Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Ed Cogburn]

On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi
>
>  Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
>  it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> aren't Debian).


Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to 
provide non-free, not harder.  The only problem with non-free is the internal 
politics of Debian.  Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem providing 
access to, but not support for, non-free.  If you're having problems that 
even Debian doesn't have, that sounds a little disturbing.  Like you're 
adopting a militant position for the AMD64 port that was even rejected (by 
the vote to keep non-free) in Debian itself?  That's scary.  Just put up 
non-free, and we can eliminate "problem" packages as they are identified, 
rather than keeping ALL of non-free offline until "someone" (who?) is 
"satisfied" (according to what rules?) that non-free is "ok".  If its 
available from Debian's non-free repository then that is *by definition* "ok" 
for us, unless we are just now learning that the AMD64 port is going to take 
a more hostile position against non-DFSG software than even the minority 
within Debian itself?  What gives?



Nvidia users:  you can try getting the nvidia packages from Ubuntu at

deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ hoary main restricted universe 
multiverse

I don't know if they're compatible with Debian, but since Ubuntu still has 
Xfree in their archive too, they *should* be.  I also don't remember which 
section they're in, probably 'restricted' but not sure.  If all else fails, 
we could use their "source" file for the nvidia binary packages, and see if 
that builds for us (its a wrapper around nvidia's package that builds it The 
Debian Way - but I haven't tried it yet).

The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's going 
on.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Cameron Patrick]

Ed Cogburn wrote:

> >  Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> >  it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> > aren't Debian).
> 
> 
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to 
> provide non-free, not harder.

Nope.  It is guaranteed that all packages in the main archive are
distributable by anybody, whether they're the Debian project or not
(DFSG#8).  This is not necessarily the case for non-free packages,
hence they'd have to be examined individually to determine whether the
licence was acceptable.

Cameron.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:26:20AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >  Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> >  it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> > aren't Debian).
> 
> 
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to 
> provide non-free, not harder.  

Not necessary. For 'sattrack' for example, I got permission for us to
distribute it in Debian. But I don't know if that extends to
Debian-AMD64 (an unofficial distribution) and Ubuntu would certainly
have to ask for their own permission.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Matthew Garrett]

Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to 
> provide non-free, not harder.

Permission to redistribute some bits of non-free may be specific to
Debian. Alternatively, packages may be buildable but no permission to
rebuild them granted. There's all sorts of potential issues with
non-free licenses. This isn't part of some sort of anti-non-free
campaign.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:

>>  Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
>>  it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
>> aren't Debian).
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to 
> provide non-free, not harder.

No, not beeing Debian makes it only harder, not easier.
There may be stuff in it with "Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute it"
- which makes it undistributable for anyone else, except he gets the
same.
Or stuff you aren't allowed to built and then distribute or whatever
else some idiot thought about for his license.

> The only problem with non-free is the internal politics of Debian.

No.

> Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem providing access to, but not
> support for, non-free.

I dont care what/how they do it. Maybe they analyzed it, or just ignore
it and wait if someone plays law-games with them, i dont know.
I dont want law-games for me or for our mirrors or for the place where
we host the machine, thats not worth the stuff thats in there, so its
not added right away.

> The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's 
> going 
> on.

Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.


-- 
bye Joerg
 Lalalala ... Ich bin die Sponsoren-Schlampe - Wer hat heute Lust?


pgpF1r9XHQtMf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GPL and linking

[Batist Paklons]

> > On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Again, that's not how it works.  In the presence of a valid license
> > > contract, one is entitled to contract-law standards of the
> > > reasonableness of one's attempts to cure a breach when notified.  The
> > > "automatic termination" clause is probably unenforceable in most
> > > jurisdictions; I think (IANAL) few would even read it as authority to
> > > terminate on inadvertent (non-material) breach, let alone on the
> > > licensor's idea of breach if the licensee's (reasonable) construction
> > > makes it not a breach.
> >
> > Automatic termination clauses are quite common, and generally held
> > valid. It is often only what constitutes a breach that can lead to
> > such termination that is disputed in court. In my opinion that is one
> > of the few GPL license terms that is quite sound, only the grounds on
> > which that termination happens seem extremely flakey to me.
> 
> You're quite right; I didn't really mean "unenforceable", I meant
> "ineffective as a means of circumventing a court's authority to
> interpret the contract and set standards of breach and remedy".  As in
> the MySQL case, where the judge decided that the definitional issue
> was a matter of fair dispute, and thus MySQL could not meet the
> standard of "likely to prevail on the facts"; and even if MySQL's
> interpretation was upheld the breach might well have been cured
> (leaving the contract intact) by Progress's conduct subsequent to
> notice of breach; and even if it weren't cured, MySQL could show
> neither the prospect of irreparable harm nor that the balance of harms
> favored it, given the conduct pledged by Progress.  Hence the already
> pledged conduct would constitute sufficient remedy pending a full
> trial of fact, even though the only remedy specified in the GPL is
> termination.
> 
> What I really should have written is that automatic termination
> clauses only affect the date from which the license is deemed to have
> been terminated in the event that a court determines material breach,
> but don't give the offeror or drafter any additional authority to
> interpret whether a breach has occurred.  From this perspective, an
> automatic termination clause isn't so much a way of strengthening the
> licensor's authority to terminate as it is a declaration that the
> licensee waives any waivable statutory provisions about notice of
> termination in the event of breach.  It might also affect whether a
> court-ordered remedy at the conclusion of a full trial includes
> license termination (i. e., an injunction against continued exercise
> of rights granted by the license) or merely damages for any conduct to
> date that fell outside the license.
> 
> This is in contrast to "in the sole judgment of the licensor"
> language, which as I understand it can only take effect upon notice in
> most jurisdictions, and amounts to "termination at will" plus a
> covenant not to terminate without a reasonable belief that one of the
> termination conditions has been met.  Such language (which is not
> present in the GPL) places the burden upon the licensee to
> demonstrate, in the event of notice of termination, that the licensor
> did not have a reasonable basis for belief that there was reason to
> terminate.
> 
> Is that how it works in your jurisdiction, more or less?

More or less: giving notice is an imperative that only in very few
cases is deemed unnecessary. This is in the rather obvious case when
notice has no use any more. Waiving the right of notice has to be
drafted in a very precise clause without any ambiguity. This clause is
certainly not present in the GPL. Thus should a licensor seek a cure
for a breach, he still should give notice, even if the termination is
automatic. This to give the licensee reasonable time to cure the
breach himself (or to start doing his legal research ;) ).

The "in the sole judgment of the licensor" language, is to my opinion
irrelevant. Even in the case of automatic termination there is still
some action required on the side of the licensor, action which also
needs his judgement. Terminating without reasonable belief that  a
breach occurred amounts to abuse of law and reckless litigation,
irregardless of any contract clause (this on the principle of good
faith). The clause isn't precise enough either to move the burden of
proof, but perchance it could be used in context to interpret the will
of the parties. But that context better be more precise.

This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
grew up in a french culture, which chooses for the former, on the
belief that it is impossible to predict everything, so it is better to
leave out the details and set forth only general principles. The GPL
ju

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Paul Cupis]

Joey Hess wrote:
[snip]
> doctorj

Seem to just be a SPARC buildd issue holding this out of sarge, as
reported to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] previously.

Can someone with access to a SPARC do a binary-NMU to get this into
sarge, please?

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2005/04/msg00244.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ITP: bubnbros -- The Bub's Brothers

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCrkan_Seng=FCn?=]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: bubnbros
  Version : 1.3
  Upstream Authors: Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bub-n-bros.sourceforge.net/
* License : MIT
  Description : The Bub's Brothers
 This is a new striking n-multiplayer crazy clone of the famous
 Bubble Bobble game. As everyone knows, dragons throw bubbles. These
 ones throw quite large and solid bubbles. Indeed, dragons reach the
 upper parts of a levels not only by simply jumping on higher platforms;
 at times, such conveniently placed platforms will not be provided.
 Instead, you can temporarily use bubbles as jump grounds. 
 .
 It features:
  * 1 to 10 players -- the best fun is with at least 3 players.
  * Over-the-network game and/or up to 3 players on the same computer.
  * Completely original crazy bonuses.
  * Capture other players in a bubble.
  * New levels, including a random level generator
 .
 Homepage: http://bub-n-bros.sourceforge.net/

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: powerpc
Kernel: Linux ibook 2.4.23-ben1 #7 Sat Dec 27 11:20:38 CET 2003 ppc
Locale: LANG=POSIX, LC_CTYPE=POSIX


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Julien Cristau]

On 08/05/2005-10:35, Joey Hess wrote:

> ocaml-getopt

According to [1], this package was removed because of bug#306074, which
is now fixed. ocaml-getopt in unstable is now 12 days old, so I think it
can be allowed back in testing.

Thanks,
Julien Cristau

[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/vorlon


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:45:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
> 
> >bb
> I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
> programs at exhigition boothes.  It currently has no RC bug (the only
> grave bug was solved two weeks ago.
> 
> So something is wrong either with your list of with the removal.

That's a funny example of the result of the release team's focus only on 
the RC bugs metric:

This package had a more than six years old "normal" bug stating that bb 
crashes on alpha (#32160).

Last month, a second bug for exactly the same issue was sent with 
severity "grave" (#304434). This second bug report included a trivial 
one line fix for this bug.

You might think the second bug made the situation better because it 
included a patch for a more than six years old bug that made the package 
unusable on 64bit machines. 

But in the logic of your release team, the first non-RC bug didn't show 
in their RC bugs metric while the second bug did. bb was therefore 
removed from testing a few days after the second bug was sent (really 
not many days since the fixed package was uploaded 12 days after the 
second bug report was sent).

> Kind regards
> 
>  Andreas.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 12:36:16PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:45:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:

> > >bb
> > I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
> > programs at exhigition boothes.  It currently has no RC bug (the only
> > grave bug was solved two weeks ago.

> > So something is wrong either with your list of with the removal.

> That's a funny example of the result of the release team's focus only on 
> the RC bugs metric:

> This package had a more than six years old "normal" bug stating that bb 
> crashes on alpha (#32160).

> Last month, a second bug for exactly the same issue was sent with 
> severity "grave" (#304434). This second bug report included a trivial 
> one line fix for this bug.

> You might think the second bug made the situation better because it 
> included a patch for a more than six years old bug that made the package 
> unusable on 64bit machines. 

> But in the logic of your release team, the first non-RC bug didn't show 
> in their RC bugs metric while the second bug did.

Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out".  If people aren't going to file
bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urgency when they *are*
filed at the wrong severity, there's no way in hell anyone is going to know
there's a problem.

It's not the metric that's broken here.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Ola Lundqvist]

Hello

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:03:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
...
> mnemo2
This package was 10 days old when sarge was frozen. It contain just one
minor bug. I think it can be safely added.

...

Regards,

// Ola


-- 
 - Ola Lundqvist ---
/  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37  \
|  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD  |
|  +46 (0)54-10 14 30  +46 (0)70-332 1551   |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36  4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
 ---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Dualing banjos

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Saturday 07 May 2005 16.56, Brad and Billie Fick wrote:
> do you know how I can get the sheet music to this? If so I would greatly
> appreciate it. Thank you

There we go again.  I am so glad this happens, helps to lighten the mood 
everywhere and certainly eases the way to general happiness in the world 
(the same kind of help we see at the beginning of the Hitchhiker's Guide.  
The yellow bulldozer and the vogon fleet included.)

(Brad and Billie: it's probably not entirely your fault that you have 
problems understanding a single word of the above.  Please see this web 
site: )

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 55th day of Discord in the YOLD 3171


pgpFm6CH0M4qs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Andrew Vaughan]

Hi all,

The following two packages are the only ones not in testing that I 
currently use.  Note that both are in woody, so it would be good they 
also shipped with sarge. (packages maintainers cced, in the hope they 
might fix these themselves).

(Note: I'm not a dd, so I can't fix these myself.)

> apt-proxy
Bug: #304182 apt-proxy-v1tov2 generates empty timeout value.
(Tags: patch, pending - has been pending for 2 weeks now.)

Synopsis: The script that upgrades old conf file to the new conf file 
generates fault config.

> partimage
Bug: #294953 partimage - refuses to restore image on i386 which is 
created on s390.

Synopsis: partimage seems to be i386 only, yet is still built for other 
arches.  The changelog for 0.6.4-10 says:

partimage (0.6.4-10) unstable; urgency=low
  * Change to i386 only! Closes: #268248
 -- Sergio Rua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:16:25 +0100

So it seems that the changes in 0.6.4-10 were insufficient to really fix 
#268248.

Thanks 
Andrew V.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ITP: bubnbros -- The Bub's Brothers

[Malte Cornils]

Hi Gürkan,

Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2005 12:01 schrieb Gürkan Sengün:
> * Package name: bubnbros

> * URL : http://bub-n-bros.sourceforge.net/
> * License : MIT

Is it really MIT-licensed? I had a short look at making a package of that 
myself, and found the following statement on their homepage 
(http://bub-n-bros.sourceforge.net/authors.html):

Almost all sprite images, sounds, background musics and levels are directly 
taken from the MacOS version of Bub & Bob 1 by McSebi, and redistributed with 
his gracious permission. 

http://www.mcsebi.de 

The game logic itself is protected by the MIT License

Do you intend to seek clarification/DFSG-free licensing for the graphics?

Good luck,
-Malte

Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?

[Andreas Barth]

* Jaldhar H. Vyas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050506 20:00]:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
 
> > Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
> > bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
 
> Uh-uh and when will that day be?  And don't give me any of that "when it
> is ready" nonsense.  The release version number was ready a long time ago.
> The problem isn't a concern for quality, it is people like you and Andrea
> who don't follow process, who don't contribute when the actual decisions
> are being made, but who come out of the woodwork at the last minute with
> dumb attempts at tinkering.  That's why Debian has found it so hard to
> release.

Actually, my experience with Marc is quite positive. He is one of the
maintainers who actually cares about the state of his packages in sarge
very much, and tries to bring them into the best possible shape.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:

> On 08/05/2005-10:35, Joey Hess wrote:

> > ocaml-getopt

> According to [1], this package was removed because of bug#306074, which
> is now fixed. ocaml-getopt in unstable is now 12 days old, so I think it
> can be allowed back in testing.

Approved.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Andreas Henriksson]

Hi everybody!

Although I guess there's no chance for it to make it in,
Openswan is the one on my personal wishlist.

Yes, the package is still buggy but AFAIK the bugs are eighter on the
kernel-patches (I don't use KLIPS in favor of the in-kernel ipsec layer, 
and since they seem to be a real burden I'd suggest not packaging them
at all.) or some long-standing well-known issues upstream that noone
seem to care about... I'd suggest to write down "known problems" and
lower the severity to wishlist.

Thanks for all the hard work! Lets hope we'll see a release soon! :)

Regards,
Andreas Henriksson


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Upcoming removals

[Bruno Barrera C.]

On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 15:01 -0400, Bruno Barrera C. wrote:
> 
> So, I recently sent an email to the bbconf upstream to know if they're
> going to keep working on it. Therefore, I think that we should wait a
> bit to know his answers and then I will reply.

Quoting Upstream:

"Hm.  Well, I agree, it's broken temporarily.  I've not had time to
update 
bbconf to work with the latest release of bbkeys.  I will try to get to
it in 
the next couple of weeks.  I'd like to see it not dropped.  =:)

thanks!!  =:)"

So, I think that we should wait before drop it. I will work with him in
order to fix the bugs fast.
-- 
Bruno Barrera C.
"I'm a soldier, not a monster. Even though if I sometimes work for monsters."


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Joey Hess]
> So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> being held out of sarge[1].

I would be even more interested in seeing which packages in woody are
now missing in sarge.  Anyone have such a list available?

It would be nice to have some working upgrade path for those packages,
to make sure the users of the woody packages are not left with an
unmaintained package after upgrade.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Ed Tomlinson]

On Sunday 08 May 2005 05:02, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> 
> >>  Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> >>  it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> >> aren't Debian).
> > Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to 
> > provide non-free, not harder.
> 
> No, not beeing Debian makes it only harder, not easier.
> There may be stuff in it with "Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute it"
> - which makes it undistributable for anyone else, except he gets the
> same.
> Or stuff you aren't allowed to built and then distribute or whatever
> else some idiot thought about for his license.
> 
> > The only problem with non-free is the internal politics of Debian.
> 
> No.
> 
> > Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem providing access to, but not
> > support for, non-free.
> 
> I dont care what/how they do it. Maybe they analyzed it, or just ignore
> it and wait if someone plays law-games with them, i dont know.
> I dont want law-games for me or for our mirrors or for the place where
> we host the machine, thats not worth the stuff thats in there, so its
> not added right away.
> 
> > The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's 
> > going 
> > on.
> 
> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.

That was the point made by Ed Cogburn.  Its already been checked in the other
arch!  If this is not the case please explain why.  Without that explanation I 
am
forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political...  Which is the bane of 
debian.

Ed Tomlinson


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:

>> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> That was the point made by Ed Cogburn.  Its already been checked in the other
> arch!  If this is not the case please explain why.  Without that explanation 
> I am
> forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political...  Which is the bane of 
> debian.

We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get!

-- 
bye Joerg
 "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
 course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
 obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.


pgpSReOMCcjL7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:07:44PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Joey Hess]
> > So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> > being held out of sarge[1].
> 
> I would be even more interested in seeing which packages in woody are
> now missing in sarge.  Anyone have such a list available?
>...

At the bottom is a complete list of the 2070 binary packages present in 
woody but not in sarge (including nun-US and contrib/non-free).

Most interesting might be the following list of 129 binary packages 
present in both woody and sid but not in sarge:

abuse
abuse-frabs
abuse-lib
abuse-sdl
abuse-sfx
apt-proxy
autorespond
barrendero
bb
blootbot
bookview
cce
configlet-frontends
coq-doc
crystalspace
crystalspace-dev
crystalspace-doc
cursel
debget
dhcp-dns
directory-administrator
divine
doomlegacy-data
doom-wad-shareware
doxymacs
eglade
eroaster
ext2resize
falconseye
falconseye-data
filler
freewrl
gkdial
gkdial-gnome
gnokii
gnome-chess
gnome-pim
goldedplus
gpsim-led
grunch
gsnes9x
gwydion-dylan
gwydion-dylan-dev
ibm-jdk1.1-installer
id-utils
innovation3d
innovation3d-dev
innovation3d-plugins
install-doc
interchange
interchange-cat-foundation
interchange-ui
ipac-ng
ipmenu
jswat
kannel
kernel-patch-openmosix
kernel-patch-uml
kimberlite
kimberlite-doc
l2tpd
ldmud
lftp
libapache-mod-interchange
libavalon-excalibur-java
libavalon-excalibur-java-doc
libflash0
libflash-dev
libgcrypt1
libgcrypt-dev
libgcrypt-doc
libgd-perl
libmail-cclient-perl
libroxen-floatingcode
libsoap-java
libsoap-java-doc
mailscanner
mercury
mindy
mp3burn
murasaki
ndtpd
nvclock
ohphone
ohphone-basic
oops
openmosix
opustex
p2c
panorama
partimage
partimage-server
phpdoc
ploticus
plucker
python-configlet
python-parted
python-pcgi
qmail-src
r5rs-doc
rootstrap
saxon-catalog
scilab
sformat
siege-ssl
smail
stella
symlinks
tcl8.0-ja
t-gnus
tk8.0-ja
tleds
trn
tth
ultrapoint
unrar
user-mode-linux
wap-wml-tools
watchdog
xa+cv
xfractint
xmms-wmdiscotux
xtux
xtux-client
xtux-common
xtux-server
yh
zmailer
zope-popyda



cu
Adrian



All packages in woody but not in sarge:

3270-common
3dwm-clock
3dwm-csgclient
3dwm-geoclient
3dwm-pickclient
3dwm-server
3dwm-texclient
3dwm-vncclient
a52dec
a52dec-dev
abc2mtex
abiword-gtk
abuse
abuse-frabs
abuse-lib
abuse-sdl
abuse-sfx
acl-dev
adbbs
addressbook
admwebuser
aegis3
aegis3-doc
aegis3-tk
aegis3-web
aethera
agbrowser
agsatellite
alsaconf
alsa-headers-0.4
alsa-headers-0.5
alsa-modules-2.4.16-386
alsa-modules-2.4.16-586
alsa-modules-2.4.16-586tsc
alsa-modules-2.4.16-686
alsa-modules-2.4.16-686-smp
alsa-modules-2.4.16-k6
alsa-modules-2.4.16-k7
alsa-source-0.4
alsa-source-0.5
alsa-utils-0.4
alsa-utils-0.5
althea
althea-ssl
amavis-postfix
amaya-dict-de
amaya-dict-en
amaya-dict-es
amaya-dict-fr
amaya-dict-it
amaya-dict-ne
amaya-dict-se
ami-gnome
amiwm
amp
am-utils-dev
anti-aliasing-howto
apt-localepurge
apt-proxy
arch
argante
aris-extractor
ari-yahoo
arpack++
arpack2
arpack2-dev
asd4
asd4-clients
asmodem
asnparser
attr-dev
autoinstall
autoinstall-i386
automake
automake1.5
autorespond
awe-drv
awe-midi
awe-netscape-libc5
awe-netscape-libc6
axyftp-doc
axyftp-gtk
axyftp-lesstif
barrendero
basilix
bass
battstat-applet
bb
bblaunch
bbpal
beaver
bigloo-runtime-2.4b
binutils-sparc
blackened
blatte
blootbot
blt8.0-dev
blt-common
bnc
bonobo-python
bookmarker
bookview
bpowerd
bsd-ftpd
btoa
bulkmail
busybox-source-0.60.0
c3270
captain
casio
catalog
caudium-php4
cbb
cce
ccf
cdbakeoven
cdebconf-dev
cdindex-client
cdrecord-dev
cedictb5
cedictgb
cedicttools
cern-httpd
cfitsio2
cfitsio-dev
cfitsio-doc
chaos
chpp
cil
cim
clanlib
clanlib0-common
clanlib0-common-dev
clanlib0-display-fbdev
clanlib0-display-ggi
clanlib0-display-glx
clanlib0-display-svga
clanlib0-display-x11
clanlib0-docs
clanlib0-utils
clanlib-dev
clanlib-gl
clanlib-gui
clanlib-jpeg
clanlib-mikmod
clanlib-network
clanlib-png
clanlib-sound
clanlib-ttf
clanlib-vorbis
cl-imho
cl-local-time
cl-local-time-db
cl-metadata
cl-uncommonsql
cl-uncommonsql-mysql
cl-uncommonsql-oracle
cl-uncommonsql-postgresql
cocoon
cocoon2
cocoon2-doc
cocoon2-example
cocoon-doc
cocoon-example
cocoon-lib
communicator
communicator-base-477
communicator-nethelp-477
communicator-smotif-477
communicator-spellchk-477
configlet-frontends
console-tools-libs
cooledit
coolicon
coolman
coq-doc
cost
courier-debug
cpp-3.0
cpp-3.0-doc
cqcam
crystalspace
crystalspace-demos
crystalspace-dev
crystalspace-doc
cucipop
cupsys-pstoraster
curl-ssl
cursel
cvs-conf
cvs-pcl
cvsup
cvsupd
cxhextris
cyrus-nntp
d4x-gnome-applet
dbf2pg
dcopperl
dcoppython
ddt-client
ddt-server
debconf-tiny
debget
debian-guide
debian-guide-es
debian-guide-zh-s
debian-guide-zh-t
debian-test
debrecipes-es
debwrap
devhelp-book-ggad
devhelp-book-gnome
devhelp-book-gtk
dhcp-dns
directory-administrator
distributed-net-pproxy
ditty
divine
dmachinemon-gtkiface
dmapi
dmapi-dev
dmbt
docbook-xml-jrefentry
docbook-xml-simple
docbook-xml-slides
docbook-xml-website
docbook-xsl-stylesheets
doc-es-misc
doc-jakarta-ja
doc-linux-fr
doc-linux-zh-s

Re: Outrageous Maintainer

[Tim Cutts]

On 4 May 2005, at 6:39 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote:
On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does 
make
it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another 
package
that completely breaks mine (rather than the entire system), usually 
I
do add the conflicts: header.
I think that's a dangerous thing to do.  When the bug in the other
package is fixed, the chances are that you won't know about it, and
then you'll end up with two packages which conflict with each other 
for
no reason.
That's why we have versioned conflicts. Also, when adding a conflicts 
to
another package that is buggy, it would be _extremely_ bad form to not
track that other package for when the bug is fixed -- or, at least, to
file or reassign a bug to that package.
Good point - I'd forgotten about versioned conflicts (never having 
needed to use one!).
It causes no harm, as long as one is careful. And isn't being careful
something you should be doing anyway?
Yup.
Tim
--
Dr Tim Cutts
GPG: 1024/D FC81E159 5BA6 8CD4 2C57 9824 6638  C066 16E2 F4F5 FC81 E159
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Adrian Bunk]

> At the bottom is a complete list of the 2070 binary packages present in
> woody but not in sarge (including nun-US and contrib/non-free).

Correction: 2069 binary packages

The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[John Hasler]

Ed Cogburn writes:
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-free, not harder.  The only problem with non-free is the
> internal politics of Debian.  Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem
> providing access to, but not support for, non-free.

One of the common reasons for packages to be in non-free is that they have
"non-commercial" clauses in their licenses.  This means that Debian can
distribute them free of charge but they cannot be put on CDs and sold.  In
some cases they may not even be _used_ for anything but "personal use".
Others contain clauses forbidding their use for certain purposes or by
certain agencies.  The only thing you can say for sure about all the
packages in non-free is that Debian can make them available for
downloading.  Anyone contemplating redistributing non-free should examine
the license in every single package.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:

>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn.  Its already been checked in the 
>> > other
>> > arch!  If this is not the case please explain why.  Without that 
>> > explanation I am
>> > forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political...  Which is the bane 
>> > of debian.
>> We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get!
> Ok.  So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that debian 
> can
> distribute but only debian has the permission...

Right.

> If this is the case is there not a way you can ask debian to
> distribute just the non free stuff?  ie.  This project builds the
> packages from debian sources, debian hosts the non free stuff on one
> of their servers.

Which will happen with the move of amd64 into the debian archive - but
that wont happen for sarge.

In the meantime someone pointed me to http://nonfree.alioth.debian.org/
where someone already did the work to classify the non-free crap.

Which means that one amd64 guy now needs to sit down, kicking out
anything thats undistributable for us, and then let us include it.
(As *one random* example, distributed-net is undistribtable for us, as
we arent Debian).

*I* wont do it, I have more important things to do. I will only help
with the final import into our archive after someone did the work.

-- 
bye Joerg
(Irgendwo von heise.de):
Jesus war ein typischer Student:
- Lebte bis er 30 war bei den Eltern, - Hatte lange Haare
- Wenn er mal was tat dann wars ein Wunder


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Ed Tomlinson]

On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> 
> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn.  Its already been checked in the 
> > other
> > arch!  If this is not the case please explain why.  Without that 
> > explanation I am
> > forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political...  Which is the bane 
> > of debian.
> 
> We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get!

Ok.  So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that debian 
can
distribute but only debian has the permission...   If this is the case is there 
not a way
you can ask debian to distribute just the non free stuff?  ie.  This project 
builds the
packages from debian sources, debian hosts the non free stuff on one of their 
servers.

Thanks
Ed Tomlinson


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Joey Hess]

Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:03:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> ...
> > mnemo2
> This package was 10 days old when sarge was frozen. It contain just one
> minor bug. I think it can be safely added.

Sorry, I don't think it's a net win to accept packages that were NEW
just before the freeze. I say, even though my package of rscrobbler is
the same. If it could wait this long for the first upload to unstable,
it will have to wait for etch..

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Joey Hess]

Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> > partimage
> Bug: #294953 partimage - refuses to restore image on i386 which is 
> created on s390.
> 
> Synopsis: partimage seems to be i386 only, yet is still built for other 
> arches.  The changelog for 0.6.4-10 says:
> 
> partimage (0.6.4-10) unstable; urgency=low
>   * Change to i386 only! Closes: #268248
>  -- Sergio Rua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:16:25 +0100
> 
> So it seems that the changes in 0.6.4-10 were insufficient to really fix 
> #268248.

Contrary to the changelog, partimage's control file still claims it's
Architecture: any. 

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ITP: bubnbros -- The Bub's Brothers

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCrkan_Seng=FCn?=]

Hi Malte,

> Is it really MIT-licensed? I had a short look at making a package of that
> myself, and found the following statement on their homepage
> (http://bub-n-bros.sourceforge.net/authors.html):

Yes I have seen that as well.

> Almost all sprite images, sounds, background musics and levels are directly
> taken from the MacOS version of Bub & Bob 1 by McSebi, and redistributed with
> his gracious permission.

True.

> The game logic itself is protected by the MIT License
> Do you intend to seek clarification/DFSG-free licensing for the graphics?

Yes, I have sent a mail to mcsebi asking to clarify the details of the
license.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Debian AMD64 is Debian

[Adam M.]

Hamish Moffatt wrote:

>>On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi
>>>
>>> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
>>> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
>>>aren't Debian).
>>>
>Not necessary. For 'sattrack' for example, I got permission for us to
>distribute it in Debian. But I don't know if that extends to
>Debian-AMD64 (an unofficial distribution) and Ubuntu would certainly
>have to ask for their own permission.
>  
>

Actually, non-free is not Debian as well (as far as I recall), but all
of us consider it part of the Debian project. Honestly, I would consider
the AMD64 port part of the Debian project since it is a *port* and you
can find it at http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ . The only differences
between non-free and AMD64 non-free is that AMD64 is not part of the
Debian mirror network (ie. not officially part of Sid/Sarge).

Anyway, I think if package can be distributed by Debian, it can
implicitly be distributed by any of the Debian ports, released or not.

- Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

successful sparc buildd log, but no upload after 11 days

[=?iso-8859-15?Q?Ren=E9?= van Bevern]

Hi,

One of my packages (ncmpc) is kept out of testing because of a missing
build for sparc (it is unblocked). Looking at the buildd log for sparc
[1], the package seems to have built successfully on April 25th 2005.
Unfortunately, there has been no upload until now. I have contacted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] but have still no reply. Is there anything
else I could do?

[1] 
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=ncmpc&ver=0.11.1-5&arch=sparc&stamp=1114466597&file=log&as=raw

René van Bevern


pgpgxNIFkd2Kz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: successful sparc buildd log, but no upload after 11 days

[Joey Hess]

René van Bevern wrote:
> One of my packages (ncmpc) is kept out of testing because of a missing
> build for sparc (it is unblocked). Looking at the buildd log for sparc
> [1], the package seems to have built successfully on April 25th 2005.
> Unfortunately, there has been no upload until now. I have contacted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] but have still no reply. Is there anything
> else I could do?

Well be assured you're not alone; several packages being tracked by the
release team are blocked due to missing sparc uploads.

However, I don't know what to do about it, except hope the buildd
maintainers check their email eventually, and wish there was a place in
the BTS for these things..

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: successful sparc buildd log, but no upload after 11 days

[Blars Blarson]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Ren=E9 van Bevern wrote:
>> One of my packages (ncmpc) is kept out of testing because of a missing
>> build for sparc (it is unblocked). Looking at the buildd log for sparc
>> [1], the package seems to have built successfully on April 25th 2005.
>> Unfortunately, there has been no upload until now. I have contacted
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] but have still no reply. Is there anything
>> else I could do?
>
>Well be assured you're not alone; several packages being tracked by the
>release team are blocked due to missing sparc uploads.
>
>However, I don't know what to do about it, except hope the buildd
>maintainers check their email eventually, and wish there was a place in
>the BTS for these things..


I'm able to build the packages on my sparc pbuilder, but the sparc
buildd maintainer insisted I don't upload them.  As a normal DD, I'm
not fighting this issue further without the backing of either the
technical committee (which refused to rule) or the DPL (the previous
one eventually sided with the buildd maintainer).

-- 
Blars Blarson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.blars.org/blars.html
With Microsoft, failure is not an option.  It is a standard feature.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Andreas Tille]

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out".  If people aren't going to file
bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urgency when they *are*
filed at the wrong severity, there's no way in hell anyone is going to know
there's a problem.
I agree completely here that all bugs should be fixed and the fact that
a bug should be RC but is not marked as such qualifies also for removal
of the package.  On the other hand the bug is fixed now and as I said
it is a quite funny and attractive program for exhibition boothes and
thus I would personally vote for shipping it with Sarge.
Kind regards
 Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

fwd: download Adobe Acrobat Professional latest release.

[Leeann]

Unless the theatre can ennoble you, make you a better person, you should flee 
from it.
Looking for popular sfotware, but tight on budget?
We are selilng world bestseslers at the chaepest prcices around!
Why so csheap? We don't sel'll progrmas in a fancy box, with printed 
documentation, etc., meaning we do not shell out on CD manufacturing.
The sosft is only what you get - available for dwonload right after purcshase.
Fast servers with 100mb conection.
Instant Dwonload!
Our work is the presentation of our capabilities.
Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Professional 44.95
Microsoft Office System Professional 2003 54.95
DVD X Copy Platinum 4.0.38 19.95
Microsoft Windows XP Professional with SP2 Corporate Edition 54.95
Adobe PhotoShop CS 8.0 44.95
AutoCAD 2005 69.95
Macromedia Studio MX 2004 54.95
Adobe Photoshop CS and ImageReady CS 39.95
Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier plus Internet Security 2005 39.95
Pinnacle Liquid Edition 6.0 39.95
Microsoft FrontPage 2003 Pro plus 200 Templates 29.95
Unless the theatre can ennoble you, make you a better person, you should 
flee from it. http://zanshin89.freeserve.co.uk.realbestoffer.com/ What you see, 
but can't see over is as good as infinite. Actors are one family over the 
entire world.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> FWIW, I've noticed that "3.1" is already used in quite a lot of
> documentation and on websites with articles relating to Debian.  It
> was announced quite some time ago, and so it would be rather
> inconsiderate [gross understatement] to change it at this late stage.

IIRC, it was not announced.

Indeed, the reason we use codenames like "sarge" is precisely because
we don't want to decide the version number at the beginning; we want
to be able to decide what that should be when we actually release.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out".  If people aren't going to file
>> bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
>> treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urgency when they *are*
>> filed at the wrong severity, there's no way in hell anyone is going to know
>> there's a problem.
> I agree completely here that all bugs should be fixed and the fact that
> a bug should be RC but is not marked as such qualifies also for removal

If a bug is RC but not marked such then mark it. Then it is RC and
marked such and any discussion about qualifying or not is pointless.

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Goswin von Brederlow]

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Ed Cogburn writes:
>> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
>> provide non-free, not harder.  The only problem with non-free is the
>> internal politics of Debian.  Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem
>> providing access to, but not support for, non-free.
>
> One of the common reasons for packages to be in non-free is that they have
> "non-commercial" clauses in their licenses.  This means that Debian can
> distribute them free of charge but they cannot be put on CDs and sold.  In
> some cases they may not even be _used_ for anything but "personal use".
> Others contain clauses forbidding their use for certain purposes or by
> certain agencies.  The only thing you can say for sure about all the
> packages in non-free is that Debian can make them available for
> downloading.  Anyone contemplating redistributing non-free should examine
> the license in every single package.
> -- 
> John Hasler

More specifically: Debian can distribute those sources and debs
already available.

Debian may not be allowed to rebuild the source or build it for more
archs (or distribute any debs, only source, as is the case for pine).

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Petr Cech MIA?

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:02:51AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:38:39PM +0200 , Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:23:51PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> > > The NMU is very simple... I don't have a problem with doing it myself in
> > > a week or two.
> > > 
> > > Just try to catch Petr first.
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Eh, (1) there is a standing 0-day NMU policy for very long already (at
> > least half a year, don't remember even), (2) two weeks definitely is too
> > late, I suggest NMU'ing ASAP, (3) no need to start the "MIA procedure"
> > thingy when just doing a NMU, everyone gets busy once in a while, a NMU
> > is not a bad thingy, just an attempt to help out a maintainer who
> > otherwise apparantly couldn't find the time to fix a particular issue.
> > As #288741 is 120 days old without maintainer reaction, there was
> 
> I sent a ITO last july and I thought that it took someone. There were some
> license problems IIRC, but it seems it's solved now.

Hm, it's a custom to send O: bugs to the BTS, so that they get tracked,
rather than "ITO", something that doesn't have much meaning in Debian
(either you want to continue maintaining pending looking for a new
maintainer, than it's "RFA", or you don't, that it's "O", both filed as
bugs for tracking purposes).
 
> As it seems that soneone has yesterday orphaned phpdoc for me (wtf?) I don't
> have to do it myself :-) Anyone is welcome to take over maintaining phpdoc

Ok, I'll file an O: bug then unless that's meanwhile been done.

Sorry for the noise & mess.

Thanks,
--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 is Debian

[Goswin von Brederlow]

"Adam M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
>>>On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>>
>>>
Hi

 Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
 it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).

>>Not necessary. For 'sattrack' for example, I got permission for us to
>>distribute it in Debian. But I don't know if that extends to
>>Debian-AMD64 (an unofficial distribution) and Ubuntu would certainly
>>have to ask for their own permission.
>>  
>>
>
> Actually, non-free is not Debian as well (as far as I recall), but all
> of us consider it part of the Debian project. Honestly, I would consider
> the AMD64 port part of the Debian project since it is a *port* and you
> can find it at http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ . The only differences
> between non-free and AMD64 non-free is that AMD64 is not part of the
> Debian mirror network (ie. not officially part of Sid/Sarge).

We are not part of Debian. We are not allowed to use certain Debian
resources such as buildd.d.o for buildd logs, access to the incoming
queue for buildds or wanna-build and several other things.

So if Debian itself does not think amd64 is part of it why should the law?

Luckily other parts of Debian are not that subborn and support us none
the less, like package.debian.org or soon cdimage.d.o to name two.

> Anyway, I think if package can be distributed by Debian, it can
> implicitly be distributed by any of the Debian ports, released or not.
>
> - Adam

Legaly we are not Debian. Only once amd64 is added on ftp-master you
can use that argument imho.

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> 
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn.  Its already been checked in the 
>> > other
>> > arch!  If this is not the case please explain why.  Without that 
>> > explanation I am
>> > forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political...  Which is the bane 
>> > of debian.
>> 
>> We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get!
>
> Ok.  So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that debian 
> can
> distribute but only debian has the permission...   If this is the case is 
> there not a way
> you can ask debian to distribute just the non free stuff?  ie.  This project 
> builds the
> packages from debian sources, debian hosts the non free stuff on one of their 
> servers.

Who is to say we are allowed to build the binaries?

Take pine for example. Distribution of binaries is specifically
prohibited. Only source can be in non-free. If we just add non-free to
the buildd and upload that anywhere we violate the license and risk
getting sued. For other sources the maintainer has special permission
to build and upload binaries for Debian but again we don't.

And yes, Debian has the exact same problem. That is why non-free is
not autobuild even in Debian.

> Thanks
> Ed Tomlinson

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages missing from sarge

[Andreas Tille]

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I agree completely here that all bugs should be fixed and the fact that
a bug should be RC but is not marked as such qualifies also for removal
If a bug is RC but not marked such then mark it. Then it is RC and
marked such and any discussion about qualifying or not is pointless.
Sure.  Not marking a RC bug apropriately is a bug which definitely
should be fixed by a correct mark.  But not handling an incorrectly
marked bug by the release team would be an even worse error.  If
the release team would forget to mark the bug apropriately which would
leave a trace about the reason is only a documentation bug which sounds
like wishlist - which is no excuse.  But the initial problem was
caused by a maintainer who did not care for his package ...
Kind regards
  Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian package of cogito-0.9 available

[Martin Waitz]

hoi :)

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:42:39PM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> I think the package is ready for a wider audience.  I just updated it
> to the just-released upstream version 0.9, it's available here:

why do you patch the Makefile?
does 'make prefix=/usr' not work?

-- 
Martin Waitz


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Upcoming removals

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Bruno Barrera C. wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 14:54 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > I intend to ask for removal of the following packages in the next few
> > days unless someone is willing to step up as maintainer.  All of these
> > packages have been orphaned for over 60 days and have never been part
> > of a stable release; none of them have any reverse (build-)dependencies.
> > 
> > 
> > #259581: O: bbconf -- A Blackbox configuration utility
> > Reported by: Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 291 days old.
> 
> As Maintainer of blackbox and bbkeys, I'm interested to know what is 
> going on with this package.
> 
> Like I said, I don't want to maintain bbconf, but the blackbox and
> bbkeys upstream is alive again, and they incorporated into its
> description that bbconf should work with that programs.
> 
> So, I recently sent an email to the bbconf upstream to know if they're
> going to keep working on it. Therefore, I think that we should wait a
> bit to know his answers and then I will reply.

Your latest comment in #259581 is completely different from this --
please keep the relevant wnpp bug in the loop for stuff like this!

Specifically, your latest recorded comment about bbconf is "No, I will
not take care about bbconf, so I really think that you should
file a removal request."

--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl

Re: Debian AMD64 is Debian

[Adam M.]

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

>"Adam M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>We are not part of Debian. We are not allowed to use certain Debian
>resources such as buildd.d.o for buildd logs, access to the incoming
>queue for buildds or wanna-build and several other things.
>
>So if Debian itself does not think amd64 is part of it why should the law?
>
>Luckily other parts of Debian are not that subborn and support us none
>the less, like package.debian.org or soon cdimage.d.o to name two.
>  
>
Then let us hope that amd64 will be added to sid soon..

I am looking at the non-free copyrights and hopefully I will weed-out
any Debian distribution only ones soon. I'll put the results up on
people.d.o webpage so other distributions based on Debian, like Ubuntu,
can use that if they want to make sure they do not distribute something
they don't have permission to distribute...

- Adam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian maintainers and the Launchpad

[Michael Banck]

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:09:27PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Allow me to explain a bit about the purpose of this application.
> 
> This portion of the Launchpad application, when it is completed, will
> provide a composite index of all of the packages available in Ubuntu and in
> Debian, and link together various information about them.  Each Debian
> package will correspond to a page on the site, and it will display (among
> other information about the package) the name of its maintainer, regardless
> of the status of the package in Ubuntu.
> 
> This information will be heavily cross-referenced with other resources, so
> that (for example), a Debian maintainer will be able to visit the site, and
> see all of their packages, which versions are present in various Ubuntu and
> Debian releases, any patches applied in Ubuntu relative to Debian, relevant
> Ubuntu bug reports and other resources.
> 
> The purpose of this tool is to allow for more efficient collaboration, both
> within Ubuntu and Debian, and between Ubuntu and Debian.

While this sounds like a very useful tool, AFAIK it is a proprietary
service (for now?), and I wonder whether this clashes with part two of
our social contract, at least with the spirit of it (as Debian obviously
did not write it).  

So while it will no doubt be useful to individual developers, whether
Debian as a whole will be able to adopt this cooperate with it (as your
last paragraph suggests: 'within Debian') would need to be discussed at
some point.


cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Free Game Console

[David Moreno Garza]

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 22:54 -0700, Dillinger wrote:
> What do you guys think?

Go ahead. When you have something to show, I'd bet many people would be
more interested.

Benefit of doubt.

--
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/
 "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - IBM,
1943. 
 GPG: C671257D - 6EF6 C284 C95D 78F6 0B78 FFD3 981C 5FD7 C671 257D


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is Petr Cech MIA?

[David Moreno Garza]

On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 13:11 +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> Any chance you'll at least fix the rc bug so phpdoc will enter sarge?
> It's a very small fix to the build-dep line.

What about NMUing? Sorry if this was solved before, I'm replying offline
and have not Internet access since a few days ago.

--
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/
 Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. 
 GPG: C671257D - 6EF6 C284 C95D 78F6 0B78 FFD3 981C 5FD7 C671 257D


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian maintainers and the Launchpad

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:35:21AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:

> While this sounds like a very useful tool, AFAIK it is a proprietary
> service (for now?), and I wonder whether this clashes with part two of
> our social contract, at least with the spirit of it (as Debian obviously
> did not write it).  

The basis for your concern is not clear to me; can you elaborate?  Do you
interpret the social contract to mean that Debian developers should avoid
using certain web applications based on the licenses of the software used to
implement them?

> So while it will no doubt be useful to individual developers, whether
> Debian as a whole will be able to adopt this cooperate with it (as your
> last paragraph suggests: 'within Debian') would need to be discussed at
> some point.

I do hope that the system will be useful to Debian developers, but I have
made no such suggestion regarding any kind of position on the part of the
Debian project as a whole, nor is it typical for Debian to take such
positions.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#308255: ITP: r-cran-bayesm -- GNU R package for Bayesian inference

[Chris Lawrence]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: r-cran-bayesm
  Version : 0.0-2
  Upstream Authors: Peter Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rob McCulloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
* URL: http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/peter.rossi/research/bsm.html
* License : GPL
  Description : GNU R package for Bayesian inference

 The bayesm package covers many important models used in marketing and
 micro-econometrics applications. The package includes:
 .
  * Bayes Regression (univariate or multivariate dep var)
  * Multinomial Logit (MNL) and Multinomial Probit (MNP)
  * Multivariate Probit,
  * Multivariate Mixtures of Normals
  * Hierarchical Linear Models with normal prior and covariates
  * Hierarchical Multinomial Logits with mixture of normals prior and
covariates
  * Bayesian analysis of choice-based conjoint data
  * Bayesian treatment of linear instrumental variables models
  * Analyis of Multivariate Ordinal survey data with scale usage
heterogeneity (as in Rossi et al, JASA (01)).
 .
 For further reference, consult the authors' book, _Bayesian
 Statistics and Marketing_ by Allenby, McCulloch and Rossi.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11.7
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Upcoming removals

[Bruno Barrera C.]

On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 00:24 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> 
> Your latest comment in #259581 is completely different from this --
> please keep the relevant wnpp bug in the loop for stuff like this!
> 
> Specifically, your latest recorded comment about bbconf is "No, I will
> not take care about bbconf, so I really think that you should
> file a removal request."
> 
> --Jeroen
> 

I think you didn't read my first email.

Quoting myself:

"Like I said, I don't want to maintain bbconf, but the blackbox and
bbkeys upstream is alive again, and they incorporated into its
description that bbconf should work with that programs."

In fact, I don't wanted to maintain bbconf, but since upstream replied
that he would work in order to keep it working with bbkeys and blackbox
(and their upstreams are alive again too), I will take care about it.

Ehm, you're right, I will send an explanation to the WNPP bug.
-- 
Bruno Barrera C.
"I'm a soldier, not a monster. Even though if I sometimes work for monsters."


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: debian package of cogito-0.9 available

[Sebastian Kuzminsky]

Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
] On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:42:39PM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
] > I think the package is ready for a wider audience.  I just updated it
] > to the just-released upstream version 0.9, it's available here:
] 
] why do you patch the Makefile?
] does 'make prefix=3D/usr' not work?


Sure that works.  Is it prefered to do that over patching the upstream?
I guess it's more maintainable...  Ok, I'll do it that way instead.




--
Sebastian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cogito_0.10-1 available

[Sebastian Kuzminsky]

Get it here:

http://highlab.com/~seb/debian


Before 0.10, the upstream installed both the binaries (actually shell
scripts) and the shell libraries in /usr/bin.  Starting with 0.10, the
shell libraries are moved to /usr/lib/cogito.  This seems to me like a
fine thing to do, any reason Debian doesnt want them there?


The only lintian/linda complaints are from missing manpages.  Some
upstream folks are working on translating the existing docs from .txt
to manpages (actually asciidoc), so it'll hopefully get cleaner soon
without me lifting a finger.  :)




--
Sebastian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

/usr/lib vs /usr/libexec

[Russell Coker]

It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are 
under /usr/lib in Debian.  One example is /usr/lib/postfix 
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.

It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having 
the same directory names used across distributions provides real benefits 
(copying config files and binaries from other distributions when a bug stops 
a server working and it's REALLY important to get it fixed fast).

Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?

[Kevin Mark]

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 01:10:41AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [Andrea Mennucc]
> > me, I do my part of the work in Debian
> > 
> > and nobody ever contacted me regarding the choice of the number
> 
> What that...?  Why on earth would you think you should be contacted
> before this sort of decision is made?

Is there any formal policy as to how and when these release issues are
decided? (regarding codename or release version numbers)? I found this
email snippet[1] on -release (which seems the logical 'where')

"Debian is not a democracy. Debian is a volounteer organisation. The
essential difference is: in a democracy, everybody can directly
influence the decision. In Debian, the person who does something can
tell how he does it (in most cases - and within the limit of the Social
Contract, the DFSG and similar documents). ajt is release manager, he
does the release, so he decides how he calls it." -vbi

that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues
in the past unilaterilly.
cheers,
-Kev
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/01/msg00029.html
-- 
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
  `$' $' 
   $  $  _
 ,d$$$g$  ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b
,$P'  `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$'  `$ $  "'   `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P""  $ $$
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$
 `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $.  ,$.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

AMD64 non-free archive - the good and the bad

[Adam Majer]

Hi,

Ok. Took me about 6 hours, but I think I checked all licenses for
non-free that were in debian/*copyright. I didn't look for other files -
there is too much stuff in non-free and I don't want to go crazy.
Anyway, I compiled the licenses and summary for what Amd64 could
distribute in

http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/

The packages that cannot be distributed (or I think they can't) are in
bad.txt. good.txt contains a list of all packages that have OK licenses
for redistribution. The licenses and script I wrote to extract licenses
are there too.

I was a little bit more liberal with fonts than non-font packages. For
example, if font prohibits redistribution to modification to fonts, but
unmodified was ok, then I said it was ok. If software prohibits any type
of modification (read: it says that) then I deemed it not ok and ended
in the bad.txt. Software with no license in debian/*copyright ended in
bad.txt.

Anyway, I think that packages in good.txt are good to be used by Amd64.

I skipped non-Amd64 capable packages.

For completeness, here's a list of packages which looks OK,

abs-guide
agrep
album
amoeba-data
angband
astrolog
atmel-firmware
autoconf-nonfree
axe
bcm5700-source
bluez-firmware
bsdgames-nonfree
chntpw
ckermit
cl-faq
cl-infix
clustalw-mpi
cmap-adobe-cns1
cmap-adobe-gb1
cmap-adobe-japan1
cmap-adobe-japan2
cmap-adobe-korea1
conserver
core++
crafty
dgen
diablo
doc-html-w3
doc-linux-nonfree
doc-rfc
doom-wad-shareware
dvdrtools
eagle
ebook-dev-alp
ebook-dev-ggad
ebook-dev-kde20
foiltex
gfont
ggobi
gliese
glimpse
gnu-standards
gpcl
grokking-the-gimp
gs-afpl
gs-cjk-resource
gsfonts-other
hevea-doc
hwb
if-transition
inform
iozone3
ipadic
irpas
ldmud
lgrind
lha
libapache-mod-fastcgi
libcwd
libforms-doc
lincvs
manpages-posix
mecab-ipadic
molphy
mpi-specs
mssstest
mysql-nonfree
mysql-nonfree-4.1
newsgate
nttcp
nvidia-graphics-drivers
ocaml-book
ocaml-doc
onlisp
openmotif
opustex
os8
pcx
pgplot5
phylip
picon-domains
picon-misc
picon-news
picon-unknown
picon-usenix
picon-users
picon-weather
povray
povray-3.5
ptex-jtex
python-profiler
qla2x00
rancid
raster3d
revtex
rutebook
scilab
scribus-doc
shapetools-tutorial
snes9x
spectrum-roms
spellcast
spellcast-doc
spim
swt-pocketpc
tads
tome
trn
ttf-gentium
ttf-kochi-naga10
ttf-larabie
ttf-mikachan
tth
ucbmpeg-play
unicorn
uqm-content
w3-recs
w3-recs-2002
w3-recs-2003
wap-wml-tools
xearth
xfonts-scalable-nonfree
xfractint
xgobi
xgobi-doc
xpdf-chinese-simplified
xpdf-chinese-traditional
xpdf-japanese
xpdf-korean
xshodo
xslideshow
xsnow
yale
zangband
zope-book


And here is the list of packages that probably are not OK (some, like
sattrack, CANNOT be distributed without written permission).

abuse-sfx
clustalw
cthugha
ezmlm
festlex-oald
festvox-ellpc11k
figfonts
figlet
fractxtra
hypre
latex2html
lmbench
maelstrom
mmix
moria
mush
netperf
parmetis
pine
qmail
r-cran-mapproj
sattrack
selfhtml
sgb
treetool
trn4
ucspi-tcp
unrar-nonfree
wip
xfonts-naga10
xmame


If there are problems, please, let me know. Now I have to go uncross my
eyes.

- Adam



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature