Java Packaging Policy.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
--
Tobi writes:
> /usr/share/vdr-dev/dependencies.sh. But the shebang simply is nothing to
> worry about.
May I ask what's the reason you're using this kind of a convoluted
system? Wouldn't it be simpler to separate debian/make-special-vdr.sh
and debian/rules, and call debian/make-special-vdr.sh dir
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With Gnus+Mailcrypt, I was unable to vote with a signed but not
> encrypted ballot. The voting daemon claimed that there was some
> kind of quoted-printable problem. This surprised me: Gnus and
> Mailcrypt have not caused problems for me with any previous
>
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mailcrypt doesn't, as far as I know, support PGP/MIME (RFC 3156).
> PGP/MIME is the only standards-conforming way to do OpenPGP signatures
> containing non-ASCII text. Check your e-mail if it contains a
> top-level Content-Type of multipart/signed. If
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With "Like this" I mean packages that have been held back in NEW for a
> very long time without response or REJECTED with an reason not
> acceptable to the maintainer? Does mediating this kind of issues fall
> under the authority of the TC, or should t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libjakarta-ecs-java
Version : 1.4.2
Upstream Author : Stephen Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Jon S. Stevens <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://jakarta.apache.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libjabsorb-java
Version : 1.3
Upstream Author : Jabsorb Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://jabsorb.org/
* License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang: Java
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you please elaborate here? The DFSG does not require us to have or
> ship source code for non-program works, and if documentation is being
> rejected on the basis of a *source* requirement (as distinct from a
> licensing issue), then I think we ha
Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and
> understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce,
> distribute and *modify*, I completely fails to see the motivations
> for such a decision.
Let me quote the GR text:
Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you claim a PDF file is a binary file, or a program object ? Even
> if PDF was a programming language, as proposed in another anwser, it
> would fall into the script category, where the executed object is
> also the source.
I grant you that it is pos
As there's been discussion about the state of the NEW queue lately,
I'd like to announce that at this moment there are 45 packages in NEW,
only one of those being >2 weeks old (excepting problematic packages,
there are 12 of those currently). Mostly thanks to Joerg and Mark this
is down from ~250 p
"Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There's a load
> of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
The NEW queue is constantly being processed. Unfortunately it seems
that in the normal case more packages enter NEW than are processed
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
> be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
> aspects currently, which might explain why it takes so much time.
These things are the major slowdowns, at least
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 03/12/08 at 15:41 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> if you've also made sure that you don't get any lintian warnings and
>> your debian-directory is clear (especially debian/rules), the whole
>> process is pret
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm guessing that many of the other checks that Lucas mentions fall out
> of the examination you have to do for the licensing anyway?
Yes, eg. code duplication shows up pretty fast in the
license/copyright check.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indist
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand the logical connection here. IMO, NEW processing should
> be a rubber stamp, with only the checking required to satisfy whatever our
> needs are for liability purposes.
In my relatively short experience even the legalese check is
defini
Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wrong! The overrriden ones should be a lot of fun to look at.
Well, the override file is there for a purpose - it's entirely
possible that lintian gives a false positive or the package in
question has a valid exception for the error. In any case the lintian
over
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending
> in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and
> pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post
Does the package in NEW fix the well known backscat
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it might well be that those SMTP servers, that accept mail regardless
> of the existence of the recipient mailbox, take load off your server's
> spam processing, because they eat spammer's resources.
I rather use a MTA that implements SMTP time delays t
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> Please refrain from using the absolutely wrong list for your own
> political purposes in the future.
As Cyril already pointed out, Robert's post was to the devel, not to
the devel-announce, so please ignore my outburst. Sorry for the noise.
--
* Sufficient
Robert Millan writes:
> I don't think d-d-a is meant to be used as a forum, but since others are
> doing so, I guess it's fine if I join.
Mmm, who is doing so? Do you mean the release team update? If so, I
don't think the update qualifies as "using devel-announce as a forum".
And even if it does,
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:
> Doesn't it occur to you that there might be a reason why the Secretary cannot
> be removed by GR or by the Leader's whim?
Actually, the Secretary *can* be removed by a GR. The GR must of
course amend the Constitution at the same time to allow this, so it
needs to
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
> petition for the DAM to have me removed from the project,
WHAT?? Could these people step up please and tell us WHY you consider
expelling Manoj from Debian would be a good thing? Feel free to us
José Luis González writes:
> System. This makes it impossible to report a bug with RC severity in
> the Bug Tracking System that permits RC bugs to remain in Debian when
> the report is closed incorrectly and nobody notices before it is
> archived (please see bug #227941.) Since the problem is onl
Agustin Martin writes:
> There was the opinion that there should be a wordlist of standard priority,
> and that the best for that was wamerican, formerly wenglish. So wamerican
> may be left with standard priority.
Why does standard need an English wordlist?
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Why is the Opera browser not included in Debian?
For the very simple reason that Opera is not open source software.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
--
Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
> installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
> qmail (if not the qmail itself).
OK, that's possible, I can only remember back to about 2000, when
there was only the
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't
> the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
Yes, the license has been changed, QMail is now fully distributable
and modifiable. Dunno if this ITP should actually be considered
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> reject at SMTP etc (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for
> spams is rubish - it's only if/when configured incorrectly that this
> becomes a problem)
How can you configure the QMail to send error messages only to
non-forged sender addresses?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M.A. Cater) writes:
> Smail?? [Debian mail agent pre-exim]. Don't think we've _ever_
> distributed qmail, just as we stopped distributing Pine once the licence
> restrictions became clear for similar reasons. You are making me think
> back to 1996-1997 here :)
qmail-sr
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are in fact multiple people who fill the role of ftpmaster; this
> package may have been processed by someone entirely different, who had a
> different opinion on the situation.
Just to remind everybody, when there are several people filling a
sin
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at the graphs ti seems obvious that the way how to get buildds
> running again is known for about 5 days now.
You're complaining about a delay of five days in a project run by
volunteers and which has been hit very severly by a break-in? I w
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I already contacted Ryan for a different issue and got no response at all.
> Go and figure out my motivation to ask him again.
People do have different response times regarding different things. I
may leave trivial questions lying in my mailbox for
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> argument (publicly critising volunteers who are busy is not
>> productive, even if you point is otherwise valid).
>
> The hell it isn't.
True, if you try to get rid of the current volunteers, then publicly
criticising them is somewhat productive. This usu
I'm trying to port the latest lpr release from OpenBSD to Debian (the
package has been orphaned and I'm trying to take it over) and the
process is not entirely straightforward. Are there any tips (common
pitfalls etc) for porting applications from *BSD to Linux?
--
* Kettering's Law: Logi
Chris Leishman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I care about security in testing, and I believe others do too. But I
> don't think the process should be the same as with stable releases.
> Testing should not become another psudo stable distributionit's
> for testing. So I don't think security ma
Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What kind of pre-planning is taking place? The idea of security
> updates for testing?
>
> Every time this appears to have been raised it's usually shot down
> very quickly; unless I've missed something.
Actually the last time (if I searched the arc
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I wasn't aware of any of the pre-plans Kalle refers to. I
> didn't think anyone had actually picked up this ball yet.
"Pre-plans" in this case means that two people (one DD and one NM) have
been talking about it "seriously." So, if you want to sh
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
>
> You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail me.
Stating a fact is not blackmail. As SFLC has determined that
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Indeed, the concept of derived work does not exist in European law.
Wrong. It does exist at least in Finland, most likely elsewhere in the
Nordic countries, too.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key
Russ Allbery writes:
> started experimenting with the new copyright file format, I never
> documented the license or copyright information for any of the
> Autotools-generated files, and I never heard a peep of concern about
> that.)
Currently the ftpmasters don't require those copyrights to be l
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There are 215
> packages waiting [1] about half of which have been there 3 or more
> weeks.
NEW is being processed almost daily.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
*
Deng Xiyue writes:
> IMHO, except package with just SONAME bump, packages in NEW queue are
> better processed in a FIFO manner. Just my two cents.
Most of the time this is the case. But, if you upload a large, complex
package, that might get passed by for a while so that several small,
easy pack
Jonathan Wiltshire writes:
> I enquired previously about whether we might have some developers
> assist the ftpmasters by pre-assessing packages and reporting
> appropriately, which might ease the process. I don't know if this would
> actually help them or just duplicate work, since they need to b
Romain Beauxis writes:
> I have several very small ocaml packages waiting in NEW for several
> weeks now. I am upstream on these packages, and, honnestly, it takes
> few minutes to check them (only 3 files of code in tarball).
There are currently 46 packages in NEW which have been there for more
64 matches
Mail list logo
