Sorry that it took so long to respond, I'm not on this list, and I'm
not even sure I could/should be.
Anyhow, the evidence you presented to support your opinion seems to me
to actually support the opposite of your opinion, so please bear with
me while I get myself acquainted with Debian's position
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:41, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Whoever the copyright holder of that work is (I read your remark
> > above to mean that the hardware manufacturer is that copyright
> > holder), there must be a "preferred form of
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:30:38PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> I guess it's really hard to explain because there is a massive gap; I
> can't teach you to be an electrical engineer or logician here :) I
You are assuming there is gap when there may be not.
> think if you had the time to go through an
Package: wnpp
Owner: Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: rglpk
Version : 0.2-5
Upstream Author : Stefan Theussl and Kurt Hornik
* URL or Web page : http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/rglp/
* License : GPL-2
Description : GNU R
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:41, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whoever the copyright holder of that work is (I read your remark above
> to mean that the hardware manufacturer is that copyright holder),
> there must be a "preferred form of the work for making modifications
> to it". What fo
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:59:50AM +1100, Brian May a écrit :
>
> If we rename plink in putty (I think that is what you are asking?), that
> it going to make our version of putty inconsistent with every other
> putty package out there. This program is often used by scripts, they
> will break to
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 00:31, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If we use the "preferred form of the work for making modifications
> > to it" definition of source code, what is the form that best meets
> > that definition?
> >
> > What form of
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Reijo Tomperi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package name: cppcheck
Version : 1.24.0
Upstream Author : Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL : https://sourceforge.net/projects/cppcheck
License : GPL 3
Programming Lang: C+
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 27 October 2008 19:35, Frank Küster wrote:
> > If the PDF is frozen documentation, it's probably worth the effort. If
> > upstream changes the PDF with every new version, you should ask them for
> > their sources in
Hi,
On Sunday 26 October 2008 23:04, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Mostly thanks to Joerg and Mark this
> is down from ~250 packages we had in NEW on Friday.
thanks to all of you who worked on this! (now and before and in future.)
regards,
Holger, who is happy to have spoiled the "its a thankl
Hi,
On Monday 27 October 2008 19:35, Frank Küster wrote:
> If the PDF is frozen documentation, it's probably worth the effort. If
> upstream changes the PDF with every new version, you should ask them for
> their sources instead.
What if they use openoffice.org to edit the pdf and the pdf is the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 00:31, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we use the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to
> it" definition of source code, what is the form that best meets that
> definition?
>
> What form of the work do the copyright holders use to make changes t
8<--
I would have to reply that rapid development is one of the reasons I love
Fedora. Fedora fill a specific niche that fall between a Gentoo/LFS
mentality (although in the past I have seen Fedora RPMs more up to date than
Gentoo
Hello *,
for those who are interested in...
Note: I love Debian because I like HOW it is!
Long live Debian!
- Forwarded message from Itamar - IspBrasil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:53:40 -0300
From: Itamar - IspBrasil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Development dis
Am 2008-10-21 13:52:03, schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:38:31AM +, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > And we should delay the release by 5 years until we have them...
>
> I fear the hardware will be old at that time???
Not realy since we have currently an economic crises,
the wor
Jeff Carr wrote:
> But the opencore case is the easy case, hybrid chips don't even have
> source. The firmware blob is often generated when you fabricate the
> chip & changes with the physical board layout. You guys just don't
> understand the issues here.
Please explain what the issues are, then
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:10, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to find out: Under what circumstances does the blob need to
> be modified and who gets to do that modification?
Probably only the hardware engineers.
> Are these "chip manufacturer tools" physical tools/machine
Hello,
plink has just made it to the archive.
Teodor happened to have nicely explained my objections to rename plink.
Dear Colin, if you don't mind too much, or if you could be bribed with a
few beers, please be so kind to rename the plink binary package.
Many thanks and best regards,
Steffen
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 05:36, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> similar tools to modify the blob (even if it is only useful to do so on
>> a different board / with a different chipset)?
>
> Ish. Someone else should be able to use the same tools (barring
> development environment issues) b
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:26, Lennart Sorensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would expect anything on opencores.org to be perfectly readable VHDL
Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)
> code, which is the prefered format for manipulating it. So what was
> your point again? B
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:35, Lennart Sorensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 06:38:53PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
>> Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
>> you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
>> blob using th
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 06:38:53PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
> blob using the chip manufacturers tools.
But you provide input to the tool, usually VHDL cod
Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you claim a PDF file is a binary file, or a program object ? Even if PDF
> was a programming language, as proposed in another anwser, it would fall into
> the script category, where the executed object is also the source.
In most cases, the PDF is
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:46:14AM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> I'm willing to stake my reputation on betting you are _not_ a firmware
> engineer. Your are totally wrong if you think all firmware blobs can
> be replaced by human readable source.
>
> There is hardware, for which to function, will alwa
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:37:23PM +0200, Francis Tyers wrote:
> Heh, actually there is an ambiguity there... I should have spotted it.
> What I mean is:
>
> Add the specific dependence in each language package to apertium and not
> to libpcre3. The language packages already depend on apertium, bu
Package: wnpp
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
*** Please type your report below this line ***
* Package name: vloopback
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : Angel Carpintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kenneth Lavrsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
h
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:10:19AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:31 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> > you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
> > blob using the chip manufac
On October 26, 2008 at 3:34PM +,
rswarbrick (at googlemail.com) wrote:
> > `alpaca' uses symmetric encryption with "--cipher-algo AES" for a
> > new *.gpg file by default, while I haven't found an easy way to
> > customizet EasyPG.
> >
>
> Anyway, the point of this post: gpg's default symmetri
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:31 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > If the vendor is able to send out a bit stream and (with or
> > without the owner's intervention) load that bit stream onto the
> > already-purchased hardware to modify its behaviour,
That qualifi
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:31 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:21, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Your argument boils down to: There is function that will
> > > never be supported by free software. Ann
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:21, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Your argument boils down to: There is function that will
> > never be supported by free software. Annoying people by asking
> > them to expose their function by free
31 matches
Mail list logo
