Re: GPL and command-line libraries

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > What I am concerned about is the following scenario: > > Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client. > To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library. > Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't

Re: LCC and blobs

[just some minor additions.] > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:14PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > No, I argue that because you've pried chips off the board, the > > hardware is broken. On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:39:59PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > Er, no. Flash can be overwritten with i

Re: LCC and blobs

> Raul Miller wrote: > > Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the > > software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an > > opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into > > a context where we can&

Re: LCC and blobs

> Raul Miller wrote: > > The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse > > with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not > > known to us. On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:51:22PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote: > I don&#x

Re: LCC and blobs

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:33:41AM -0500, I clumsily wrote: > I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program > contained in the API was designed to work with. That should have read: I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program contained in t

Re: LCC and blobs

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:02:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > The social contract says "...but we will never make the system depend on > an item of non-free software." not "but we will never make the system > depend on an item of non-free software /which we must distribute/." We don't ma

Re: LCC and blobs

On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 11:33:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Please suggest any case which you don't think this criteria adequately > covers. The bios. Unless, we decide that the bios we put in non-free isn't the bios we need to boot the machine. -- Raul

Re: LCC and blobs

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:16:25AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > However, if somebody writes a graphviz-client which just pushes the > dot file over the network to graphviz.example.com on some port and > gets a postscript file back, it can go into main. No matter what > software said server is r

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

It seems to me that we have some responsibility for the licenses used on these presentations. It also seems to me that we should structure our approach to these licenses similarly to the way we approach other license issues. That is: we should encourage people to use a DFSG license, and we should

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the > DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to > require a supermajority. This comment seems insincere. If the GR is adopted by Debian, ther

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. > > When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be > trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference > > between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies > > t

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this > extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor > power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of >

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set > or not? The constitution says: "... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4)." I think that's pretty clea

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation > > > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning > the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it > follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on > the basis of a

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote: > I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the > constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents -- > ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now > in a sense, by continuing to leave bu

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of > > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining > > whether something is in compliance wi

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote: > Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, > even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. > I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to > write any code for it. I don't know what

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

On 2/20/06, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib. This proposal is clear enough. > My reasons are: > > - The sole purpose of these packages is allowing the use of non-free Windows > drivers. > > - There are

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

On 2/21/06, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/20/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a specific counter example, consider > > http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page > > which is a project porting a windows driver

Re: new virtual package: ups-monitor

On May 26, Joey Hess wrote > I don't think wish is the right name. Unless you're familiar with tk (as > opposed to just trying to get it installed), you may not know that the tk > interperter is named wish. But in that case, it's just infrastructure, so why should you care? -- Raul -- TO UNSUB

Re: SIOCSIFFLAGS

On May 24, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote > I just ran across this problem as well. I have a PCI bus > with a DPT RAID board and a 3COM ethernet board trying to > share IRQ 11. There were no software options or hardware > jumpers to change the IRQ selection. > > To solve the problem, I moved the ether

Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen

On May 27, Thomas Koenig wrote > Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file > > was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs), > > and the problem actually is that the version of dpkg being used is > > too old to understand

Re: GOAL: Consistent Keyboard Configuration

David Frey: > > PS: I was never able to reliably switch the Ctrl/CapsLock key a la Sun. On May 28, Kai Henningsen wrote > And don't do this as a standard feature, either - CapsLock is bad enough > on its own, but switching it with Ctrl would make a keyboard just about > unusable for me. The w

Re: Sysvinit and System.map (Was: dangling symlink System.map)

On May 28, Yann Dirson wrote > BTW, psupdate is the only program I can think about using > System.map. Are there any other ? lsof -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#8416: lprng: should recommend removing init.d script of lpr

On May 29, Sven Rudolph wrote > IMHO this should be changed in such cases: > - run `update-rc.d -f lpd remove >/dev/null' on remove and purge Better to chmod -x the lpd file, because that looses less information. [lpd postinst would have to chmod +x the file, so it's still not perfect.] -- Raul

Re: packages.debian.org & qmail (was Re: Using CVS for package development)

On May 29, Bruce Perens wrote > I must admit to not understanding what that qmail alias file is for. > I do _all_ of my aliases with .qmail-* files . > > What I was trying to achieve was to have qmail forward a message without > messing around with the headers any more than necessary. Thus, I want

Re: RFC: Policy for arch specs

On May 31, Galen Hazelwood wrote > Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we > configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's > a good middle ground. If I remember right, configuring for pentium leaves an executable that might not run on 386 or

Re: FreeQt ?

> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote: > > actually, a lot of us find the sound driver stuff objectionable too > > (because it leaves us with practically useless sound code, almost > > enough to drive one to NetBSD :-) I still don't have any way to use > > *both* ESS1688's in my laptop (when docked),

Re: FreeQt ?

On Jun 1, Leland Olds wrote > "free" means different things to different people. Personally, I like > the Debian/Gnu definition. But if someone else uses it in another way, > that doesn't mean that they are scammers and are trying to mislead us. Um... in principle. On the other hand, that doesn'

Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)

On Jun 1, Jim Pick wrote > Actually, I had a very similar polite argument with RMS via private e-mail > (about linking Java libs with mixed GPL/LGPL/proprietary licenses). He > was pretty solid on the fact that run-time linking is the same as > "compiled-in" linking. Yep, once the run-time linkin

Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)

On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote > The cygwin.dll case in an example where the GPL is being used to restrict the > rights of other people using the code so that they can't do something taboo > such as charge money, while at the same time, reserving the right for the > authors to do the exact same thing.

Re: FreeQt ?

On Jun 1, Galen Hazelwood wrote > My understanding was that if a shared library is GPL'd rather than > LGPL'd, linking commercial programs against it is illegal unless you > provide source. The LGPL removes that restriction, and that's why glibc > (as well as libg++) uses the LGPL. Static linking

Re: cygwin.dll license (was Re: FreeQt ?)

On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote > Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg > to cygwin32. Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if it wasn't, I don't understand how a gpl'd dll co

Re: Corel Wordperfect and Java Office

On Jun 6, Colin R. Telmer wrote > I just noticed that Corel is just in the process porting Wordperfect 7 to > Linux and the following is on the web page > : > > Certified Operating Systems > > RedHat 2.0.18 > Slackware 2.0.25 > OpenLinux 1.0 > > Should we

Re: xterm terminfo entry

On Jun 22, Mark Eichin wrote > Except that the xterm-color entry isn't particularly widespread, yet; > so if you rlogin or telnet somewhere that doesn't have it, you pretty > much lose. termcap supported the TERMCAP environmental variable, which solved problems like this (and like "linux" not bei

Re: dc and bc in Important?

On Jun 27, Erik B. Andersen wrote > For most math, expr works just fine. Of course, expr is limited > to integer math, but it works and is portable. Oops, you're right -- my biases are showing, sorry. [I make it a practice to never use expr.] -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST:

Re: Bad Maintainer Addresses

Re: dc and bc in Important?

Re: be careful with Replaces, please

It occurs to me that one avenue for a safe upgrade to hamm might be a jumbo-package. This would basically be a hand crafted .deb that contained (and provides) all the relevant sensitive packages. The downside is that this approach is laborious to implement. The upside is that this approa

Re: Future security problem (was Re: be careful with Replaces, please)

Brandon Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can see a security problem with this. Absolutely: pre/post inst/rm scripts run as root, this is the security problem to dwarf all other security problems. Our defense is a wide audience. The more people we have looking at the system, the better

Re: linux/unix to NT

Mariusz Pagowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > I learned about samba package allowing me to access disks > on NT machine from unix/linux. But does samba allow me > to login/telnet to NT machine from linux/unix and run remotely > a program on it? If not is there some software which would all

Re: perl module packages: why do they exist?

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > # generate the control file > % make-ppkg --generate --package libcgi-perl --module CGI-modules > control > % vi control# make sure things look ok (espescially version numbers) > % make-ppkg -d my-packaging-directory control > % dpkg -I my

Re: Config file management utility

Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That said, it appears that the only policy compliant way for a package > to run a script more frequently than once a day is to register a user, > and create a crontab for that user. This is not too onerous for > news or sendmail, but seems like overkill

going to package e

I intend to package the beta enlightenment window manager, imlib, and the default themes. If anyone wants to do it instead, I'll happily fall back to kibitz mode -- let me know. -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-

Re: Config file management utility

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having a user for mrtg doesn't seem very appropriate to me, though. > Mrtg is a simple program, that needs to run every 5 minutes. A user is > overkill. If a user is overkill then cron probably is too. You'd probably do fine with something like ( tr

Re: going to package e

Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lalo Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did a package of beta 12, back in > August, but he didn't upload it since he was waiting for developer > status. I wonder what happened? Did we lose another one? I was going to pick it up from him, but... > Anyways, his old p

Re: Intent to package: umich-ldap / WNPP: Dermot Bradley probably not maintaining packages

Dermot John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW Can anyone tell me how to create a package based on pristine source > using debmake? >From www.debian.org, hit "developers corner". Then, start with Creating a Package using Debmake, after that, hit New-Maintainer's Debian Packaging Howto. Get y

Re: Config file management utility

Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only problem is that it uses Perl. I haven't read the Debian policies > so I don't know if Perl (or a stripped down version of it) is one of the > things I can assume is on even the most minimal system. If not, I can do > the same thing with bash/sed, I

Re: Bug log ordering

Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul continues to suggest using a CGI program: Er.. note that I'd also suggested using a proxy server. I even supplied code for such. > We have more mirrors than places we can run CGI scripts. Note that a proxy server can be run more places than a CGI sc

Re: bashisms

> Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > cp fred.{txt,html} dest-> cp fred.txt fred.html dest > > function f() {echo Hi;}-> f() {echo Hi;} should be f(){ echo Hi;} you MUST have a space after the opening brace. Of course, extra spaces are legal: f ( ) { echo Hi

Re: BS in rxvt+ncurses

Mark W. Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ps. Of course the behaviour in paragraph 2 has nothing to do with unix > either; unix terminal handling is far too primitive for that. Long > Live Multics :-) Of course, nowadays the "interact" command under expect can easily handle this kind of thing..

Re: Moving topics from debian-private (was Re: SPI money out)

Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html . The page > contains several arguments against the use of "Reply-To". I fully agree to > what Ian said. I personally find header-munging of any sort distasteful, however I think a couple

Re: Taking over production of emacs20 package.

Adam P. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if you have Xemacs *and* Emacs installed, and want to use auctex > from both? Last time (a couple weeks ago) I tried selecting both xemacs and emacs, I found that they conflicted. -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the wor

Re: ppp's ip-{up,down} and possible utilization of 'run-parts'

Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any better suggestions ? run-parts should pass arguments which follow the directory. -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Service registration

Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When a provider first installed a hook, the system would immediately > run the hookfile for all clients that already registered. Then > whenever a new client registered, it would run the hookfile. The > hookfile would be run with the same arguments that the c

Re: Service registration

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Say, ferinstance, that several revisions of a package are installed > > and there are subtly different arguments each time. Or, that package > > installation fails, is backed out, then installed then reconfigured? Guy Maor &

Re: Does `dpkg' track the installation date of a package?

Todd Graham Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Count mine as one vote for a new LOG_DEBIAN facility. Is syslogd guaranteed to not lose events under debian? [It has no such guarantee for the general case.] -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAI

Re: Paranoia, "pristine sources", turnkeys, compiling, configuration

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This suggests to me that at least part of what the Debian developers > are doing is somehow redundant, when it comes to well written software > that is set up to compile of a number of systems. I did not claim that > there are not packages that I have

Re: ppp's ip-{up,down} and possible utilization of 'run-parts'

Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note, that I'm not saying that I can come up with a good argument why > it would be important to be able to make this distinction (or to even > do what I'm depicting in the example), but I am saying that since I > can't prove to myself that the exact arguem

Re: Re^4: intent to package: doom!

Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would prefer a flag in CONTROL. We have got a lot of programs with such > problems. For example it's no problem to sell programs with GIF support in > Germany, because there's not patent on this algorithm. > The crypt programs are another group. You're

Re: killall is removed from procps

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Two options: > I merge the psmic into procps > I create a new package called psmisc. procps is required. pure compatability would argue that psmisc also be required (or something very close). -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST:

Re: Debian and the millenium bug

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, there is a problem with the Gregorian calendar that has to be > dealt with in 2000 years or so (having to do with leap-millenia), but > I figure if it's more than 100 years it's no problem. I believe that can be handled by making the year 4000 n

Re: port 80 connections persist after closing Netscape

Oliver Elphick wrote: > Can anyone tell me what is going on and how to stop it? Sounds like socket shutdown. If so, the "right" way would be to tell diald about such packets so it ignores them. The "quick and dirty" way would be to shut down diald for a few minutes. -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIB

Re: base-files 1.6 (source all) uploaded to master

Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is new users. Then we should be talking about /etc/skel/, rather than /etc/profile -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BEWARE

Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the broken grep (I think it is filed as a Bug already) will do a lot of > damage to your system. It will kill your Windowmanger -list if you install a > Windowmanager, and it will make the /etc/X11/config not work > (user-xsession). There are a bunch of

Re: BEWARE

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Raul Miller wrote: > > I think this is so bad that every binary copy of grep 2.1-7 should be > > deleted from every archive as soon as possible. Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You mean 2.1-6? Oops. yes. I'd hand-patche

Re: base-files 1.6 (source all) uploaded to master

Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The policy is to keep /etc/skel minimal, to avoid unecessary bloat of > /home structure... keep in mind that many ISP's have thousands of users. (1) If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. (2) /etc/skel/ already has a .bashrc and a .bash_profile. (3)

Re: base-files 1.6 (source all) uploaded to master

Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but remeber that changes in /etc/skel affect only users that > are added in the system _after_ the change. Exeisting users will > still have old files. I still wonder, what it helps to put global > configuration in user-specific files. Then you're sayi

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand this and it is a good point. My concern is with people > who are trying to install Debian and the difficulties they encounter. > There have been several posts lately from experienced people who tried > to install Debian and had it blow up in the

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How many of these people had problems from properly built packages? > > All of them. It was that the packages didn't work in certain situations. Were these "Extra" packages? > > What about people who need such support now (before the cd is released). >

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The subject in question is whether to include these packages in "stable". > "unstable" will include them for sure. I think they are appropriate for "stable" provided they are classifed as "Extra". That is what the "Extra" priority is for, after all. -- R

Re: base-files 1.6 (source all) uploaded to master

> configuration in user-specific files. On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 11:42:30AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Then you're saying that the point is not so much new users but existing > > users. Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nooo... I mean those who new to l

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Add diald to the list of packages having a problem with 2.1.X > kernels. I have downloaded the patch from the diald list archives, > but even that failed for 2.1.94. Diald works with 2.1.92, but it has a defect when connecting to other machines

Re: intent to package Netscape Communicator

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, another point I am worried about. Included in the tarballs are hooks > into an automated software update mechanism. I have that disabled, as that > would not fit well with the debian way of maintaining things. Anyone else > have ideas on this? On a

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From a logical point of view, I think project/experimental is the best > choice. Why don't we include selected directories from there on the official > CD (I think of gettext (ouch, don't beat me), 2.1.x software, ...)? Project/experimental is not part

Re: vim, help files and vimrc

David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. Ask the user if it is ok to fool with vimrc ,and script the > necessary changes. This strikes me as being ugly and something that > we might be stuck with for a long time, in the name of backwards > compatibility. Can't you put a global vmrc in /etc?

Re: vim, help files and vimrc

On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 09:15:01PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Can't you put a global vmrc in /etc? David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's the one I'm talking about - it is a conf file, and may well > have been changed by the admin. The debian conffi

Re: vim, help files and vimrc

James R. Van Zandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >diff /etc/foo.conf /etc/foo.conf.dpkg-dist | head -18 I originally asked that there be a D option which would do diff -u $x $x.dpkg-dist | ${PAGER:-more} and was told that that was what the Z option was for. Unfortunately, I don't think human

Re: Is this a bug in libc6?

Avery Pennarun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Personally, as a programmer myself, I much prefer to work on a system that > gives up consistently when I do something wrong. That's what segmentation > faults are all about. It would be _easy_ to tell the k

Re: Anyone want to make a Debian XDM login screen?

Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They both would be easy, but with the first option I would be > concerned by the rapidly changing state of the gtk libraries. (Red > Hat is basing some gui apps on gtk, so users are unable to install > newer versions of the gtk libraries without breaking t

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we start putting experimental things in CDs, then we should create > another distribution "really-experimental", since experimental > seems not to be "safe" enough... Or create an "expirmental" priority. The policy manual says: extra Thi

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 13.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It is in experimental because the author asked me not to distribute it > > "widely". This means that even if it is not accesable by dselect, we > > should not put it on CDs yet. Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

Re: Test Report (was: Re: boot-floppies_2.0.4 (source i386) uploaded)

Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I did hear something about /etc/envronment, but I'm not sure what purpose it > has and if it works for all shells, etc. Well, I hope it is okay to change > /etc/profile, as it is *very* annoying for non-english users (esp. first > time user) to have to

Re: Anyone want to make a Debian XDM login screen?

David A. van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even ctrl-alt-del doesn't work in XFree86. ctrl-alt-del should be made to work. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Anyone want to make a Debian XDM login screen?

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > David A. van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Even ctrl-alt-del doesn't work in XFree86. > > > > ctrl-alt-del should be made to work. > > Um, please, NO! > > I

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The choices are: don't ship them, ship them in contrib, or ship them > in project/experimental. I still don't understand why they don't fit in Extra. Packages designed the 2.1.* frozen kernels seem to exactly fit the policy for Extra. Did you post a mess

Re: elvis package

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Elvis is non-free and the author ignores all mail coming from us, > both copyright mails as well as bugreports and fixes. Er... then why isn't it in non-free? Also, why is it our highest preference editor? Also, what aspect of the copyright notice puts

Re: elvis package

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 09:11:41AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > This fails #3 and #7 of the DFSG. (Bug#14953 from 16 Nov 1997) Ho hum.. the web server is still down. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: bzip2 for source packages?

Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be > appropriate, though? Not as the only format -- even the linux kernel is available in gzipped tar. I'm sorry, but the source format is needed in a far wider range of contexts than the .d

/etc/group lossage

Today, when installing some packages, I noticed some errors that I didn't expect. Looking closer, my /etc/group file had been damaged. Looking closer, I found a couple of packages (msqld and sudo) which updated /etc/group in what I would consider an insufficiently paranoid fashion. While they co

bzip2 X

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would probably make a lot of people very happy (including me) to bzip2 > the Xfree86 source and/or binaries. Hmm... it's actually probably a good idea to bzip2 the X sources. They're monstrous. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: /etc/passwd : which software does support this ?

Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not really a programer, but I wonder how hard it would be to put > support for these fields in all programs like login, xdm, cron, at and > anything I am forgetting. Could this be done? The difficulty isn't so much making the change, once (though t

Re: elvis package

Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm pretty sure that a program must be either entirely GPLed, > or contain no GPLed parts. More precisely, the non-gpled parts must not have terms which prevent compliance with the gpled parts. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT

Re: less: extra entries for lesspipe

Carl Mummert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But when you say, 'less binfile', what do you expect it to do? Pretty much the same thing view binfile does. Note also that the real problem lesspipe was designed for would be better addressed by a compressed file system. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Intent to package moxa radius

Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > be GPL. An example of this is ncftp which was using it--that's a nono, > even though it is a simple shared library. In this instance, the GPL > actually hurt ncftp. ... > This is a limitation on the GPL I think, ... It's a limitation of ncftp. The

Re: why not mingetty??

> On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 05:39:51PM -0400, Shaleh wrote: > > Why is our default not mingetty. Several other dists use this. For > > almost all Linux boxen this is the right choice. It is easier on mem > > and cpu than agetty. Can this be quantified, please? Changing the default will disrupt t

Re: elvis package

Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure that a program must be either entirely GPLed, > >> or contain no GPLed parts. In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Raul Miller writes: > >More precisely, the non-gpled parts must not have t

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that > at least RMS would enforce things under the FSF'

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >