Bug stamp-out list for Jan 25 00:02 (CST)
Total number of release-critical bugs: 34
--
Package: apache (main)
Maintainer: Johnie Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
This program is catware. If you find it useful in any way, pay for this
program by spending one hour petting one or several cats.
I'm indeed not quite sure 'catware'
Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
I wrote:
We don't.
Darren Benham writes:
Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every
tom-dick-harry that wanted to use it in any way-shape-form.
I meant, of course,
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depends on the cat :-)
Indeed.
Now all we need is a way of petting /bin/cat, and we can automate payment.
--
Raul
Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can the 2.1/2.2 kernels handle a gigabyte of memory?
Yes.
For more than 1GB, go to:
http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/more_than_1GB.html
There was a lot of discussion about this on the linux-kernel mailing
list lately.
Also, I remember reading
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 06:20:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Or don't license it: just use it on Debian stuff and grant individual
licenses on a case by case basis. I doubt that you will be swamped by all
the requests.
I'm glad to see you volunteer to take respond to requests that come in
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Steve Dunham wrote:
M.C. Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would see this as a RH-style - so a rather bloated kernel which includes
lots of stuff as standard, and asks them the pertinent questions all at
once at the beginning, and then gets on
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:35:50PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
Larry Ewing and Tux. You don't see him writing a license, do you?
The picture of Tux is licensed freely for any use as long as Larry
Ewing is mentioned. Don't know about modification,
Hi
I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
be installed by default.
Regards
--
Robbie Murray
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
be installed by default.
James A. Treacy writes:
Even with the existing license (and a valid expiry date) I have probably
handled 20 requests for use of the logo in the last 6 months.
Doesn't seem like many considering that the present license encourages
requests. Do you really think that forty people a year would
Paul Sheer wrote:
I remember someone was maintaining the debian release of this software
(although then, it did not support encryption). Please get the latest
version from:
ftp://lava.obsidian.co.za/pub/mirrordir/US/
I maintain the Debian package of mirrordir. The last version I
packaged
I recall some interest in generating a debian history timeline sort of
thing here - does anyone know the status of that? A friend of mine is
interested in putting it on a poster...
Thanks,
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux -
Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
is the name debian a registered trademark?
I think so.
if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo?
I agree. I think trademarking the logo will allow us to prevent misuse and
at the same time allow us to give it a DFSG-free copyright.
--
see shy jo
Hi Joey and *...
I have noticed something in 2.2.0* that has potential to break scripts that
add net routes. If I don't include netmask whatever in the route commands,
it tells me SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument.
Relevent versions:
basically everything is recent slink, except
My answer to exercise 1: since you have quoted text, rule (2) says you must
not comply with rule (6), but rule (3) says you must comply with all even
rules (including, presumably, 6). This seems to imply that no message
containing quotations would be allowed.
I'm not sure if that's only true
All:
Please pardon my non-developer comment, but one thing about the license has
bothered me for a while, and I've seen no else bring it up:
Do we really want to limit the maximum size of an entity that can display
the license?
Points 2, 3, 4 of the license state, roughly, that
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:43:33PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
My answer to exercise 1: since you have quoted text, rule (2) says you must
not comply with rule (6), but rule (3) says you must comply with all even
rules (including, presumably, 6). This seems to imply that no message
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:19PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
2) Branden doesn't like xfnt-* hanging around. We agree.
I don't just dislike it hanging around on people's machines, I dislike
having to keep the packages around at all, even just as compatibility
packages.
3) However, if someone
Here we go again. There weren't many comments or suggestions on the last
version so I think we're getting close to a formal proposal to change. Note,
we've removed the clause that requires the copyrights to be displayed during
execution. It doesn't affect the GPL as version 2. Are there any
A few minor nits (many stylistic):
On Jan 24, Darren Benham wrote:
This document, in it's source form, exists in DebianDoc
should be its (the possessive of it) not it's (short for it is)
2.1. Use
-
Anyone must be able to use the software in
Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
(no offense for all the work being put into it, but I like the
original, thankyou very much)
Thanks,
--
I have two comments...
3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
--
The license may restrict the use of names and trademarks of the
copyright holders in association with modifications of the original
software.
Not part of the old DFSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I've received two platform statements from the canidates to put on the web page
so, they're up. If you go to http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0001 you'll
find a list of them. Or you will within a day or two. They've been uploaded,
now they have to filter
On Jan 25, David Welton wrote:
Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
I think you (or we) can discuss the merits of the proposal now (that
seems
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:08:14PM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
3.3. License of Derived Works
--
The license can require modified and derived software be distributed
under the same license or the general requirement any compatible
license.
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 Buddha Buck wrote:
I have two comments...
3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
--
...
3.6.2. Versioning and Renaming
---
Are these two clauses redundant? And should 3.6.2 be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 David Welton wrote:
Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
Ummm... I suppose you could if you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote:
IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
revision proposals out there, even though this one is the only one
being currently
What's the current policy about adding new names into fonts.alias in a
directory shared by more Debian packages?
Thanks for any advise.
Milan Zamazal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 Buddha Buck wrote:
I have two comments...
3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
--
...
3.6.2. Versioning and Renaming
---
Are these two clauses redundant? And should
[please reply to me or to debian-devel, as I am subscribed only to it]
Hi everybody,
If I remember well, some time ago someone posted his results on a port
of dpkg to HP-UX.
Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that platform, and I would
like to push a Free solution, a debian one
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:33:00PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
I recall some interest in generating a debian history timeline sort of
thing here - does anyone know the status of that? A friend of mine is
interested in putting it on a poster...
The Linux Weekly News folx have come out with a
- I would not be able to include the new crypto features in the package
anyway due to US export laws.
no, the US version contains no crypto code.
(Debian packages are binary only, and
Both the source and binary US versions of mirrordir contain no crypto
code.
FTP connectivity is
Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that platform, and I would
like to push a Free solution, a debian one specifically (because it's
the best :-).
We do think the same... (we do the same thing:)
I'm setting up a dpkg package manager under solaris...
...But the
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:24:13AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote:
IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
revision proposals out there, even though this one is the
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, loic wrote:
Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that platform, and I would
like to push a Free solution, a debian one specifically (because it's
the best :-).
We do think the same... (we do the same thing:)
I'm setting up a dpkg
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:41:20AM +0200, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
[please reply to me or to debian-devel, as I am subscribed only to it]
Hi everybody,
If I remember well, some time ago someone posted his results on a port
of dpkg to HP-UX.
Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that
Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[snip more discussion of xfnt packages]
I'd still rather we explored alternatives.
For how much longer? I don't think I've heard of anything else that has
a chance of working. (Did I miss something?) Alternatives have been
talked about for a while
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:16:13AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
2.1. Use
-
Anyone must be able to use the software in any way without paying a
fee or royalty or performing special actions.
performing special actions seems a bit vague. How about ... a fee
or royalty.
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 05:46:00PM -0800, Adam Klein wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Steve Dunham wrote:
Excuse me, but RedHat actually boots on my laptop because the kernel
is _less_ bloated than Debian's kernel. Debian's install disk doesn't
boot.
Ahem, _Which_ Debian's
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 03:32:30AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
No, the first refers to using the author's name (such as Buddha Buck or
Darren
Benham). The second refers to the name of the software it's self (grep or
sendmail).
I should have seen that... What confused me about 3.2 was the
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 03:37:57AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
to either of these animals. We have our own message, too. We are
constructors. We take the work of thousands of people and put them together.
Shouldn't this be reflected by the logo, too?
You mean like a penguin wearing a hard
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, you wrote:
I believe that eventually bzip2 support should be added to dselect and
dpkg (I would like to have packages such as xbooks compressed by bzip2).
That would be nice as an additional option...
I doubt that 180K would be added if it became base_2.2.tbz2, in fact
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:37:31AM +, Jules Bean wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, loic wrote:
Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that platform, and I would
like to push a Free solution, a debian one specifically (because it's
the best :-).
We do
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:19PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
3) However, if someone were to create xfnt-* packages which *Depend* on
the corresponding xfont-* package, then the user will automatically
install the new xfont-*, which will in turn
Hello everyone
There are several bug reports on (x)gmod which currently render it
useless. Unless nobody wants to fix it, I won't object if it will
be removed from atleast slink. I've got still 66 mornings left
military service, so I'm VERY engaded until 2.4.1999.
Have an ice day,
Private
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:59:00PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, but if it gets to the point where someone else will do it if I don't,
then I will do it.
I'd still rather we explored alternatives.
I think it got to that point.
Well, of
On Sat 23 Jan 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 11:36:23AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
isdnutils contains the basic isdnctrl, ipppd stuff needed for
networking
isdnmonitoring isdnlog, imon, xisdnload, ... that sort of thing
isdndocs the faqs and other docs
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
You have yet to explain what will BREAK if people continue to use the old
font packages. Not in the future, RIGHT NOW.
Oh, you have yet to explain why a clock bomb is *not* a bad thing.
Surely, it will exploit, but not now ;-)
How will the
After seeing some trojan horses being spread and Martin trying to make
sure xisp can be verified as secure on the debian-user list, I started
thinking of how to secure our mirrors. The thought I had was to make pgp
signatures of the package files and save them as Packages.pgp. This will
not
Darren Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This document is free software; you may redistribute it verbatim in
any format. You may modify this document and redistribute it in any
form so long as you change the title of this document. You may use
parts of this document for any
gnome-xml is an xml-library needed for the new version of Dia. As far as i
know gnome-xml can only be found in the gnome-cvs.
RealTimeBattle is a programming game similar to CRobots.
http://realtimebattle.netpedia.net/
Pike 0.6.110. This a object-oriented script language used by the web server
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:15:11AM -0600, BugScan reporter wrote:
Package: emacs20 (main)
Maintainer: Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28177 dpkg --print-architecture requires gcc
Package: xlib6 (main)
Maintainer: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Fredrik Hallenberg wrote:
gnome-xml is an xml-library needed for the new version of Dia. As far as i
know gnome-xml can only be found in the gnome-cvs.
gnome-xml is already packaged (binary packages: libxml0 and libxml-dev).
I needed it to package gnumeric.
I can very well understand them. First of all some Linux distributors have
been creative in the past and have moved rc[0-6].d/ and init.d/ to
interesting places like /sbin/ or /etc/rc.d/, probably just to be
``different'' from a real System V. Just one of the small but annoying
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:15:11AM -0600, BugScan reporter wrote:
Package: emacs20 (main)
Maintainer: Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28177 dpkg --print-architecture requires gcc
Package: xlib6
[ hope you don't mind me cc'ing the list, but I think I didn't detail an
important point. ]
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Vincent Murphy wrote:
i would favour another field in the .deb package format which contains a
signature, which can be used by apt or whatever to verify that it is
genuine.
Previously David Welton wrote:
I recall some interest in generating a debian history timeline sort of
thing here - does anyone know the status of that? A friend of mine is
interested in putting it on a poster...
Quoting Will Lowe, Nov 3, 1998:
I've just cvs-committed a new version of the
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 06:10:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to package wmsysmon.app -- but I'm not sure about the .app that
*some* wmaker apps get -- I'm not sure if I should have the package as
wmsysmon.app or just wmsysmon.
[ There are so many wm* packages showing up will
FH == Fredrik Hallenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FH Pike 0.6.110.
FH PiGTK, GTK+ module for Pike.
FH http://www.pike-community.org/sites/pigtk/
So you package up both of these ? Great.
About Roxen: Roxen can be compiled with pike 0.6. Is there a need for
both versions 0.5? Maybe this makes
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:43:33PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
[ interesting solution to exercise 1, which I'm not quoting to avoid rule
(2), but I have to comply with anyway because I want this message to make
its way to debian-devel, or debian-humour if it existed ]
According to rule (0)
I thought the purpose of this project (at least the FHS) is to create a
standard
of what the filesystem should look like, not necessarily what it currently
looks
like. Just because `Everyone is doing it' (tm) doesn't mean it's right.
Personally, I want Linux to be clean and elegant in its
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:48:36AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Darren Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3.1. Notices of Authorship
---
The license may require the copyright, license, and any associated
disclaimers be prominently displayed in the modified
On 25-Jan-99 Joseph Carter wrote:
Please include URLs, there are SO MANY different proposals we really
should give people pointers to exactly which they're voting on.
No proposals have been made, yet. Just drafts offered for posting. So far, it
looks like only several different versions of
On Jan 25, Brandon Mitchell decided to present us with:
The thought I had was to make pgp signatures of the package
files and save them as Packages.pgp. This will not interfear
with the current package files, therefore we are still
backwards compatable. Then apt could check for a pgp file and
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If all the vendors think /var/mail is stupid then its perhaps time
for the FHS to ask ok why.. is there a problem, did we make a bad
choice, or did we simply fail to explain the reasons /var/mail is
good
Well, I've been told that Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, PHT,
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
for the user. If it fails, it could just warn the user and ask to
continue. This would require: a) gnu's version of pgp to work (so that we
don't request non-free software to get the free software) and the bad part
b) someone to be at the
Lalo Martins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OTOH, we could just sign all packages with a same key (the
Debian key); when dinstall verifies the signature and md5sum in
the .changes file, it signs the package and updates
Packages.pgp).
I prefer this method. Then we have less key distribution
The keyboard of Daniel Quinlan emitted at some point in time:
Before reverting to /var/spool/mail, the practical question to ask
distributions is:
If we explicitly allow /var/mail to be a symbolic link to
/var/spool/mail (or whereever), will you *consider* changing
programs to
I have added a third platform to the web page at
http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0001 and it should show up in the next day
or so.
Remember, as you read these platforms, if you wish to change your vote, just
send the ballot again with the required changes. The vote system will replace
the
t sippel-dau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ten years.
Are you serious? The Linux community has already made larger changes
in far far less time. We're talking about modifying one or two lines
in 10 or 20 source packages (like src RPMs).
It was several years ago already that we dropped some of
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:49:43AM +, Russell Coker wrote:
...but I wouldn't do that *and* remove that .tgz completely, or
hhaving all the .debs converted to tbz2.
I agree, we're not ready for that yet. However we only need bzip2 in the
base if we have bzip2 compressed .deb packages in
On 25-Jan-99 Raul Miller wrote:
This seems to conflict, in scope, with 1.1 -- I'll pose a couple other
examples where I'm not sure about 1.1 once I get there.
No. This document is meant to cover software... not itself. Some of your
other comments seem to try to make the same application.
Jason wrote:
I would prefer to use the idea of a trusted site (like ftp.debian.org) to
fetch package file MD5 summs from, that way we do not get involed with the
sticky issue of cyrpto hooks.
What about:
1. Every package already contains MD5 checksum.
2. Each section contains two new
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail - /var/mail symbolic
link for about two years.
No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
years -- we've already provided upgradeable distributions for 3.5.
Erik
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Ten years.
Are you serious? The Linux community has already made larger changes
in far far less time. We're talking about modifying one or two lines
in 10 or 20 source packages (like src RPMs).
You seem to be ignoring the upgrade issue.
Daniel Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail - /var/mail symbolic
link for about two years.
Erik Troan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
years -- we've already provided
New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail - /var/mail symbolic
link for about two years.
Erik Troan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
years -- we've already provided upgradeable distributions for 3.5.
I said
thanks for the NMU without asking the maintainer FIRST, AGAIN :-///
Note: the last upload of this package was last month and there is no reason
for a quick uplaod since there are no critical warnings pending for FROZEN.
Thanks for the patches anyway, I will include them in my working copy. Would
On 25-Jan-99 Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
On a separate note, since this started the discussion about this point,
(I must sound like an advocatus diaboli ;-): What happened if the Zope
people would replace their attribution button with a copyright notice,
and modified Zope so that this notice (e.g.
I've just looked over some of the code for the latest LSH snapshot
(1-21-99) and it seems to be turning into a decent program. It is lacking
some critical features (listed below), but once they are implemented, we
may want to consider this our ssh replacement (the final blow to the
non-free
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:00:06PM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Steve Shorter wrote:
Since when has the purpose of debian been to appease the interests
of the mass of unskilled consumers? There are lots of dists that are
trying to do that. I'm sure they will do a good
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
thanks for the NMU without asking the maintainer FIRST, AGAIN :-///
No problem, I will mail you next time.
Note: the last upload of this package was last month and there is no reason
for a quick uplaod since there are no critical warnings pending
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:14:35PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
As an experienced Debian user, I'll second these sentiments. Since
buzz I've been waiting for the Debian installation process to become
a (as it should be) 30 minute process, hopefully with some tools
included for mass
I keep hearing people claim that distribution folks are saying ick,
but I haven't heard any technical reasons besides, Moving spool
directories is hard. When I and others have pointed out that moving
the spool directory isn't required; just a symlink, I have heard dead
silence. So the lack of
If people really want to be able to verify package integrity we might as
well go the whole way. Ian Jackson posted (1.5 years ago I think) a
proposal that would secure the complete stage from building a package to
distribution on the mirrors.
You might want to look that up in the list archives.
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:
Sounds good, as long as I can shut it off :-) Also, it should
use the keyring in developers-keyring or one that comes with
apt, otherwise the point is moot (anyone who can upload a .deb
with a trojan can upload a Packages.pgp with a signature)
The
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Erik Troan wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail - /var/mail symbolic
link for about two years.
No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
years -- we've already provided
Rather than attempt to list all the freedoms that Debian guarantees, why
not list the *restrictions* on freedom that we do allow, and say that
any other restrictions violate our guidelines.
IOW, instead of saying, we allow this, we forbid this, we allow
this..., simply say, we forbid all
90 matches
Mail list logo
