-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
As has previously been announced
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0102/msg4.html), polls for the
debian leader election will open March 7. The nominees should currently
be campaigning.
We have nominations for:
Branden Robinson
Ben Collins
Anand Kumria
Today is the last day of our vote for our new leader.
Because we've had a variety of problems, and for reasons documented
in the Robert Grudin quote, under Date Input Format in the info docs
on the date command, I'm declaring that the vote is over at midnight,
as measured at the international
Dermot John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that a non-maintainer release was normally only done where
either a security hole needed to be fixed quickly or where a serious
problem existed with a package that the maintainer had not fixed for some
time.
The previous version was
Andreas Jellinghaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some people don't use dpkg, don't use debian, and still will burn a cdrom for
a friend. a tar.gz is much better ...
Or a brief note that says use ar x blah...deb to extract the tar.gz file.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is it a ``poor'' solution?
Epochs solve the problem where version prefix b version prefix a
but where b should follow a.
The current problem can be solved by a version suffix and therefore
does not require an epoch.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 09:52:05AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
If people weren't being childish about the addition of 2 characters to the
changelog, which the users generally never see, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
If we could keep this discussion to its technical merits, we
Yann == Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yann Needed: Some technical info about why people consider epochs as bad.
Yann It seems most arguments only used aesthetic reasons. Please someone
Yann correct me if I'm wrong.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd be hard
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version
suffix[1].
Not where 1.0 follows 3.14, for example.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not where 1.0 follows 3.14, for example.
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You clearly can, as I demonstrated in my footnote.
No. If your footnote was applicable at all, it was not providing a
suffix to the current version number. Instead
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using epochs is adding things to the left, while using prefixes is
adding things to the right.
Most of your message was accurate, but I have a minor technical nit here:
prefixes, including epochs, are both to the left.
suffixes are to the right.
--
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
warping them (I can just see Ted T'so saying what the $#^%$ is 2.0.7
*r*? Debian is doing its won thing again); and using epochs, a
It could be 2.0.7released
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When properly used epochs do not hang around forever. Consider the
situation where epochs are supposed to be used:
Upstream Debian
1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
3.0 3.0
2.01:2.0
3.0
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mostly agree, but the argument that anything to the right of the
dash should only reflect *Debian* related revisions does hold some
water.
The question is: is it being used to bail out a maintainer who didn't
take other steps to deal with the version
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with rsync at the moment is that if the transfer is
interrupted, it throws away the partial image --- Andrew Tridgell said
he'd fix this though.
...
If you use wget, and find that the md5sum that results is wrong, you
should be able to fix any
David Lawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm the author of the BitFontEdit package which I wrote 10 years ago.
Only the original version with no name (directory is TermFonts) is still
on the net in a few obscure locations. I want to get the improved
version back on the net (my free website
Gregory S. Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might not be legal for someone to give him PGP or explain how
crypto works even while he's in the US.
No, the regulations prohibit export. If he's in the US, that's not
export.
As you mention, even if it was a problem, it would be a problem for
the
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that sounds like a better idea if it would work, but just like
the touching idea, you'd have to make sure that all the relevant
programs actually keep the file open, and don't just open it when they
need it.
I think we can safely say that a program
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is from the linux kernel mailing list. I find it pretty completly sums
op my thoughts on all the new constitution and voting and policy voting
stuff that we've been setting up. I haven't been vocal about this, but I
think we've been moving in the wrong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emacs should not be part of the 'basics' (I say this as an emacs user).
I think we should have a priority between Standard and Optional,
perhaps named Recommended. These are packages which would be
Standard, but for size. Tex and a lot of X should
On a related note, do we want to continue using names from pixar movies
now that Bruce is gone?
Justin Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i see no reason not to. they are nice names, the only problem is that we
may be running out of good ones (i admit, rc was a stretch)
irony type=mild
Is
Paul Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ever since hamm, expect has been giving me serious trouble. It won't
run cleanly when started from cron. This means that a lot of my
expects scripts are broken. I use expect extensively for system
maintanance and accounting (make sure servers run, upload
Contrib and Non-free packages can't have release critical bugs --
they're not even an official part of debian.
--
Raul
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate replying to myself, but here we go..
kdelibs is LGPL. As someone mentioned it does use some code derived
from gettext (libintl.cpp), which is GPL. However the code was taken
from a version modified for glibc2 where is was redistributed as LGPL.
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
the refusal of the KDE developers to FIX THE KDE LICENSE PROBLEMS, a
lot of people are being turned off of Qt! Qt doesn't
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx
project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too
much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it
and opt to do the right thing. They may not,
Geoffrey L. Brimhall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various
efforts to port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows
environments. Legally, this would imply stepping very carefully
because who knows what proprietary libraries might be linked
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in any
way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed source
code. You have the source, you can do what you want with it. This is
one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by the
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
Much more important than a new list would be an archive reflecting
porting experiences and techniques developed during porting.
I'd be in favor
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL has a feature that with the exception of essential system type
libraries (which is IMO far too vague to be terribly useful) any work
derived from the GPL must also be under the terms of the GPL.
That's not really what it says, which is probably
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
note that there is also an exemption for libraries which normally come
with the operating system - and libc definitely qualifies there...
Nope.
Some of the time, libc would qualify for that special excemption.
But it doesn't qualify for anything shipped
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KDE requires Qt currently. So KDE is non free.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_No_. This does not necessarily follow, even if both statements may
both be true. KDE simply depends on something that is non-free.
Except that KDE programs have been
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there is no combined work until the source is compiled, linked to the
non-free library, and a binary produced.
Please show me where the GPL says this.
I'm tired of pointing out this is false, quoting from the GPL to show
you were it says different, and
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
And SuSE and Red Hat and all of them put together are not worth a US lawsuit
yet. Price yourself a US lawsuit then judge again.
Make them 5 times bigger and yes then its worth it.
Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wrong! If you are not
Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Programs linked to GPL'd library must be GPL, because by using the
GPL'd library you have to comply to the license terms of this library.
The main point is that USING a GPL'd library for a program is only
allowed if the resulting program becomes GPL'd.
Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks
okay to me.
Yeah.
With that first sentence in, I think he'd argue that he doesn't need
anyone's permission to apply it to third-party GPLed software: he's
declaring what the GPL
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
similarly, i am tired of pointing out the errors in your misinterpretation
of the GPL.
Er... could you at least back up your assertions with quotes from the
GPL which support your position?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by linking
it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I include it
(the source code) in a book as a programming example, and I GPL the
whole book.
Will people be allowed to
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by
linking it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I
include it (the source code) in a book as a programming example,
and I GPL the whole book.
Philip Hands [EMAIL
Matthew Parry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start
giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If
we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then
most of them will. But if we force them to
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Bleh. Can we /please/ move this to -devel?
Done.
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 12:00:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Also, in our social contract we say that packages in contrib are
not a part of Debian, but then we go ahead and create official links
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, MHO is:
1) Ban suggestions from main to non-free or contrib
2) Implement enhances for the last set of examples
3) Ditch the rest (well, the rest above).
Lots of people aren't going to agree with me on this one...
Personally, I'd say implement
Allan M. Wind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There should be _no_ (known) problems when shipped in stable (IMHO).
Your favorite newbie has problems enough configurating ppp... dealing
with ppp problems on top of that is not going to be well perceived.
Er.. wrong.
We're not waiting for all bugs to
[I've looked over the other messages in this thread, but this looks like
the best message for me to respond to.]
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is: What needs to be policy?
Specifically, Manoj's point of view seems to be that as we develop
programs that tie the system
Avery Pennarun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it's such a widespread problem, we can assume that Debian 2.2's
version of APT will support package renaming in some way. That means we can
actually put off solving this problem until Debian 2.2, and even longer if
the X fonts don't change.
Bear Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing resilient to compromised servers are cryptographically
signed cryptographic checksums. Which requires PGP. Which is not
exportable. And which requires a chain of trust to evaluate
whether to trust the key used to sign the checksum.
Jonathan P Tomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're
going to use them?
That can be done.. but it's not quite so simple (dpkg isn't re-entrant
unless the nested invocations are read-only). I suppose the trivial
implementation would
thomas lakofski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
In the context of initial installation, I think it's laziness -- a
refusal to examine problems.
That said, the
Bear Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you're biting your own tail here. Where do you get that good
checksum?
Any place which is acceptable to the package maintainer -- perhaps out
of a pgp signed archive.
If the package maintainer can't produce a trustable package, it
doesn't matter how
Bear Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem isn't in *producing* a package, it's in *acquiring* that
package later. What happens if someone successfully attacks a site
immediately before you mirror it?
What happens if someone replaces a PGP signature?
Answer: people notice.
[Consider an
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply
with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines.
You're trying to make a
David Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are indeed serious... technically, you are right, of course,
but I think people are really going to think we are just a bunch of
grumpy party-poopers if we seriously start to get anal about obviously
silly licenses like this..:-
Perhaps we need a
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
I'm indeed not quite sure 'catware' qualifies as DFSG-free.
For what it's worth, I don't think we have any policy forbidding
the use of humor in non-free.
--
Raul
James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope that you are not trying to argue that there is no difference
between a program and a logo. This is clearly ridiculous.
That's not my point. However, the definition of software is broad
enough to cover both, and the use of that particular word
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
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
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst I have no objections to such a change in rules, I am baffled that
anyone could prefer xpaint to gimp, even for drawing straight lines and
ellipses.
gimp won't run on smaller machines.
Also, there's Rick Hohensee's caligraphic patch for (if I recall
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the current state of things, a Debian system which is upgraded by
dselect from hamm to slink, from slink to potato, from potato to potato+1,
and from potato+1 to potato+2 may have, say, X version 5.5, and xfonts
version 3.3.2.3-2.
Do you think
Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) If you DO NEED a 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble.
Not if you have 2G ram.
--
Raul
Remco van de Meent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because I, like every other user should do, read the documentation, and thus
read you need util-linux 2.9g. And if it works for you with lower versions,
does it always work? Yes, maybe, no, maybe not. I don't even want to take
the risk of 'yes it
Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the GIMP contests specify that you need to use GIMP for
creating the image. But you're right, there's really no way to check
that.
Also, there's a -- perhaps subtle -- difference using GIMP exclusively
and using it as but one of a variety of
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 09:51:51AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
To make it official, I'd request atleast one link somewhere
appropriate for his set up to the (even if it is broken) license.
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, after looking at the site, this guy is doing great things.
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is quite different. David said he wanted MAJOR packages included
in the updates (e.g. X). You said you agreed, yet you talked of _only_
minor apps being upgraded.
It's probably a good idea to make post-freeze major packages available,
but not as
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 10:21:28AM -0700, Andrew Fear wrote:
Just looking for someone to talk to about getting 3dfx on the Debian
releases going forward. Thanks.
The ideal person would be Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
--
Raul
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:20:43 PM, Anders wrote:
As long as you don't count the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard.
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Considering this thread was a criticism of the inclusion of it into that
standard, one cannot count that.
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 07:51:47AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
(B You mean having to dive into almost every perl script (not Linux
(B developed) and change #!/usr/local/bin/perl to #!/usr/bin/perl,
(B
(BUm.. you're just not lazy enough...
(B
(B# cd /usr/local/bin
(B# ln -s /usr/bin/perl
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 06:36:47PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
(B Klee had an interesting idea on this, that makes more sense I think. If
(B you look at all the different kinds of programs that are being packages
(B you notice that a lot of them fall into quite well-defined categories
(B
Thursday, September 16, 1999, 10:50:57 AM, Raul wrote:
Um.. you're just not lazy enough...
# cd /usr/local/bin
# ln -s /usr/bin/perl
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 11:42:21AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
ln -s `which perl` /usr/local/bin/perl
You're confusing keystroke time with character count.
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:23:36AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
show to people. If you would like to try out debconf, simply add this line
to /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://va.debian.org/~joeyh/ debconf/
There are a few packages in there modified to use debconf. Good examples
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:22:59PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
Anyway, which ftpd in unstable do you see as the package to promote as
the ftpd of choice in Debian?
Depending on what your needs are, perhaps roxen.
--
Raul
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:20:13PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
It's my personal preference that ISO standard be used unless otherwise
told - but that's me.
I tend to agree. It would just be so simple to have the default be ISO.
As ISO is very unambiguous, I don't think it would cause problems,
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:21:34PM -0700, Robert Stone wrote:
Virtualhosting in proftpd is far easier than with wu-ftpd. As it
stands now, I don't believe any debian ftp server supports virtual
anon ftp sites as provided besides proftpd.
roxen does.
--
Raul
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 06:49:55PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
I use Roxen exclusively as a httpd where I have a say on the matter,
but it is mainly a httpd, and lacks configuration features (like
chrooting some selected users into different roots) I use with
proftpd, although I have a
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 02:45:32PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
FYI, sash_3.3-5 (which has been sitting in Incoming for the
last couple weeks) no longer prompts at postinst time, as the
postinst/prerm scripts have been completely redesigned.
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 07:18:09AM +1000, Craig
Raul Miller wrote:
They don't touch the root account. Instead, they clone
it as sashroot and set the shell on the cloned account.
This is mentioned in the package description.
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 03:39:30PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
I suppose you have considered the security problems
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 01:37:43PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
Will this affect people who upgrade? It would be very unpleasant to upgrade
from slink and have a new root user.
Hmmm...
Even for new installs, I disagree with your decision. sash is useful
without another root account; however
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 03:15:47PM -0500, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
B) Offender does not relent and/or makes funny faces at us
Of course we are horrified by the funny faces, but how do we defend our
licensing? Perhaps we need a lawyer for this part.
I suggest that we tell them that
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 02:46:09PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Also, if you can anticipate any failure modes where sash would damage
the password file I'd appreciate hearing about them. It's already
the case that if sash has any problem writing out the new password
file
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 06:02:47PM -0400, Greg Johnson wrote:
Here's one (happend to me). I have a '+' at the end of my /etc/passwd file
for nis. sash tried to add the new root acccount at teh end of /etc/passwd
AFTER the +. didn't work.
That was sash 3.3-5
Sash 3.3-6 already addresses
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 12:30:55AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The problem here is that dpkg doesn't support versioned provides.
If you install libgnome-perl you have a virtual libgtk-imlib-perl
on your system. However since virtual packages don't have versions
dpkg cannot satisfy the
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 11:06:48AM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
and (here is my proposal)
d) sash will create a locked sashroot account with useradd, and
display the message to use sashpasswd above as soon as possible.
That's an interesting idea. I'll think about it.
By the
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 07:32:50AM -0500, Ashley Clark wrote:
Couldn't sash include a PAM module that would change the password to
match root's password whenever it was changed? Or am I oversimplifying
things?
I don't have enough confidence in Debian's pam, yet, to insist that
everyone that
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:38:46PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does sash support the standard -c command line
option yet? If not, I wouldn't really consider pushing it as a root
shell since it will break a lot of scripts (from cron and elsewhere).
$ sash -c date
Thu Sep 23
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 11:18:52AM +0100, Gordon Russell wrote:
I am currently playing around with vmware, running win98. However, the
performance stinks (I am using a beta release though). The strange thing
is though that if I do a
find / -print /dev/null
in another window, the performance
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 11:34:28PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
I do not like the idea of a daemon starting up with a default
configuration that I have not double checked upon installation. I
consider automatically starting with no choice a misfeature.
I think I agree.
I got a rude start
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 01:27:51PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
The proposal, as I can see it, is to write a PAM module that could
be added to /etc/pam.d/passwd to ask whether the just-changed root
password should be cloned into the sashroot account. And that's a
really elegant and clean
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 10:11:17AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Ii I install a daemon, I want to use it.
Do you want it for personal use, or do you want it available as a
public service?
--
Raul
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there are people who want a service enabled by default policy,
and perhaps we should accomodate them. However, I'm not one of them
and I don't want any services turned on on some of my machines without
my explicit ok.
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main?
I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available.
Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project?
We'd need to provide them a stable
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:22:32AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
I think the key difference is that if some one screws with the BTS or
the Debian web site, it's not going to *me* any harm during the time
it takes to discover and undo the damage. If someone installs a bad or
malicious libc6 in
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:05:37AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
Why even involve debhelper? At least in the case of the Project Gutenberg
files some of which I have, they are just long ascii files so the rules
file could just stick them into (for example) /usr/share/doc/etexts call
doc-base
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 06:56:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
RR I just installed it, but as far as I can see this doesn't integrate
RR FHS and FSSTND
Right, because this is not possible.
Counter-example:
(
dump() {
lynx -dump -source -width=1000 $1 |
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:08:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Correction: mtools in slink does *not* depend on anything but libc6, so
there is still time to do it, cleanly.
Maintainer, please do it.
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:28:08PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
...
First, I believe this
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 04:23:22PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Then we'll have to agree where we register docs. I have the
following directories on a fresh potato system (with few packages):
/usr/share/doc/HTML/
/usr/doc/HTML/
And they are _not_ symlinks. They get created by
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:18:43AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks
for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe
them to be pretty reasonable.
Or you could.
--
Raul
P.S. you made this suggestion
[about a flat-file installation tool].
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:58:02PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
If you make such a tool and people start to use it on a large scale, you'd
better be sure you get the package dependencies right.
The context was data files which have no particular
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 09:57:53PM +1000, Drake Diedrich wrote:
One way to minimize the harm of unintentionally installed or
misconfigured daemons would be to add a default ipchain/ipfwadm policy
rejecting all TCP SYN (incoming initialization) and non-DNS UDP packets
except those from
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 08:25:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
ROTFL, why should I change dhelp to support a broken file format?
...
dhelp supports all formats.
...
These statements contradict each other.
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 06:01:00PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
But who said mtools need to depend on floppyd package?
$ dpkg -L mtools | grep floppyd
/usr/bin/floppyd
/usr/bin/floppyd_installtest
/usr/share/man/man1/floppyd.1.gz
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:08:39PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Pseudonymes have been used throughout the history, so that's not
a problem. For our protection, however, I'd recommend that you and
tftp work out a agreement so that at least one Debian developer (you,
for example) always
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:46:38AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:56:53PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
PGP is legally classified in the same category as atomic weapons.
No, it's not. Atomic weapons are controlled by international treaties,
and AFAIK it would
1 - 100 of 483 matches
Mail list logo
