Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Due to lack of time I am not able to do the s390 porting work anymore. I
> am looking for someone
> who is interested to take over the s390 port. This includes the
> administration of the buildd servers,
> analyzing build failures and requalification of
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Of course I read debian-devel. But I fix bugs once they are
>> reported. I use the BTS to track needed work in this way.
>
> This is of course suprerior to running vi debian/control because
>
I get empty pages from wiki.debian.net... anyone know why?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [CC'ed Thomas Bushnell, since he has filed an ITA on gwrapguile]
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Please, check the following bugs, rename or close them, however you prefer.
>>
>>
>> 1) #242467: ITA: gwrapguile -- Tool for exporting C libraries in
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:05:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Furthermore, the plan is to remove GNOME 1 entirely, as noted at:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-gtk-gnome/2005/06/msg00025.html
>>
>> If your package depends on one of these and y
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Furthermore, the plan is to remove GNOME 1 entirely
>
> (debian-devel readers: this discussion is more on topic on
> debian-gtk-gnome, and is continuing there.)
The gnome-1 libraries are in use by other D
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anyone who does not want to maintain a package should orphan the damn
>> thing. It seems that it is only the gnome maintainers who do not
>> understand this simple principle.
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell wrote:
>>Do not delete packages just because you think nobody *should* use
>>them; delete them because nobody *does* use them.
> I am suggesting deleting them because nobody *can* use them.
>
> Unless libpng10 is brought back, none of
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:01:26PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Thomas Bushnell wrote:
>> >Do not delete packages just because you think nobody *should* use
>> >them; delete them because nobody *does* use them.
>> I am suggesting deleting them beca
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Langasek wrote (in reference to gdk-imlib1):
>>No, there isn't. It should only need to be rebuilt against the newer
>>libpng.
> Ah, excellent news. Why wasn't this done *before* removing libpng10?
> Because the imlib package maintainer is drop
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, the removal of libpng10 was probably premature, and I wouldn't
> have done it with so many packages still depending on it. I would
> have orphaned it instead. But it's been done now. There are two
> ways to deal with that: put it back in the a
Please see http://bugs.debian.org/321435.
This bug is that gs-gpl fails to work on s390. I recall just seeing
a principal s390 developers say he was no longer doing the Debian s390
port. I don't know what effect this has on the bug.
This bug is blocking a number of packages, at the very least,
Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To clarify the situation: I've included mininimal wrappers for GLib
> that work with both GLib 1.x and GLib 2.x in G-Wrap, mainly to support
> GnuCash. These wrappers are built against GLib 1.x, since currently
> GnuCash/GNOME2 is not ready for prime-
"Michael S. Peek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this package's control file are the following lines:
>
> Package: tiem.ldap-server-config
> Architecture: all
> Depends: slapd ldap-utils libnss-ldap libpam-ldap
> Pre-Depends: slapd ldap-utils libnss-ldap libpam-ldap
>
> My problem is, ac
The lintian warning source-contains-CVS-dir is bogus.
I agree that upstream should not put CVS in their tarballs. But
sometimes they do.
When they do, it is a violation of Debian standards to remove it from
the orig.tar.gz file. So there is no question of doing that.
If you remove the CVS fil
Laszlo Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When they do, it is a violation of Debian standards to remove it from
>> the orig.tar.gz file. So there is no question of doing that.
> Where do you read that? May be true, but can't remember any place ATM.
What do you think "orig" means in "or
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The lintian warning source-contains-CVS-dir is bogus.
>
>> I agree that upstream should not put CVS in their tarballs. But
>> sometimes they do.
>
> It&#x
Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, G-Wrap 1.3 has no upstream anymore, and its functionality is
> replicated in G-Wrap 1.9 - you know, I didn't add the compatibility
> layer for the fun of it.
I know.
> Does upstream actually say that? I've been talking with Derek Atkins
> (war
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And lintian does pester about outdated config.sub/guess, etc. These
> warnings are useful from time to time.
Those problems can be fixed without violating Debian rules too. :)
>> It does make sense to warn against Debian developers who h
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>> I've tried to search for what debconf-2.0 specification is;
>> and how it's different from debconf, but it's not obvious.
>> What's missing from the picture is the changelog of debconf
>> specification (presumably from 1.0), and what
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
>> It's not really a bogus warning; the point of it is so that you're
>> aware so that you can remind upstream not to distribute CVS files in
>> their tarballs.
>
> Isn't getting nasty CVS directories in the source tree that you work
> o
Why is gal0.x not being added to the archive on alpha, i386, mips, and
mipsel? According to the buildd logs, it compiled successfully on all
those archs over ten days ago.
It was uploaded for all the other archs.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubsc
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> But lintian is not there to warn about unfixable problems with
>
> You cannot reliably determine wether the maintainer is doing something
> stupid, or upstrea
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> dpkg-buildpackage in a cvs-checkout directory with strange things in the
> parent dir, for example, because of test builds leaving weird shit on the
> parent directory + lack of coffee + typing dpkg-buildpackage instead of
> cvs-buildpackag
The build of gal0.x-0.24-2 is complete on alpha, i386, mips, and
mipsel, but has not been uploaded to the archive. Users are starting
to notice and complain. Can you please upload them ASAP? Thanks.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The build of gal0.x-0.24-2 is complete on alpha, i386, mips, and
> mipsel, but has not been uploaded to the archive. Users are starting
> to notice and complain. Can you please upload them ASAP? Thanks.
Whoops, there's a da
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No; it should not report uncorrectible warnings.
>
> *IT* *IS* *NOT* *UNCORRECTIBLE*. If you have a good reason to, you can and
> should correct it. You are just not supposed to do it just to shut lintian
> up, use an override for that.
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Easily caught: check to make sure the CVS files are not in the
>> .orig.tz before complaining.
>
> You keep assuming the bogus stuff ends up in the diff. It on
A few weeks ago, libpng10-0 was removed from the archive. A
consequence of this was that all gnome-1 packages (and there are a
number still around) instantly became FTBFS.
I am now the de-facto gnome-1 tsar, but I don't intend to do much
other than keep things limping along. I am doing this bec
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> A few weeks ago, libpng10-0 was removed from the archive. A
>> consequence of this was that all gnome-1 packages (and there are a
>> number still around) instantly
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh!, the irony.
>
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01242.html
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01246.html)
Unlike Joey Hess, I did not say that people who wait for the bug
report are remiss or being bad people.
"Arthur H. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I work at a government laboratory where computer games are prohibited. I
> also use the gnome desktop. When I try to remove gnome-games apt wanst
> to remove gnome because gnome depends on gnome-games. This is really a
> show-stopper for governm
"Arthur H. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First, we don't play the games, but they are inventoried, and they can't
> be there. Second, I can, indeed, remove gnome and re-install individual
> packages and waste a fair amount of time. Government computers are a
> fairly large group and I
Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This property of metapackages has always irked me. If I install gnome
> and then remove gnome-games, I won't automatically benefit in the next
> release from any other goodies the gnome maintainers have added to
> "gnome" package.
I think the question
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I suppose you are right. I have changed the license into:
>
> The Contributor grants third parties the right to
> copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
> modification, in any medium, without royalty. If the
>
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, you misunderstand. Bastian means that if some binary packages
> are only built on some archs, not including the one the upload is
> taking place for, nobody will get an override disparity
> warning[1]. And he's correct, as override disparity
The arm and m68k autobuilders are having real trouble keeping up; m68k
has been well below 90% for weeks, and arm has been plummeting
recently.
Whats up?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Jan C. Nordholz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to ask you if it is desired (and possible at all)
> that submitters close their own bugs if they have been fixed
> without the package maintainer's noticing. The informational
> pages on b.d.o don't state whether [EMAIL PROTECTED] is obeying
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is why I ask that before an NMU, someone should show me the patch,
> and if I reply "I don't have time right now, okay to NMU that if you
> like" then it's fine (and in fact it is going to be the answer you will
> hear most from me ATM).
What if
Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/17/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > That is why I ask that before an NMU, someone should show me the patch,
>> > and i
Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 07:27:14PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On 10/17/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >> That is why I
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Can't the patch be posted to the BTS and NMUed after two days if
>>> there's no response (in general)?
>>
>> Yeah, but golly, sometimes there is no patch because the patch is
>> blindingly obvious.
>
> No, no, no. Please not. There's always a patch, a
I'm trying to solve bug 304932/334877.
I can reproduce the build failure using pbuilder, but not when I build
on my own system directly.
I would like to do the pbuilder build and then examine the failing
filesystem, but pbuilder always deletes the build directory, and the
manual gives no clear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 21, Noah Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > > and build process is a mess. The upstream developer is one of the
>> > > kernel network stack maintainers, and he wants the iputils package to
>> > > always work with the latest and greatest k
Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>I'm trying to solve bug 304932/334877.
>>
>>I can reproduce the build failure using pbuilder, but not when I build
>>on my own system directly.
>>
>>I would like to do the pbuilder build and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 21, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Your message would seem less confrontational if you would deign to explain
>> *why* Linux-specific kernel features are important in a ping implementation.
> Because features like ping -M are of in
Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, 21 October 2005 07:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I'm trying to solve bug 304932/334877.
>>
>> I can reproduce the build failure using pbuilder, but not when I build
>> on my own system directly.
Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've an ugly hack to get ccache working inside the pbuilder, that saves lots
> of build time.
Thanks, but the big build time for lilypond is mostly consumed with
tracing fonts, not compiling C code. :(
> Well, I tried that and didn't managed to get
Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A uuencoded tarball of the generated files would appear to be useful here.
> (You'll probably want tar's -m option when unpacking.)
Well, I'm now closer in. The first invocation of lilypond from within
the build fails. But it fails silently. The faili
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Clearly something about the buildd dynamic environment is *different*
>> from what I get if I just enter and do it myself, and that difference
>> causes the generated lilypond to fail.
>
> Quick random guess: Could pbuilder be providing either no s
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Quick random guess: Could pbuilder be providing either no stdin, or
>> something silly for stdin?
>
> It's possible, but the command invoked doesn't (shouldn't?!) read from
> stdin. I'll check this
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> Good golly, Miss Molly, that's it. It does indeed blow chunks if the
>> input is /dev/null (whether within a chroot or just a normal native
>> build).
>
> Heh. G
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>>
>>> Good golly, Miss Molly, that's it. It does indeed blow chunks if the
>>> input is /dev/null (w
Anthony Towns writes:
> Going too far on the "consistency" side of things makes working on
> alternative OSes pointless: if Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd do
> the exact same thing, why bother putting in the effort to have both?
> Would you say that "tar" shouldn't have special options on t
Anthony Towns writes:
>> No, the point is that the Hurd developers should write that feature in
>> the standard tar so that it can be turned on and off with a normal
>> configure test,
>
> Well, why not say "the Hurd developers should write that feature in the
> standard Linux kernel so that it
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> Of course. So let's have one ping package that provides the feature
>> on systems where the headers say "yes, we have this feature."
>
> Unfortunately, exactly that is not go
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But since you asked, the libpng transition is waiting for the readiness of a
> large cluster of GNOME 1 packages culminating in gnucash, and will probably
> go in as soon as gnucash is ready.
gnucash is number *27* on the sparc build queue. This i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Even if you only want to support Linux, it's *STILL* wrong to include
>> the kernel headers right in the package.
>
> It's not.
What if they are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> Even if you only want to support Linux, it's *STILL* wrong to include
>> >> the kernel headers right in the package.
>> > It's n
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Removing system users on package purge is widely regarded a bug since
>> one cannot guarantee that the local admin hasn't used the account for
>> other things as well. Additionally, removing the system user on
>> package purge might lea
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO you can safely remove an user/group _only_ if you have made sure
> there are no files owned by that uid/group left on any filesystems (and
> checking that may be tricky if the system uses ACLs, for example).
"Any filesystems" here must include remov
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I disagree with the idea that removing a user is a bug. If the user was
> added by the package, and the package is being purged, and there's a
> reasonable expectation that it wasn't used outside of the package's use
> of it then I think it's probably s
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:44:12AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> "One cannot guarantee that the local admin hasn't used the account for
>> other things as well."
>>
>&
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Problem being, if daemons don't remove their (supposedly exclusive-use)
> accounts, you can end in two years with 100 unnecessary accounts in a
> workstation.
And what bad results does this produce?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I disagree with the idea that removing a user is a bug. If the user was
>> > added by the package, a
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > By knowing what the package uses the user for. This is somewhat akin to
>> > the PostgreSQL package's
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Same way you know that the system administrator hasn't modified a file
>> > in /usr/bin.
>>
>> U
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> * Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 20:13]:
>> > This is just patently false, as has been pointed out elsewhere. What
>> > security hole, exactly, is created by orphaning a file?
>>
>> Well, if some
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Leaving around unused accounts is plainly wrong too, and also a
> potential security risk.
Can you outline the risk please?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have we actually got a specific case of this happening and there being a
> real security threat from it? Seems like an aweful lot of hand-waving
> and concern for a possible scenario that doesn't seem to have actually
> happened much (if it all, so far
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In various discussions recently it has been suggested that it would be
> a good idea (TM) to make the init.d scripts run in parallel. This involves
> using some tags from the new LSB and generally making explicit some
> run-time dependencies that hav
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Leaving around unused accounts is plainly wrong too, and also a
>> > potential security risk.
>
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many authentiaction systems do not use pam or shadow authentication.
> That's the point of the counter argument.
So how does removing the line from the password file suddenly change
things?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
Jonas Meurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it produces at least a bloated passwd/group/shadow file. This is reason
> enough to consider possible solutions.
You're worried about disk consumption?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kudos to the people who are holding back on new depdendency-bumping uploads
> until this enormous clog makes it into testing. Can the rest of you
> please make a serious effort?
>
> If your package is caught up in the clog -- don't make a new upload.
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The enormous ABI transitions have been particularly hard, of course. If
> we can avoid ABI-breaking transitions in the future it would help. :-) I
> think we have a poor image of the effectiveness of 'testing' because *both*
> of the last two relea
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt,
> you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible:
> http://www.sun.com/gnome as well as other LGPG and GPL software which is
> shipped with Solaris distribution.
Ho
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CDDL is a good open source license and "blessed" by R.S.
That does not make it compatible with the GPL. You cannot combine
code from two licenses unless the licenses are compatible, and the
CDDL is not compatible with the GPL.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's
> likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the
> kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance.
But only with the licensing question sorted out first.
--
To UNS
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We *do not* mix GPL-based and CDDL-based projects within Nexenta OS.
You don't link CDDL libraries into GPL'd programs? At all? I
disbelieve.
> Please read some more details on license which allows closed binary
> re-distribution at http://www.opensol
Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the
> major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package,
> I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the
> application itself.
Wrong.
> Furt
Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If application A is deployed as a standalone application built
>>> using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a
>>> Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything
>>> oth
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
>
>> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
>> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
>
> There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
> simili
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta
> OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in
> their list besides GNU/Linux?
I have no problem with it, provided it fits the legal requirements.
It seems t
Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The
> numerous-our-examples issue?
Of course, that's an issue.
Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solaris. But I'm not
sure they do so.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
You are incorrect. The BSG license most certainly is GPL-compatible.
> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler,
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship
> GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc,
> tar, sed, awk etc... btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for
> download, so, one could try to install
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL?
I don't know. I've asked the FSF. It depends on the details of
exactly what they are doing.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
> variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
> duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
> to force developers do duplicate their wo
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
> against the spirit of the DFSG?
I disagree. It does not go against the spirit of the DFSG.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is clear tension between this and the "mere aggregation" clause.
> However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
> modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
> by the mere aggregation clause than the t
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anyone who maintains a package depending on libglade up to this, or
> could the GNOME team adopt libglade?
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01199.html
Since I'm the de facto gnome 1 weenie, being the last maintainer of a
big
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
> make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
> sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be
> GPL-free. All GPL software will be distri
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My reading of the "interface definition files" clause is that it only
> applies to those associated with the modules contained in the
> executable. That is, it means header files as well as implementation
> files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about
> CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under
> CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody
> (including propriatery distributors)
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
>> problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and
>> GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.
>
> ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out
Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
> should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like
> somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great
> opportunity. I've got news for you: the g
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> It is not clear to me that
>>> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
>>> defin
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people are already violating
the GPL, we are "forced" to do something other tha
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
>> > variant of dpkg. Will D
901 - 1000 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
