> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not only that, but it conflicts with key krb4 libraries
>> (libroken and libsl) IIRC.
Steve> More likely: Conflicts/Replaces/Provides. I expect that if
Steve> the Heimdal versions of libroken and libsl conflict with
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ideally that would be "AFS environment that our users require".
> However, I would be happy is that was "AFS environment that will work
> without recompilation of Debian packages".
Right now, the AFS packages in Debian will work with either native K4 or
wi
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russ> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Find out what is required to keep AFS support working
>> (assuming I don't already have it).
Russ> Well, what sort of AFS environment? The answer is different
Russ> if yo
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
>> related to programs in Debian.
>
> You expect no contributions about release procedures, bug report
> management, the NM proce
> "Eric" == Eric Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> I wrote approx for exactly this purpose. It's now in
Eric> testing.
Is a back port available for sarge? If not, how feasible would it be
to create on? Does it depend on anything not in sarge?
Thanks
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTE
> "O.S." == Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
O.S.> Unfortunatelly I hadn't time to work on it anymore and major
O.S.> of last work was did by Chris. Could you help with its
O.S.> development?
Thanks for the response.
Unfortunately, as I seem to be running behind with m
Hello,
During the implementation of build/import helpers for Eclipse plugins
(http://debian-eclipse.wfrag.org/), I've found that the CDBS (Common Debian
Build System) can be helpful in my case.
The problem is I can't find thorough documentation or some kind of "How To"
there I can find how to
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> There's one thing people are constantly overlooking here:
No, we are not.
> Rember that 'having a key in the Debian keyring' is, for all practical
> matters, equivalent to 'having root on all Debian installations'. A
That means one must only add keys
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> > "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free
> > works is something wrong or
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:13:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> >> > presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
> >> > used in conjunction with the presen
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
>> > presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
>> > used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the
>> > freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for t
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
> related to programs in Debian.
You expect no contributions about release procedures, bug report
management, the NM process, dealing with disappearing maintainers,
models for c
On Sunday 13 November 2005 09:17, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> * Marco d'Itri [Sat, Nov 12 2005, 12:42:07PM]:
> > Package: sl-modem-source
> > Version: 2.9.9d-7
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > See policy 10.6: packages must use MAKEDEV instead of calling mknod.
I must agree with Mr. d'Itri in this case.
>
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:15:20 -0500, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:28:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:01:48 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>>
>> > Fine Print Publication Rights
>> >
>> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publicati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> Personally, I'd like to read the papers. It's a shame that Debian
>> can't distribute them to me.
> Debian does not want, it's quite a different issue.
Debian does not want what? To distribute them? Hogwash. I'd be
happy to upload them.
--
To U
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:28:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:01:48 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>
> > Fine Print Publication Rights
> >
> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> > presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual m
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:52:05 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Can you explain exactly how a CC copyleft-like license would have
>> > been an obstacle?
>> Because it is being incorporated in a larger work: My
> So it looks
Hi all,
is Christopher L Cheeney submerged? There are new upstreamversions
of libvorbis and vorbis-tools available which fix a lot.
Elimar
--
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:25:01PM +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> we just received a bug report that is caused by a buggy prerm script
> in the package in sarge (it fails because it doesn't handle read-only
> /usr/local properly). Is there any way to fix this, except
It seems to me that we have some responsibility for the licenses used
on these presentations.
It also seems to me that we should structure our approach to these
licenses similarly to the way we approach other license issues.
That is: we should encourage people to use a DFSG license, and we
should
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
> related to programs in Debian.
This still does not generally make them documentation.
> Personally, I'd like to read the papers. It's a shame that Debian
> can't dis
On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you explain exactly how a CC copyleft-like license would have
> > been an obstacle?
> Because it is being incorporated in a larger work: My
So it looks like you have issues with all licenses not compatible with
the one you choo
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:21:46 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Case in point: Thanks to Colin Walter's liberal licensing of his
>> Debian packaging talk, I was able to give my local Linux users
>> group an excellent introduct
Op zo, 13-11-2005 te 15:06 +0100, schreef Thijs Kinkhorst:
> On Fri, November 11, 2005 17:10, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > From what I know of him, he will take care of these Debian tasks as
> > soon as he'll be able to do sojust like any of us would after coming
> > back from a conference we w
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:10:08AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation? What is the
>> non-computer-program which we have "too much" of?
> No, I am saying that debian has too many stuff which is not programs
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation? What is the
> non-computer-program which we have "too much" of?
No, I am saying that debian has too many stuff which is not programs nor
their related documentation, like e-zines, bo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
>> software. Are you confusing software and computer programs?
> No, I just do not believe that this specious distincti
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
> software. Are you confusing software and computer programs?
No, I just do not believe that this specious distinction is useful.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Des
On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Case in point: Thanks to Colin Walter's liberal licensing of
> his Debian packaging talk, I was able to give my local Linux users
> group an excellent introduction to Debian (with full attribution, of
> course); a non-free license
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Our goal is to produce the best FREE operating system
> possible; and a secondary goal is to convince people that when
> information is free, all kinds of unintended collaboration occurs --
> which may not even have been envisaged by the o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
>> their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
>> papers as part of Debian.
> I think this is an awfu
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Florian Ragwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libquantum
Version : 0.2.4
Upstream Author : Copyright 2003-2005 Bjoern Butscher, Hendrik Weimer
* URL : http://www.enyo.de/libquantum/news.html
* License : GPL
Descrip
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:17:38 +0100, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> at the last debconf in Helsinki there were people from outside
> debian giving talks, too. Hopefully we will have input from outside
> even in the future.
Last time I looked, even our OS is full of contribut
Sean Finney wrote:
> hi frank,
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:25:01PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> we just received a bug report that is caused by a buggy prerm script
>> in the package in sarge (it fails because it doesn't handle read-only
>> /usr/local properly). Is there any way to fix this,
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:43:07 +0100, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> This is a conference for Debian development. By definition, Debian
>> is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people contributing to
>> Debian are already familiar
On Fri, November 11, 2005 17:10, Christian Perrier wrote:
> From what I know of him, he will take care of these Debian tasks as
> soon as he'll be able to do sojust like any of us would after coming
> back from a conference we were at as part of our paid work.
I think many other people would t
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:59:08 +0100, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-12 20:42:39]:
>> Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
>> requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
>> uses the Debian
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:32:50 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:24:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
>> >> distributable.
>> > Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
>> > stuff fro
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is a conference for Debian development. By definition,
> Debian is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people
> contributing to Debian are already familiar with the social contract,
> and have decided to conform to it?
You are m
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-12 20:42:39]:
> Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
> requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
> uses the Debian trademark, we can indeed ask that our core values,
> as enshrined in our so
On Nov 13, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
I used to think we could do well without it (or at least we could in a
couple of years) because free software made non-free software unneeded,
then I changed my opinion when source-less firmwares
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
> their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
> papers as part of Debian.
I think this is an awful reason, considering that Debian already
contains
#include
* Eduard Bloch [Sun, Nov 13 2005, 10:17:55AM]:
> Further, I expect from you as a carefull maintainer to write at least a
> simple HOWTO for your fellows about how (exactly) to deal with
> changes/transition to udev. You simply throw people into cold water.
> Feel free to tell me that I a
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Sat, Nov 12 2005, 12:42:07PM]:
> Package: sl-modem-source
> Version: 2.9.9d-7
> Severity: serious
>
> See policy 10.6: packages must use MAKEDEV instead of calling mknod.
I suggest changing the policy to reflect the reality. Using a wrapper
like MAKEDEV to maintain devic
On Nov 13, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Implicit in both your responses is that neither of you have any actual
> reason to do so, other than ideology -- there's nothing you actually seem
> to be itching to do that warrants a different license to the one I used.
I suppose that it's hard to find argument
On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
> not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
> documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
> instrumentation of an annual Debian Develope
On Nov 13, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest changing the policy to reflect the reality. Using a wrapper
> like MAKEDEV to maintain device nodes which use arbitrary choosen
> major/minor numbers is just not very useful.
Sure, just close the bug if appropriate.
> > (Please rememb
hi frank,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:25:01PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> we just received a bug report that is caused by a buggy prerm script
> in the package in sarge (it fails because it doesn't handle read-only
> /usr/local properly). Is there any way to fix this, except documenting
> it in t
tags 338638 help
thanks
Hi all,
we just received a bug report that is caused by a buggy prerm script
in the package in sarge (it fails because it doesn't handle read-only
/usr/local properly). Is there any way to fix this, except documenting
it in the release notes?
And on a related thought,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > > AFAIK apt-listbugs only displays open bugs, if the bug is closed
>> > > then it won't get displayed.
>> >
>> > It will be displayed even when it's closed. It does have some
>> > heuristics to avoid showing irrelevant bugs.
>> >
>> >
>>
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-12 23:40:57]:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:13:51 +1000, Anthony Towns
> said:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > But instead, what I'm led to wonder is if this is really standing up
> > for our beliefs and
52 matches
Mail list logo
