On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 03:40:22 pm Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Dear release team,
>
> Thank you for making a decision on the direction for bug #449497 in
> foo2zjs [1]. I believe that this is a reasonable choice for now due
> to the impending release. However, I would really like to see an
> honest and
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:40:22PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Where do I go from here to make sure the issue gets the appropriate
> level of thought and consideration that it deserves (after lenny gets
> released of course)?
>
Dropping lots of CCs.
Hi Michael,
I'd suggest asking on debian-
I appologize for the double post. Please disregard the first message,
which was send mid-thought due to an errant click.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear release team,
Thank you for making a decision on the direction for bug #449497 in
foo2zjs [1]. I believe that this is a reasonable choice for now due
to the impending release. However, I would really like to see an
honest and consructive conversation on the issue. I believe that
there are
Dear release team,
Thank you for making a decision on the direction for bug #449497 in
foo2zjs [1]. I believe that this is a reasonable choice for now due
to the impending release. However, I would really like to see an
honest and consructive conversation on the issue. I believe that
there are
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 14:16 +0100, Gregor Jasny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm the maintainer of libv4l which passed the new queue yesterday.
> Obviously the package build failed on non-Linux architectures [1]. How
> do I handle this situation? Should I list all supported architectures in
> the control fi
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Distributing the non-free firmware with regular package updates in
> non-free [has a particular effect]
>
> But the most important thing is that it gives leverage to convince
> manufacturers to actually distribute the firmware with a free
> license.
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 21:20 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
...
> for which providing a source is not critical.
...
I wish I understood the reasoning here - putting aside the fact that
most of the software in Debian is under a copyleft licence and so we
*must* provide the source. Why is the source for
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 10:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
>> > I haven't say that because they are not executed on by the CPU they are
>> > more free. What I mean is that we have those discussions bec
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I agree with you. But we cannot see them as part of our system, which
> is mostly defined by its freedom. We can adjust our system to allow
> you to load the firmware (probably under the name "drivers", to which
> many people are more used) in a painless a
Loïc Minier dijo [Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:58:16AM +0100]:
> > I don't think they are at all special. What interprets the software - be
> > it a 'cpu', a 'vm' or a co-processor like many video cards, or something
> > like an arduino doesn't alter the basic attributes - there is machine
> > code for
Michelle Konzack dijo [Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:10:48AM +0100]:
> Curently I am building a hardware where the parts cost arround 40US$ per
> device (@10.000) and using the same microcontroller with a "big" FLASH
> memory would mke this Hardware arround 5 US$ in final production more
> expensive
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 08:42 +0100, Rémi Vanicat wrote:
> Frank Lin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:29 +, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:07:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> > Wrong. You can help Ben Finney testing his packages. That
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pietro Abate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: latexdiff
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Frederik Tilmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bullard.esc.cam.ac.uk/~tilmann/soft.html
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: P
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Piotr Lewandowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: l7-protocols
Version : 20081014
Upstream Author : Matthew Strait <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: N/A
Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 13:33 +0100, Loïc Minier a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Since SSL certificates are randomly generated data, they are not subject
> > to copyright law, so I don’t think they are in any grey area. We can
> > change them without any licensing
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I’d like to thank all players for their contributions. The game was
> not really fair since some issues were much easier to deal with than
> others, but it was very nice to see people all over the world fix RC
> bugs for fun and cookies.
Thanks very
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 10:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> > I haven't say that because they are not executed on by the CPU they are
> > more free. What I mean is that we have those discussions because they
> > are not executed on the main CP
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Consider SSL certificates for e.g. Verisign. It makes no sense to
> > change them and we don't have the ultimate source for them. These are
> > generated data files for which we have the tools to build them, but not
> > the ultimate source dat
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:51:55PM +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
> I don't intend to push alpaca into the Emacs main tree. Please
> allow making just an optional Debian package.
>
> Does anyone still strongly have objection to this ITP? If so,
> please tell me against the above comments.
Yes,
On October 26, 2008 at 9:12PM +0900,
tats (at debian.org) wrote:
> On October 26, 2008 at 11:11AM +0100,
> zack (at debian.org) wrote:
>
> > Indeed, the fact that EasyPG is now integrated in development version
> > of Emacs is my main reason for objecting this ITP.
> [...]
> > Hence the question
Following the previous announcement and corrections I received, I
dispatched cookie assignments using the best available technology [0].
Cookies sent to indisputable winners:
* Yves-Alexis Perez will receive cookies from Frank Lin Piat
* Stefano Zacchiroli will receive cookies from mys
Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 10:58 +0100, Loïc Minier a écrit :
> And I can think of other data bits in the grey area.
>
> Consider SSL certificates for e.g. Verisign. It makes no sense to
> change them and we don't have the ultimate source for them. These are
> generated data files for which
Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 10:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> I haven't say that because they are not executed on by the CPU they are
> more free. What I mean is that we have those discussions because they
> are not executed on the main CPU, which makes them different than other
> non-DFSG co
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008, Robert Collins wrote:
> I don't think they are at all special. What interprets the software - be
> it a 'cpu', a 'vm' or a co-processor like many video cards, or something
> like an arduino doesn't alter the basic attributes - there is machine
> code for one or more machines,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Can you explain to me why it matters which processing unit the
software runs on? Why does it matter whether the software being
executed on the central unit matters, and that on the peripheral
processing unit gets off scott free?
I don't think it does matte
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 18:18:38 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Evgeni Golov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > while working on a fix for opendb's RC/Security bug #504173, I noticed
> > that opendb creates a default admin user "test" with "test" as password.
> > This is IMHO a
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Evgeni Golov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> while working on a fix for opendb's RC/Security bug #504173, I noticed
> that opendb creates a default admin user "test" with "test" as password.
> This is IMHO a security hole, but I would like to hear your opinion -
> is t
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 02:28:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02 2008, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>
> > This look complicated. Everyone agrees that firmwares are a bit
> > special in the world of software due to the fact they don't run on the
> > host CPU.
>
> Can you expl
Hi *,
while working on a fix for opendb's RC/Security bug #504173, I noticed
that opendb creates a default admin user "test" with "test" as password.
This is IMHO a security hole, but I would like to hear your opinion -
is this okay or not?
Regards
Evgeni
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO
Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008 à 16:03 -0400, Lennart Sorensen a écrit :
> > Again: ARE you realy willing to pay at least
> > 10US$ or 8? more for the hardware?
>
> Absolutely. I know I may be a minority, but I do pay extra to buy high
> quality hardware rather than the cheapest crap I can fin
On Sun, Nov 02 2008, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> This look complicated. Everyone agrees that firmwares are a bit
> special in the world of software due to the fact they don't run on the
> host CPU.
Can you explain to me why it matters which processing unit the
software runs on? Why does it
32 matches
Mail list logo
