date:20060811

also sprach Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.0012 +0100]:
 1.) Wait for a 0.10 release. I think my users wouldn't be happy ;-)

Why not continue to current versioning scheme until 0.10 is out to
avoid the epoch?

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
i like young girls. their stories are shorter.
-- tom mcguane


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

2006-08-11 Thread Florian Weimer

* Michael Biebl:

 So, what should I do now:
 1.) Wait for a 0.10 release. I think my users wouldn't be happy ;-)
 2.) Use an epoch.
 3.) File a bug report against dpkg.

2) is the typical approach.

 If it's not a bug in dpkg, could someone please elaborate on the
 reasoning of this behaviour.

. is not special as far as version numbers are concerned.  It's not
a separator, for instance, and 1. is a valid version number (which
is equal to 1.0).

We need a total ordering of version strings, and any approach is
arbitrary to some degree because we don't want to use purely
lexicographic comparison (otherwise, 9.x would be greater than
10.x, which is clearly counterintuitive).  There are upstream
version number schemes for which the Policy algorithm works perfectly
well (1.01, 1.02, ..., 1.09, 1.10, ...) and others where it doesn't.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]

2006-08-11 Thread Adam Borowski

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 08:30:45AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
 also sprach Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.0012 +0100]:
  1.) Wait for a 0.10 release. I think my users wouldn't be happy ;-)
 
 Why not continue to current versioning scheme until 0.10 is out to
 avoid the epoch?

Yeah -- and the improvement between 0.09+0.1.svn and 0.1~svn isn't big
enough to warrant an upload anyway.  The former is much nicer than
1:0.1~svn, too.

-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

2006-08-11 Thread Ben Finney

Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 02:21:04AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
  * Roberto C. Sanchez [Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:47:36 -0400]:
  
   Except that the final comparison ignores that the number was to
   the right of the decimal, making the zero significant.
  
  Er, read Policy 5.6.12.
  
 I have read it.  I was simply speaking from a mathematical perspective.

It's still right from a mathematical perspective. The integers within
two version numbers are compared in sequence. Leading zeros are
insignificant for integers.

A '.' character doesn't mean decimal point in a version number;
Policy 5.6.12 explains what it does mean.

-- 
 \If it ain't bust don't fix it is a very sound principle and |
  `\  remains so despite the fact that I have slavishly ignored it |
_o__)  all my life.  -- Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

2006-08-11 Thread Ben Finney

Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 . is not special as far as version numbers are concerned.  It's not
 a separator, for instance, and 1. is a valid version number (which
 is equal to 1.0).

That doesn't match my reading of Policy 5.6.12:

The strings are compared from left to right.

First the initial part of each string consisting entirely of
non-digit characters is determined. These two parts (one of which
may be empty) are compared lexically. If a difference is found it
is returned. The lexical comparison is a comparison of ASCII
values modified so that all the letters sort earlier than all the
non-letters.

Then the initial part of the remainder of each string which
consists entirely of digit characters is determined. The numerical
values of these two parts are compared, and any difference found
is returned as the result of the comparison. For these purposes an
empty string (which can only occur at the end of one or both
version strings being compared) counts as zero.

These two steps (comparing and removing initial non-digit strings
and initial digit strings) are repeated until a difference is
found or both strings are exhausted.

So any '.' between digits would be a part of [the] string consisting
entirely of non-digit characters, and is compared lexically by ASCII
values; following which is a part of the remainder of [the] string
which consists entirely of digit characters, and is compared
numerically; and we repeat these steps until the string is exhausted.

That sure sounds like a lone '.' between digit-sequences would be a
separator for those digit-sequences.

-- 
 \  Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are |
  `\  perfect.  -- Benny Hill |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

2006-08-11 Thread Adam Borowski

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 07:17:43AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
 . is not special as far as version numbers are concerned.  It's not
 a separator, for instance, and 1. is a valid version number (which
 is equal to 1.0).

Uhm, where does the 0 come from?  This is grossly unintuitive, and I would
consider this a bug.  Both strings parse as follows:

1.  = , 1, .
1.0 = , 1, ., 0

Lexicographically, the former is obviously smaller.  In every single version
comparison scheme I saw before, non-numeric and numeric parts get compared
alternatively until a mismatch is found.  It's just dpkg which instead
parses both strings as:

1.  = (,1), (.,0)
1.0 = (,1), (.,0)

That is, dpkg will make up a 0 at the end.
 
 We need a total ordering of version strings, and any approach is
 arbitrary to some degree because we don't want to use purely
 lexicographic comparison (otherwise, 9.x would be greater than
 10.x, which is clearly counterintuitive).  There are upstream
 version number schemes for which the Policy algorithm works perfectly
 well (1.01, 1.02, ..., 1.09, 1.10, ...) and others where it doesn't.

GNU strverscmp() will handle numeric substrings starting with a 0
differently, leading to a switch and possible breakage once 09 turns into
1 (09  1  10, but 19  2  20.  This what I call unnecesary
complication, and it's obvious why this is bad.

I think the same about inventing a 0 from thin air.

And another bug: 2a.0 is _lesser_ than 2.0!  This works as documented,
but is totally against lexicography, expectations and common sense.


-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: udev vs ldap at startup

2006-08-11 Thread Gabor Gombas

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 02:59:16PM +1000, Brian May wrote:

 The second query is trying to find out all the groups root is in (is
 it possible to skip this???).

Only if you either remove ldap from the groups: line in nsswitch.conf,
or you do not use any programs that call initgroups()/getgrent().

A workaround may be to have /etc/nsswitch.conf.files that does not have
LDSP entries, bind-mount it over /etc/nsswitch.conf in say
/etc/rcS.d/S02blah, and unmount it in /etc/rcS.d/S99blah. This is not a
real fix though since udev events can be processed well after rcS is run.

The real fix would be to tame libldap2/libnss-ldap.

Gabor

-- 
 -
 MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

also sprach Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.0931 +0100]:
 Uhm, where does the 0 come from?  This is grossly unintuitive, and I would
 consider this a bug.  Both strings parse as follows:
 
 1.  = , 1, .
 1.0 = , 1, ., 0

actually, you forgot the trailing 

 And another bug: 2a.0 is _lesser_ than 2.0!  This works as
 documented, but is totally against lexicography, expectations and
 common sense.

I'll shoot anyone who uses such a version number. :)

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
we all know linux is great...
 it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
 -- linus torvalds


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

2006-08-11 Thread Lars Wirzenius

pe, 2006-08-11 kello 09:47 +0100, martin f krafft kirjoitti:
 also sprach Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.0931 +0100]:
  Uhm, where does the 0 come from?  This is grossly unintuitive, and I would
  consider this a bug.  Both strings parse as follows:
  
  1.  = , 1, .
  1.0 = , 1, ., 0
 
 actually, you forgot the trailing 
 
  And another bug: 2a.0 is _lesser_ than 2.0!  This works as
  documented, but is totally against lexicography, expectations and
  common sense.
 
 I'll shoot anyone who uses such a version number. :)

Indeed. I think the best lesson from this thread is that as long as
version numbers are simple and sensible (number, period, number,
period, ..., and no numbers have leading zeroes), everything usually
works without surprises. If version numbers become more complicated than
that, there will be surprises, and sometimes nasty ones.

At least we rarely see, these days, upstream version numbers that are
successive negative powers of 10 (0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001... where 0.1
 0.01), or successive negative integers (-1, -2, -3, -4...). Or
successive phone numbers in a certain year's edition of the Helsinki
telephone book (don't ask, I was young and silly).

-- 
Fundamental truth #4: Typing URLs always introduces errors. Always copy
+paste.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Status of inetd for etch

2006-08-11 Thread Roger Leigh

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

 On Aug 10, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   installed, all using the same configuration file.  Is this a use
   case we really want to support?  Are there really setups running
   multiple inetds for a good reason?  Having a virtual
 A good reason usually is using features not available in a single
 package (especially inetd vs. inetd).
 It's not hard to manage anyway, my scheme allowed this.

We don't allow multiple mail-transport-agents, even though they have
different features.  Do we have a real, demonstrable, use-case for
permitting multiple inetds?  To me, it seems rather more manageable to
have just one, particularly because they all generally use the same
configuration file.

If this is something only one or two people with specialised needs do,
they can surely sort it out by themselves, as they would if they had a
specialised mail setup.

 * netkit-inetd
 I agree that it should be removed from the distribution, or at least
 replaced by openbsd-inetd as the default inetd.

In that case, would it be possible for a netbase upload changing

Depends: openbsd-inetd | netkit-inetd

to

Depends: openbsd-inetd

or even

Depends: internet-super-server | openbsd-inetd

to allow for a future virtual package?  openbsd-inetd could implement
the virtual package right now, and the other inetds can fix up their
dependencies after.

   - The other packages have different init script names or need some
 work on the package dependencies (e.g. inetutils-inetd).  xinetd
 is in the same situation, but also needs some work on update-inetd
 before it will be suitable as a replacement.
 ITYM lots of work.

Perhaps it simply needs approaching in a different way.  Rather than a
hugely complex update-inetd, why not have each inetd provide one which
works for them (with a common implementation for the traditional
format)?  On removal, they can (if using a file other than
/etc/inetd.conf) dump their configuration there to allow migration
between inetd packages and do the opposite on install.

 * IPv6 transition
   - Should individual packages be made to listen on both tcp4 and tcp6
 sockets, or should this be done by the inetd itself, or even
 update-inetd?
 Only individual packages know if they support IPv6.

So what are you proposing as the solution here?

Should each package call update-inetd twice, for both v4 and v6?
(Assuming they support both.)

   - Some inetds automatically listen on v6, whereas others need it
 I call them broken. I believe that administrators do not expect that
 services are exposed to IPv6 connections unless they are configured this
 way in inetd.conf.

Why?  All the other major daemons listen on both by default, and I do
expect inetd services to do the same where possible.  Most of the
services are already protected by TCP wrappers, so you would need to
explicitly add [::] to /etc/hosts.allow to get an IPv6 connection.

   Users upgrading from woody or sarge to etch will not be switched to
   openbsd-inetd, whereas new installs will use it by default.
 Did you actually test this?

I checked that new etch installs install openbsd-inetd.  Upgrades
won't be switched because the netbase dependency is already satisfied
by netkit-inetd.  In consequence, I think that netkit-inetd needs to
be removed from the netbase depends.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?   http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.


pgpNtO2ZtFtHF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Status of inetd for etch

2006-08-11 Thread Roger Leigh

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

 It would be good to get rid of inetd from the basic install at all.  Those
 No, it would not. UNIX systems are supposed to have an inetd installed.

I see no reason why *Debian* systems should have an inetd installed
unless there is another package installed requiring its services.
This can be handled through package dependencies.  If the admin wants
to add their own services (i.e. not installed by a dependency), they
can just install it by hand.

If there is nothing using inetd, it's just bloat in the base install.

While it's probably best to leave it installed by default for etch, I
think fixing up all inetd-using packages to have proper dependencies,
and then removing the dependency from netbase would be a worthy goal
for etch+1.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?   http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.


pgpihiMtpAfU3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: piuparts unprocessed failed logs page

2006-08-11 Thread Lars Wirzenius

pe, 2006-08-11 kello 14:42 +1000, Brian May kirjoitti:
 Can the argument be made that these aren't packaging bugs but rather
 the fact the hostname hasn't been configured correctly?

Not only can that argument be made, but I would like to make it myself.
I'll fix the chroot piuparts uses so that hostname works within it.

-- 
One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. -- Oscar Wilde


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: piuparts unprocessed failed logs page

2006-08-11 Thread Lars Wirzenius

ke, 2006-08-09 kello 10:21 +0300, Lars Wirzenius kirjoitti:
 While I wait to have time to do something better and more easily usable,
 the following page lists the logs of failed piuparts files that have not
 yet been processed:
 
 http://piuparts.cs.helsinki.fi/fail/

I made some more logs available, in the hope that they're useful:

http://piuparts.cs.helsinki.fi/bugged/
http://piuparts.cs.helsinki.fi/fixed/
http://piuparts.cs.helsinki.fi/untestable/

The meaning is this:

* fail is UNPROCESSED log files for failed piuparts tests. The problems
may or may not be in the package, and they may be temporary (e.g.,
mirror problems).

* bugged is failures for which a bug has been reported; the log file is
moved there from the fail directory manually. The goal is to have the
bug number at the top of the file. Sometimes the bug hasn't been
reported and there's some other explanation. Sometimes there's no good
reason for the log to be there anymore (or in the first place); my
fingers sometimes fumble, and my brain, too.

* fixed is where a log moves from bugged after a bug has been fixed.

* untestable is where logs for packages are stored that can't be tested
with piuparts, for whatever reason (sometimes because piuparts is not
smart enough).

The only category of log files not visible via http is the pass ones,
i.e., logs for piuparts runs that failed to find any problems in the
package. These are not public because the directory is huge.

-- 
Every time I say /quit I die a little.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Status of inetd for etch

2006-08-11 Thread Anthony Towns

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:46:44AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
 Now, let's see what depends on *-inetd:
   Depends:
 netbase

Hence, everything that wants an inetd can just Depend: on netbase, rather
than specifying it explicitly, so your list is incomplete:

 lukemftpd
 wipl-client-java
 pawserv
 bitlbee
 micro-httpd
 wipl-client-inetd
 ltsp-server
 noffle
   Recommends:
 atftpd
   Suggests:
 micro-proxy
 education-main-server

The non-broken way to fix this is to have:

Package: net-common

Package: openbsd-inetd
Provides: internet-superserver

Package: foo
Depends: net-common, internet-superserver

Package: netbase
Priority: extra
Depends: net-common, internet-superserver

and rebuild packages that currently depend on netbase, to instead depend
on net-common or net-common, internet-superserver depending on whether
they use an inetd or not. netbase should also ensure update-inetd supports
the current syntax, so packages don't break.

The reason that hasn't happened is because people (including myself)
have been hoping to introduce a new update-inetd with a syntax that
doesn't suck at the same time as introducing the internet-superserver
virtual package so that packages only need to be changed once.

It's not really that hard, but no one's bothered finishing it off. My last
attempt's attached. Consider it GPL v2 or later'ed.

Cheers,
aj

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use strict;

package UpdateInetd;

###

# service object:
#  service
#  type
#  protocol
#  executable
#  arguments
#  netgroup
#  tcpd
#  group
#  user
#  wait
#  disable

sub service2inetd($) {
my %serv = %{$_[0]};

my ($dm, $d, $s, $t, $p, $w, $u, $tcpd, $c, $a) = (
$serv{disabled_man} ? # : ,
join(, map { #$_ } @{$serv{disabled}}),
$serv{service},
$serv{type},
$serv{protocol},
$serv{wait},
$serv{user} . 
(defined $serv{group} ? . . $serv{group} : ),
defined($serv{tcpd}) ? /usr/sbin/tcpd : $serv{command},
$serv{command},
$serv{arguments},
);

$d .=   if ($d ne );

if ($tcpd eq $c) {
$c =~ s,^.*/,,;
}

if ($c eq internal) {
return $dm$d$s\t$t\t$p\t$w\t$u\t$c;
} else {
return $dm$d$s\t$t\t$p\t$w\t$u\t$tcpd\t$c $a;
}
}

sub inetd2service($) {
my $line = $_[0];

# a service matches:
# # ^(#?)   $1
# #disabled-upgrade#removed#((#\S+)+#?)?  $2
# mountd/1  (\S+)   \s+ $4
# dgram (dgram|stream)  \s+ $5
# rpc/udp   (\S+)   \s+ $6
# wait  (wait|nowait(\.\d+)?)\s+$7
# root  (\S+)   \s+ $9
# /usr/sbin/rpc.mountd  (\S+)  $10
# /usr/sbin/rpc.mountd  (\s+(\S+))?$12
#   (\s+(\S.*))?   $14

if ($line =~ 
m/^(#?)((#\S+\s*)+#?\s*)?([^#\s]\S*)\s+(dgram|stream)\s+(\S+)\s+(wait|nowait(\.\d+)?)\s+(\S+)\s+(\S+)(\s+(\S+))?(\s+(\S.*))?\s*$/)
 {
my %results = (
'disabled_man' = $1 eq #,
'disabled' = $2 || ,
'service' = $4,
'type' = $5,
'protocol' = $6,
'wait' = $7,
'user' = $9,
'command' = $10,
'command2' = $12 || ,
'arguments' = $14 || ,
'tcpd' = undef,
'group' = undef,
);

$results{disabled} = 
[ map { $1 if (m/(.*)/); } (grep /.*/, (split /#+/,
$results{disabled})) ];

if ($results{user} =~ m/^(.*)[:.](.*)$/) {
$results{user} = $1;
$results{group} = $2;
}
if ($results{command} eq /usr/sbin/tcpd) {
$results{tcpd} = 1;
$results{command} = $results{command2};
}
delete $results{command2};
return \%results
}
return undef;
}

sub matchserv($$$;$$) {
my ($serv, $s,$p,$c,$r) = @_;
return 0 unless 
($s eq $serv-{service}) 
 ($p eq $serv-{protocol}) 
 (!defined $c || $c eq

Re: Silly Packaging Problem

2006-08-11 Thread Ian Jackson

Bruce Sass writes (Re: Silly Packaging Problem):
 files and size accommodate the desire to include generated or 
 packageless files and their size (if knowable) in the dpkg DB.

This is a bad idea.  dpkg maintains these lists of files not primarily
for the purpose of dpkg -S, but rather for making the package
management operations (install, upgrade, remove, etc.) work properly.

If you start editing these files (even with the relevant lock held and
with regard to the package status), dpkg will behave differently
afterwards: it will think the file in question was shipped in the
currently installed package's .deb.

This is almost certainly not what you want.  A good general principle
is to practice ownership: dpkg should remove and update things it has
installed; maintainer scripts and other programs should remove and
update things they created.

If the objective is to make dpkg -S more useful (a worthy goal) then
you need a separate list for each package, of files which should be
reported in -S but which dpkg should otherwise ignore.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Broken dpkg.cfg?

2006-08-11 Thread peek


Hi all,

(I posted this to debian-user yesterday but got no bites.  I'm hoping to 
have more luck with the debian-devel group.)


From the Debian FAQ 8.5:

If you'd like to log all your dpkg invokations (even those done using 
frontends like aptitude), you could add


 log /var/log/dpkg.log

to your /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.



But, like, this doesn't work and stuff:


# cat /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg
log /var/log/dpkg.log
# dpkg -l
dpkg: configuration error: unknown option log: Success



How is this really supposed to work?  (And why does it say Success 
when it exits with an error?  Success at generating an error?)


Btw, I'm running Sarge.

Thanks for your help,

Michael Peek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Broken dpkg.cfg?

also sprach peek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.1210 +0100]:
 How is this really supposed to work?  (And why does it say Success 
 when it exits with an error?  Success at generating an error?)
 
 Btw, I'm running Sarge.

log support was added to dpkg post-sarge

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
never trust an operating system
for which you do not have the source.
   -- source unknown


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

md5 sum mismatches and mirror syncs

Failed to fetch
http://ftp.ie.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz
MD5Sum mismatch

I am seeing a lot of this stuff lately, and I've been told it's due
to mirror syncs. As our archive grows bigger, the sync takes longer,
so this problem will happen more often in the future.

I wonder why. To me it seems as if a sync is a blind rsync, which
copies the Release index before the individual Packages/Source
indices.

Shouldn't we switch to using/advocating a smarter algorithm like
the one debmirror or anonftpsync use, which is to push new package
files to the archive, then synchronise indices, then delete obsolete
package files?

Or is this already in place? Why then do we see errors like the
above?

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
there's someone in my head but it's not me.
-- pink floyd, the dark side of the moon, 1972


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: Broken dpkg.cfg?

2006-08-11 Thread peek


martin f krafft wrote:

also sprach peek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.1210 +0100]:
  
How is this really supposed to work?  (And why does it say Success 
when it exits with an error?  Success at generating an error?)


Btw, I'm running Sarge.



log support was added to dpkg post-sarge

  

D'oh!

Thanks!

Michael Peek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?

2006-08-11 Thread Bernhard R. Link

* Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060811 01:13]:
 If it's not a bug in dpkg, could someone please elaborate on the
 reasoning of this behaviour. I'd be grateful for any comments and replies.

That's because dpkg follows the most common versioning scheme:

The version after 0.9 is called 0.10.

Typically the different parts of a version have some more or less
defined meaning. If nothing substantional changes, increasing
the first number would only confuse.

As there are only natural numbers involved, it is quite easy to
compare and the next number is always well-defined.
With real numbers one only can do things like switching to 0.91
after 0.9, then fastly arrives at 0.99 and then needs 0.991 and
so on, a really mess.

To avoid confusing people not knowing how versions are ordered
it is often suggested to make versions at least three numbers:
major.minor.patch. Then anybody should see that the . is not
the decimal dot but simply a dot. (Other languages often do
not have that problem, as for example commas are used for
the the decimal point and dots are free. But versions still
have a dot there).

The other point sometimes confusing people in the way dpkg
counts are string parts in versions. Here the problem is
that usage shifted a bit. In the past adding some text of
a version usally meant something like a branch.
Like 3.4rev4 3.1p2 2.0.2c or if Xaver Example made
some patches and distributes the whole thing 0.10xe1.
Now we have release candidates, alpha and bete prereleases,
and they should come earlier and not later, so there is the
need for some things sorted earlier while other still later,
so they need something to distinguish them, where ~ comes in.

One could think about something similar for versions as real
numbers, but a leading 0 would be too confusing (0.2 would be
larger then 0.09 but smaller than 0.19, or one would have to
add the zero everywhere causing versions to look different from
upstream)

Hochachtungsvoll,
  Bernhard R. Link

-- 
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: md5 sum mismatches and mirror syncs

also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.1222 +0100]:
 Shouldn't we switch to using/advocating a smarter algorithm like
 the one debmirror or anonftpsync use, which is to push new package
 files to the archive, then synchronise indices, then delete obsolete
 package files?

sorry for the lapse, I am taking this to -mirrors.

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
an avocado-tone refrigerator would look good on your resume.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

2006-08-11 Thread Adam Borowski

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 09:47:33AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
 also sprach Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.0931 +0100]:
  And another bug: 2a.0 is _lesser_ than 2.0!  This works as
  documented, but is totally against lexicography, expectations and
  common sense.
 
 I'll shoot anyone who uses such a version number. :)

Then I need to invest in body armour.  This is how I mark a release when
only a minimal change that doesn't warrant to have its version bumped in the
regular manner happens.
Fortunately, in all the cases so far the letter was placed after the last
numeric part, so even with a Debian revision attached the dpkg misdesign
would be mitigated as dpkg special-cases the last hyphen.

An example of such a scheme:
  1.0.6
  1.0.6a (a few hours later, with a brown-paper bug fixed)
  1.0.7

In another case, I have an auto-versioning where releases are tagged
0.20060811 (epoch-guard.date).  If two checkouts happen on the same date,
the makefile target will tag the second one 0.20060811a (or b, c, etc).

Or, in file names:
a proxy I wrote will wrote incoming connections to files named
$date.$time.$format.bz2; if two connections come in the same second (a rare
case), the latter will be named 2006-08-11.14-07-58a.bz2, proceeding with
b, c, aa, ab, zz, aaa and so on.
No one uses dpkg --compare-version to sort file names, but in this case, it
would break.


So, is there anything wrong in any of the three examples I shown above?  I
would call that a pretty natural scheme.

-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

also sprach Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.1339 +0100]:
   1.0.6
   1.0.6a (a few hours later, with a brown-paper bug fixed)
   1.0.7

This is totally okay in my book as the letter is at the end. :)

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
you know you're a hopeless geek when you misspell 'date' as 'data'
   -- branden robinson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: Status of inetd for etch

2006-08-11 Thread Stephen Frost

* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 On Aug 11, Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Why, for the love of Cthulhu, does netbase depend on inetd in the first
  place?  Let's see:
 Historical reasons.

Not good enough.  Not even close.

  It would be good to get rid of inetd from the basic install at all.  Those
 No, it would not. UNIX systems are supposed to have an inetd installed.

meh, if the default install has all of the inetd services disabled then
it's idiotic to have an inetd installed (and just fucking insane to
actually have an inetd *running*).  Things which need inetd *should* be
required to Depend on it (or some virtual package which provides it).

Packages which can run both with and without inetd could 'Suggest'
the virtual inetd package.

Thanks,

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]

2006-08-11 Thread Ian Jackson

Michael Biebl writes (dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now 
supports ~ in  version numbers]):
 Reading this announcement I thought, great and wanted to start using
 '~', only to discover that dpkg believes that 0.09+0.1.svn  0.1~svn.
 1.) Wait for a 0.10 release. I think my users wouldn't be happy ;-)

So you think that 0.09  0.1 ?  But you also think that 0.10  0.1 ?
And you talk about a 0.10 upstream release, which I assume you know
will come after a 0.9 upstream release.

So in your universe
  0.09  0.1  0.9  0.10
?  Whatever that is, it's not arithmetic :-).

 2.) Use an epoch.

There is no need for that; you can have ugly version numbers for a bit
until 0.10 does come out.  In the meantime
  0.09+really+0.1~svn
or whatever.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug Squashing Party: Priority queue?

2006-08-11 Thread Rudi Effe

Dear dd's, 

I just found an invitation for a debian-edu bug squashing party at 
central Germany [1]. As this is quite a distance from where I live, I 
probably won't make it myself - but will try to join the team via IRC 
(#debian-edu). Now I wonder, if there is more folks around who might be 
joining, and (most important), if we have a list of topmost relevant 
bugs to fix?

These are the ressources I'd go for in the first place:

http://bugs.debian.org
http://bugs.skolelinux.no
http://wiki.debian.org

Thanks
Rudi

[1] http://wiki.skolelinux.de/BugSquashing2006


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug Squashing Party: Priority queue?

2006-08-11 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst

Hello Rudi,

On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 15:35 +0200, Rudi Effe wrote:
 I just found an invitation for a debian-edu bug squashing party at 
 central Germany [1]. As this is quite a distance from where I live, I 
 probably won't make it myself - but will try to join the team via IRC 
 (#debian-edu). Now I wonder, if there is more folks around who might
 be joining, and (most important), if we have a list of topmost
 relevant bugs to fix?

Thanks for your interest in this. You might look at
http://bts.turmzimmer.net , which lists all release critical bugs in the
current testing and unstable distributions. These are considered to be
topmost relevant at this time.

Good luck!


Thijs


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

NMU for mantis - new upstream and some bugfixes

2006-08-11 Thread Daniel Knabl

Hi all!

Once again, after I reviewed the outstanding bugs list, I intended
to package the new upstream version of mantis and to fix some bugs,
at least those I was able to ;)

The files:

http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4-4.0.diff.gz
http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4-4.0.dsc
http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4-4.0_all.deb
http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4-4.0_i386.changes
http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4.orig.tar.gz

Please have a look at the files and let me know, if they are OK.

kind regards
Daniel  

-- 
Daniel Knabl
aio4u.com/~daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP/GPG Fingerprint - please send signed mail only
A069 671B 39F2 E9B9 FB34  68BB 4BEC 1344 C8A4 3F0B


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: NMU for mantis - new upstream and some bugfixes

2006-08-11 Thread Michal Čihař

Hi

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:37:28 +0200
Daniel Knabl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Once again, after I reviewed the outstanding bugs list, I intended
 to package the new upstream version of mantis and to fix some bugs,
 at least those I was able to ;)

0.19.4 is new upstream version? And what happened to your diff?

--- mantis-0.19.4.orig/debian/changelog
+++ mantis-0.19.4/debian/changelog
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
-mantis (1.0.5-1) unstable; urgency=medium
+mantis (0.19.4-4.0) unstable; urgency=medium


-- 
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: NMU for mantis - new upstream and some bugfixes

2006-08-11 Thread Daniel Knabl

Am Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:37:28 +0200 schrieb Daniel Knabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 The files:
 
 http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4-4.0.diff.gz
 http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4-4.0.dsc
 http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4-4.0_all.deb
 http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4-4.0_i386.changes
 http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_0.19.4.orig.tar.gz

So, I have mixed up something, sorry for that.

If it is the right way (for a NMU) then the version should be changed
too? In this case there are new files available here:

http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_1.0.5-0.1.dsc
http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_1.0.5-0.1.tar.gz
http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_1.0.5-0.1_all.deb
http://knabl.com/~daniel/mantis/mantis_1.0.5-0.1_i386.changes

No matter, if I will ever be on the right level, I WILL continue to
try making contibutions. Please keep in mind, that I just want to
contribute, and I do NOT intend to become the new maintainer for
mantis. If there are people around, that can do this work in a better
way, then feel free to do so!

If my work is welcome - as I hope - then I will try to go on with it.
If it is NOT, or if it is of too low quality, then just ignore my tries.

kind regards
Daniel

-- 
Daniel Knabl
www.tirolinux.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP/GPG Fingerprint - please send signed mail only
A069 671B 39F2 E9B9 FB34  68BB 4BEC 1344 C8A4 3F0B


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Silly Packaging Problem

2006-08-11 Thread Vincent Danjean

Bruce Sass a écrit :
 I will be so bold as to suggest...
 
 Synopsis: update-package [options] command package
 
 update-package [options] --add-files=paths package
 update-package [options] --remove-files=paths package
 update-package [options] --size=absolute | [+|-]increment package
 update-package [options] --field=label::new-value package
 
 Commands:
[...]
 Options:
 - the usual useful stuff (help, version, verbosity, logging)
 - maybe an admin controlled off switch, just in case having a local DB 
 which differs from the packaged one is a problem (implies a config file 
 somewhere)
 - automatic Installed-Size: updating, not always useful or accurate, 
 maybe best left as a invocation only option because only the Maintainer 
 knows for sure

--confile: add the file as a conffile. I'm not sure about this however.
I think that ucf is better for dynamic configuration files. But ucfr
should be enhanced to call update-package --add/--remove in this case.

  Best regards
Vincent


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools

On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Reply-To and M-f-T set to my address, whoever answers please respect
this and let this thread die on -devel, its the wrong medium for this
discussion, thank you.

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that you like to make serious proposal
with the text you wrote.

Do you believe anything thats not written by you is serious?

Let me make a proposal that makes sense for now and the future:
1)Throw out Eduard Bloch. He has been the biggest problem for Debian
in the past years. Find a new maintainer with the following properties:

I know that you cant work with him (and he with you).

2)Update to a recent cdrtools source, do not hide interesting
new features from Debian users and (this may be even more important to
Linux users) workarounds for recent Linux kernel
self-incompatibilities.

You combine CDDL and GPL, and that doesnt work, the two are
incompatible. The CDDL is intended to be GPL incompatible. If you
dont believe that - even people from Sun, like Simon Phipps and Danese
Cooper (now working at Intel, but one of the authors of CDDL) are aware
of the incompatibility of the two licenses, and Simon and Danese also
said at this years Debian Conference that this is intended. (We had both
Simon and Danese there, talking with us about different things including
the CDDL). They stated that the GPL incompatibility is *part of the
design of the CDDL*

If you dont believe that please watch [1] (or [2] if you prefer an mpeg over an
ogg). Skip to minute 13 if you dont want to hear all of it, as not everything
is interesting for this topic here. Then skip to minute 27 as this is is
the more interesting part for the incompatibility, where Danese
basically says that they built the CDDL following the Mozilla license
*because* it is incompatible with the GPL..

[1]
http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg

[2]
http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/mpeg1-pal/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.mpeg

[3] http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/bios/bios-phipps.html

And if thats not enough, its not only Debian or Sun stating it, its also
FSF, which you can read on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
- the relevant text there is:

--8schnipp-8---
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)

This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has
some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It
requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only
requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation
for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL
and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We
urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term intellectual
property
--8schnapp-8---

There is something else non-free, or at least problematic, in your
cdrtools tarball, taken from AN-2.01.01a09:
Libscg:
- Changed from GPL to CDDL
This code may only be used together with other code that is
under an approved OpenSource license, see
http://www.opensource.org/.

That's in my understanding at least *very* problematic. And goes against
CDDL3.4 which says You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered
Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable
version of this License or the recipients rights hereunder. (The rest
of it talks about warranty, support, indemnity or liability, which is
irrelevant. The thing is that 3.6 allows me to use the CDDL licensed
work with anything else I want to do, as long as I make sure the
requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software.
So, your added statement makes it incompatible with the license shown
*and* also with DFSG 5/6, as I may want to combine it with something
commercial, following the license rules for the libscg part but not
using an OSI license for my software.

Another thing with CDDL is §3.3, which is similar to invariant sections
of GFDL and one of the reasons why the FSF considers it GPL incompatible
as cited above - and the GFDL is not allowed in Debian with such a
restriction. Also the choice-of-venue is a nice cost bomb.

3)Remove the unneeded Debian changes as the unmodified original source
does not need any changes in order to work correctly.

We wouldnt have them if there wouldnt have been a situation where
someone needed it. You know, this is what free software is about - the
right to change a software if it doesnt work for you.

4)If someone at Debian likes to work on enhancements, make sure that
these changes are done in a way

Re: NMU for mantis - new upstream and some bugfixes

2006-08-11 Thread Amaya

Daniel Knabl wrote:
 If my work is welcome - as I hope - then I will try to go on with
 it.  If it is NOT, or if it is of too low quality, then just ignore my
 tries.

The quality is not really a big issue here, it can be improved with
time.  What I would like to see is some degree of commitment for
maintaining mantis in the future, or helping co-maintain it, if the
original maintainer comes back.

If this is the case, I'd be happy to sponsor your work, but I would
first take some time to look at your package, but my availability atm is
low, as I am in holidays. I could look at it, maybe on monday, and then
work with you until it is ready for upload. 

In the meantime you might want to look at my sponsoring checklist, taken
from other sponsors, at the bottom of my wiki page:
http://wiki.debian.org/AmayaRodrigo and maybe fix some common mistakes
this weekend. Specially as this is a new upstream release, a thorough
look at the licenses and files in the source, making sure there are no
files there under a different license, would be great. Check:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html and
http://ganneff.de/blog/2005/10/23#new for great insight on this.

On the other hand if you are able to find a quicker sponsor in the
meantime, just go ahead. I suggest using the debian-mentors mailing
list for this.

Thanks for giving mantis some love!

-- 
  ·''`.  Policy is your friend. Trust the Policy.
 : :' : Love the Policy. Obey the Policy. -- Lars Wirzenius
 `. `'   Proudly running unstable Debian GNU/Linux
   `- www.amayita.com  www.malapecora.com  www.chicasduras.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: udev vs ldap at startup

2006-08-11 Thread Vincent Danjean

Brian May a écrit :
 So that probably would explain why I can no longer log in as root when
 the NSS LDAP server is down, even with LDAP PAM support disabled and
 files is listed before ldap in /etc/nsswitch.conf.

I run in a similar problem a few days ago.
I misconfigured /etc/nsswitch.conf by putting:
passwd: ldap compat
group:  ldap compat
shadow: ldap compat

Then, I've been unable to start the userspace. I mean, even
with 'init=/bin/bash' on the kernel cmdline, it did not work
(ie it hung up).
It took me some time to find what happened. As this was during
an upgrade (from stable), I hadn't any hints about why the init
(or the bash init process) was hang up. I suspected a kernel bug
before thinking to ldap.

I change the /etc/nsswitch.conf to:
passwd: compat
group:  compat
shadow: compat
and now, it works fine (ldap is handled by pam)

But some kind of warning or timeout with error message on the console
when ldap was not answering would have been very helpful.

  Best regards,
Vincent


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools

On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

 [1] 
 http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg

 [2] 
 http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/mpeg1-pal/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.mpeg

Well, thats meetings-archive.debian.net

-- 
bye Joerg
exa There is no point in trying to fix bugs if I won't have an
  account. Sorry.


pgpaS2Oga8fab.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#382531: ITP: furl -- a small utility for displaying the HTTP headers returned by Web servers

2006-08-11 Thread Marco Bertorello

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Marco Bertorello [EMAIL PROTECTED]


* Package name: furl
  Version : 2.1
  Upstream Author : Kidney Bingos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.gumbynet.org.uk/software/furl.html
* License : GPL v2 (or later)
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : a small utility for displaying the HTTP headers returned by 
Web servers

 furl is a small utility for displaying the HTTP headers
 returned by Web servers in response to client requests
 .
 It can impersonate two different browser: Internet Explorer
 and Mozilla

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-rc4-k7
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: md5 sum mismatches and mirror syncs

2006-08-11 Thread Alexander Schmehl

Hi!

* martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060811 13:22]:

 Shouldn't we switch to using/advocating a smarter algorithm like
 the one debmirror or anonftpsync use, which is to push new package
 files to the archive, then synchronise indices, then delete obsolete
 package files?

We used something like that for our university mirror, but droped it,
when we ran out of diskspace during the syncs:  Sometimes we didn't had
the space to store the old packages and the new ones coming during
syncing at the same time.


Yours sincerely,
  Alexander

-- 
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#382531: ITP: furl -- a small utility for displaying the HTTP headers returned by Web servers

2006-08-11 Thread Mike Hommey

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 06:35:42PM +0200, Marco Bertorello [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 Package: wnpp
 Severity: wishlist
 Owner: Marco Bertorello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 * Package name: furl
   Version : 2.1
   Upstream Author : Kidney Bingos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 * URL : http://www.gumbynet.org.uk/software/furl.html
 * License : GPL v2 (or later)
   Programming Lang: C
   Description : a small utility for displaying the HTTP headers returned 
 by Web servers
 
  furl is a small utility for displaying the HTTP headers
  returned by Web servers in response to client requests
  .
  It can impersonate two different browser: Internet Explorer
  and Mozilla

Is there a real benefit over lynx -dump -head and similar things ?

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: NMU for mantis - new upstream and some bugfixes

2006-08-11 Thread Daniel Knabl

Hi again,

 No matter, if I will ever be on the right level, I WILL continue to
 try making contibutions. Please keep in mind, that I just want to
 contribute, and I do NOT intend to become the new maintainer for
 mantis. If there are people around, that can do this work in a better
 way, then feel free to do so!
 
 If my work is welcome - as I hope - then I will try to go on with
 it. If it is NOT, or if it is of too low quality, then just ignore my
 tries.

Thanks to Amaya, now my work is available through the debian mentors
website:

http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/maintainer-packages?action=details;package=mantis

I also tried to fix the todos on the list mentioned by Amaya,
furthermore I duilt it again using pbuilder (upgraded to sid, as
mentioned on workaround.org). All without errors or warnings.

So for now I would appreciate any comments that lead to a good debian
package.

thanks and kind regards
Daniel

-- 
Daniel Knabl
www.tirolinux.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP/GPG Fingerprint - please send signed mail only
A069 671B 39F2 E9B9 FB34  68BB 4BEC 1344 C8A4 3F0B


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: cdrtools

Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:

 Reply-To and M-f-T set to my address, whoever answers please respect
 this and let this thread die on -devel, its the wrong medium for this
 discussion, thank you.

If we did agree on continuing the mail exchange on a private base, there
youle be not problem, but unfortunately, you did send some lies in your mail 
that need to be corrected first


  I am sorry, but I cannot believe that you like to make serious proposal
  with the text you wrote.

 Do you believe anything thats not written by you is serious?

This looks confused.

If you do not make a serious proposal you cannot expect that people would
take you for serious.


  Let me make a proposal that makes sense for now and the future:
  1)  Throw out Eduard Bloch. He has been the biggest problem for Debian
  in the past years. Find a new maintainer with the following properties:

 I know that you cant work with him (and he with you).

I am willing and able to cooperate with any reasonable person.

Eduard Bloch has absolutely no clue and on the other side implicitely claims 
in his arrogant habbit that he knows more about cdrtools than I do. This makes 
it impussoble to cooperate with him. 


  2)  Update to a recent cdrtools source, do not hide interesting 
  new features from Debian users and (this may be even more important to
  Linux users) workarounds for recent Linux kernel 
  self-incompatibilities. 

 You combine CDDL and GPL, and that doesnt work, the two are
 incompatible. The CDDL is intended to be GPL incompatible. If you
 dont believe that - even people from Sun, like Simon Phipps and Danese
 Cooper (now working at Intel, but one of the authors of CDDL) are aware
 of the incompatibility of the two licenses, and Simon and Danese also
 said at this years Debian Conference that this is intended. (We had both
 Simon and Danese there, talking with us about different things including
 the CDDL). They stated that the GPL incompatibility is *part of the
 design of the CDDL*

Claiming that Sun did make the CDDL incompatible with the GPL is a deliberate 
lie. 

The rest of your claims from above include several other untrue assertions:

-   You claim wrong authors: the authors of the CDDL are Claire Giordano (a 
lawyer) and Andy Tucker (the former chief engineer for OpenSolaris).

-   You claim that Simon Phipps sayd at this Debian Conference that
an incompatibility was intended. This is definitely not true, I did
ask him in a private mail and he replied that he did not say more than
that he believes that there are some issues.

I am sorry, but it easier to believe him than to believe you.

-   The general claim that The CDDL is intended to be GPL incompatible.
is definitely not true:

I had a long private talk (~ 3 hours) with Andy Tucker (in September 
2004 
at a joint dinner) and I had a 1.5 hour phone call with Claire Giordano 
and
Andy Tucker in December 2004.

Since that time I know that Sun had/has no such intention.

Andy did tell me that it makes absolutely no sense, trying to forbid 
that the OpenSolaris code may be used in other OS. The only rules for 
creating the CDDL have been to allow Sun Solaris to be build on top of
OpenSolaris and that the license has a strong copyleft.

Also note: the result of the phone call with Claire Giordano and Andy 
Tucker was that 3 of 4 changes on the CDDL text made in January 2005
have been done on my requests. If Debian people did have issues with
the first CDDL draft, they could have done like me. As they did not,
it is obvious that Debian peole have no problems with the CDDL.
 

I am not sure who did start spreading the FUD about intended incompatibility,
but many Sun people who definitely know better are willing to answer questions 
about the CDDL in order to avoid rumors about the CDDL.




 And if thats not enough, its not only Debian or Sun stating it, its also
 FSF, which you can read on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
 - the relevant text there is:

 --8schnipp-8---
 Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)

 This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has
 some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It
 requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only
 requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation
 for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL
 and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We
 urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

 Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term intellectual
 property
 --8schnapp-8---


Sorry, but I do not believe people

Re: NMU for mantis - new upstream and some bugfixes

2006-08-11 Thread Amaya

Hi Daniel,

I see you made a great job out of mantis. You are so enthusiastic that
I could not make you wait. There are still some issues that I want to
discuss with you (ie, the changelog should be improved). 

But let's take this off-list and talk in private. 

-- 
  ·''`.  Policy is your friend. Trust the Policy.
 : :' : Love the Policy. Obey the Policy. -- Lars Wirzenius
 `. `'   Proudly running unstable Debian GNU/Linux
   `- www.amayita.com  www.malapecora.com  www.chicasduras.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Status of inetd for etch

2006-08-11 Thread Roger Leigh

Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

 It would be good to get rid of inetd from the basic install at all.  Those
 No, it would not. UNIX systems are supposed to have an inetd installed.

 I see no reason why *Debian* systems should have an inetd installed
 unless there is another package installed requiring its services.
 This can be handled through package dependencies.  If the admin wants
 to add their own services (i.e. not installed by a dependency), they
 can just install it by hand.

 If there is nothing using inetd, it's just bloat in the base install.

 While it's probably best to leave it installed by default for etch, I
 think fixing up all inetd-using packages to have proper dependencies,
 and then removing the dependency from netbase would be a worthy goal
 for etch+1.

Just for the record, this is the list of affected packages:

afbackup
amanda-client
amanda-server
apt-proxy
asp
atftpd
bidentd
biff
binkd
bitlbee
bootp
bozohttpd
cfingerd
csync2
cupsys-bsd
cvs
cyrus-imapd
cyrus-pop3d
dbskkd-cdb
dhcp
efingerd
exim
fakepop
fam
ffingerd
fingerd
firebird2-classic-server
fspd
ftpd
ftpd-ssl
gidentd
gnats
gtalk
gwhois
heimdal-kdc
heimdal-servers
heimdal-servers-x
hotway
ident2
ifcico
ipopd
isdnvboxserver
kerberos4kth-servers
kerberos4kth-servers-x
kftgtd
krb5-ftpd
krb5-kdc
krb5-rsh-server
krb5-telnetd
ktalkd
leafnode
lukemftpd
mailutils-comsatd
mailutils-imap4d
mailutils-pop3d
masqmail
midentd
mooix
ndtpd
netkit-inetd
nntp
node
noffle
nsca
nullidentd
oftpd
oidentd
openbsd-inetd
p10cfgd
pawserv
pidentd
popa3d
poppassd
postfix
proftpd
proftpd-common
pure-ftpd-common
qpopper
qpopper-drac
remctl-server
remstats-servers
rlinetd
rsh-redone-server
rsh-server
rstatd
rusersd
rwalld
samba
sendfile
sendmail-base
sidentd
skksearch
slidentd
smail
smtpd
sn
solid-pop3d
sslwrap
statd
swat
talkd
teapop
teapop-ldap
teapop-mysql
teapop-pgsql
telnetd
telnetd-ssl
tftpd
tftpd-hpa
uucp
uw-imapd
vsftpd
wipl-client-inetd
wu-ftpd
xfingerd
xtel
xtell
zmailer


-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?   http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.


pgpGWc6RE2f1M.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: cdrtools

On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:

 If we did agree on continuing the mail exchange on a private base, there
 youle be not problem, but unfortunately, you did send some lies in your mail 
 that need to be corrected first

Yeah.

 Eduard Bloch has absolutely no clue and on the other side implicitely claims 
 in his arrogant habbit that he knows more about cdrtools than I do. This 
 makes 
 it impussoble to cooperate with him. 

You know that this is Rufschädigung übelster Art?

 Claiming that Sun did make the CDDL incompatible with the GPL is a deliberate 
 lie. 

You should look at the video I pointed you at. You just accused me of
being a liar. If i would have your low level I would now do the same you
did with a co-maintainer of the Debian cdrtools package and threat with
a lawsuit if you dont take it back. I dont. I just add you to my ignore
filter and go on. Which means removal of cdrtools from Debian and later
readdition of a free fork.

 The rest of your claims from above include several other untrue assertions:
 - You claim wrong authors: the authors of the CDDL are Claire Giordano (a 
   lawyer) and Andy Tucker (the former chief engineer for OpenSolaris).

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danese_Cooper *and* look into the
video I pointed you at. I even gave you exact times where to look.

 - You claim that Simon Phipps sayd at this Debian Conference that
   an incompatibility was intended. This is definitely not true, I did
   ask him in a private mail and he replied that he did not say more than
   that he believes that there are some issues.
   I am sorry, but it easier to believe him than to believe you.

Watch the video, the minutes I pointed you at. Danese, who was one of
those drafting the CDDL had some very clear words.

 Sorry, but I do not believe people that put things into a GPL FAQ that
 are obviously wrong.

Yeah, you dont believe those people who have written the GPL...

 I am willing to have a private discussion in case it would make sense and 
 will 
 not be a waste of time. This means that I will immediately stop the 
 discussion 
 in case that you e.g. again claim that Sun did make the CDDL incompatible to 
 the GPL by intention or that you quote the GPL incorrectly in hope to prove
 claims about the incompatibility of the CDDL and the GPL.

As you obviously stay with your opinion and doesnt even consider stuff
people sent to you, including video proof, that would be a waste of time.

-- 
bye Joerg
Linus: Wenn Darl McBride die Macht hätte, würde er wahrscheinlich die
Ehe als Verletzung der Verfassung auslegen, weil sie ganz klar die
kommerzielle Natur der menschlichen Interaktion entwertet und damit ein
großes Hindernis für die kommerzielle Entwicklung der Prostitution darstellt.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Remove cdrtools

reassign 377109 ftp.debian.org
retitle 377109 RM: cdrtools -- RoM: non-free, license problems
thanks

Hi guys,

ok well, as JS stays with an interpretation of CDDL and GPL that the
whole world does not follow (all wrong, of course :) ), lets go and fix
this. The sane way is to remove cdrtools from Debian main (unstable) and
add a free replacement, most possible a fork from the last free version
(which had only the CDDL licensed build scripts, which can easily be
replaced by some automake thing). If you want to join that effort -
contact me.

For Debian etch I dont think its a big problem right now, dependencies
will stop it from getting removed before we release.

-- 
bye Joerg
Some NM:
  3. How do you manage new upstream releases?
yes i manage them.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools

Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

  [1] 
  http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg

  [2] 
  http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/mpeg1-pal/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.mpeg

 Well, thats meetings-archive.debian.net

Nice to see that this video clip verifies my statements in case you carefully
listen to Simon Phipps:

-   Sun did not make the CDDL incompatible by intention to the GPL 

-   The only thing that prevents Linux to use the DTrace code in
Linux is the different threading model

-   Eben Moglen tells you that what I do in cdrtools is OK:
They the FSF and Moglen have only be in fear that people
could interpret the GPL in a wrong way and for this reason
added the OS exception, but the GPL does allow to link a
GPLd project against libraries under other licenses.


Jörg

-- 
 EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)  
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools

Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Eduard Bloch has absolutely no clue and on the other side implicitely 
  claims 
  in his arrogant habbit that he knows more about cdrtools than I do. This 
  makes 
  it impussoble to cooperate with him. 

 You know that this is Rufschädigung übelster Art?

I am sorry but this is the truth..

  Claiming that Sun did make the CDDL incompatible with the GPL is a 
  deliberate 
  lie. 

 You should look at the video I pointed you at. You just accused me of
 being a liar. If i would have your low level I would now do the same you

I did look at this video: it verifies what I say!

If you carefully look at the video, you see that Simon is angry with Danese
because she does not tell the truth but he does not like to correct her in the
public.

 did with a co-maintainer of the Debian cdrtools package and threat with
 a lawsuit if you dont take it back. I dont. I just add you to my ignore

You are lying here again by quoting the lies of the well known troll Eduard 
Bloch.

You are just going to lose your credability if you spread this kind of lies.
As I mentioned already many times, I did not do what Eduard claims!

[a lot of nonsense deleted] 

  Sorry, but I do not believe people that put things into a GPL FAQ that
  are obviously wrong.

 Yeah, you dont believe those people who have written the GPL...

I do not believe the people who did write the FSF GPL FAQ, this is different.

  I am willing to have a private discussion in case it would make sense and 
  will 
  not be a waste of time. This means that I will immediately stop the 
  discussion 
  in case that you e.g. again claim that Sun did make the CDDL incompatible 
  to 
  the GPL by intention or that you quote the GPL incorrectly in hope to 
  prove
  claims about the incompatibility of the CDDL and the GPL.

 As you obviously stay with your opinion and doesnt even consider stuff
 people sent to you, including video proof, that would be a waste of time.

As I said: I am willing to have an openminded discussion. In case you verify
that you are not willng to do the same, this discussiion ends.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)  
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools

2006-08-11 Thread Daniel Schepler

On Friday 11 August 2006 14:48 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
 The FSF GPL FAQ e.g. incorrectly claims:

   Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making a
   combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU
 General Public License cover the whole combination.
 
 The GPL does not contain the term combined work, so this is an invalid
 claim. 
 
 The GPL rather talks about a derived work and simply linking two modules
 together does definitely not make module B a derived work of module A
 if module A calls code from module B but module B does not call code from
 module A.

Let's put aside for the moment that the FAQ is not meant to be a legal 
document as opposed to the GPL itself, and that the FAQ is not saying B would 
be a derived work of A, but rather that the combination would be...

I have a general question about how the GPL is construed to cover the case of 
dynamic linking.  According to the GPL, section 0:

  The act of running the Program is not restricted...

And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run, this would 
appear to me to be what applies.  In particular, it appears to me that you 
could satisfy the GPL and still dynamically link against a non-free library, 
and distribute both, by invoking the mere aggregation clause of section 2.  
(Of course, you would have to be very careful about any inline functions, 
etc., from the non-free headers...)

As a hypothetical example, let's say that program A uses library B, both 
licensed under the GPL.  Now the author of B decides he doesn't want anybody 
selling B at all, so he releases a newer version under a non-free license, 
and Debian decides to package the old version of B as B-free and the new 
version in non-free.  Is Debian allowed to keep distributing A, while 
distributing B-nonfree at the same time, given that some users might not end 
up installing B-free?  Suppose that later B-free is considered old and buggy 
enough that we refuse to support it, so B-free is removed from the archive.  
Now does Debian have to stop distributing A as well?  Even if by this point 
nobody actually had B-free installed any more?  (I think my answers would be: 
distributing A with B-free and B-nonfree is permissible, but once B-free went 
A would have to go as well.  Of course, there would also be the solution we 
already have with B-free = lesstif and B-nonfree = libmotif, but let's say 
for the sake of argument B's maintainer doesn't take that course, and instead 
makes libB1-nonfree: Provides: libB1.)

On the other hand, since the FSF is the author of the license, and their own 
FAQ states that they consider dynamic linking to fall under the terms of the 
license, distributing GPL programs dynamically linked against 
GPL-incompatible libraries would clearly be exploiting a loophole under any 
definition of that term that I know of.  And exploiting a loophole in the GPL 
would hardly be a way to endear oneself to the free software community.  
Thus, I'm hoping that the above is more of an academic question than anything 
else.

In any case, static linking clearly falls under the definition of a work 
based on the Program in section 0, so you cannot e.g. extend GPL'd program A 
to use non-free library B, then distribute a resulting binary with B 
statically linked in.  (Which is not the same thing as saying this would make 
B a derived work of A.)
-- 
Daniel Schepler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ITP: subtitleeditor -- Graphical subtitle editor with sound waves representation

2006-08-11 Thread Amaya Rodrigo Sastre

In reply to a RFP, and with the idea of creating subtitles for the talks given
in Spanish during Debian Day at Debconf6, found at 
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-13/tower/
I intend to package subtitleeditor.

* Package name: subtitleeditor
  Version : 0.9
  Upstream Author : IDJAAD djamel (aka kitone) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://kitone.free.fr/subtitleeditor/
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C++
  Description : Graphical subtitle editor with sound waves representation

 Subtitle Editor is a GTK+2 tool to edit subtitles.  It can be used for new
 subtitles or as a tool to transform, edit, correct and refine existing
 subtitles.
 .
 This program also shows soundwaves which makes it easier for subtitles
 synchronisation that most other subtitle editors like ksubtile or gaupol.
 .
 Author: IDJAAD djamel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Homepage: http://kitone.free.fr/subtitleeditor/


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-1-k7
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL 
set to en_US.UTF-8)

-- 
  ·''`.  Policy is your friend. Trust the Policy.
 : :' : Love the Policy. Obey the Policy. -- Lars Wirzenius
 `. `'   Proudly running unstable Debian GNU/Linux
   `- www.amayita.com  www.malapecora.com  www.chicasduras.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Remove cdrtools

2006-08-11 Thread Francesco Pedrini

Alle Friday 11 August 2006 22:51, Joerg Jaspert ha scritto:
 reassign 377109 ftp.debian.org
 retitle 377109 RM: cdrtools -- RoM: non-free, license problems
 thanks

 Hi guys,

 ok well, as JS stays with an interpretation of CDDL and GPL that the
 whole world does not follow (all wrong, of course :) ), lets go and
 fix this. The sane way is to remove cdrtools from Debian main
 (unstable) and add a free replacement, most possible a fork from the
 last free version (which had only the CDDL licensed build scripts,
 which can easily be replaced by some automake thing). If you want to
 join that effort - contact me.

The fork-team can look at http://www.arklinux.org/projects/dvdrtools, a 
100% free fork of cdrtools.
The SVN is inactive from 6 month, but the autotool-ization is already 
done and it can write on DVDs, and probably is better than starting 
another fork.

One interesting thing on this project is that they want to turn 
important functionality into a shared library for improve the access 
from the various frontends.

Regards,
Francesco
-- 
:wq


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools

2006-08-11 Thread Hubert Chan

Jorg Schilling wrote:

[...]

 Sorry, but I do not believe people that put things into a GPL FAQ that
 are obviously wrong. Let me give a single example to avoid wasting too
 much time:

 The FSF GPL FAQ e.g. incorrectly claims:

   Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is
   making a combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and
   conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
   combination.

 The GPL does not contain the term combined work, so this is an
 invalid claim.

The GPL does, however, contain the term work based on [the Program].
Calling it a combined work based on [the Program] does not change the
fact that it is a work based on [the Program].  The combined is
merely a clarification on the term.

 The GPL rather talks about a derived work and simply linking two
 modules together does definitely not make module B a derived work of
 module A if module A calls code from module B but module B does not
 call code from module A.

No, but the combined work (A+B) (i.e. a binary produced by linking
module A with module B) is a work based on A, and hence (A+B) must be
distributable under the terms of the GPL.

Distributing the sources of A with the sources of B may be fine, but
Debian would not be legally allowed to distribute a binary produced by
linking A with B, since this would not be mere aggregation.

You brought up the question of Cygwin in a previous message, but that is
covered by the exception given in the second-last paragraph of section 3.

-- 
Hubert Chan - email  Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA   (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Silly Packaging Problem

martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 also sprach Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.10.1647 +0100]:
 How about allowing conffiles to list files that are generated at
 install time and are not included in the deb?

 You can, but then you run up against policy. You are not allowed to
 touch a conffile with a script.

Policy and dpkg would obviously have to change to that semantic and
specificaly allow/recommend that approach.

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Silly Packaging Problem

Bruce Sass [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On Thu August 10 2006 10:16, martin f krafft wrote:
 also sprach Goswin von Brederlow 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.10.1647 +0100]:
  How about allowing conffiles to list files that are generated at
  install time and are not included in the deb?

 You can, but then you run up against policy. You are not allowed to
 touch a conffile with a script.

 Is there anything prohibiting an update-package.list command?

 Would updating /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list files without touching the 
 appropriate Installed-Size: field be OK?

 Is there any way to get a handle on how much more CPU time and HDD space 
 would be used if all packages updated their meta-info at install time?


 - Bruce

The problem is that dpkg has the list of files internaly while it
unpacks new debs and cleans up after old debs. It would most likely
overwrite your changed .list file after your maintainer script is
done. And if not then the next upgrade would delete those added
entries as they are no longer in the deb.

Allowing packages to add files to the file listing has do be done is
close cooperation with dpkg and aybe use a seperate meta file.

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools

Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 No, but the combined work (A+B) (i.e. a binary produced by linking
 module A with module B) is a work based on A, and hence (A+B) must be
 distributable under the terms of the GPL.

 Distributing the sources of A with the sources of B may be fine, but
 Debian would not be legally allowed to distribute a binary produced by
 linking A with B, since this would not be mere aggregation.

If you try to again post claims that have already proven to be wrong, 
I see no reason to continue this discussion, it only wastes time...

The GPL is a source license. The fact that you are thinking about the 
license for a binary verifies that you did not understand the GPL.

The GPL only restricts things (and requires the whole work to be put under GPL) 
in case you try to put other peoples GPLd work _into_ your your work and 
create a work based on the other code. This is obviously not true for the 
case I am talking of.

Again: if you continue to bend my statements I get the impression that you are 
not interested in a real discussion but in stealing my time.

I did never claim that any possible combination of CDDL  GPL code is permitted.
The combination I am using however is OK for me _and_ for binary redistributors.


Jörg

-- 
 EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)  
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Proposal: searchable d.o/security/

2006-08-11 Thread Nico Golde

Hi,
today I searched for a specific DSA and its really pain if 
you just know the package but no DSA number (correct me if I missed 
something).
What about a search field on [0]
to search the DSA database for past DSAs against a package?
The regular search on d.o is not able to find DSAs.
Kind regards
Nico
[0] http://www.debian.org/security/
-- 
Nico Golde - JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x73647CFF
http://www.ngolde.de | http://nion.modprobe.de/blog/
Forget about that mouse with 3/4/5 buttons -
gimme a keyboard with 103/104/105 keys!


pgpHNahRClql2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal: searchable d.o/security/

also sprach Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.11.2302 +0100]:
 today I searched for a specific DSA and its really pain if 
 you just know the package but no DSA number (correct me if I missed 
 something).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=q=dsa123+debianbtnG=Search

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
the public is wonderfully tolerant.
 it forgives everything except genius.
-- oscar wilde


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

GPL question [Was: Re: cdrtools]

Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Let's put aside for the moment that the FAQ is not meant to be a legal 
 document as opposed to the GPL itself, and that the FAQ is not saying B would 
 be a derived work of A, but rather that the combination would be...

 I have a general question about how the GPL is construed to cover the case of 
 dynamic linking.  According to the GPL, section 0:

   The act of running the Program is not restricted...

 And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run, this would 
 appear to me to be what applies.  In particular, it appears to me that you 
 could satisfy the GPL and still dynamically link against a non-free library, 
 and distribute both, by invoking the mere aggregation clause of section 2.  
 (Of course, you would have to be very careful about any inline functions, 
 etc., from the non-free headers...)

I believe that the totaly interchangable option of specifying
-static or not should not change the free-ness of the source or
resulting binary. So if you link static and you agree that it is a
violation that way then you should not be able to get away with it by
linking dynamically.

The GPL is viral in nature and specificaly made to work across linking
boundaries. People should not be able to add non-free portitons to the
source by hiding them in libraries.

My 2c,
   Goswin

PS: For proof or disproof ask a lawyer.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-

Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:29:40AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
 * Michael Biebl [Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:12:59 +0200]:
 
  that dpkg --compare-versions '0.09' '=' '0.9' yields true, which I
  think is rather odd, because it means that now all version numbers up to
  0.9 will be considered  0.09+0.1.
 
   0.09 = 0.9 means:
 
 0 == 0
 and
 . == .
 and
 09 == 9
 
   Which is pretty standard math. ;-)
 
 Except that the final comparison ignores that the number was to the
 right of the decimal, making the zero significant.  I think you will be
 hard pressed to find a mathematician who supports dropping significant
 zeros for no good reason.

 -Roberto

Well, lets go math (well, not totaly formal :):

Debian version 0.09 == 0:0.09 == {(0, , 0), (1, , 0), (2, ., 09)}
Debian version 0.1  == 0:0.1  == {(0, , 0), (1, , 0), (2, ., 1)}

Where two triplets of (id, s, n) are comparable for id1 == id2 and then s1
is compared to s2 first and only then n1 to n2.

Sets of those tripplets are compared by order of id comparing triplets
with matching ids and the first non-matching triplet decides the
order.

This confirms that 0.09  0.1.

MfG
Goswin

PS: ~ was ignored for simplicity.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: md5 sum mismatches and mirror syncs

martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Failed to fetch
 http://ftp.ie.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz
 MD5Sum mismatch

 I am seeing a lot of this stuff lately, and I've been told it's due
 to mirror syncs. As our archive grows bigger, the sync takes longer,
 so this problem will happen more often in the future.

 I wonder why. To me it seems as if a sync is a blind rsync, which
 copies the Release index before the individual Packages/Source
 indices.

 Shouldn't we switch to using/advocating a smarter algorithm like
 the one debmirror or anonftpsync use, which is to push new package
 files to the archive, then synchronise indices, then delete obsolete
 package files?

 Or is this already in place? Why then do we see errors like the
 above?

The algorithm used is 2pass. First pass only mirrors pool while the
second pass mirrors the Release and Packages files. The time a mirror
is out of sync should always be limited to the time it takes to
download the Packages file after the Release file. All the index files
are done in one chunk file to file. A matter of minutes at most.

For details please read the recommended mirror scripts provided by
debian.


I think the problems seen way too often come from rsync failing every
now and then leaving a partialy updated mirror. I've seen that happen
several times but never reproducible.

MfG
Goswin

PS: All mirror admins and Debians default scripts should add the
--delay-updates option from rsync to cut down the out-of-sync time
to near nothing.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Remove cdrtools

Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 reassign 377109 ftp.debian.org
 retitle 377109 RM: cdrtools -- RoM: non-free, license problems
 thanks

 Hi guys,

 ok well, as JS stays with an interpretation of CDDL and GPL that the
 whole world does not follow (all wrong, of course :) ), lets go and fix
 this. The sane way is to remove cdrtools from Debian main (unstable) and
 add a free replacement, most possible a fork from the last free version
 (which had only the CDDL licensed build scripts, which can easily be
 replaced by some automake thing). If you want to join that effort -
 contact me.

 For Debian etch I dont think its a big problem right now, dependencies
 will stop it from getting removed before we release.

For those that didn't see it on irc there is also a replacement for
cdrecord called cdrskin based on the JS free libburn. The BIG problem
with it is that it can only burn data CDs in disk-at-once mode. No TAO
or audio capabilities.

For anyone intrested Eduart Block and some others have packaged it in
the last 24h: svn.debian.org/svn/collab-maint/deb-maint/cdrskin/trunk

I know it is far from being a full replacement but good enough to
e.g. burn Debian CDs.

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ITP: subtitleeditor -- Graphical subtitle editor with sound waves representation

2006-08-11 Thread Amaya Rodrigo Sastre

Amaya Rodrigo Sastre wrote:
  This program also shows soundwaves which makes it easier for
  subtitles synchronisation that most other subtitle editors like
 
  ksubtile or gaupol.
So, now that I read this aloud, is it that or than here? 
Nah, the description should definitely be improved.

Preliminary work can be found at
http://www.amayita.com/debian/subtitleeditor 
but don't expect an upload until next week. 

BTW, Co-maintainers are most welcome!

-- 
  ·''`.  Policy is your friend. Trust the Policy.
 : :' : Love the Policy. Obey the Policy. -- Lars Wirzenius
 `. `'   Proudly running unstable Debian GNU/Linux
   `- www.amayita.com  www.malapecora.com  www.chicasduras.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools


You did write:

...
I have a general question about how the GPL is construed to cover the case of 
dynamic linking.  According to the GPL, section 0:
...

I am sory to see that you did remove me from the Cc: list
you are the first person at Debian who starts to think the right
way...

If you read the GPL again, you will find out that the GPL doeas not contein the
term linking. It is obvious that there is no difference between static and 
dynamic linking in terms of the GPL. So everything that is possible with dynamic
linking is also possible with static linking.

Linking a GPLd program against a non-GPLd library does not make the library a 
derived work of the GPLd program.

You may either call this mere aggregation or in the worst case call the GPLd
program a derived work of the library but not vice versa.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)  
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools

2006-08-11 Thread Edward Allcutt

On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 23:55 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
 Linking a GPLd program against a non-GPLd library does not make the library a 
 derived work of the GPLd program.
but it does mean you may distribute the resulting binary only if you make the 
library
source available under the GPL, and if the library's license does not
allow this then you may not distribute the binary

-- 
Edward Allcutt [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: md5 sum mismatches and mirror syncs