Christian Perrier a écrit:
Quoting Denis Barbier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
N'étant pas libre le 16, je préfère le 15.
Pour ma part, je n'étais là ni l'un ni l'autre...:-)
Va falloir faire une keysigning spéciale DD qui peuvent pas même en
fin d'aprème pasqu'ils doivent rentrer à la maison pour
Quoting Nicolas SABOURET ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Je m'inscris ! :-)
C'est vrai que nous sommes une catégorie de DD un peu contraignante,
mais je suis certain qu'en s'y prenant suffisemment à l'avance (par
exemple : 3 ans, comme pour les releases Debian (pardon pour ce troll à
2 balles)), on
Bonjour,
les discussions de ce week-end sur debconf ont été intéressantes, mais
noyées dans un flot d'insultes (étonnant, non ?). Je me permets d'en
fournir un résumé, mais je ne prétends pas avoir tout compris, donc
n'hésitez pas à rectifier.
Les responsables de paquets font deux erreurs
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:12:56AM +0200, Bastiaan Naber wrote:
I have updated my unstable box but my address auto completion does
not work anymore in mozilla. Can anyone reproduce this ? It is
annoying me as hell.
It seems that a deeper problem -- that of history information not
being saved
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:36 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:25:39PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
We don't care what the author wants, we have the legal right to
change what we like is not a good message to send. Even if you don't
Thankfully, Debian isn't sending this
On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 00:53, Martin Pool wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:36 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:25:39PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
We don't care what the author wants, we have the legal right to
change what we like is not a good message to send. Even if
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 02:53:38PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
Debian should not stomp all over the author's intentions if it is
reasonably avoidable. The alternatives do not seem to have been
adequately explored.
You're forgetting that we don't really know what Reiser's intentions
are. His
I say it ought to be obvious, because Hans put the message in there
intending it to be prominent, rather than (say) putting it in a doc
file. It is reasonable to assume that he cared about putting this
message in front of everyone who used it. If you can't understand why
removing it would annoy
On 22 Apr 2003, Michael Tindal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Authors have a moral right (and a legal one in some places) not to
have their work mutilated.
I do not consider removing 20-something lines of output from a
program whose purpose is to create a filesystem mutilating it. By
On Saturday 19 April 2003 20:32, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
b) The licensing information certainly ist misleading: The first line says
GPL 2, period. Then there's lengthy information for assigning copyright
of patches. After that, there is that funny nothing ... shall be
interpreted to
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 02:53:38PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:36 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:25:39PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
We don't care what the author wants, we have the legal right to
change what we like is not a good message to
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
Package: libgtkdatabox
Version: 1:0.2.3.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build on release candidate arch.
Tags: sid
libgtkdatabox fails to build from source on m68k.
Here are selected excerpts from the buildd log.
| Automatic
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 01:19:17AM -0400, Michael Tindal wrote:
I do not understand your accusations here. No one stated what you said,
and no one has delibaretly attempted to upset Hans. Quite the contrary,
actually. I have seen _several_ people attempting to find a compromise,
Indeed. I
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps the most important part of the build log shoulc be quoted as well:
Or not.
The following central src deps are (probably) missing:
libglib1.2-dev (= 1.2.0), libgtk1.2-dev (= 1.2.10-4)
Which is just that the central src deps are out of
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:16:08 -0500, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Don Armstrong writes:
I (apparently incorrectly) presumed that debconf was also intended to
allow for the eventual automation of replicated Debian installations.
I distinctly remember reading exactly that.
And I have
I guess if Reiser doesn't want an fsck/mkreiserfs without
his beloved credits message, it's time to dump reiserfs from Debian and
switch to ext3/XFS/whatever.
Please don't. I'm running reiserfs on most of my home system's disks and have
been *very* happy with it (..and don't even have the
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, James Troup wrote:
Which is just that the central src deps are out of date and happens on
all architectures. It says (probably) for a reason; the central
source deps are always guess work even when they're up-to-date.
Thanks for the clarification.
Checking for already
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 01:04:56AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
You can assert a moral right to control how your work is used, or you
can write Free Software. You don't get to do both at once. If Hans
wants to assert his moral rights, we will certainly respect that; as
I've said, many Debian
URL:http://developer.skolelinux.no/info/cdbygging/distdiff-all.html.gz
Statistics from update_excuses.html generated 2003.04.21 23:32:16 +.
- 2274 packages total.
- 2269 packages with differences.
- 1106 valid packages.
- 365 buggy packages.
- 1634 packages over age.
- 570
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 03:53:17PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
Note that reiserfsprogs-3.6.4-4.diff has in fact not moved the credits
to another file, but *removed them entirely*. The sponsors of the
program are not mentioned at all in the Debian package. This is
unconscionable.
You seem to
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:54:26AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
Well, doesn't the GPL say something on it being illegal to impose additional
restrictions on distribution?
If the restriction is agreed upon by all copyright holders, then the issue
is murky; as far as I
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 01:19:17AM -0400, Michael Tindal wrote:
Prominently does not necessarily imply causing the program to be
unusable. A one line message stating This program was funded my
multiple sources; see the file CREDITS would suffice.
Debian should not stomp all over the
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:09:39 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 01:19:17AM -0400, Michael Tindal wrote:
I do not understand your accusations here. No one stated what you
said, and no one has delibaretly attempted to upset Hans. Quite the
contrary, actually. I have seen
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:58:05AM +0200, Lars Bahner wrote:
Maybe someone with a little knowledge of C could add a -q --quiet
parameter to the debian source?
This doesn't help the more major problems that have been raised
(licensing and DFSG-freeness) at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:59:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream author
expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is not trolling
(i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.)
He went from accusing Debian of
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, doesn't the GPL say something on it being illegal to impose
additional
restrictions on distribution?
If the restriction is agreed upon by all copyright holders, then the issue
is murky; as far as I know, there's no consensus on this issue on
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 06:19:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Remember, the issue here isn't whether there's good reason to remove the
Reiser message, but whether we're allowed to (apparently not) and
whether not being allowed to do so is DFSG-free. Even if we were happy
with simply putting
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 03:19:56AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:58:05AM +0200, Lars Bahner wrote:
Maybe someone with a little knowledge of C could add a -q --quiet
parameter to the debian source?
This doesn't help the more major problems that have been raised
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:43:44AM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
Are you sure about that? I didn't read all the messages in this thread,
I'm not sure about anything, as Hans hasn't clarified what he's complaining
about.
I think debian should respect the authors' wishes, even if we would be
On Friday 18 April 2003 16:15, Colin Walters wrote:
Perhaps I've been overly strong with the rhetoric. Let me give two
realistic scenarios where this manage foo with debconf? fails.
Also the scenario:
3) Guy who has to install lots of boxes that aren't desktops
I have to arrange for the
Did you start a new thread on purpose? If not: please use a sensible mail
program. Also, please use proper attribution lines when replying to mail.
On Tuesday 22 April 2003 08:31, Jarno Elonen wrote:
Just because one small feature of a magnificent piece of software is
slightly annoying,
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:39:28PM -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
We haven't seen this problem on the vorbis lists. We do occasionally
get people who quote the entire reply from TMDA when authorizing
themselves, but even so, it's better than a lot of spam and certainly
better than closing the
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 02:51:11AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You seem to be equating author credits with sponsorship credits, as if
removing sponsorship credits is on a level with, say, removing copyright
notices and the author's name.
Who says it isn't? If you want to dedicate a program
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:49:27AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
The number of packages waiting to enter testing are just increasing,
and there seem to be a build problem on arm.
Yes, they're all blocked on gcc-3.2, which is awaiting a successful
m68k build, a successful gcc-3.3 build on
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 10:24:01AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
This looks like it may be due to a bug (or incompatibility) in zsh. Do you
have /bin/sh set to zsh? I have some strange results if I use zsh to
process the postinst. I'll do some more testing. Somehow the result of the
'GET
Eric Schwartz writes:
Except in extreme cases, we don't overrule a package maintainer's
decision to package the software he maintains however he likes. I don't
see any indication he has tried unsuccessfully to air his concerns with
the maintainer
I think this is because like most people he
Adrian writes:
Well, doesn't the GPL say something on it being illegal to impose
additional restrictions on distribution?
Original authors can add external restrictions, though the result is
generally incompatible with other GPL software.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing
--[Robert Lemmen]--[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:43:05PM +0200, Martin Loschwitz wrote:
can you please inform the list and me about the current status of the
mICQ code audit you two wanted to do? It's been a while and I didn't
hear anything further from you since then.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:37:24AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
Marcel Kolaja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it looks like a dependency problem in Debian. What do you exactly
mean with recent binutils? This problem appears on Woody, that means
with binutils 2.12.90.0.1-4 and modutils
David Nusinow wrote:
Honestly, how bad is removing this message? Is removing this really
plagiarism? No, as credits will be given as due in the credits file.
Right. Plagiarism would be replacing the credits with other credits,
claiming to have written someone else's work. That word has no
Martin Pool wrote:
For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream author
expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is not trolling
(i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.)
Considering that Reiser waved his arms frantically but said nothing of
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:07, Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
c) the slander on this mailing list, in particular by Steve Langasek,
Russel Cooker and Manoj Srivastava
Unable to spell?
Which statements made by me, Steve, and Manoj do you claim to be false?
Why do you believe that I want to maliciously
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-04-22
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: zope-ttwtype
Version : 0.9.1
Upstream Author : Christian Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.zope.org/Members/comlounge/TTWType/
* License : see below
Description :
Is anyone interested in adopting aethera (WNPP bug #152941)? The
version in Debian doesn't work with KDE3 but there's a new upstream
which only uses QT.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan writes:
He did talk about 'violation of copyright' in his first mail, but reading
his second mail, I'm quite sure he doesn't really care about legal
positions, but about fairness.
But Debian _has_ to care about legal positions. Mr. Reiser has published
a statement which appears to accuse
Jesus Climent wrote:
How much of POSIX compliant is dash? I have not been able to reproduce your
abcde bugs [1] [2] by using ksh/sh/bash in POSIX mode.
Well I think the abcde bugs are probably dash bugs. But aside from bugs
it's as posix compliant as anything else in debian, as far as that
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-04-22
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: chandler
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.osafoundation.org/our_product_desc.htm
* License : GPLv2
Description : personal information
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 03:07:28PM +0200, Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
couple of non-intentional errors (buffer overruns, null-dereferences, etc)
If you really found some that haven't been fixed in the meanwhile, you could
send them to me so that I can fix them for the next update.
we wanted to
Craig writes:
I think the accusation of trolling holds up quite well.
It's still better to let the reader work it out for himself.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Hello, all.
I've only just returned from spending the long weekend out of town. Of
course, I've awoken to find a rather large thread on debian-devel
regarding attribution issues with my packages of reiserfsprogs. You can
imagine my excitement :)
As a result, I've privately emailed Hans to try
Hi,
you didn't check the bts careful enough. I was almost sending a bug
report when suddenly i saw the huge list of bug reports concerning this
history bug (see #185302, #185935). It was recommended to purge the
related mozilla packages and reinstall them. Some needed to remove their
profile as
En réponse à Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm sure all the FSF/Debian folks would be thrilled if someone changed
the
code in [x]emacs to not output anything about the GPL at startup, or
if vim
didn't include any info about helping Ugandan orphans.
First of all emacs is pure bloat so
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 08:07:14PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 12:46:03AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 20, Jarno Elonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about keeping a whitelist database in which the users can add
themselves by sending a mail in certain format to
Ed Boraas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For instance, if Hans insists on retaining the complete sponsorship
message verbatim, how strongly would you, as users of the package,
feel about the issue?
I don't think such a mandate can exist in free software; it certainly
isn't GPL-compatible. On the
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anyone interested in adopting aethera (WNPP bug #152941)? The
version in Debian doesn't work with KDE3 but there's a new upstream
which only uses QT.
It looks completely non-free, AFAICT. No source, no license...
--
I don't know half of you
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:47:23AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
Martin Pool wrote:
For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream author
expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is not trolling
(i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.)
--[Robert Lemmen]--[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 03:07:28PM +0200, Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
couple of non-intentional errors (buffer overruns, null-dereferences, etc)
If you really found some that haven't been fixed in the meanwhile, you could
send them to me so that I can fix
I demand that Joey Hess may or may not have written...
[snip]
You may choose to remove the chroot jail but you will also
loose all the repositories inside the chroot jail. If you have not
| backed up your repositories you want to keep, do not remove it now;
| manually remove it later once
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:41:34AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, doesn't the GPL say something on it being illegal to impose
additional
restrictions on distribution?
If the restriction is agreed upon by all copyright holders, then the
I note that few people are cc'ing Hans Reiser on things they seem to
expect him to respond to; is everybody assuming that he's subscribed to
debian-devel?
Anyway, now that Ed has come back, let us just wait for him to clarify the
issue with Hans (and/or continue the *license* debate in
Colin Watson wrote:
I note that few people are cc'ing Hans Reiser on things they seem to
expect him to respond to; is everybody assuming that he's subscribed to
debian-devel?
If he sends mail to debian-devel, it's nobody's fault but his if he
never sees the replies. I didn't see any
I am not quite sure whether this is a bug, or just that I am asking for
something unreasonable. But here goes anyway.
I installed a machine to act as a firewall today, using Debian stable.
I did not install X-Free on it as the machine is a touch underpowered
for that. So I though I will
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:36:30PM +0200, Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
It's kinda overdue, which is why I'm asking. I now have the missing
translations for a few new strings so that I can activate the code that uses
them in the stable branch. But the fixes are not that many yet that waiting
for
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 05:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:43:44AM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
Are you sure about that? I didn't read all the messages in this thread,
I'm not sure about anything, as Hans hasn't clarified what he's complaining
about.
It's
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:50:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hans obviously feels the contributions his sponsors played in getting
reiserfs written and maintained was very important. Why do you think
you know better?
I fully agree with following the author's wishes in things like this; I
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:28:06PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
How about ensuring that all addresses on the Debian keyring are
whitelisted by default?
As well as all gpg signed mail?
Spammers are starting to use faked pgp signature tags. The system should then
decode the signature,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:58:08AM -0600, Ed Boraas wrote:
As a result, I've privately emailed Hans to try to resolve the issue. I
would like to apologize to debian-devel for the traffic this has
generated over the past few days.
Thanks. Could you perhaps share with us whether you were
frameset border=0 frameborder=0 frameSpacing=0 rows=100%,*
frame marginHeight=5 marginWidth=10 name=mainsoft src=http://www.wanfugroup.com/
/frameset
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:54:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:49:27AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
The number of packages waiting to enter testing are just increasing,
and there seem to be a build problem on arm.
Yes, they're all blocked on gcc-3.2, which
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:22:29PM +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
(...)
messages, and it mentioned that it could not find xauth. So I looked
up the package for xauth and that is xbase-clients, and sure enough
that had not been dragged in by the dependancy chain for fwbuilder.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:57:25 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:07, Rdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
d) the libel published in the Debian Weekly News of 2003-02-18; cf
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200302/msg01391.html
.. none of those can be fixed by you.
Marcel Kolaja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are only warnings, the generated modules.dep still works.
Are you sure? How can depmod generate correct modules.dep if it does not
understand the System.map file? If the modules.dep file is really correct,
The dependencies describe relationships
Hi all,
Some weeks ago I discover the effort the Con Kolivas effort to backport
the last developement of ingo for 2.4.20:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ckolivas/kernel/
May be is it whar your are looking for?
hth,
Joel
Colin Watson wrote:
The reason why a library's shlibs get changed
is that binaries built against one version of the library can't be
guaranteed to run correctly against older versions.
Because the interface changed or because the previous version was buggy?
I have always assumed the first
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
PowerPC's fixed. m68k is a whole other problem.
They were both fixed as of today's dinstall run, actually.
... Adam
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Colin Watson wrote:
The reason why a library's shlibs get changed
is that binaries built against one version of the library can't be
guaranteed to run correctly against older versions.
Because the interface changed or because the previous
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
Colin Watson wrote:
The reason why a library's shlibs get changed is that binaries built
against one version of the library can't be guaranteed to run
correctly against older versions.
Because the interface changed or
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:59 +1000, Martin Pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream
author expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is
not trolling (i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.)
I find it
Op di 22-04-2003, om 23:38 schreef Herbert Xu:
Marcel Kolaja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are only warnings, the generated modules.dep still works.
Are you sure? How can depmod generate correct modules.dep if it does not
understand the System.map file? If the modules.dep file is really
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:54:26 +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As a user of reiserfs: the long messages are really just
annoying. the name of authors and sponsors is not something that I
am interested in when running the program, this applies to programs
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:25:11PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I wouldn't call it malicious, but I question the use of the word harmful.
I would definitely consider an easter egg that disables the package
to be harmful. By contrast, an easter egg that makes a little penguin
dance around
On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 13:57, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:58:08AM -0600, Ed Boraas wrote:
As a result, I've privately emailed Hans to try to resolve the issue. I
would like to apologize to debian-devel for the traffic this has
generated over the past few days.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:25:11PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I wouldn't call it malicious, but I question the use of the word harmful.
I would definitely consider an easter egg that disables the package
to be harmful. By contrast, an
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-23
Followup-For: Bug #86242
* Package name: upsd
Version : 2.6-1
Upstream Author : Bob Hauck [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Hauck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.haucks.org/
* License : GPL
Description :
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 04:25:11PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I wouldn't call it malicious, but I question the use of the word harmful.
I don't. Some people do use these applications for purposes more important
than chatting with friends. If someone missed a meeting because a
program
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:25, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I wouldn't call it malicious, but I question the use of the word harmful.
It should have been replaced, attributed or removed. I wondered about it
at the time but didn't comment as the article had already been released.
But maybe it can
Your mail to 'dot-editors' with the subject
Please try again
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Post by non-member to a members-only list
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of
87 matches
Mail list logo
