Eric Seigne a écrit :
Bonjour,
ça fait plusieurs jours que je tourne en rond, je n'arrive pas à faire
un preseed correct pour faire une auto-installation qui ne pose pas de
questions (partitions automatiques, paquets etc.). Ce qui me met le plus
en boule c'est que je n'arrive pas à trouver un
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/6/06, Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed. Btw, it would be better keep Etch package descriptions updated
during its support cycle, but i think it's impossible with the
infrascture we've,
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nice, thanks. While we're at this subject, what's your view on the
Ubuntu language packs? Are we going to extract the translations from
the packages creating language packs? It has pros and cons, and
the best thing i see is the possibility to keep
They did with the wiki content, probably they will do the same thing
or something similar with Rosetta translations. The question is if it
will be free.
Everything related to Rosetta is currently assumed by me of *not*
being free.
The real problem, is that we have reports of people
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 05:11, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...]
And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a
Scripsit Klaus Ethgen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are two reasons not to use hidden files in /usr, /var, /dev and
other:
1. It generates false positives (as mention before). And to many false
positives only ends in overlook the real bad files and directories.
2. There is absolutely no
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other
directions in debian policy, but it's usually
* Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-07 02:20]:
We did pick two compiler warnings and scanned the build logs of one
archive rebuild on alpha (64bit), where wrong code may be generated.
These warnings can be found in 1600 packages [4]; they are:
[4]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just as /etc/bashrc is not hidden, whereas ~/.bashrc is, *why*
should any *system* files be hidden?
IMO dotfiles are a historical artifact which we are stuck with. If we
were just starting
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 01:22:56AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
I have no idea what it would take to persuade you that I am who I say I am,
but if you _only_ accept National Passports then it would appear to be
impossible in my case (which I realise is something of a corner-case).
I would probably
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20
That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a
decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
[...] If people have
weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
that's entirely their choice.
Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:45:28AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
This argument is valid only for configuration. There are more
reasons to have files which are not displayed unless you ask for
them. For example:
* .svn
Storing this metadata somewhere else would mean you have to
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all
the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable
for the effects of everything in our operating system?
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 03:21:45PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Nice, thanks. While we're at this subject, what's your view on the
Ubuntu language packs? Are we going to extract the translations from
the packages creating language packs? It has pros and cons, and
the best thing i see is the
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn
all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 02:15 +0200, Axel Beckert a écrit :
Hi!
I'm creating a meta package for install a lite desktop for old
machines with poor hardware.
Hey, that's a really cool idea! Debian is one of the last modern (and
not specialised) Linux distribution feasible for old and
On 6/7/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
likely, then SPI
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy
s2.3. It is a
At 1149646535 past the epoch, Axel Beckert wrote:
Why gdm and not wdm? gdm depends on a horribly large bunch
of libraries including GNOME. wdm depends on way less
libraries, looks not as bare as xdm by default does and
still is fast and easy to use. (We use it on all our
Debian workstations
+++ Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [06-05-25 20:00 +0200]:
That being said I (personally) already decided
...[people]
not showing any passports or showing passports:
- which did not had the *same* spelling as the name in the key (letter by
letter)
will not get a signature from me.
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
Right, so I was mistaken.
An
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in
only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
(so they would most likely be
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
should be, and arguably IS,
Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence
'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'.
I don't believe that those claims are consensual on debian-legal. The
MIT/X11 licence is frequently recommended by participants,
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it doesn't say that: it says If in doubt, send mail to -legal. It
doesn't say if the license is doubtful, which is a different matter
entirely.
We've been told both James and Jeroen extensive contact with
Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
in only Sun's Java to break rather than a
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
This is definitely wrong. SPI should not be involved in licence
approval. Firstly, because licence approval is often a political
decision for Debian. And secondly because SPI is not the licencee and
it is very important for this
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements):
The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
announcement:
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. (SUN) IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
STANDARD EDITION
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 14:04 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
I don't understand why, as SPI President, you'd bring up concerns
regarding SPI's legal position in the middle of a thread on -devel and
-legal, without having discussed it on spi-board, having consulted SPI's
attorney as to the
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:21:13PM +0200, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
(the graphics card is no more supported in XFree 4.x and there
no more supported in Sarge) to get it running.
To my knowledge, at some point, the XFree86 Team treated the
no-longer-existing-in-4.x drivers as bugs.
Thanks
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream
changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Nobody was suggesting that, and I fail to understand why it is in
anyone's interests for you to ratchet up the heat on this issue
another notch by making remarks like
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
in only Sun's Java to break rather than a
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
is that the above is good advice and the closer we can make the
relationship between SPI's
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:45:27AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
the use or distribution of
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and
Wouter Verhelst writes:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
seen repeated claims that we're not liable
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: libwiki-toolkit-plugin-locator-grid-perl
Version : 0.05
Upstream Author : The Wiki::Toolkit team
* URL : http://www.wiki-toolkit.org/
* License : Dual GPL/Artistic
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: libwiki-toolkit-plugin-diff-perl
Version : 0.10
Upstream Author : The Wiki::Toolkit team
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Wiki-Toolkit-Plugin-Diff/
* License : Dual
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:25:27AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Christoph Haas wrote:
Yes, of course. Besides some minor things I don't quite like about
Subversion ([...] getting out old revisions of a file means typing
the full URL for no reason)
svn cat -rrev file_name
Oh,
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 18:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why do I need a case where some other application breaks?
The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System,
not only for Sun Java.
Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you think it's
Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 02:15 schrieb Axel Beckert:
+ The dropping of the 2.4 kernel line: This will drop AFAIK support
for e.g. active ISDN cards.
The other way round: active cards are still supported as before, at least the
AVM B1 cards and all others that already support CAPI.
What
Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 15:21 schrieb Axel Beckert:
I have a laptop with a GD 7543 chip. And I won't throw away a working
laptop just because its graphics card isn't supported and can't be
exchanged either.
What about using the vesa of fbdev drivers? Maybe slow but working.
HS
On 6/7/06, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 03:21:45PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Nice, thanks. While we're at this subject, what's your view on the
Ubuntu language packs? Are we going to extract the translations from
the packages creating
Well, when the DPL is ignoring the developers' opinions, why would the
s/the/some of the/ ?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Mike Bird writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free):
Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a small cabal -
- a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has
placed Debian in the position of indemnifying Sun.
This is obviously not possible.
Debian is not a legal
John Goerzen writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free):
Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to
indemnify Sun
Who is purporting to commit SPI to indemnifying Sun ?
AFAICT ftpmasters are indemnifying Sun. This is silly of them but
probably not actually fatal.
OK, I'll chime in. I just hope I'm not making matters worse.
First, obligatory disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a Debian
developer, I'm not a new maintainer applicant either. And I'm certainly
not going to make demands on anybody. I'm a resident of Norway, so that
is the legal system I
John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements):
First, I don't believe that SPI has ever granted anyone the ability to
enter into legally-binding agreements to indemnify (which means to use
our resources to defend) third parties. I may be mistaken, though.
Could you please
John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements):
The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
announcement:
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. (SUN) IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT (JDK - THE SOFTWARE) TO YOU ONLY
Yes, but who is
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think they should not participate, in general.
The arguments that are had on
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/7/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of
these
Dear Debian developers,
it seems that there is a little problem with the NFS client
in Debian sarge. I hope this is the best place to post this
problem. I have discussed this on
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-german/2006/06/msg00130.html
before but no solution has been found.
The
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Gordon Grubert wrote:
I have a file server running on Sarge AMD64 connected
with a 1GBit interface to a GBit uplink off the switch.
Do not think that this sounds like a common problem. It isn't!!!
...
The most interesting fact is, that I obtain about 10MB/s with
my
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: libwiki-toolkit-plugin-categoriser-perl
Version : 0.04
Upstream Author : The Wiki::Toolkit team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: libwiki-toolkit-plugin-rss-reader-perl
Version : 1.5
Upstream Author : The Wiki::Toolkit team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in this regard
is faulty. Is it?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in this regard
is faulty. Is it?
Depends on how you are
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 19:04 +0200, Hendrik Sattler a écrit :
Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 15:21 schrieb Axel Beckert:
I have a laptop with a GD 7543 chip. And I won't throw away a working
laptop just because its graphics card isn't supported and can't be
exchanged either.
What about
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And hi to everyone from /.!
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing along
at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity, not announcing the inclusion of 'Sun
Java' on debian-devel-announce would have
Trading alert!
Just do yourself a favor and watch A B S Y tomorrow morning, and
don't say we didn't tell you...
Talk about flying under the radar? Isn't that what we look for?
Trade Date : Monday, June 7th, 2006
Company Name : AbsoluteSKY
Ticker : A B S Y
Price : $0.95
8month Target : $1 -
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 07:08:00PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I have recently been told by a
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I have
I demand that Martin Michlmayr may or may not have written...
* Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-07 02:20]:
We did pick two compiler warnings and scanned the build logs of one
archive rebuild on alpha (64bit), where wrong code may be generated. These
warnings can be found in 1600
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the above link point to your post, you can only blame yourself for
its content.
It's not strictly necessary to bitch about Anthony's actions at every
opportunity. If you disagree with his course of actions, perhaps
dropping him a private mail
I demand that Henning Makholm may or may not have written...
[snip]
But I don't think I have ever used ls from an interactive shell _without_
the -a flag.
I use -A rather than -a - it filters out . and ...
--
| Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I don't think I have ever used ls from an interactive shell
_without_ the -a flag.
I use -a (or -A) very, very rarely.
(Not that I don't agree that the concept of hidden files should be
replaced by using ~/etc/ for dotfile, but when we do this, we
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nope. A corner-case bug in a compiler may break compilation of a single
package. The build failure of this package is a serious bug for this
package; it is not a serious bug for the compiler.
Well, except that it seems to me that any code generation
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:28:29AM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-07 02:20]:
We did pick two compiler warnings and scanned the build logs of one
archive rebuild on alpha (64bit), where wrong code may be generated.
These warnings can be found in
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You probably hit a soft spot there because suddenly the bug became RC
and blocks the package from entering testing. The destinction between
normal and important is purely visual while serious and above have
real effects.
This may be true, but it
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 07:04:40PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 15:21 schrieb Axel Beckert:
I have a laptop with a GD 7543 chip. And I won't throw away a working
laptop just because its graphics card isn't supported and can't be
exchanged either.
What about
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nope. A corner-case bug in a compiler may break compilation of a single
package. The build failure of this package is a serious bug for this
package; it is not a serious bug for
Am Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2006 10:28 schrieb Martin Michlmayr:
Hendrik Sattler
obexftp 0.19-4
Those can be ignored for now, as they are double casts:
uint32_t - char* - int
Not nice but won't harm, I guess (or do we have 16bit architectures?).
And not related to GCC-4.1 at all.
HS
Le Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:32:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the above link point to your post, you can only blame yourself for
its content.
It's not strictly necessary to bitch about Anthony's actions at every
opportunity. If you
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
[...] If people have
weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
that's entirely their choice.
Yes,
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the early 2006, I complained privately about the sarcastic tone of
one of the answers he made to me on -devel, and I guess that I hurted
him more strongly than if I had done this publicly, because I received
insults on his blog in return.
I said
On 7 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell verbalised:
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the
severity of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug
Y.
I don't think so.
I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in this
regard is faulty. Is it?
Jérôme Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To my knowledge, at some point, the XFree86 Team treated the
no-longer-existing-in-4.x drivers as bugs. They requested anybody who
noticed that its graphics card worked with previous versions of XFree86
but no longer with 4.x to submit a bug and it
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:15:12PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And hi to everyone from /.!
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing
along
at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity, not
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
So what am I trying to do?
Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to
serious legal risks.
Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI board yourself?
As I've said already, I don't want SPI to be involved in
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:18:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think they
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:28:29AM +0200, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-07 02:20]:
We did pick two compiler warnings and scanned the build logs of one
archive rebuild on alpha (64bit), where wrong code may be generated.
These warnings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 21:02:31 -0400
Source: windows-el
Binary: windows-el
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.40-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:25:52 +0200
Source: zvbi
Binary: libzvbi-dev zvbi libzvbi-common libzvbi-doc libzvbi0
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 0.2.22-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Christian Marillat [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:31:31 +0200
Source: apt
Binary: apt-utils libapt-pkg-doc libapt-pkg-dev apt-doc apt
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 0.6.44.1exp1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: APT Development Team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:19:35 +0200
Source: headache
Binary: headache
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.03-6.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Sylvain Le Gall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Ralf Treinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 22:00:05 -0300
Source: biofox
Binary: mozilla-biofox
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.1.2+0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Maintainers of Mozilla Bioinformatics Extensions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:26:30 +0200
Source: nbd
Binary: nbd-client nbd-server
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1:2.8.5-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Wouter Verhelst
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:41:03 +0200
Source: traffic-vis
Binary: traffic-vis
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.34-18
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Samuele Giovanni Tonon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Samuele Giovanni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 13:03:04 +0200
Source: gpiv
Binary: gpiv
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.3.1-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Gerber van der Graaf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Gerber van der Graaf [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:09:51 +0900
Source: bookmarkbridge
Binary: bookmarkbridge
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.76-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Masami Ichikawa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Masami Ichikawa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:10:50 +0700
Source: thaixfonts
Binary: xfonts-thai-nectec xfonts-thai xfonts-thai-manop xfonts-thai-vor
xfonts-thai-etl xfonts-thai-poonlap
Architecture: source all
Version: 1:1.2.5-2
Distribution: unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:31:12 +0200
Source: zziplib
Binary: libzzip-0-12 libzzip-dev zziplib-bin
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.12.83-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:12:32 +0200
Source: libdevel-cover-perl
Binary: libdevel-cover-perl
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.55-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Florian Ragwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Florian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:11:55 +0200
Source: libmodule-scandeps-perl
Binary: libmodule-scandeps-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.60-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Florian Ragwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By:
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
