Andreas Barth wrote:
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 18:09]:
We can provide a sensible default for system users' removals that
copes with most situations and leave a door open (through debconf)
to sysadmins that want to fiddle with system users.
I really want to
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Humberto Massa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 18:28]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 18:09]:
We can provide a sensible default for system users' removals that
copes with most situations and leave a door open (through
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Humberto Massa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 18:34]:
in my workstation I try out a new package (for scientfic computing, a
game for Lucas, a new development package) at least once each two days,
and a lot of times they come with their libs and their daemons
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 20:13]:
This is just patently false, as has been pointed out elsewhere.
What
security hole, exactly, is created by orphaning a file?
Well, if some process (maybe within the package)
@ 21/09/2005 02:25 : wrote Matthew Palmer : On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at
01:12:38AM -, Samuel Jean wrote:
Here it goes. I wondered about a clever way to load my iptables
ruleset via init.d's script. Surprisingly, I didn't find any with
Debian. I didn't search that much though.
Have a look at
@ 18/09/2005 17:55 : wrote Josselin Mouette :
This is complete overkill. The only thing currently missing in your
scenario is support in apt-get and synaptic for grabbing dependencies
for a single binary package. E.g. apt-get install foo.deb or
synaptic foo.deb.
There was some patch to apt
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
meaningfull to
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?
YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate against
The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not
I might be slow, but can you explain why we need a license for this?
I do not need to license my books, but I do need to license my
software. Why should the wiki documents be treated more like software
than a book?
Yes, you do need a license to the content of your books. Only thing is,
when
Actually, I stand partially corrected as of:
Actually, in Norway, I got a limited right to copy it, a given right
to modify it, a limited right to distribute it, and a limited right to
distribute copies.
Down here (Brasil) -- and I suspect in the USofA too -- NO (or, better
saying, extremely
* Hamish Moffatt ::
I just packaged podracer last week, which is a derivative of
bashpodder.
Is there any benefit to having both?
The podracer license is MIT/BSD-style, so if the bashpodder license is
GPL, something's not quite right!
Does a 14-line bash script (*) contains enough
** Peter Palfrader ::
mysqld_get_param () {
/usr/sbin/mysqld --print-defaults |
sed -ne s/^.*--$1=\\([^ ]\\+\\).*\$/\\1/p
}
And harder to read. Making scripts more complex and harder to
read for some dubious efficiency is not a good idea in my opinion.
I respectfully
** Joe Smith ::
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package
to fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user
from recompiling on his own system, which thusly
** Bastian Blank ::
You have a linux kernel ready, which allows chroot as normal user?
Please share it with us.
It's called QEMU :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: mpfi
Version : 1.3.3
Upstream Authors: Nathalie Revol, Fabrice Rouillier (email ommited)
* URL :
http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/nathalie.revol/software.html
* License : LGPL 2.1 or later
Description : multiple precision floating-point
I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a
desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so.
In my experience, sid breaks less than testing when used as a desktop.
OTOH, I avoid doing apt{-get,itude} upgrade... I generally enter the
interactive aptitude screen, press U, and
** Andreas Barth ::
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050804 18:48]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Miles Bader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050804 13:54]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which is wholy irrelevant, because Debian's mailing
list policy
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:15:42 +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
Boot-Up Manager is a graphical tool to allow easy configuration
of init services in user and system runlevels, as far as changing
Start/Stop services priority.
Consulting the documentation...
1. Activate a de-activated
** Eric Cooper ::
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 09:52:34AM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
So, if we had a new header to indicate that this is the
drop-in replacement of the old program, it could work, right?
[...]
Which should this new header be?
Substitutes:, Supersedes:, Takes-Over:,
** Anthony DeRobertis ::
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC --
forbids us to have rights that our users don't have.
No, it doesn't. It says:
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
program's being part
What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian
packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos?
If we don't use any trademarked images, logos, or phrases, what
exactly are we talking about here?
As I think this is a very nice question, could Eric or any other
person
Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't see
anything in the DFSG restricting it to copyrights or excluding trademarks or
patents. So, it is my Humble Opinion that DFSG#8 applies broadly.
--
* Thijs ::
On Tue, June 14, 2005 08:00, Eric Dorland wrote:
Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to
use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this
feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
However, in #4, an explicit exception is made
* Julien BLACHE ::
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and
thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with
the FSF can't work with the MoFo.
The downside to this approach is that the Mozilla Foundation
have no
* Marco ::
On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We
drop
Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to
Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian?
Agreed.
Their trademark
* Towns ::
Eric Dorland wrote:
Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to
use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this
feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
Our priorities are our users and free software
Does having the package
* Julien BLACHE ::
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We
drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: eh, wtf,
Debian hasn't got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird?
omgwtf $DISTRO has them!
Maybe my
* Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ::
El Martes 14 Junio 2005 16:50, Marco d'Itri escribió:
They don't care about free software. They don't care about
distributors/vendors.
This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented a
bit more if you want people to believe you.
Moreover,
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo ::
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote:
There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to
binary package, and architecture independent to data package.
I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For
example
* Wiktor Wandachowicz ::
Hello all Debian folks!
First of all I would like to congratulate all Debian developers
and maintainers for releasing sarge. Good job! (and a big relief
for all of you, I guess)
Having a Debian installed on 10 Sun Blade boxes and helping a bit
on debian-boot
Sergey Fedoseev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no architecture dependent data in it (or such data is very
small).
Maybe you should tell us what program are you going to
package.
That would be a good idea.
I'm not going to package program...yet. There are many packages
already splitted.
* Matthew Garrett ::
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under
the terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free.
This is, uh, debated.
Is it? I seemed to recall that the MPL contained a choice-of-venue
** Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ::
No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct*
users from such burden. A lot of people would get greatly confused
with a different name for Firefox, even if you don't think so.
*Indirect* users such as derived distributions should check the
Maybe I can shed some light on this
** Manoj Srivastava ::
That common is common enough?
Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you
fashioned your run levels would make sense for, say, me.
People whoi really want tailored run-levels often have
** Sebastian Ley ::
Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 16:20 schrieb Humberto Massa Guimarães:
Does calling it firefox or thunderbird hurt free software?
At first, no. But it *does* hurt our users. Why? Because they are
confident that getting something from the Debian mirror, modifying
I didn't say anything about manpages, did I?
Your phrase was directly after Sergey's question of where should he put the
manpages.
Apropos, Sergey, your argument about manpages going in -data is sound, provided
-bin REALLY Depends: on -data.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** Otavio Salvador ::
humberto == Humberto Massa Guimaraes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
humberto IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a
humberto plan, such as:
humberto * testing and unstable are not installable by
humberto non-tech-folk, all the time, really. There can
Yes, it's not nice, it's crap, but it's still entirely
possible within the
(pseudo-)legal framewark Debian gives itself.
Isn't Debian point to be less crap? Yeah, I even agree it's possible within
Debian's laws, but should it be done? I don't think so.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal.
Sorry John, but this is BS. The text of the GPL#6 says: You may not impose
*any* further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. This
*does* include trademark restrictions.
But this is a moot point for the
** Manoj Srivastava ::
(4) It *does* generate an unnecessary difference between Debian and
*all* *other* distros, with no reasonable motive at all.
We differ on what we considered reasonable.
But not *one* reasonable motive for differing was cited in this whole thread.
So, right,
Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it *as
long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing to
accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our users?
If we are willing to accept it for ourselves, then we should accept it for
** Matthew Garrett ::
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it? I seemed to recall that the MPL contained a
choice-of-venue clause, and that -legal deemed choice-of-venue
as non-free, because imposes a burden on the licensee in case of
litigation.
-legal decided
With this reasoning, firefox must go to non-free -- because everything
in main is guaranteed to be freely distributable by anyone, anywhere.
With modifications, inclusive.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I maintain a package (hdf5) which contains a pure C library and a C++
interface. However, I'm pretty sure the C++ library isn't used by
packages depending on it. In this case, is it necessary for
the library to be renamed?
What about third-party software that is not part of Debian and
Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to
in the first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is
not allowed to call it mozilla-firefox. If we call it
debian-firefox then downstream is still not allowed (under the
same conditions) to call it mozilla-firefox.
* Gabor ::
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:40:10PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Many shell apps/scripts output data in tables, for example ls
-l, ps aux, top, netstat, etc. At the moment, most of these
apps use fixed-width columns with a variable-width last-column.
This results in
* Olaf ::
On 6/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snikt
printf %-50.50s %d\n, $_, -s $_ for *.ab
in Perl. The domain is necessary anyway, ie, you have to know
Monad to understand the first, you have to know perl to grok the
second.
Except that in Perl you have
* Olaf ::
On 6/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, and I withdraw :-) what I said about XML. But *any*
serialization / deserialization necessary for this scheme to
work would add (unnecessary) overhead. This and the fact that
you would
Well, if you can do
On 6/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not necessarily. Just as you have tableout as an external
command (built-in or not) in Monad, you can have a Perl module
to print things in a tabular manner, expanding the column sizes
as needed (based on HTML::Format::Table
Matt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:13:16AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
to find their own (sometimes flawed) solution to a very common problem.
Years using Linux: 10.
Idem here
Times I've absolutely needed an X-less boot when an XDM was installed: 0.
Mine: 30 or more.
Josselin:
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remember,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
and I am pretty
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory
Will Newton wrote:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we
Peter Samuelson wrote:
(...)
HOWEVER
This is a very silly thing to argue about without benchmarks. Those
who care about this - yes, Thomas, I mean you - should get numbers.
Here's how:
(steps 1-6)
You are 100% right and I stand corrected.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that a work based on the Program is a derivative work under
copyright law, and then says that is to say, a work
containing..., which is NOT a re-statement
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs /
distinction,
then there is no before /usr is mounted.
But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people think
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
These
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes sense if it's
necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not make sense.
Sure it does. Especially if you want / to be in a Flash disk and /usr to
be somewhere else in the network.
HTH
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
With dir_index, yes it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define work based on the
Program in terms of derivative work under copyright law, and
then, after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what
is a derivative work under
Batist Paklons wrote:
This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, it tries to define work based on the Program in terms
of derivative work under copyright law, and then incorrectly
paraphrases that definition.
It's probably worth noting that derivative work and work based on
the Program are spelled differently. What's not
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
things about his woody-to-sarge transition
I have made this transition a lot lately, too, and I would like to offer
some insight about the following process:
2. The standard yes, no, diff, shell approach could probably use
some tweaking. What I mean is that with so
Andrew Suffield wrote:
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
So, there it goes.
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Paul TBBle Hampson]
This of course assumes the phrase derived work is legalese for
code dependancy or something. I'm sure the GPL
Josh Metzler wrote:
How would you know which subscriber was harvesting e-mail addresses?
Josh
If the need ever comes, you can put a fake and distinct CC: address on
each outgoing mail, that will point to a single subscriber.
I would receive the same mail with CC:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you,
James William Pye wrote:
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Games serve a purpose: they entertain the user. What is the purpose of
sdate?
The same. If you are not entertained by sdate, then you do not
need to install it.
That said, the following script is probably just as amusing, and
Nico Golde wrote:
I think there is no other way expect to specify this in a
config file. Or it should be documentated that in this case
the user has do dpkg-reconfigure the package.
Regards Nico
Isn't there a way to write a trigger to be... hmmm... triggered in
case some specific package (/in/
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.01.2104 +0200]:
Uh, this looks like a pull type of thing in which ever init.d
script starts its dependencies. I don't think this is a good idea.
No, it is not. The dependencies are cached.
Cached? As in
Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Gunnar,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
And I am sure we can find more examples like these - I have not really
checked, but I would be surprised if architectures as popular as
Sparc, Alpha or ARM wouldn't have an emulator (although probably
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:32:30PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:06:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
And I believe that the Vancouver proposal, if implemented as intended
up to now, will not only affect what Debian really *is*, but in some
ways
Sven Luther wrote:
Still i believe i have made some constructive proposals, and even if my
first posts may have been a bit too aggressive, for which i apologize,
or too many, i think it is also a prove of the passion which lies on
this issue. Something which has the potential to affect many of
David Schmitt wrote:
1) people realize that $arch won't be REGULAR for etch because the
people working on a release don't want to handhold it through testing
and autobuilding is too slow to properly keep up.
Even not considering the problem I see with the Vancouver proposal
regarding Debian
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
With a decent toolset, doing a security package for 10 architectures
should be a nearly-constant amount of work, no matter which base the
number 10 is written in.
Speaking of which, can anyone here explain to me why does a two-line
security fix on, say, KDE, makes things
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:52:54PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Speaking of which, can anyone here explain to me why does a two-line
security fix on, say, KDE, makes things need to be recompiled for 12
days long? (!!!) One could think
78 matches
Mail list logo
