Re: About debian issues
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 01:30:10 + (UTC) SIE wrote: > Does the debian built-in driver support the RTL8852BU chip family of > network cards? I assume that's a Realtek device. Short answer: Bullseye (Debian 11), no; Bookworm (Debian 12), yes. You will need to install the package firmware-realtek to get the firmware. On a fresh installation of Bookworm, the installer should do that for you. root@jhegaala:~# apt-cache show firmware-realtek | grep -iE \(RTL8852BU\|^version:\) Version: 20210315-3 root@jhegaala:~# root@white:~# apt-cache show firmware-realtek | grep -iE \(RTL8852BU\|^version:\) Version: 20230210-5 * Realtek RTL8852BU Bluetooth config (rtl_bt/rtl8852bu_config.bin) * Realtek RTL8852BU Bluetooth firmware (rtl_bt/rtl8852bu_fw.bin) root@white:~# -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
About debian issues
Hello, Does the debian built-in driver support the RTL8852BU chip family of network cards? by Eden
Re: QEMU on Debian issues
Disc Magnet wrote: > I have installed QEMU on my Debian Testing box. I have GNOME running > on my host Debian [...] > 1. The IP address of the QEMU system appears to be in 10.30.*.* range. > However, the IP address of my host system is in 192.168.2.*. I can't > ping QEMU from host or vice versa. When you start your kvm/qemu emulator with "-net nic -net user" you get a local IP address such as 10.30.2.16 (x.x.x.16-31). In this instance the host would be assigned 10.30.2.2 (x.x.x.2). You can use these local addresses for transfering data locally. If you want to get your kvm/qemu system to talk to the rest of the world you should be able to do that (the default route should be set via your internal host address, 10.30.2.2) and the host will NAT outbound connections. Use the -redir option to map specific ports on your host back to the guest. Or read up on the options for the kvm/qemu to handle bridging. Particularly, note that the guest will not necessarily be able to see your 192.168.2.* systems (including that IP address on your host) without a route set via the guest-facing IP address of your host. > 2. Anyway to copy paste across QEMU system and host system? I'm not aware of any way of doing this. > 3. The color of the console font appears to be very light shade of > gray that strains my eyes. Anyway to change the font color? There should be an option in the guest to configure its console font characteristics. (But I can't help you futher on this one.) Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8q65f7xdah@news.roaima.co.uk
Re: QEMU on Debian issues
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 01:36:57PM +0530, Disc Magnet wrote: > I have installed QEMU on my Debian Testing box. I have GNOME running > on my host Debian. The virtual OS installed and running on QEMU system > is not running X. So, i launch QEMU with my OS image and work on the > console. > > Any solutions to the following problems? > > 1. The IP address of the QEMU system appears to be in 10.30.*.* range. > However, the IP address of my host system is in 192.168.2.*. I can't > ping QEMU from host or vice versa. This makes exchanging files between > my host system and QEMU system impossible. > > 2. Anyway to copy paste across QEMU system and host system? > > 3. The color of the console font appears to be very light shade of > gray that strains my eyes. Anyway to change the font color? > Hello: You can solve points 2 and 3 by not using the cosole at all, just ssh in. I use the -redir option like this: -redir tcp:hi_port::22 This will redirect "hi_port" on the host to port 22 on the guest. Then you just have to ssh to "hi_port". This works when the guest uses the default IP, otherwise you need to specify the address. Jaime -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100620194340.ga3...@lpc.lan
Re: QEMU on Debian issues
Disc Magnet writes: > I have installed QEMU on my Debian Testing box. I have GNOME running > on my host Debian. The virtual OS installed and running on QEMU system > is not running X. So, i launch QEMU with my OS image and work on the > console. > > Any solutions to the following problems? > > 1. The IP address of the QEMU system appears to be in 10.30.*.* range. > However, the IP address of my host system is in 192.168.2.*. I can't > ping QEMU from host or vice versa. This makes exchanging files between > my host system and QEMU system impossible. > > 2. Anyway to copy paste across QEMU system and host system? > > 3. The color of the console font appears to be very light shade of > gray that strains my eyes. Anyway to change the font color? You can use an alias for your ethernet to access another address. You can use something like: ifconfig eth0:1 add 10.30.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 You can delete that later if desired with 'ifconfig eth0:1 down'. Of course, change the .0.0 at the end to an unoccupied address if necessary, and change eth0 to whatever your card is called. Just type 'ifconfig' to see what your current configuration is. You can also put the alias in /etc/network/interfaces for automatic configuration. -- Carl Johnsonca...@peak.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87eig1oekx@cjlinux.localnet
Re: QEMU on Debian issues
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Disc Magnet wrote: > I have installed QEMU on my Debian Testing box. I have GNOME running > on my host Debian. The virtual OS installed and running on QEMU system > is not running X. So, i launch QEMU with my OS image and work on the > console. > > Any solutions to the following problems? > > 1. The IP address of the QEMU system appears to be in 10.30.*.* range. > However, the IP address of my host system is in 192.168.2.*. I can't > ping QEMU from host or vice versa. This makes exchanging files between > my host system and QEMU system impossible. > One solution maybe using smb hack from qemu: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/QEMU/Networking#SMB_server
QEMU on Debian issues
I have installed QEMU on my Debian Testing box. I have GNOME running on my host Debian. The virtual OS installed and running on QEMU system is not running X. So, i launch QEMU with my OS image and work on the console. Any solutions to the following problems? 1. The IP address of the QEMU system appears to be in 10.30.*.* range. However, the IP address of my host system is in 192.168.2.*. I can't ping QEMU from host or vice versa. This makes exchanging files between my host system and QEMU system impossible. 2. Anyway to copy paste across QEMU system and host system? 3. The color of the console font appears to be very light shade of gray that strains my eyes. Anyway to change the font color? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimrz7gab7sfuv2dewtljwfw1tduqhealn_qx...@mail.gmail.com
Re: debian issues
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 at 23:30 GMT, jake+karen=liam penned: > Hi > > I am running two(2) operating systems Debian Linux and Windows 98. My > hard drive is partitioned into six (6) sectors. One sector is > formatted as FAT32, this is to be shared by both systems. The problem > is that either system cannot read the files the other system put on > the harddisk. Any suggestions. > I think you'll need to give us a little more detail before anyone can help. For starters, the contents of the /etc/fstab in question. Also, I think sectors has a special meaning when it comes to hard drives. I think the appropriate word here is "partitions." -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian issues
Hi I am running two(2) operating systems Debian Linux and Windows 98. My hard drive is partitioned into six (6) sectors. One sector is formatted as FAT32, this is to be shared by both systems. The problem is that either system cannot read the files the other system put on the harddisk. Any suggestions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pseudo-image method & .list files (was Re: Debian Issues!!)
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 11:56:20AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > I guess Jaimos is thinking that it's worth cutting down the .list > > files to only the packages you need. In fact, unless you're short on > > CDs, it's not worth the trouble: regardless of what you have on the > > CDs, you only ever have to install the packages you want, plus their > > dependencies. The .list files don't control what's actually installed > > on the final system. > > .list files being something specific to the p-Image method? Yes. As I remember, they consist of lists of files to be written to the CD image. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Issues!!
Israel Evans, The connection is definetly a problem.. Israel Evans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said thusly on [28/07/01 at 00:54]: > Hello, > > I bet your connection might be a problem. If you get stuck on Getting. You > might want to try using a different mirror to download from. I don't know > how helpfull this is, but I hope it helps. Maybe someone who know a scrap > about this crazy linux stuff will have more info. > > > ~Israel~ I vote for beer. -- Phillip Jimeno, Maryland state senator, on his recommendation for the official state drink, 1997.
Re: Debian Issues!!
Jaimos F. Skriletz, You should not have an opinion on Debian till you see it at work. Jaimos F. Skriletz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said thusly on [27/07/01 at 23:44]: > > to understand why I've been told its so great, for my opinion of now is not > that high, > > Jaimos F. Skriletz > "When I wake up in the morning, I start working. When I go to bed at night, I stop working." --Angeline Machipisa, Zimbabwe
Re: Debian Issues!!
Jaimos F. Skriletz, You need to do a checksum on your download, wether you are retrieveing a binary file as text. Welcome to Debian & Linux 3 days is a short time to spend in this kingdom, Gandolf. Jaimos F. Skriletz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said thusly on [27/07/01 at 23:44]: > > To whom it may concern, > > Hello, I'm tradionally a Window's 98 OS user and am currently in the project > of teaching myself linux and wanting to learn how to use its operating > "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." (Thomas Stearns Eliot, aka T. S. Eliot)
pseudo-image method & .list files (was Re: Debian Issues!!)
on Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > >on Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 03:51:14PM -0700, Jaimos F. Skriletz > >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> > >> First I will like to say that your meathod is intivative and I > >> understand your issues of wanting to save banwith, also after > >> thinking about your meathod of using the .list file to direct what > >> pacakages will be installed on the machince, I see that for a > >> knowledgable Debian user it could be advantage to spelizise that > >> list to get the maximum performace out of your operating system > >> which is the final goal of most devout users in my opion, but now > >> on to my problems > > > >Huh? > > I guess Jaimos is thinking that it's worth cutting down the .list > files to only the packages you need. In fact, unless you're short on > CDs, it's not worth the trouble: regardless of what you have on the > CDs, you only ever have to install the packages you want, plus their > dependencies. The .list files don't control what's actually installed > on the final system. .list files being something specific to the p-Image method? As I said before, I haven't tried it myself, just mostly heard from those who've found it broken. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Free Dmitry!! Boycott Adobe!! Repeal the DMCA!! http://www.freedmitry.org pgp82wIWLaz3d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Issues!!
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:14:27PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: | "pascal weller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >what kind of bandwidth do I save with the pseudo-image-kit ? | >Just download the iso with a ftp client witch can resume and your done. | >Do I miss something ? | | It doesn't save *you* bandwidth, it helps out the load on the mirrors. | That (at least in theory) is the point of the pseudo-image kit: you can | download the packages from a local mirror as normal, and mirrors don't | have to keep enormous .iso files around. Yep, though in practice if someone (not to mention any names ) bypasses the psuedo-image process and jumps straight to rsync I think it will actually increase the load on the server because it has to compute a checksum for each portion of the .iso, then transmit the entire iso anyways. -D
Re: Debian Issues!!
"Karsten M. Self" wrote: >on Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 03:51:14PM -0700, Jaimos F. Skriletz >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> First I will like to say that your meathod is intivative and I >> understand your issues of wanting to save banwith, also after thinking >> about your meathod of using the .list file to direct what pacakages >> will be installed on the machince, I see that for a knowledgable >> Debian user it could be advantage to spelizise that list to get the >> maximum performace out of your operating system which is the final >> goal of most devout users in my opion, but now on to my problems > >Huh? I guess Jaimos is thinking that it's worth cutting down the .list files to only the packages you need. In fact, unless you're short on CDs, it's not worth the trouble: regardless of what you have on the CDs, you only ever have to install the packages you want, plus their dependencies. The .list files don't control what's actually installed on the final system. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Issues!!
"pascal weller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >what kind of bandwidth do I save with the pseudo-image-kit ? >Just download the iso with a ftp client witch can resume and your done. >Do I miss something ? It doesn't save *you* bandwidth, it helps out the load on the mirrors. That (at least in theory) is the point of the pseudo-image kit: you can download the packages from a local mirror as normal, and mirrors don't have to keep enormous .iso files around. That said, while I did get the pseudo-image kit working last time I needed to, I was working from a GNU/Linux system to start with. I can imagine that doing it from Cygwin or similar would be pretty stressful. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Issues!!
Hi I'm afraid I 'cheat' and grab the iso direct from http://www.linuxiso.org which lists Debian right at the top (as it should be ;-) ). I did look into getting it the Debian way, but decided to go with linuxiso.org as it was easier and they're geared up for that sort of demand. I'm happy enough for the debian mirrors retaining their bandwidth so my dist-upgrade's can go through more quickly[1] ;-) Regards, Martin [1] Especially as I'm still on dial-up at home - though fortunately unmetered with 29Mb coming through at present ;-) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dbg400.net DBG/400 - DataBase Generation utilities Open Source test environment tools for the AS/400 / iSeries and miscellaneous database & spooled file management commands.
Re: Debian Issues!!
> | > | > to begin this project, but little to my knowledge, I have spent the > | > last three days reading though your FAQ's, readme files, etc trying to > | > figure out how to get the image which should be a simple afair, yet > | > failing miserabbaly and I have the following comments/complaints I > | > hope you will at least consider about your system. > | > | The docs could be better organized. However, this list is populated > | with folks who've been through most of the pains themselves, strongly > | recommended you ask first. We're usually pretty helpful, or so I hear. > > Yeah, just look at all the responses you've gotten already (and no > flames :-)). and another big pro for debian "I have a problem with my RH 7.1 bal bla" postet to this list will increase the risk of getting flamed ;-) > > | > First I will like to say that your meathod is intivative and I > | > understand your issues of wanting to save banwith, also after thinking what kind of bandwidth do I save with the pseudo-image-kit ? Just download the iso with a ftp client witch can resume and your done. Do I miss something ? Anyway A nice way IMO ist the following: Download the right 2.88 mb boot-floppy image and base2_2.tgz (~50mb) from somemirror.debian.org/debian/dists/potato/main/disks-i386/current Burn a CD with the floppy-image as boot-image and the base2_2.tgz as a regular file on the CD. Boot from the CD install the basesystem from the CD. This gives you a running linuxsystem where you can mess around with the usual tools to make your modem/lan working if they don't do already. by 'installer-magic' . Configure apt to use your pref. mirror and anything additional to this starter-kit-linux is now just apt-get install away. (If you don't intend to keep it slim use dselect ;) I'd say *this* saves bandwidth just to give some ideas pascal Ps: perfekt way to jump right to testing as well
Re: Debian Issues!!
This was posted earlier in the week: http://www.linuxiso.org/debian.html Don't forget to donate to the cause if you find yourself liking Debian (and you will). Good luck! -- Mark Wagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Debian Issues!!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 05:25:16PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: | on Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 03:51:14PM -0700, Jaimos F. Skriletz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: | > (I didn't want to wait for the CD or purchase one since I have no cash | > to spare) | | False economies at best. You can purchase the 3-disk set from a number | of sources, I picked up a set from LinuxCentral | (http://www.linuxcentral.com/), cost is about $9, postage included, | delivery within a few days. This would be the time it took you to | browse through the FAQs. Strongly recommended, particularly if you | don't have a high-bandwidth connection. | | > to begin this project, but little to my knowledge, I have spent the | > last three days reading though your FAQ's, readme files, etc trying to | > figure out how to get the image which should be a simple afair, yet | > failing miserabbaly and I have the following comments/complaints I | > hope you will at least consider about your system. | | The docs could be better organized. However, this list is populated | with folks who've been through most of the pains themselves, strongly | recommended you ask first. We're usually pretty helpful, or so I hear. Yeah, just look at all the responses you've gotten already (and no flames :-)). | > First I will like to say that your meathod is intivative and I | > understand your issues of wanting to save banwith, also after thinking | > about your meathod of using the .list file to direct what pacakages | > will be installed on the machince, I see that for a knowledgable | > Debian user it could be advantage to spelizise that list to get the | > maximum performace out of your operating system which is the final | > goal of most devout users in my opion, but now on to my problems | | Huh? | | > My complaints are as follows, first off, the process of getting the | > pseudo-image and onward is not 'straight-forward' or 'easy' but I'm up | > for the challange so I read though the files and followed the | > directions to the T, and yet it still didn't work. | | I've heard from several users, of varying levels of experience, | including seasoned GNU/Linux experts, who've utterly failed to negotiate | the pseudo-image install. I'd strongly discourage it based on this. | Anyone with other input please step forward. I made my (potato) cds at work (not a bad connection, though RoadRunner doesn't compare to T3) on a Win2k (or was it NT at the time?) box. I use cygwin a lot on it. I found the instructions a bit confusing at first, but I managed to get it to work. I went through the psuedo-image process for about 1.5 of the cds, then I just went directly with rsync. The thing they "forget" to tell you in the docs is that you can use rsync even if one of the files doesn't exist. (Hint : get the rsync path for the ISOs from the end of the instructions and just use 'rsync ') It is sort of cheating, from the "conserve bandwidth" perspective but it works. BTW, I had already used RH (6.1 and 7.0) for about a year and had installed Debian via network (T3) before I moved home. At work, on windows, I use cygwin for nearly everything. After that I had to wipe my disk to check it for errors (long story, its in the archives around March) so I needed to get cds to re-install (I wasn't about to try a network install over a dial-up modem connection, especially when I didn't even know how to configure the modem at the time). It would be nice if someone provided a simple mechanism for non-Unix gurus to obtain ISOs, but since I don't have a decent connection I can't provide it. -D
Re: Debian Issues!!
You can get a debian image at: http://www.linuxiso.org/ I also installed debian (hamm) as my first linux/unix experience. Took me 3 months to get everything working. Loved every minute of it. John -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Using [Debian] Linux _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ pgpz15iRlIPy0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Issues!!
on Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 03:51:14PM -0700, Jaimos F. Skriletz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > To whom it may concern, > > Hello, I'm tradionally a Window's 98 OS user and am currently in the Spell checking on long rants is strongly recommended. > project of teaching myself linux and wanting to learn how to use its > operating system. After talking to some of my friends who are devout > linux users, I have recived advice that Debian is one of the best > issues of linux to use, so I have decided that I will follow their > advice and install Debian on my old computer and begin learning how to > use it. Debian is generally not considered the *easiest* distro to install and/or get started with. It's generally one of the more *maintainable* distros. After your first few months of agony, maintenance is the main issue facing sysadmins. > My current computer I'm using is a newer P3, and has a CD-burner on it > so I decided to goto Debian's homepage and try to download the iso > image in order to burn myself a copy of the Debian instalitation disc > so I can install the operating system upon my computer Not necessary, and almost certainly not preferable. Debian's installation can be accomplished by a number of means, docs start at: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/#new-inst And, specifically, for x86 installations: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/install In particular, "there's more than one way to do it", you'll want to read section 5, "Methods for Installing Debian": http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/install/ch-install-methods.en.html This contains, among other things, pointers to various floppy installation images, or, in section 6.4, instructions for installing from CDROM. > (I didn't want to wait for the CD or purchase one since I have no cash > to spare) False economies at best. You can purchase the 3-disk set from a number of sources, I picked up a set from LinuxCentral (http://www.linuxcentral.com/), cost is about $9, postage included, delivery within a few days. This would be the time it took you to browse through the FAQs. Strongly recommended, particularly if you don't have a high-bandwidth connection. > to begin this project, but little to my knowledge, I have spent the > last three days reading though your FAQ's, readme files, etc trying to > figure out how to get the image which should be a simple afair, yet > failing miserabbaly and I have the following comments/complaints I > hope you will at least consider about your system. The docs could be better organized. However, this list is populated with folks who've been through most of the pains themselves, strongly recommended you ask first. We're usually pretty helpful, or so I hear. > First I will like to say that your meathod is intivative and I > understand your issues of wanting to save banwith, also after thinking > about your meathod of using the .list file to direct what pacakages > will be installed on the machince, I see that for a knowledgable > Debian user it could be advantage to spelizise that list to get the > maximum performace out of your operating system which is the final > goal of most devout users in my opion, but now on to my problems Huh? > My complaints are as follows, first off, the process of getting the > pseudo-image and onward is not 'straight-forward' or 'easy' but I'm up > for the challange so I read though the files and followed the > directions to the T, and yet it still didn't work. I've heard from several users, of varying levels of experience, including seasoned GNU/Linux experts, who've utterly failed to negotiate the pseudo-image install. I'd strongly discourage it based on this. Anyone with other input please step forward. > I encounterd the following problems. The first and main problem is > that your interface for the make-pseudo-image file tells the user > nothing that would be of any use. All it says is that the program is > 'Getting...' and my dos-prompt flashes from sleep-bash and back and > forth so I get the sense its doing something. I think you should add > a feture that not only tells you what percentage of the pseudo-image > you have finsihed, but also tells you how fast your current transfer > rate to the ftp server is so you can decide if your on a good one or > not. After waiting though four hours of 'Getting...' the program > finaly crashed, Sh had an illegal operation error. So I shut it down > and tried to restart, as soon as it gets to 'Getting...' Sh crashed > again and again and again and again. Valid criticisms. > After that I decided to start over from scratch and redownload > everything, including the orignial zip file for the pseudo-image-make > program from a differnt sight thinking maby there was a croupted file. > Now I can't even start the 'Getting...' process with out Sh crashing, > and I have tried at least 4 differen't ftp sights for the pseudo-image > zip file and 6 differnt sights to connect to, to get
RE: Debian Issues!!
Or better yet, an an online script that takes care of the whole process for you! Or at least some of it, well maybe a little bit. ok, well, I'll just go read the Howto files a dozen more times. :) ~Israel~ -Original Message- From: Ben Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:19 PM To: Jaimos F. Skriletz Cc: debian-cd@lists.debian.org; debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Debian Issues!! On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 03:51:14PM -0700, Jaimos F. Skriletz wrote: > cash to spare) to begin this project, but little to my knowledge, I have > spent the last three days reading though your FAQ's, readme files, etc > trying to figure out how to get the image which should be a simple afair, > yet failing miserabbaly and I have the following comments/complaints I hope > you will at least consider about your system. I agree with you on this one. The maze of questions that you are forced to go through on the cdimage website is a royal pain in the ass. Now I can understand that some people may need to be guided, but some people just know they want the ISO, and don't care about trying to answer the questions in such a way as to actually find out how to do that. Maybe enough complaints will get this taken care of. I know that when I call a company and get one of those "Push #1 for ", I really like getting the option that just says "Press 0 to speak with a real person". This is what we need for the cdimages, a direct link to the ISO's. Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Issues!!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 03:51:14PM -0700, Jaimos F. Skriletz wrote: > cash to spare) to begin this project, but little to my knowledge, I have > spent the last three days reading though your FAQ's, readme files, etc > trying to figure out how to get the image which should be a simple afair, > yet failing miserabbaly and I have the following comments/complaints I hope > you will at least consider about your system. I agree with you on this one. The maze of questions that you are forced to go through on the cdimage website is a royal pain in the ass. Now I can understand that some people may need to be guided, but some people just know they want the ISO, and don't care about trying to answer the questions in such a way as to actually find out how to do that. Maybe enough complaints will get this taken care of. I know that when I call a company and get one of those "Push #1 for ", I really like getting the option that just says "Press 0 to speak with a real person". This is what we need for the cdimages, a direct link to the ISO's. Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
RE: Debian Issues!!
Hello, I'm involved in the same process as you at the moment. Maybe my experience with this will help you, maybe not. I've just successfully created the .iso image. and it did seem strange at first, but I finally got everything to work. It may be that your connection is wacky and that might be causing your frustrations. I'm not terribly proficient with bashes or shells of any sort. I'm a Mac refuge living in the Windows world and an artist to boot! The first step was getting the addresses to the two servers. The first was the package server, the second was the Image server. I found it useful to track down the exact location of the files i wanted in the web browser before entering them into the dos shell. I used, ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ for the package server and I tell you! What a connection! I downloaded the entire dist in just over 3 hours. I was of course doing this at work with a lovely t1. for the image server I had to find a rather nasty long address like; rsync.kernel.org::pub/mirrors/debian-cd/2.2_rev3/i386/binary-i396-1.iso . After getting these two straight I didn't seem to have any problems. I bet your connection might be a problem. If you get stuck on Getting. You might want to try using a different mirror to download from. I don't know how helpfull this is, but I hope it helps. Maybe someone who know a scrap about this crazy linux stuff will have more info. ~Israel~
Debian Issues!!
To whom it may concern, Hello, I'm tradionally a Window's 98 OS user and am currently in the project of teaching myself linux and wanting to learn how to use its operating system. After talking to some of my friends who are devout linux users, I have recived advice that Debian is one of the best issues of linux to use, so I have decided that I will follow their advice and install Debian on my old computer and begin learning how to use it. My current computer I'm using is a newer P3, and has a CD-burner on it so I decided to goto Debian's homepage and try to download the iso image in order to burn myself a copy of the Debian instalitation disc so I can install the operating system upon my computer(I didn't want to wait for the CD or purchase one since I have no cash to spare) to begin this project, but little to my knowledge, I have spent the last three days reading though your FAQ's, readme files, etc trying to figure out how to get the image which should be a simple afair, yet failing miserabbaly and I have the following comments/complaints I hope you will at least consider about your system. First I will like to say that your meathod is intivative and I understand your issues of wanting to save banwith, also after thinking about your meathod of using the .list file to direct what pacakages will be installed on the machince, I see that for a knowledgable Debian user it could be advantage to spelizise that list to get the maximum performace out of your operating system which is the final goal of most devout users in my opion, but now on to my problems My complaints are as follows, first off, the process of getting the pseudo-image and onward is not 'straight-forward' or 'easy' but I'm up for the challange so I read though the files and followed the directions to the T, and yet it still didn't work. I encounterd the following problems. The first and main problem is that your interface for the make-pseudo-image file tells the user nothing that would be of any use. All it says is that the program is 'Getting...' and my dos-prompt flashes from sleep-bash and back and forth so I get the sense its doing something. I think you should add a feture that not only tells you what percentage of the pseudo-image you have finsihed, but also tells you how fast your current transfer rate to the ftp server is so you can decide if your on a good one or not. After waiting though four hours of 'Getting...' the program finaly crashed, Sh had an illegal operation error. So I shut it down and tried to restart, as soon as it gets to 'Getting...' Sh crashed again and again and again and again. After that I decided to start over from scratch and redownload everything, including the orignial zip file for the pseudo-image-make program from a differnt sight thinking maby there was a croupted file. Now I can't even start the 'Getting...' process with out Sh crashing, and I have tried at least 4 differen't ftp sights for the pseudo-image zip file and 6 differnt sights to connect to, to get the pseudo image. So I have wasted the last three days trying to get the iso image file for your instalitation CD. All I ask is that you consider this, and maby think of a way to make the meathod of getting the iso image easier for non linux users, also I would like it if someone would send me a ftp sight I can just download the iso image, because I really don't want to go though all this process of trying to create one, it just isn't workin. Thanks for your time and I hope one day to see Debian at work so I can begin to understand why I've been told its so great, for my opinion of now is not that high, Jaimos F. Skriletz ___ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
Re: esound, lesstif, debian issues
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 05:06:48PM +0100, Lepus wrote: > Hi. > > First of all, it is quite interesting that I didn't get a single reply on > my question about the esound dependency problems. Am I he only one who > would like to use Gnome and Alsa at the same time under Potato? :) > Well, anyway. What was the problem? Right now, I'm doing some research to put together a sound program for linux, and I was under the impression that a program written for OSS/Free would work with Alsa. Since esound is written for OSS as far as I know, I would think that it works under Alsa. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. It would mean that I have to do some more reading. Actually, after I wrote this, I find that I am wrong. Esound is written using the Alsa API, too. So you should definitely be able to use it with Alsa. Reading the source sometimes helps. :-P But correct me if I'm wrong about a program written for OSS being able to run on Alsa. I can't imagine that the Alsa people would break all the other sound apps and still have a user base. Cheers, Chris Gray -- pick, pack, pock, puck: like drops of water in a fountain falling softly in the brimming bowl.
Re:Re: esound, lesstif, debian issues
Hello. > I didn't see your original post, however I've used the ALSA > sound drivers and Gnome no problem. Just a bit fiddly getting the driver > configure to work. Don't know about your Fractint and motif problem though > - sorry. Well, the problem isn't running or configuring the driver - ALSA and esound work pretty fine. But I cannot install Gnome, because many packages depend on esound0, and I have esound-alsa0 installed. The weird thing is, that esound-alsa0 provides esound0, but still, this doesn't seem to bother these "defective" packages. Is it a dpkg bug, or can something be wrong with the available packages file? And does anyone have an idea how I could overcome this problem? Daniel Szabo
esound, lesstif, debian issues
Hi. First of all, it is quite interesting that I didn't get a single reply on my question about the esound dependency problems. Am I he only one who would like to use Gnome and Alsa at the same time under Potato? :) Well, anyway. The other thing... I downloaded the "Fractint for motif" (Xmfract) software in source code. It is not a Linux program, but one written for generic Unix systems with Motif. I compiled it with the Lesstif libraries, everything went fine until I started the installed binary from X. It was S.L.O.W. in the "Winblows 98 on a 386 with 4 Megs RAM" kind of meaning of the word (not the fractal generation, but when I open a new options window, or do something window-manager related), and complained constantly about not being able to allocate colors. I thought this more than weird, as I was using 32 bit colors... ;) And lo, it really couldnt allocate color maps, all the fractals came out as variations for "deep blue lines on a big black background". It does work normally under mwm with 8 bit colors, but it is still slow, and the positioning inside windows seems a bit "warped", like texts covering each other and so on. Is this because Lesstif is still not 100% compatible with the real thing, or could the problem lie somewhere else (like a version bug or something)? And about Debian... Well, I don't say it is the best Linux out there, but I like it the most. ;) Mainly because it is simple, and can easily be kept in hand. I get the cold shivers from those "user-friendly" Linuxes like Caldera or SUSE... They are very user-friendly until you actually try to use them. :) By installing and configuring Debian stone-by-stone, you get to know your system inside-out. I was a complete M$-addict until a year ago, and all my experiments with various Linuxes (RedHat, SUSE) were total failures. But by installing a working debian system, I sort of learned the necessary things in-flight. Daniel Szabo
Re: Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
As a student and an employee at the UW, it seems to me very unlikely that Pine will even be actively developed in the near future, considering the generally antagonistic attitude of the administrators (PHB's, so to speak) towards anything non-Microsoft, and more and more of the students, faculty, and staff use GUI mailers over IMAP or POP3 anyway. As it is now, if you try to teach someone new to the UW to use a text-based program like pine, they recoil in terror. In a couple of years, any interest the UW has in maintaining pine will purely academic (no pun intended). What will happen when they decide to stop wasting their time? Since the license absolutely precludes anyone from taking over development, for all intents and purposes, Pine is already dead. -Brad On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:01:12PM -0700, Terry Gray wrote: > > > I hope the above comments help clarify UW's position. I reiterate our > > willingness to work with the Debian community toward a constructive > > solution. (But kvetching about the UW license terms isn't constructive.) > > The world, like software, is a dynamic thing. Conditions change over time. > Pine's license is a technical, legal document, an artifact of a brief > period in time; the DFSG, like any statement of principles, is meant to be > general and broadly applicable. It shackles no one to any particular > software license. I've given frank, constructive suggestions about ways UW > can work with Debian short of changing the license. I also think, > however, that the only way to radically improve Pine's visibility in Debian > is to change its license to one that is DFSG-compliant.
Re: Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:01:12PM -0700, Terry Gray wrote: > On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Bruce Sass wrote: > > 2. The above requirement places Pine in non-free, rather than main, > > which means Pine could not be put onto Debian CD's. The only fix for > > this is a licensing change; for Pine to modify their license, or for > > Debian to change the DFSG. > > I'm not clear on what the "above requirement" refers to. Does this mean, > for example, that if UW provided a Debian-ready binary for redistribution, > it would not be considered eligible for inclusion on Debian CD's? > I consider this to be a very important question. The "above requirement" is the Pine license, specifically the part about distribution of modified binaries. Pine's license is the sufficient condition that prevents it from going into the main distribution (thus being official Debian software), and therefore from being distributed on official Debian CD's or CD images. Individual CD vendors are free to make Debian CD's (if they don't mark or advertise them as "official") that contain Pine .debs, or anything else from the non-free distribution; but they have to read the licenses for each of those pieces of software and decide whether or not they will be violating them. If UW would like to see Pine .debs widely disseminated, it can: 1) change Pine's license to be compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines 2) contact popular Debian CD vendors and give them explicit permission to distribute modified binaries (.debs) of Pine, effectively giving them a special license that differs from the standard UW one Solution 2) still won't get Pine onto Official Debian CD's, but since Mohammed cannot go to the mountain with respect to the license, it may be the next best thing. I might add that since Pine is justly regarded as a good mailer for beginning users, it would be completely appropriate software for some kind of derivative Linux distribution based on Debian. Such a distribution wouldn't be official Debian, anyway. Debian has long encouraged people to base distributions with narrow focus on ours, and we do not insist that such derivatives adopt the DFSG. While I am certain that this has been brought to your attention before, let me remind UW that many, many licenses meet the DFSG and are thus permitted into Debian's main distribution. It's not just the MIT-style license, which pretty much does mean abandoning all control of the software, or the GPL, which is regarded by many as politically unsavory. The LGPL, and the Artistic license (used by Perl) are also DFSG-free software. To my knowledge, there has never been a significant fork of Perl that wasn't initiated by the Lords of Perl themselves (Wall, Christiansen, et al.). The only prominent forks in DFSG-free software I can think of are GNU Emacs/XEmacs and gcc/egcs. Those happened more for political reasons than technical ones. I'm sure I'm just banging my head against the wall, but since the Open Source Definition is practically identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, UW could get good press by freeing/opening the source to Pine and its related tools. Because people *might* fork Pine doesn't mean they will. In my opinion, there are two groups who would have motivation to do such a thing; 1) some company or other who wanted to Borg it, or 2) a bunch of hackers who use it and are desperate for functionality that it currently lacks (or who think it has really intolerable bugs). I think 1) is unlikely because UW can always license Pine in such a way (and still be DFSG-compliant) that prevents people from closing off their modified source and gouging the price; indeed, this is a big point of the GNU GPL. I think 2) is unlikely because, frankly, a lot of the more technical types who crave esoteric features, especially in Debian, don't use Pine. The adherents of the church of Emacs wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole (they won't use anything that isn't written in elisp), and just about everyone else is sold on mutt. I suggest a fresh cost-benefit analysis of changing the Pine (and Pico, and Pilot, etc.) license to a DFSG (equivalently, Open Source) one. There is much more good press to be had than there was even a year ago, and we all know Pine itself is much older than that. > I hope the above comments help clarify UW's position. I reiterate our > willingness to work with the Debian community toward a constructive > solution. (But kvetching about the UW license terms isn't constructive.) The world, like software, is a dynamic thing. Conditions change over time. Pine's license is a technical, legal document, an artifact of a brief period in time; the DFSG, like any statement of principles, is meant to be general and broadly applicable. It shackles no one to any particular software license. I've given frank, constructive suggestions about ways UW can work with Debian short of changing the license. I also think, however, that the only way t
Re: Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Terry Gray wrote: > The possibility of UW releasing a version of Pine specifically for Debian > Linux is not out of the question, I think a possible solution for this "problem" is that UW itself distributes pine in .deb format. Would you willing to do this? > but it is also not entirely trivial > since our folks don't completely agree with your folks on the best way to > configure mail software. Making a mail reader to be setgid-mail is part of the Debian policy, which is available online: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy Chapter 5.5, Mail transport agents. BTW: I have yet to find the time to implement the maillock and mailunlock functions properly. > > Pine changes the license > > Don't hold your breath :) > > > (why are patches ok, but the executables generated from them not ok?); > > [...] > > One difference between sharing patch files vs. redistributing the > resulting binaries is that the ultimate user or site administrator will > tend to be more conscious of what is "standard Pine" vs. "modified Pine" > if they go through the process of applying patches themselves. I think something must be said here about the word "standard". "Standard pine" looks for configuration files in /usr/lib. This is non-standard in Linux (according to the Linux FSSTND standard, or the most recent FHS standard). So, paradoxically, installing the so-called "standard pine" in a Linux system makes the system to be non-standard, since not every configuration file is found in /etc. Since a Debian user wants a version of pine which follows Linux and Debian standards, a Debian pine user is not interested at all in the "standard pine" the UW distributes. The end result: A Debian pine user will compile pine from the patches Debian distributes, regardless of it being also available in .deb format or not. I think this is a waste of time for everybody, and I still fail to understand why sharing patches is allowed but redistributing the resulting binaries is not. > Perhaps > the more fundamental point is that without the requirement to get > permission before redistributing modified binaries, UW essentially gives > up all claim of change control. I take your question to imply that our > position would be more "consistent" if we required everyone under all > circumstances to ask permission before they could modify Pine in any way, > but that isn't where we wanted to be on the change control continuum. But the end result is the same. If the source is available, people will change it. Allowing patches but not allowing modified binaries is just making life difficult to everybody. > Again, we want to enable end-users and site administrators to make changes > necessary for their environment without any hassle about permissions... > while at the same time retaining some modicum of change control over Pine > as it flows throughout cyberspace. (Some people consider this desire to > be unreasonable; we do not.) > > > Debian gets a Pine maintainer that is willing to get explicit > > permission everytime Pine is recompiled for Debian (Pine releases, > > Debian releases, bug fixes, and security fixes). > > Not quite. No one ever said that explicit permission would be required > "everytime Pine is recompiled...". For example, it is entirely reasonable > and feasible to work out an agreement whereby an approved set of > modifications can continue to be applied and redistributed against > successive versions of Debian Linux without multiple approvals. No one > has asked to do this so far, but I see no philosophical nor legal barrier > (with the usual caveat that I'm not a lawyer, and proud of it :) > > > 2. The above requirement places Pine in non-free, rather than main, > > which means Pine could not be put onto Debian CD's. The only fix for > > this is a licensing change; for Pine to modify their license, or for > > Debian to change the DFSG. > > I'm not clear on what the "above requirement" refers to. Does this mean, > for example, that if UW provided a Debian-ready binary for redistribution, > it would not be considered eligible for inclusion on Debian CDs? Exactly. Whatever is included on Debian CDs have to be free by the Debian definition of free (which is contained in the Debian Free Software Guidelines). To quote some points: 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software b
Re: Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
Thanks Bruce; I appreciate your note. -teg On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Bruce Sass wrote: > Terry, > > Sorry if I misrepresented your position, > "broke off" does carry too much connotative baggage. > > > - Bruce > >
Re: Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
Terry, Sorry if I misrepresented your position, "broke off" does carry too much connotative baggage. - Bruce -- On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Terry Gray wrote: > Bruce, > I would have been much happier with phrasing such as "has not yet > responded" rather than the much more pejorative "broke off > communications"... Sigh. Whatever.
Re: Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Terry Gray wrote: [snip] > One difference between sharing patch files vs. redistributing the > resulting binaries is that the ultimate user or site administrator will > tend to be more conscious of what is "standard Pine" vs. "modified Pine" > if they go through the process of applying patches themselves. Perhaps > the more fundamental point is that without the requirement to get > permission before redistributing modified binaries, UW essentially gives > up all claim of change control. I take your question to imply that our > position would be more "consistent" if we required everyone under all > circumstances to ask permission before they could modify Pine in any way, > but that isn't where we wanted to be on the change control continuum. > Again, we want to enable end-users and site administrators to make changes > necessary for their environment without any hassle about permissions... > while at the same time retaining some modicum of change control over Pine > as it flows throughout cyberspace. (Some people consider this desire to > be unreasonable; we do not.) You are, of course, free to do this. However, because of this policy, I have suggested that our local users switch to mutt, which is a suitable alternative that does not require our administrators to recompile every update themselves. It is your choice as to whether you want Debian to ship your program. I would suggest that you release a version that complies with the DFSG, but I am confident that "free" alternatives such as mutt will prove to be satisfactory in either case. Thanks. Syrus. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Syrus Nemat-Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>UCSD Physics Dept.
Re: Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
Bruce, I would have been much happier with phrasing such as "has not yet responded" rather than the much more pejorative "broke off communications"... Sigh. Whatever. Brock, we actually had been having discussions on this topic, and were working on a reply to you. I apologize for the delay in responding. However, at this point, I'll simply add some comments to Bruce's message below... On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Bruce Sass wrote: > There are three issues with pine > (in order of importance to Debian, imo): > > 1. Pine does not allow redistribution of modified binaries without > explicit permission to do so. There are three fixes: Pine provides > executables that do not require tweaking by Debian, then takes on the > job of a Debian maintainer; The possibility of UW releasing a version of Pine specifically for Debian Linux is not out of the question, but it is also not entirely trivial since our folks don't completely agree with your folks on the best way to configure mail software. But as I've said before, we're open to trying to identify a minimum set of changes needed for Pine to run on Debian for possible incorporation in the Pine distribution. > Pine changes the license Don't hold your breath :) > (why are patches ok, but the executables generated from them not ok?); I'll try to explain. When the owner of any software chooses to make source code available, they have to make some decisions on change control. There is a spectrum of possibilities ranging from "nobody can do anything without explicit permission" to "anybody can do anything without asking". I understand the tradeoffs of various points on this spectrum and don't wish to get into a religious debate about so-called "free" software. Suffice it to say that, for the Pine project, UW chose a mid-point on the spectrum. We take a great deal of pride in Pine and it reflects directly on us, so we are very much interested in retaining change control; on the other hand, we wanted individuals and site administrators to be able to adapt Pine to their specific local environment without hassle. So the mid-point compromise is to say "feel free to make local mods, appropriately marked, but please don't redistribute modified binaries without asking." One difference between sharing patch files vs. redistributing the resulting binaries is that the ultimate user or site administrator will tend to be more conscious of what is "standard Pine" vs. "modified Pine" if they go through the process of applying patches themselves. Perhaps the more fundamental point is that without the requirement to get permission before redistributing modified binaries, UW essentially gives up all claim of change control. I take your question to imply that our position would be more "consistent" if we required everyone under all circumstances to ask permission before they could modify Pine in any way, but that isn't where we wanted to be on the change control continuum. Again, we want to enable end-users and site administrators to make changes necessary for their environment without any hassle about permissions... while at the same time retaining some modicum of change control over Pine as it flows throughout cyberspace. (Some people consider this desire to be unreasonable; we do not.) > Debian gets a Pine maintainer that is willing to get explicit > permission everytime Pine is recompiled for Debian (Pine releases, > Debian releases, bug fixes, and security fixes). Not quite. No one ever said that explicit permission would be required "everytime Pine is recompiled...". For example, it is entirely reasonable and feasible to work out an agreement whereby an approved set of modifications can continue to be applied and redistributed against successive versions of Debian Linux without multiple approvals. No one has asked to do this so far, but I see no philosophical nor legal barrier (with the usual caveat that I'm not a lawyer, and proud of it :) > 2. The above requirement places Pine in non-free, rather than main, > which means Pine could not be put onto Debian CD's. The only fix for > this is a licensing change; for Pine to modify their license, or for > Debian to change the DFSG. I'm not clear on what the "above requirement" refers to. Does this mean, for example, that if UW provided a Debian-ready binary for redistribution, it would not be considered eligible for inclusion on Debian CDs? I consider this to be a very important question. > 3. The technical considerations, which Pine is working on and will > result in making life a little easier for the Debian maintainer, but > which also have no bearing on Debian being able to redistribute Pine > executables. > > I contacted UW, then Debian, then tried to get the two communicating; > to the extent of offering possible solutions to the impasse. At the > point were UW should have responded (yea, nay, or how about this > solution instead), Terry broke off communication... ^^^
Re: Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
There are three issues with pine (in order of importance to Debian, imo): 1. Pine does not allow redistribution of modified binaries without explicit permission to do so. There are three fixes: Pine provides executables that do not require tweaking by Debian, then takes on the job of a Debian maintainer; Pine changes the license (why are patches ok, but the executables generated from them not ok?); Debian gets a Pine maintainer that is willing to get explicit permission everytime Pine is recompiled for Debian (Pine releases, Debian releases, bug fixes, and security fixes). 2. The above requirement places Pine in non-free, rather than main, which means Pine could not be put onto Debian CD's. The only fix for this is a licensing change; for Pine to modify their license, or for Debian to change the DFSG. 3. The technical considerations, which Pine is working on and will result in making life a little easier for the Debian maintainer, but which also have no bearing on Debian being able to redistribute Pine executables. I contacted UW, then Debian, then tried to get the two communicating; to the extent of offering possible solutions to the impasse. At the point were UW should have responded (yea, nay, or how about this solution instead), Terry broke off communication... and gave Paul permission to redistribute the latest version of Pine that Santiago had Debianized (the same version they would not look at earlier because they had been there, done that, and nothing came of it). So, UW's solution is to let a third party distribute Pine executables for Debian... which is fine, except that Debian users have to hunt around for a Pine executable, and there is no guarantee that fixes will get incorporated into the Debianized Pine in a timely manner. - Bruce - On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Brock Rozen wrote: > ** NOTE: The Pine developers wanted to give me a new message to quote/post > publicly -- after waiting for a month for this message, and having > requested it numerous times, I've decided to go through anyhow ** > > Hi, > > I've been in touch with the Pine developers at U Washington (U Dub) > recently, and it seems they're willing to put in some effort to allow Pine > to run on Debian Linux out-of-the-box. What they're not willing to do is > implement wider changes, but simply the minimum necessary to get it to > run. > > While some might say, "Well, we'll need to distribute changes to the > source like we do now anyhow." (which is correct) -- it at least means > that there's less to do whenever a new Pine is released and that people > aren't reliant upon the Debian people to release an upgraded version, but > rather they can compile it themselves. > > Comments? Thoughts? > > -- > Brock Rozen [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Director of Technical Services (410)358-9800 > Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/ > > > -- Forwarded message -- > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:53:21 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) > From: Terry Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Pine Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Change of Pine folder methods in 4.10 -- PROBLEM > > Brock, > We are attempting to work something out with a fellow who claims to be the > Pine maintainer for Debian... but so far his only intent has been to try > to get UW to give up change control on redistributed copies of Pine, so I > don't know whether he is actually interested in trying to solve the > problem. > > Certainly we are... indeed one of the options I outlined that keeps > getting ignored is to work with us to try to identify the *minimum* set of > changes needed to run on Debian for possible inclusion in our > distribution. > > As Mike said, this probably won't happen in the very short term, but we > really are interested in trying to make Pine more readily available to the > Debian community, even in spite of the presumptuous demands to change our > licensing policies we keep getting from certain parts of it. > > -teg > > On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Brock Rozen wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Michael Seibel wrote: > > > > > > Another question, while I've got you on the line. ;-) Is there any plans > > > > on incorporating a Debian Linux port into the main release? I know that > > > > the main release doesn't compile perfectly. If you want, I can put you > > > > in > > > > touch with the Debian Linux maintainer of Pine. > > > > > > Probably not in the short term. We reviewed their diffs quite awhile back > > > after they asked to be able to redistribute, and while there's nothing of > > > immeditate technical difficulty, we're not prepared to support or directly > > > recommend the setgid environment they chose for email client use. > > > > Hmmm...it does leave a sticky situation for Debian users. There's no > > possibility of including their changes only for a build that done > > s
Discussion with Pine developers & Debian Issues
** NOTE: The Pine developers wanted to give me a new message to quote/post publicly -- after waiting for a month for this message, and having requested it numerous times, I've decided to go through anyhow ** Hi, I've been in touch with the Pine developers at U Washington (U Dub) recently, and it seems they're willing to put in some effort to allow Pine to run on Debian Linux out-of-the-box. What they're not willing to do is implement wider changes, but simply the minimum necessary to get it to run. While some might say, "Well, we'll need to distribute changes to the source like we do now anyhow." (which is correct) -- it at least means that there's less to do whenever a new Pine is released and that people aren't reliant upon the Debian people to release an upgraded version, but rather they can compile it themselves. Comments? Thoughts? -- Brock Rozen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director of Technical Services (410)358-9800 Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/ -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:53:21 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Terry Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Pine Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Change of Pine folder methods in 4.10 -- PROBLEM Brock, We are attempting to work something out with a fellow who claims to be the Pine maintainer for Debian... but so far his only intent has been to try to get UW to give up change control on redistributed copies of Pine, so I don't know whether he is actually interested in trying to solve the problem. Certainly we are... indeed one of the options I outlined that keeps getting ignored is to work with us to try to identify the *minimum* set of changes needed to run on Debian for possible inclusion in our distribution. As Mike said, this probably won't happen in the very short term, but we really are interested in trying to make Pine more readily available to the Debian community, even in spite of the presumptuous demands to change our licensing policies we keep getting from certain parts of it. -teg On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Brock Rozen wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Michael Seibel wrote: > > > > Another question, while I've got you on the line. ;-) Is there any plans > > > on incorporating a Debian Linux port into the main release? I know that > > > the main release doesn't compile perfectly. If you want, I can put you in > > > touch with the Debian Linux maintainer of Pine. > > > > Probably not in the short term. We reviewed their diffs quite awhile back > > after they asked to be able to redistribute, and while there's nothing of > > immeditate technical difficulty, we're not prepared to support or directly > > recommend the setgid environment they chose for email client use. > > Hmmm...it does leave a sticky situation for Debian users. There's no > possibility of including their changes only for a build that done > specifically for Debian? What about a possible change of license that > allows them to redistribute (with permission) a modified version only to > make it work. Right now, for instance, I can't compile the > released-sources on a Debian system. > > Thanks, > >
