On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 02:49:24PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> The fact that I have already moved any non-free suggests in my
> packages to the package description (even though I didn't have to)
> should demonstrate that I am quite conversant with the difference.
> However, what Manoj, Knghtbrd, I
On Thursday, 02 December 1999, at 10:00:42 (-0800),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is concerning bug report #51427. Now that I have a better
> handle on what is going on, I wish to re-open the bug, change title
> to "Should Eterm be ICCCM-compliant?" and change it to "Wishlist"
> for the mean tim
> Raul> This isn't about "talking about other packages".
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:51:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Then it should be. Your raison de etre seems to be that good
> users shall find references to non-free software r5epugnant, and
> hence one must purge all referen
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 02:49:24PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > The fact that I have already moved any non-free suggests in my
> > packages to the package description (even though I didn't have to)
> > should demonstrate that I am quite conversant with t
> "Michael" == Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Eterm will never be fully ICCCM-compliant, and neither
Michael> will E. In fact, no decent modern window manager is or
Michael> ever should be.
Michael> For example, section 4.1.2.4 requires that icon pixmap
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:10:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 07:20:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I don't think that's any worse than having a GPL-compatible package
> > reference a non-GPL-compatible package, if we were to have a gpl-only
> > distribution.
> Huh?
>
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 3.1.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hello.
The packaging-manual doesn't say what is the criteria used to select the
architectures for a binary package.
For example: I am (the no official yet) maintainer of the rhtvision
library
and setedit text editor.
The rhtvision librar
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find things
> that have changed in current practice. Here's what I found:
>
> * The policy manual uses the term "section" to refer to main, non-us,
> non-free, and contrib.
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:42:09AM -0800, Don Marti wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
> > in some countries should not be treated like programs
> > restricted by their authors.
> >
> > gimp-n
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find things
> > that have changed in current practice. Here's what I found:
> >
> > * The policy manual uses the term "secti
package: debian-policy
version: 3.1.0.0
severity: wishlist
beacause any otherwise DFSG-compatible package can possibly
force you to include something like :
`This software contains code made by Fooniversity of Somewhere'
in advertisement of your distro ( even of official Debian ) :
--- policy.sgm
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 12:08:07PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> "Category" sounds a bit as if it was refering to the function of the
> packages. I'd suggest "area". With "distribution" I'd connected those
> thingies like "slink" or "bo".
"area" also has the advantage of being consistent terminolo
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, I propose the following compromise:
> >
> > * Downgrade xfree86-common and xlib6g from standard to optional; AND
> > * Modify section 5.8 to say that creating X and non-X versions of a
> > package is permissible *ONLY* if the non-X versi
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:21:51PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> I know, this will be highly controversive :
>
> SERIOUS SUGGESTION FOR WOODY :
> we should get rid of all gif-making packages except 1 package
> a2gif in non-free, which will allow you to convert other images to gifs if
> you R
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> By the time woody is released, it's likely the gif patent will have
> expired.
Patents are good for 17 years or so. When was lzw patented? And when was
it patented in countries other than the US? Remember, Debian is global.
--
http://nils.jeppe.de/
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 01:48:06AM -0300, Ivan Baldo wrote:
> Package: packaging-manual
> Version: 3.1.0.0
> Severity: wishlist
> Hello.
> The packaging-manual doesn't say what is the criteria used to select the
> architectures for a binary package.
> For example: I am (the no official yet) maintai
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> * "Every package must have exactly one maintainer at a time." This statement
>is violated by so many packages (including dpkg) that it should be removed.
I think it's being interpreted as "one maintainer email address". But
you're r
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:10:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 07:20:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I don't think that's any worse than having a GPL-compatible package
> > > reference a non-GPL-compatible package, if we were to have a gpl-only
> > > distribution.
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 09:13:44AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On a completely different subject, I'm not so sure that TeX and LaTeX
> > > should really be standard. [reasons snipped]
>
> LaTex, I agree. TeX, maybe -- I'd like to see your reasons.
Splitting TeX and LaTeX in the current setup
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 03:47:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Suppose we were to have four distributions, instead of three: non-free,
> > contrib, main and gpl-only. gpl-only being that subset of main which is
> > gpl-compatible.
> If we create a gpl-compatible, it will be for developers mor
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a completely different subject, I'm not so sure that TeX and LaTeX
> should really be standard. I know that they're commonly found on Unix
> systems, but so is X. X was excluded from standard, I think, partly
> because of its size and partly becaus
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> I just don't think that specifically enhancing the package structure
Raul> with extra kludge to specially support non-free packages is the right
Raul> way to go.
Look below to see why it is not a kludge.
Raul> I think that
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > By the time woody is released, it's likely the gif patent will have
> > expired.
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 03:34:58PM +0100, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> Patents are good for 17 years or so. When was lzw patented? And when was
> it patented in countries other than t
Hello,
Since I started working on the ftp archive, I've found at least three
packages in incoming which come with a licence like this:
This library is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
This might be clear for the experienced linux user/a
> Raul> I just don't think that specifically enhancing the package structure
> Raul> with extra kludge to specially support non-free packages is the right
> Raul> way to go.
>
> Look below to see why it is not a kludge.
>
> Raul> I think that the right way to go is to put the referenc
[Sorry for cross-posting, but someone in -policy might object to
me planning to doing the following in the first place.]
The next release of powstatd will contain crypto code and will
produce a crypto pacakge in main/non-us, and a crypto-free
package in main. I plan to have a _single_ source pa
>
> It sounds like ICCCM is far too restrictive, and should be relaxed...
>
The originial idea was that a second wm spec would appear. But it never did.
There is now work going on with all major wm authors, GNOME, and KDE, as well
as Jim Gettys to work on a new wm spec as an add on to ICCCM.
Why not simply ask them to cut/paste the license terms from
/usr/share/doc/perl/copyright ?
Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> Since I started working on the ftp archive, I've found at least three
> packages in incoming which come with a licence like this:
>
> This library is free software; you can red
Hello.
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 01:48:06AM -0300, Ivan Baldo wrote:
> > Package: packaging-manual
> > Version: 3.1.0.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Hello.
> > The packaging-manual doesn't say what is the criteria used to select the
> > architectures for a binary package
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 03:41:03PM -0300, Ivan Baldo wrote:
> And how I will do to fix that bugs??? Should I buy a Sun Ultrasparc or
> what? Notice that the packages cannot be fully tested over a network...
> Ok, Roman told me that the porters have something like an override
> file, so,
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 09:58:46AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > * This seems self-contradictory. Are you supposed to remove the created
> > directories or not?
> >
> > However, the package should create empty directories below
> > `/usr/local' so that the system administrator knows wher
31 matches
Mail list logo
