re downright _harmful_", and even worse, I wrote it in a
> widely distributed internal memo.
>
> Guess who `volunteered' to write Corel Wine coding style guidelines?
HAHAHAHAHA Why oh WHY did I not see this coming? *amused look*
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
first, then either ask or
> guess conservative.
That's all fine, but did we ever find out if someone were crazy enough to
pay for the PnP monitor specs (wasn't it $300 or so?) that an
implementation could be done and properly documented source released?
Reverse engineering this just doe
t correct?
>
> Yup. So you'll have brain-dead stuph like:
>
> for (int nI=0; nI<10; nI++) ...
Anybody who does that willingly must be shot. =>
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB7
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:16:39PM +0100, Andreas Plesner Jacobsen wrote:
> I intend to package GoldED when my developer-application processes
>
> From freshmeat appindex:
> GoldED is a very nice console full-screen mail/newsreader for
> Fidonet and Internet. It is one of the best of it's kind f
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 03:42:06PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Power, speed, and freedom: a wild horse.
That's been taken...
--
"I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the dark."
-- Earth: Final Conflict
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 01:50:28PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> We could then have conversations like this with our users:
>
> CART DRIVER: Bring out your dead!
> LARGE MAN: Here's one!
> CART DRIVER: Ninepence.
> BODY:I'm not dead!
I'm waiting for someone not to know where that's f
On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 07:14:04PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> I'd like to propose that for now the FHS is changed to read
>
> "The mail spool area location is undefined. It is guaranteed that both
> /var/mail and /var/spool/mail point to this mail spool area if the system
> has a mail spool. The p
On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 12:35:31AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> who would liek to take the lilo package over?
>
> There are a few pending bugs, most of the dealing with the lack of an
> intelligent install script (which should be included in the bootfloppies,
> too).
I wouldn't min
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 03:18:18PM -0500, Shaleh wrote:
> > I just learned that the LyX copyright file was corrected to explicitely
> > state that linking against a non-free library is okay. This however wasn't
> > really needed as 'The law is quite clear that the release of the software by
> > the
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:38:49PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > 2. Octopus (my own suggestion)
>
> How about Cthulhu? That would also tie into Linuxes world domination
> theme. :-)
Nah, that's the NT logo...
"Win95 or WinNT? Why settle for the lesser of two evils when you can pay
twice a
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 10:14:15AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> 1. Dragon (well-liked choice on IRC)
Why not a phoenix?
/me poses for gimp artists being that he'd make a cute mascott... =>
(that was supposed to be funny, why aren't you laughing?)
--
"I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah we
> Sorry for my ignorance when deleting the mails under this topic. I
> was absend from the net for a longer time and couldn't read all my
> E-Mails. Please repeate the link where to vote for those like me
> who ignored the mails. I couldn't find a site to vote.
Instructions are found at http://
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 06:06:04AM -, Project Secretary wrote:
> This is the last and final ballot. In a weeks time, we will have a new
> leader *or* we'll have to start this process over again because "NONE"
> won. If you havn't voted, please cast your ballot now.
I know I speak for all fo
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:45:57PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ pathetic attempt at sex spam snipped ]
Can we PLEASE enforce our spam policy and make these people pay for their
crimes against humanity?
--
"I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 02:51:40PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Also, I suspect that some people might be confusing ~/Mailbox and
> ~/Maildir issues. These are two completely different issues. Maildir
> comes from Qmail, but my guess is that ~/Mailbox didn't. Qmail has a
> program that will automatica
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 05:37:53PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Most Mail User Agents for standard Unix systems look in /var/mail/
> > for the user's mailbox. So if qmail is switching to ~/Mailbox, then
> > they have to solve the problem for all of the various MUA's out there,
> > and that is
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:33:30AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any
> > laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear
> > weapons under their international treaty obligations)
>
> On the contrary.
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 07:09:34PM -0500, Kragen Sitaker wrote:
> > If we must back out /var/mail (for no good technical reason that I can
> > determine), then at the very least I think we should state that there
> > that for all compliant distributions, /var/mail *MUST* be a valid way of
> > reach
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 o
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:23:51AM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> > > > I'm all for it! How about it, anyone else interested? :)
> > >
> > > Me too We could call it gnuice :-)
> >
> > I would have to bop you then... => But it would be under a free
> > software type license, probably GPL or LGPL r
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:24:28PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
>
> > > Why do I get the idea I should bring up once again my hope to gather a
> > > sizable group of people to build a game system which is released under
> > > free license and available to anyone with a web browser and the like? =>
>
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:30:45PM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > > > As well, my roommate and I were going to also make a character sheet
> > > > program (hence the reason for making the rolldice stuff a library), so
> > > > we
> > > > could just enter the data, and either save it to a fi
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:22:58PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> > > As well, my roommate and I were going to also make a character sheet
> > > program (hence the reason for making the rolldice stuff a library), so we
> > > could just enter the data, and either save it to a file or go ahead and
> > >
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 01:22:32AM -0500, Stevie Strickland wrote:
> > that's the good news. the bad news is that it was all done in turbo
> > pascal. however, the algorithms were clean and readable, so easily
> > ported to C.
> >
> > if you're interested, i'll dig up the files (i still have them
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:25:14AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now.
> > I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that
> > slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist.
>
> Disclamers are of marginal use. It will ap
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
> would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
> kernel 2.2 ea
Brief summary, then:
>
> KDE will not be in slink.
> KDE will be in potato if
>
> a) KDE change their license (in which case it can go into contrib)
> b) Qt change their license (in which case they may both be able to go into
> free)
>
> b) is the likely outcome, si
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:37:18PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Or if you're really crazy, you could allow optional + or - to affect the
> > total, if that were -d12 above the total would be 21 for example.. If it
> > doesn't do EVERYTHING by that point, what more can be said? =>
>
> Yes, I think
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 02:31:10PM -0500, Stevie Strickland wrote:
> > Just wondering, what's the output like and does it return for d10 0-9 or
> > 1-10? Does it handle "d%"? Is the number of dice optional or must one
> > feed it "1d8" for example? Does it return the results of each die or the
>
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 06:49:43AM -0500, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> Thomas> How do you know? You waited just 4 hours before drawing that
> Thomas> conclusion. Isn't this a bit early? I mean, not everybody has
> Thomas> an RJ45 jack implanted in one's body.
>
> Thankfully enough of us do, including th
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 04:04:20AM -0500, Stevie Strickland wrote:
> rolldice is a virtual dice roller that takes in a string on the command
> line in the format used by some fantasy role playing games like Advanced
> Dungeons & Dragons[1] and returns the result of the dice rolls.
Just wondering,
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 08:02:34PM +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> FYI, the French Prime Minister just announced that cryptography will
> become legal in France!
>
> In the meantime (until our representatives adopt the law), the
> authorized key sizes go from 40 bits to 128 bits.
Now if the idiot
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > You can start by writing to our man on point with the LSB, Dale Scheetz.
>
> Absolutely!
As said elsewhere, I was going to submit the draft to -private. If you
think it would be better for you to handle it, say so and I'll stay ou
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 05:38:25PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > Reasonable objection notwithstanding, I intend to write a letter to those
> > responsible for the LSB to attempt to raise the issues we have with their
> > current proposal. I would appreciate discussion on these issues in othe
It has come to my attention that recent decisions made by the Linux
Standard Base body (I hesitate to say "committee" as I have never been
party to any of their internal discussions and am unaware of their
internal organizational structrure) are possibly unwise and have been
determined by at least
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:05:54AM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > Go on, please.
> >
> > It's non-free - you can't distribute modified binaries.
>
> That is where Debian placed the Pine source - who says so?
>
> > 'nuff said
>
> No.
Yes. Permission not given in a license is DENIED. When UW w
On Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 09:03:34PM +, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > On the rvplayer side, nobody there seems to want to talk about it...
> > *sigh*
>
> Always nice to have such clear reminders of the importance of free
> software...
And people ask why we push for mp3 in places that patents on so
Are there any plans to package things like the nextish GTK patches or
anything like that? From freshmeat:
subject: GTKstep 1.1.2
added by: Ullrich Hafner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
time: 15:08
category: Software
GTKstep is a patch to improve the boring GTK+ look and feel with a
NEXTSTEP(tm) look a
On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 09:55:48PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> People,
>
> The fact that there even exist two debian versions of mutt should tell
> you that it was an issue for people. Looking through the changelogs, I
> see that mutt was moved to non-US in Feb. 1997:
>
> mutt (0.61.1-1) unstab
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 12:40:53PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Branden> Topi Miettinen has done some research on this. When we
> Branden> get SysV-style pty support in glibc, xterm can lose its
> Branden> root priv
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 03:47:16PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THIS PROGRAM - whatsoever. You use it entirely
[..]
> >
> > What I hi-lighted I do believe violates the DFSG..
> >
> > Zephaniah E, Hull.
>
> Huh? Where do the DFSG say this?
> See http://www.debia
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 09:48:18AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> What I need from dselect is more screen space, more pixels, a less crampled
> selection environment. It takes forver to navigate through dselect because
> of the sheer number of packages. It seems that gdselect would help a lot
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 06:02:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I was under the impression that putting hooks in to use crypto was enough
> > to raise the hackles of the export hounds.
>
> Standing near the border and thinking about prime numbers is enough to
> raise the hackles of the expo
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> theone wrote:
> > Names after Slink is very simple. They should just be named after
> > userfriendly characters.
>
> Oooh.. that means our releases would even have their own geek code blocks
> (http://www.userfriendly.org/cast/) ;-)
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 02:14:20PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > Can I move mutt-i from non-us to main?
> > There is no crypto code in the package, only SHA-1 (hash algorithm) and
> > code to run pgp or gnupg.
> >
> > (Waiting to resolve this issue I haven't uploaded yet the stripped version
> > t
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:23:38PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Out of curiosity, which version of PGP is the debian de facto standard.
> > I'm currently using v5, but I've seen a number of people use 2.6...
>
> 2.x; we don't accept later stuff.
Dpkg
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:08:46PM +0100, Dave Swegen wrote:
> Out of curiosity, which version of PGP is the debian de facto standard.
> I'm currently using v5, but I've seen a number of people use 2.6...
The Debian standard is RSA/IDEA (2.6.x compatible) keys, though Debian is
slowly adjusting to
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 07:58:58AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > x11amp-static
> > > mp3.8hz
> >
> > You didn't watch the 100 messages thread on debian-private?
>
> I never got it. In fact I was surprised I didn't get a single mail on
> private for at least two months. Could anyone please ch
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> As long as such software came with the hardware, I can see no
> difference between that, and buying a copy of Wordperfect for Linux.
> We already have commerical X servers and sound drivers available which
> are NOT licensed under t
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 10:58:31PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Is anyone packing gnotepad?
> >
> > [ Sorry if anyone tried to a post of mine and bounced. I played with
> > exim.conf and forgot to "unplay" the rewrite. ]
>
> Since nobody stepped forward, I take it for now. It in the process
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 04:38:45PM +0100, mummert&[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I might be able to get a similar license agreement for KDE as the one I
> send for LyX. Would that be enough to get at least major parts of KDE back
> on the site? I have no idea how much we would have to keep out. I know
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 06:56:22PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why are the sound modules not included with the kernel? Afaik they are in
> Redhat.
They are. The intent is to package binaries for the standard kernels
already made...
pgpltzRfWWC4i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 01:44:18PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission
> > certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK,
> > Qt
> > or Win32.
>
> `... and distributing the resulting binary
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:58:16AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> How about this one?
>
> I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks
> okay to me.
>
> Michael
>
> - Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> If we do something like this
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> > > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> > > > with XForms.
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > I don't think s
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > [...]
> > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> > with XForms.
> > [...]
>
> I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE,
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:48:43PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Any reason, aside from the lack of volunteers, why we can't do what we
> do with netscape/staroffice/etc.? Even if we can't distribute it, can't
> we have a loader package? (No, I'm not volunteering, I don't own a 3dfx
> card either.
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:25:27PM -0700, Alex wrote:
> [..]
> > And lots of people haven't kicked stuff back. Why doesn't *BSD run on an
> > SGI Indy - its because the BSD license didnt force all the neat stuff
> > to be contributed back. And there are thousands of other examples like it.
>
> I f
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:46:11PM -0700, Geoffrey L. Brimhall 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
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:43:00PM -0400, Raul Miller 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
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:18:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > In case some Debian developers read this mailing list: Guys, you don't like
> > KDE
> > since it encourages people to write software for it. Therefore you don't
> > want
>
> What does this mean exactly? Why would we be unhappy w
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:33:15AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > If I ever thought Matthias needed to be bludgeoned severely with a cluebat,
> > it's now. I have little respect left for him. Fortunately, a few of the
> > non-core KDE developers show more promise. Hopefully a few of them wil
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:48:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
> > package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
> > to deal with this, please let me know.
>
> > New license:
> >
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:51:29PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > Lyx is currently in contrib.
> > Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
> >linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> > According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
> >statement, this mea
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:16:01PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> >There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
> >permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
> >be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
> >that
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:59:52PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> > I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
> > wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
> > poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet. But
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:14:17PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Roderick> RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
> Roderick> 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
> Roderick> enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
> Roderick> platform or
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
> > permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
> > be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
> >
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:50:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I don't want to hide this mail from you.
First it's "please take license issues to the license list" and now it's "go
away, we don't want you here"...
If I ever thought Matthias needed to be bludgeoned severely with a cluebat,
it's
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
> > > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
> >
> > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:29:08PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
> > KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
> > In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
> > its terms, to a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
> > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
> > rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they i
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
>
> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
> these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone
> working o
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 10:31:08PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> This was forwarded to me by a freeamp developer. He said that mpg123
> contains GPL'd code, but its license prohibits non-free use.
>
> Anyone know what the legal status of mpg123 is?
mpg123 is non-free all right. No commercial us
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:29:26PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Now, I won't install Qt even for the parts of KDE I like.
>
> 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 develop
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:56:30PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Martin> Will Debian remove LyX from their ftp server? According to
> Martin> several Debian developers Xforms is not a DFSG compatible
> Martin> library.
>
> This is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distributio
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
> of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
>
> You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
> files and libraries being li
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
> TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
That doesn't mean everyone else ise sensible. I've seen many people DEMAND
Troll Tec
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:14:19AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
>
> On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>
> > > All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is "what
> > > is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
> > > license"? How does it hurt th
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:56:23AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Let me try to make some qualified guess about this:
>
> If KDE would add the permission note, they would admit that there is a
> license problem, and they had to stop sucking in GPL'ed third party code
> without explicit permissio
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >the last sentence, from "However, as a special exception" is particularly
> >relevant here.
>
> So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
> special exception? :)
Some people argue that it would. RM
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:40:04AM -0700, David Welton wrote:
> > > Slashdot has posted an article about the decision to remove the KDE
> > > binaries
> > > right now.
> >
> > Could someone please post the article or at least the complete URL?
>
> http://slashdot.org - it's a pretty good source
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:33:07PM -0700, David Welton wrote:
> > I'm here, working on 0.66 as we speak. This might be a good time to ask
> > a question. yagirc can now be built with gnome interface or
> > text interface. Should I make two packages, include both in one
> > package or just drop the
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Whenever you start a program running under X11, the windows created
> > usually have the little 'X' logo in the upper left hand corner. If
> > you are running RedHat linux however, the upper left hand corner of
> > the windows c
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 05:16:37PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> Ben> Just wondering, Dale, but why didn't you announce this to the
> Ben> Debian lists as well as the c.o.linux.announce?
>
> Because this is a commercial, and there is a $1000 charge to advertise
> on debian lists (to discourage spa
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Linux 2.2 is a good candidate for the next unstable to play with.
> I believe that it will be fun, but I also forsee that there will
> be problems.
>
> I hope our release manager won't jump on that train too quick.
Agreed. There a
On Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 07:00:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Contrib and Non-free packages can't have release critical bugs --
> they're not even an official part of debian.
yeah yeah, the package ain't part of Debian anymore because of a lack of
license and no way to get the author to fix it.
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 09:55:19AM -0400, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> > I'm sure someone would be happy to package it in .deb format, but by the
> > sounds of your message neither source is included and only non-commercial
> > use is permitted. Either one of these would cause Debian to place you
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 06:40:09AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> dpkg remains the primary bottleneck in the setup, and apt calls dpkg
> anyway, so the different is not really significant, and apt-get update
> is slow too.
The update phase seems to be slow because of translating the package files
t
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 10:36:24AM +0100, Birgitt Simon wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
>
> we know you as a distributor of program packages for Linux. We, the H+BEDV
> Datentechnik GmbH, are developer and distributor of the virus protection
> program AntiVir for Linux. Since 1988, when the number of computer
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 03:40:24PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > IIRC Dale Scheetz used to have one for bo (sorry if I'm wrong, Dale :)
> >
> Well, not exactly. What I do is an imbedded file system that can be
> installed on a DOS/Windows/'95 file system as simple files and booted with
> a specia
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 03:50:01PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> This is silly. dpkg/dselect are already insanely slow, even on my
> P166 with 128 meg of RAM -- especially when reading database, etc. If
> we slow down the installation so much more by using bzip2, then people
> will simply stop u
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:41:51PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > I did, however, list my sex as "a narcoleptic rat monkey with the spirit
> > of an androgenous toaster in the chakras of a Kentucky NAMBLA
> > representative"
> > or something along those lines. ;->
>
> Of course, that should have
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 04:33:13AM +0100, Ragnar Hojland Espinosa wrote:
> Getting lots lots of dups of everything, from 2 to up to 6 copies.
:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
pgpVViWzrtIcE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:39:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> in the message IDed as <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote this on Mon, 05 Oct 1998 20:31:24 PDT:
> > Yeah, I know this makes at least the second reincarnation of this thread in
> > the last 6 months,
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:43:29AM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> > > I had to deal with this idiocy back in the eighties when I was building
> > > computers which may have qualified as 'munitions'.
> >
> > And remember that books are the purest form of evil and should always be
> > burned if they ha
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 04:20:20PM -0400, Kikutani Makoto wrote:
> I see.
>
> According to the past pine discussions, it seemed that Pine must be
> distributed with its source. Is this correct ?
> I couldn't read such restriction directly from Pine's CPYRIGHT.
> The reason why I'm asking this is
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 09:57:24AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I had to deal with this idiocy back in the eighties when I was building
> computers which may have qualified as 'munitions'.
And remember that books are the purest form of evil and should always be
burned if they have not been pu
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 10:49:26AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If you brought it with you (and can PROVE it) there is probably no
> > problem in theory.
>
> It doesn't matter where he got it. It is entirely legal for anyone to use
> or distribute strong crypto in the US. The only restric
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 11:34:18AM -0400, Kikutani Makoto wrote:
> I'm sorry, Pine again (and again and...).
>
> Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...)
> have Pine package ?
yes.
> If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian.
Either they break the
201 - 300 of 400 matches
Mail list logo
