> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> [I know this thread is old.]
Raul> On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 08:31:58AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>> I'm interested in performance differences. A big flaw of the
>> mbox format is that every byte of the file must be read
On 05-Sep-01, 16:52 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vociferous Mole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So? Isn't it a bug? This isn't a case of a policy change creating a bug,
> > but of a existing bug being highlighted by the policy clarification.
>
> It doesn't break anything, so
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 12:55:38AM +0200, Jakob B. Jensen wrote:
> If /usr/share/doc/foo/copyright says "You may use this package
> according to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL or any later
> version" (Or a similar vague statement relying on a specific
> contents of that symlink), changing GPL to po
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 04:23:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Jakob B. Jensen wrote:
>
> > Suppose package X is licensed under "GPL version 1 or later".
> >
> > As long as this text remains on the package, each recipient has
> > the freedom to use it *at his/hers option* und
Vociferous Mole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So? Isn't it a bug? This isn't a case of a policy change creating a bug,
> but of a existing bug being highlighted by the policy clarification.
It doesn't break anything, so it's not a bug.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Em
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 02:16:43PM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> > > there seem several packages in Debian under MPL.
> >
> > Please make a list.
>
> $ zgrep "/MPL" Contents-sid.gz
> usr/share/doc/curl/MPL-1.1.txt.gz web/curl
> usr/share/doc/libcurl-dev/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
I'll make you a promise.
READ THIS E-MAIL TO THE END!
- follow what it says to the letter -
and you will not worry whether a RECESSION is coming or not,
who is President, or whether you keep your current job
or not.
Yes, I know what you are thinking. I never responded
to one of thes
[I know this thread is old.]
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 08:31:58AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> I'm interested in performance differences. A big flaw of the mbox
> format is that every byte of the file must be read to extract headers
> of the messages .. i.e. display a list of the messages without
>
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
>> there seem several packages in Debian under MPL.
Josip> Please make a list.
Indeed. Is there a quick way of checking how many packages are
under the current set of common licenses
Tille, Andreas (2001-09-05 14:16:43 +0200) :
> I wonder why
>
> /usr/share/doc/mozilla-browser/MPL-1.1.txt.gz
>
> is not in this list, was it removed from sid?
non-us?
Roland.
--
Roland Mas
If you spit in the air, it lands in your face.
-- Tevye, in Fiddler on the roof
On 05-Sep-01, 04:21 (EDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 06:52:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > Would there be a problem with enshrining this with the following
> > policy simplification?
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> > there seem several packages in Debian under MPL.
>
> Please make a list.
$ zgrep "/MPL" Contents-sid.gz
usr/share/doc/curl/MPL-1.1.txt.gz web/curl
usr/share/doc/libcurl-dev/MPL-1.1.txt
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> there seem several packages in Debian under MPL.
Please make a list.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > I have delegated the decision of including new licenses to the policy group.
> > You need two seconds and no objections.
> Do I have to ask explicitely for this or do they automatically handle
> the problem
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig Sun Sep 2 22:50:21 2001
> +++ policy.sgml Tue Sep 4 20:50:04 2001
> @@ -3714,18 +3714,8 @@
> must call ldconfig in its postinst
> script if the first argument is configure and should
>
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I have delegated the decision of including new licenses to the policy group.
> You need two seconds and no objections.
Do I have to ask explicitely for this or do they automatically handle
the problem to fix this bug.
> I'm reassigning the bug.
Thanks
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 06:52:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> Would there be a problem with enshrining this with the following
> policy simplification?
Nope. It still has the same problem, i.e., all packages simply doing a
ldc
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 111281 debian-policy
Bug#111281: base-files: MPL should be included in package
Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administr
reassign 111281 debian-policy
thanks
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 2.2.11
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hello,
>
> there seem several packages in Debian under MPL. I would consider it
> a good idea if this license which can be found on
>
> http://www.m
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Perhaps the intention of the section 9 paragraph (above) was to
> say
>
> However, the postrm script must not call ldconfig if invoked
> with the argument "upgrade", "failed-upgrade", or "disappear".
> The preins
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 06:52:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --- policy.sgml.origSun Sep 2 22:50:21 2001
> > +++ policy.sgml Sun Sep 2 22:52:26 2001
> > @@ -3718,7 +3718,7 @@
> >
> >
> >
> > - However, postrm and preinst
21 matches
Mail list logo
