On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Britton wrote:
>
> > Currently we've only had two real excuses for using empty packages:
> > for handling splits, and for tasks. It seems a little like people want a
> > third sort, just as a collection of related packages that you generally
> > want to install at once. Thi
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, John Galt wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > > system that is Debian matter?
> >
> > Actually, it does make a diffe
Nobody seems to have picked up the simple fact that the GPL does not
explicitly state 'you must distribute this license with executable code'.
What it does is state 'you must distribute executable code with the
complete source code, an offer for the complete source code, or the offer
you got for
On 29 Nov 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Brian Frederick Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 09:35 pm -0800 on November 29, 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >
> > > [...] the GPL requires that you give a copy of the GPL to anyone you
> > > give the binary for a program to.
> >
On 29 Nov 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What does everyone think? Is this too farfetched of a plan, or is it a
> > Good Idea?
>
> It's not a horrid idea, but it doesn't solve the problem, which is
> that the GPL requires that you give a
Okay.. Let's see if I'm following here and can therefore correctly
summerise:
We're required to ship a copy of the GPL with each complete work. We just
don't know for sure of the granularity of a "complete work" under the GPL.
So I maintain, from the point of view of an end-user of Debian, tha
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Britton wrote:
>
> > > > Origin: Debian
> > > > Bugs-To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > Which is clearly entirely reasonable and legitimate.
> > >
> > > No, it's not. If you want to make a package special instead of making it
> > > an integral part of Debian cha
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>
> > With increasing number of Debian Developers, it is getting hard
> > to measure skill of a DD in a particular area of interest. For
> > example there are DD's that make phenomenally go
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> > > set $(runlevel) # $2 is now current runlevel
> > > name=service
> > > rcfile=/etc/rc$2.d/S??$name
>
> > > test -f $rcfile &
And some of the task- packages should logically conflict with each other,
because they depend or reccomend conflicting packages.
For example, if task-gnome-desktop depended on gdm (which it doesn't
according to my apt-cache), then it and task-kde should be made to
conflict because gdm and kdm con
Better yet, read-only access to group adm and no access to world? So
permissions 275.? Should the /var/log directory be itself be
viewable/listable by world?
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 28, Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The /var/log directory should have p
ton bitmaps)
/usr/share/images/backgrounds (possibly larger images meant as window or
desktop background, etc.)
Probably not the best thing in the world, and people would be free to put
things in /usr/share/images, but the idea's there.
-- Ferret no baka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
One comment from the ferret:
Would it make any sense to divide the 'data' section into
main/contrib/non-free, instead of becoming a fourth section alongside
them? I can't think of any examples offhand, but I could see where some
datasets might
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Just my personal 2 bits on the issues:
/usr/include/{linux|asm|net|}:
Normal directories containing the kernel headers the SYSTEM LIBRARIES were
compiled with.
Kernel sources should go in /usr/src/linux-
(Or /usr/src/kernel-source-. I personally use
'linux-' b
I'd agree with something along these lines, just from my own experiences
with my network, and more recently having to reload both of my surviving
machines pretty much from scratch. (Good reason for having multiple
drives)
My own thought would be to keep the regular config files in /etc or
/etc/,
I've installed it onto my real potato system, then it complains about no
'utmp' group and exits status 1. Is there any special way to create the
group? I'm assuming it doesn't need a specific gid, just one in the system
range.
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
[snip]
> The package is co
Hm...
My own personal feeling is that the client's classification should not
have anything whatsoever to do with a (theoretical) server's
classification.
Anyway, wouldn't the existance of a client implimentation imply sufficient
information to design and/or code a compatible server?
I would
17 matches
Mail list logo
