Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 09:32:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2005-06-

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

On 6/17/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users. > > And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not > > put us in a privileged position with resp

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Michael writes: > > Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous > > thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and all > > that. But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an > > arrangement were r

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Eric Dorland wrote: > >* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages > >>firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as > >>long as they didn't then change them

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: > > > > Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écri

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:47:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being > > > forced to change content. > > If I change the name of my program, I

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being > > forced to change content. > > If I change the name of my program, I also change all references to > that name in program (if for no other

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

Michael writes: > Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous > thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and all > that. But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an > arrangement were reached. Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an a

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

Gerv writes: > If I label the car I've built as a Ford (even if it uses a lot of Ford > parts), it infringes Ford's trademark. Not until you try to sell it. Ford Motor Company does not own the word 'Ford'. They merely have the exclusive right to sell automobiles (and related parts and services)

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: > > Well I don't think DFSG #4 says the rename has to be easy, it just > > has to be possible. > > Yes. However, the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, > not being forced to change content. U

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:57:13PM +0100, Will Newton wrote: > On Friday 17 June 2005 07:04, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 06:18:06PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > iceme -- A graphical menu editor for IceWM [#227054] > > > * Orphaned 520 days ago > > > * Package o

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Eric Dorland wrote: > Well I don't think DFSG #4 says the rename has to be easy, it just > has to be possible. Yes. However, the last sentence in DFSG #4 only talks about renaming, not being forced to change content. Don Armstrong -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be wa

Re: Questions on how to handle this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: httperf_0.8-3_i386.changes REJECTED]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:12:01AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote, on Friday, June > 17, 2005 6:37 AM: > > > Below I have included the text rejecting my httperf package. I am > > taking over as maintainer and uploaded a new version that also > >clo

Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material

On 6/17/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you'll find that porn is the majority industry on the internet. The Internet is, to zeroth order, useful only for the same four things that interactive TV is well suited for: video games, gambling, pornography, and pornographic gambl

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

On 6/17/05, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > > Alexander Sack writes: > > > >>In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product > >>name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it > >>is used in the help menu, the ab

Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:55:57PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes, > between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in > hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking > compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And i

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

Rich Walker wrote on 16/06/2005 23:23: > Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Martin Michlmayr wrote on 16/06/2005 19:18: >> >>>findimagedupes -- Finds visually similar or duplicate images [#218699] >>> * Orphaned 590 days ago >>> * Package orphaned > 360 days ago. >> >>Though I probably

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: > > > Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit : > > > > > You could also, as a courtesy to other

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Eric Dorland wrote: But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights that the user don't have. Debian already has rights that their users don't have, the most prominent among them being to label a Linux distribution as "Debian" (or "official Debian", or whatever it is you g

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Eric Dorland wrote: * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were modified that they potential

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

John Hasler wrote: Alexander Sack writes: In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name and the window title bar. I'm not convinced t

Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:19:21PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: > On 17/06/2005 Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: > > > On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > > > Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by > > > >

Re: Ada in Debian, past, present and future. Request for Advocate.

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes: > Ludovic Brenta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In July 2003, I adopted the package gnat and several other Ada > > packages. In November 2003, Matthias Klose sponsored my first few > > packages into Debian unstable. After I adopted all the orphaned > > packages I c

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:10:34PM +0200, Wouter van Heyst wrote: > > 4) make the program's branding depend on argv[0]. > > Do trademarks only apply to binaries, or to source also? A running > firefox will prominently display the trademarked bits in question, but > hey, the source being open for

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On 17-Jun-05, 13:11 (CDT), Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:18:37 +0200, Andreas Barth > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Come one. We're speaking on additional 5 minutes on the first > >connection. Greylist works quite well for me, and I really hope that we > >manage to

Re: Debian concordance

On Jun 17, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes, > between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in > hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking > compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And if they're >

Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:58:35AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hoary (like sarge) is built against 2.3.2. > > Breezy (like current sid) is built against 2.3.5. No, 2.3.5 is still in experimental. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a sub

Re: Debian concordance

* Daniel Stone: > Breezy (like current sid) is built against 2.3.5. Current sid on which platform? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/17/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Speaking as someone with no Ubuntu affiliation (and IANADD either), I > > think that statement is based on a somewhat shallow analysis of how > > glibc is handled. [...] > > I don't d

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:07:33PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:18:29AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: > > > > 1) rebrand mozilla-firefox > > 2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name > > that depends on it > > 3) use alternatives to provi

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

* Santiago Vila: > The CBL, in particular, is completely automated, it tries very hard > to not list "real" mail servers, and you can remove yourself trivially. > > In fact, most of the effectiveness of SBL-XBL really comes from the CBL, > as shown by the widely known statistics: Hmm, so "greylis

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

* Andreas Barth: > First of all, E-Mail is no real time medium. It was never intended so. My users complain if it's not (soft) real-time, and rightly so For most users, it's more real-time than a fax transmission because both parties need not walk to the fax machine. Today, even an MX hop which

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:18:29AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote: > > 1) rebrand mozilla-firefox > 2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name > that depends on it > 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox > > The description of the transition package should br

Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:55:57PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes, > between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in > hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking > compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't > > ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds > > incompatibilities. > > Speaking as someone with

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Raphaël Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit : > > I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to > > determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. > > If it's free, the project as a whole has a

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: > > Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit : > > > > You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the > > > > stunningly obvious proof that a fre

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:53:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > In fact, most of the effectiveness of SBL-XBL really comes from the CBL, > > as shown by the widely known statistics: > > > > http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/Blacklists_Compared.html >

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:18:37 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Come one. We're speaking on additional 5 minutes on the first >connection. Greylist works quite well for me, and I really hope that we >manage to deploy anti-spam-tools on Debian. Just for the record: The default MTA in

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Friday 17 June 2005 17:08, Raphaël Hertzog wrote: > The Mozilla Foundation explicitely gave us that right (or at least they > are ready to give us this right because they trust us). Of course the > right is revocable ... but that doesn't matter. When they decide to stop > granting us this right

Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material

On 17/06/2005 Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: > > On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > > Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by > > > simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstra

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Donald J Bindner writes: > 2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name >that depends on it > 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox Thereby attaching the name "Firefox" to something which is not pristine Mozilla code. This is exactly what it is being claimed we m

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

Luca writes: > Under gnome you can find gpppkill and gpppon, but they can't manage > provider setting. Gpppon doesn't need to manage settings. It uses the same settings as pon/poff, which can be managed with pppconfig. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subjec

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote: > Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit : > > > You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the > > > stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use > > > trademarks automa

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:53:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > In fact, most of the effectiveness of SBL-XBL really comes from the CBL, > as shown by the widely known statistics: > > http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/Blacklists_Compared.html Statistics which list only hits, and not false positives

Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: > On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by > > simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract > > than the pictures in any sexual educat

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit : > > You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the > > stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use > > trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state. > > That would be the part whe

ITA: linux-wlan-ng initial version of 0.2.1-pre26

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have made the linux-wlan-ng package for 0.2.1 [0] The modules for 2.6.8 and 2.6.11 is my next step. Can you take a look over it? I'm not sure if it is correct. [0] http://linuxmaniac.homeip.net/debian/ - -- Victor Seva Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ht

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Jesus Climent wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:46:33PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > > > I recomed using spamhaus SBL-XBL, or at least CBL (which is included in > > SBL-XBL). > > I dont: http://www.paulgraham.com/spamhausblacklist.html Selected paragraph from the article:

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050617 17:34]: > > > I perfectly understand what SMTP is, and I perfectly *don't* > > > understand why having a 30 minutes delay or even a 2 or 3 hours > > > delay in some conditions is tolerable. > > > > Come one. We're speaking on additional 5 minutes on the

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

> > I perfectly understand what SMTP is, and I perfectly *don't* > > understand why having a 30 minutes delay or even a 2 or 3 hours > > delay in some conditions is tolerable. > > Come one. We're speaking on additional 5 minutes on the first > connection. Greylist works quite well for me, and I rea

Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:32 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Andreas Barth wrote: > Come one. We're speaking on additional 5 minutes on the first > connection. Greylist works quite well for me, and I really hope that we > manage to deploy anti-spam-tools on Debian. Me too. See also some interesting tips here for Sendmail:

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050617 17:08]: > Le Ven 17 Juin 2005 14:13, Steve Greenland a écrit : > > On 17-Jun-05, 01:41 (CDT), Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > the delay it creates. [...] but for our @debian.org addresses ... > > > that sucks, I often rely on the fac

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

Le Ven 17 Juin 2005 14:13, Steve Greenland a écrit : > On 17-Jun-05, 01:41 (CDT), Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the delay it creates. [...] but for our @debian.org addresses ... > > that sucks, I often rely on the fact that delivery is immediate on > > those. > > Then you don't un

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:46:33PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > > I recomed using spamhaus SBL-XBL, or at least CBL (which is included in > SBL-XBL). I dont: http://www.paulgraham.com/spamhausblacklist.html -- Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org Unix SysAdm|L

Re: Ada in Debian, past, present and future. Request for Advocate.

Ludovic Brenta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In July 2003, I adopted the package gnat and several other Ada > packages. In November 2003, Matthias Klose sponsored my first few > packages into Debian unstable. After I adopted all the orphaned > packages I could, I created several new packages from

Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material

On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by > simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract > than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do > something about it, because it's a given

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On 17-Jun-05, 01:41 (CDT), Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the delay it creates. [...] but for our @debian.org addresses ... > that sucks, I often rely on the fact that delivery is immediate on > those. Then you don't understand how the internet and SMTP works. There is absolutely no

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

> I use both of these and would like to adopt them. I will upload next > week (via Anibal). I think they are no longer maintained upstream. Take a look at http://www.icewm.org/FAQ/IceWM-FAQ-11.html#tools4icewm for more modern and supported alternatives. Greetings Ben -- Please do not sent any

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

On Friday 17 June 2005 12:10, Sam Watkins wrote: > some of these packages are useful and interesting, and I feel they > should not be removed from unstable at least. perhaps they could be > moved to a different section which is not necessarily stabilized for > release. http://archive.debian.org/

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

I've only been skimming this thread, so I fear this may have been said. What about: 1) rebrand mozilla-firefox 2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name that depends on it 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox The description of the transition package shou

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scrisse: > Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > gkdial -- PPP dial-up configuration and dialing tool [#287992] > > * Orphaned 164 days ago > > * 1 RC bugs. > > Does any graphical ppp frontend exist that can be used instead of > this? Under gnome you can find gpppkill and

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:54:40AM +0200, Miros/law Baran wrote: > 17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The "S" in > > DFSG does not stand for "copyright", it stands for "software". > > Software usually contains cop

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 06:18:06PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > There are currently over 200 orphaned packages, many of which have > been on WNPP for quite a long time and some with RC bugs. I intend to > request the removal of a number of packages in three weeks unless a > package has been ad

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

On Friday 17 June 2005 13:40, Andreas Tille wrote: > > It's only compilable in its current state with g++-2.95 (regarding > > compilers in Debian stable). There is a single error when compiling with > > g++-3.4 which I am unable to fix (as I don't know the STL at all). > > Thanks for investigating

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >Hmmm, IIRC I was among these ones and the reasons was the CBL listing >all dynamic and non dynamic addresses from Free, one of the 2-3 major >ISPs for DSL in France. I think you are confusing CBL with another DNSbl. CBL only lists addresses that spam thi

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Sven Mueller wrote: "[2001/03/03 10:05] Markus Schoder has contributed finddupes.cpp, GPL'ed source code for a C++ based version ... It's only compilable in its current state with g++-2.95 (regarding compilers in Debian stable). There is a single error when compiling with

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:51:04PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > regarding prelink > On Thursday 16 June 2005 08:18, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One of the points of the md5sum verification is to ensure that the > > > binaries haven't been tampered with. If one can tamper with

Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages

On Friday 17 June 2005 07:04, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 06:18:06PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > iceme -- A graphical menu editor for IceWM [#227054] > > * Orphaned 520 days ago > > * Package orphaned > 360 days ago. > > > > icepref -- Yet another configuration to

Re: Bug#314590: ITP: zopex3 -- open source web application server (X3 branch)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 at 11:58 +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Debian Zope team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: zope2.8 Version : 2.8.0 Description : open source web application server

Re: Bug#314590: ITP: zopex3 -- open source web application server (X3 branch)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 at 11:58 +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Debian Zope team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Package name: zope2.8 > Version : 2.8.0 > Description : open source web application server (2.8 branch) Damn, I meant zopex3 a

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: >> Spamhaus's rather irresponsible behavior in the past[*] hasn't left a >> happy impression; have they cleaned up their act lately? > > Looks like you are confusing it with some other DNSBL. Hmmm, looking thought old email I think you're right -- it was "s

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Jun 17, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Spamhaus's rather irresponsible behavior in the past[*] hasn't left a > happy impression; have they cleaned up their act lately? Looks like you are confusing it with some other DNSBL. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signatur

Bug#314589: ITP: zope2.8 -- open source web application server (2.8 branch)

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Debian Zope team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: zope2.8 Version : 2.8.0 Upstream Author : Zope Community * URL : http://www.zope.org/ * License : ZPL 2.0 Description : open source web application server (2.8 bra

Bug#314590: ITP: zopex3 -- open source web application server (X3 branch)

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Debian Zope team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: zope2.8 Version : 2.8.0 Upstream Author : Zope Community * URL : http://www.zope.org/ * License : ZPL 2.0 Description : open source web application server (2.8 bra

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

17.06.2005 pisze Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The "S" in > DFSG does not stand for "copyright", it stands for "software". > Software usually contains copyrighted code, and sometimes it also > contains trademarked names or images

Re: Questions on how to handle this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: httperf_0.8-3_i386.changes REJECTED]

"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote, on Friday, June 17, 2005 6:37 AM: > Below I have included the text rejecting my httperf package. I am > taking over as maintainer and uploaded a new version that also >closed a couple of bugs and moved it from non-US to main. If linking > with lib

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

> We explained you that your reasoning was ill-advised because DFSG > stands for "DF Software G" and not "DF Trademark G". What can I say > more ? I think you'd best come up with a better line of argument. The "S" in DFSG does not stand for "copyright", it stands for "software". Software usually

Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > > So, maybe it's time t

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

Hi Eric, Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 14:45 -0400, Eric Dorland a écrit : > I'm not trying to say it's non-free. It is free. What I'm trying to > determine is if we should use the marks within Debian. If it's free, the project as a whole has already decided to be able to include it. For the rest, it's

Work-needing packages report for Jun 17, 2005

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 208 (new: 24) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 100 (new: 13) Total number of packages reque

Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system, > > > particularly as they

Re: Debian concordance

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system, > > particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some > > poking in this a