these
standards. If people decide (as Vincent Bernat suggested) that Debian
is a buggy piece of junk because of that, they will be right.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive
Paul Wise writes:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Michael Poole mdpo...@troilus.org wrote:
The behavior with net.ipv6.bindv6only=0 is mandated by both POSIX and
the governing RFC. How can you call it a bug for software to expect
that behavior? The true bug is that Debian intentionally
. This is quite
different from the IFS or PATH example.
[1]- RFC 3493, section 5.3, IPV6_V6ONLY option for AF_INET6 Sockets: By
default this option is turned off.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
, *then* optimize for
run-time. I would rather have the fuzzy matching sooner than have it
shave a few milliseconds off the display time for a correction.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas
Jérôme Pouiller writes:
In another thread, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I can't see how it'd work here, at least without the help of some
on-disk structure, since we're talking about a space of 25,000
packages.
Naive search of matching string under a set of 25,000 strings is
something like 2000
is a considerable cost --
having nothing to do with whether the software is proprietary --
and multiarch makes it easier for them also to migrate at a pace
that makes sense to them.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
of the
Debian community?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of
dependencies for a package *somewhere* in pkg-config.
Michael Poole
Stephen Gran writes:
This one time, at band camp, Michael Poole said:
What happens for a user who (however absurd or insane he might be to
try this with gtk+) tries to link his application statically?
Perhaps the absurd and wrong part is that pkg-config does not
provide a way
The troll checklist:
Anthony Towns writes:
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Ad hominem attack: Check. (For what it's worth, I am an upstream
maintainer of one package
, at least as
far as legal analysis goes.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in a free software license?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wouter Verhelst writes:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've
infringed the license, it doesn't
information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jun 02, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
s/arguments/opinions
the licensor's views on the issue.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clauses are moot. If the clause is in fact moot, the license is
buggy. If the clause is not moot -- at the time of upload or some
point afterwards -- it can cause significant harm.
Michael Poole
[1]- http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ucita/ucita200.htm is a
copy; see section 110.
that it still uses p9 rather than p10.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian May writes:
Michael == Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Why do you think these servers conflict with each other?
... because, generally speaking, the servers will be automatically
installed at installation, and if the port is in use, then
installation may fail
.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
these mutually incompatible programs
all prefer to be called automake or autoconf and, on less helpful
distributions, do not install themselves as automake-1.9 (etc).
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of the default automake behavior being horribly broken, does
that make usual revision control practices horribly broken?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
balance would
come out of Sun's bank accounts.
If Debian has small bank accounts, I don't see how this helps either
Debian or Sun. If Debian has large bank accounts, I don't see how
this is a good prospective use of the money.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
-masters be the right authority for this issue? It is
them who decide if the package can go into main or not.
The package is already in main. The person who filed this bug thinks
the maintainer and ftp-master decisions were wrong and should be
changed or overruled.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
with that non-free software?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* it was
put in contrib -- and which other packages might get the same
treatment. If putting it in contrib were simply an accident, then
that bug could just be fixed with no policy implications.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It has been argued in this thread that if ndiswrapper were put in
main, it would mean that contrib has no point at all. One could
equally well argue that if ndiswrapper were put in contrib, main would
have no point
and does not want to argue again in another year.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, it is reasonable to exclude ndiswrapper from
main on the grounds that there are no NDIS drivers in main. I think
that is a too-broad definition of require, but using it does not
require changing foundation documents.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
says We
promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
according to these guidelines. Thus, it requires that the Debian
system not include packages that meet Policy's definition of contrib
but not main.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
for non-distributed modifications of a GPLed program.
Are you saying that the FSF is incorrect about the GPL, or are you
making some other claim about what behavior is permitted?
[1]- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Peter Samuelson writes:
[Michael Poole]
What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it
on? Despite Anthony's claim, I see no packages that can use nasm out
of the box
If you hadn't already shot your credibility, you just did. Anthony
listed a dozen or so packages
Josselin Mouette writes:
Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 21:32 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main. Non-free is here for a
reason, we just have to use it. Technical solutions
Josselin Mouette writes:
Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 08:46 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
Please stop these lies. I repeat: technical solutions do exist. For
hardware unnecessary at installation's first stage, it is only a matter
of making non-free available. For hardware necessary
Josselin Mouette writes:
Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 08:40 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
If you hadn't already shot your credibility, you just did. Anthony
listed a dozen or so packages in Debian which require nasm in order to
build. How can you see no packages when he gave you
that if you want to change the state
of things, you should revise the DFSG or policy.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
means that you object to translation at the binary
level but not translation at the source level. I guess that's
reasonable in a general sense, it's just not a distinction that policy
or the DFSG makes.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Josselin Mouette writes:
Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 09:59 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
Anthony Towns writes:
But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
assembler code
Anthony Towns writes:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:59:07AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't
in main ? No ? Then please move
antiword and similar tools to contrib.
*points at abiword and openoffice.org*
Those are (arguably) different because they let users create software
in those formats, instead of just processing existing software.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
chosen (twice) to make life hard for those
users. I guess the preferred solution for them is to just use some
other distribution.
Michael Poole
as
ndiswrapper. Which package(s) in main depend on nasm? Why not file a
bug report against it, demanding that it be moved to contrib? (That
is a rhetorical question. Your answer will probably help you
understand why I said the main reason to push against ndiswrapper is a
grudge.)
Michael Poole
cant follow its rule to
not leak.
I don't understand. Martin's email did not mention -private. Do you
mean to say that this decision was made as the result of discussion on
-private?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
binary driver loaded versus that
person using some other Linux distribution or some (non-free?) OS?
Those questions need to be answered before deciding whether Debian
should do something about the packages you describe.
Michael Poole
anyone's physical property rights. Infringing those
copyrights or hoarding those freedoms may be moral or legal wrongs of
a degree similar to theft but they are _not_ theft.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Frank Küster writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
This is incomprehensible gibberish.
This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may
copyright licenses, traditional contract law seems
most applicable.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is clear tension between this and the mere aggregation clause.
However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
by the mere
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not clear to me that
standard library header files qualify as associated interface
definition files.
Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
covers.
Then we will have to disagree
represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims? What
about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction
supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I
have to think
, but it is
neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
This is incomprehensible gibberish.
This is unsupportable
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
of an application that uses them. The C library header files are also
in no way
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
Source code is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
making modifications
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
necessary system header files with their application's source code.
What is this almost
to find a whole exchange, since trackbacks do not have the
shared locality of a mailing list.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the future), some people would naturally be subject to
the court's jurisdiction. As an example, the QPL discriminates
against everyone who does not live conveniently close to Olso.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
the
parties to attend in person. It will also be cheaper for a party to
fly to the court's venue to be deposed than to fly their lawyer to
where they live, and no US-filed case goes to trial without
depositions of all the parties.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
explained why
the chosen laws inherently discriminate against groups. Some legal
systems/chosen laws would fail must not discriminate against groups
in obvious ways, but they have not been specified in licenses.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
something to do with software freedom. There are
always tradeoffs.
Would you prefer an OSL-style license based on a contract where the
distributor(s) explicitly agree to provide source code to the
licensee, handing enforcement ability to all licensees?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to
support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to
what the license imposes on or requires from users.
What's the point in us worrying about
users, or what benefit does it being in Debian bring to the larger
free software community?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alec Berryman writes:
Michael Poole on 2005-08-19 10:32:27 -0400:
OpenCVS has not yet identified any specific problem (except the GPL)
that the project would address.
It has indeed. GNU CVS has a poor security record; OpenCVS plans not
to.
What part of specific was unclear? I could plan
Matt Kraai writes:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:53:40PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
To play devil's advocate: Why is wine in main? Its only use is to run
proprietary windows programs inside the WINE environment, so it's a
clear fit for contrib.
No, there is free software for Microsoft
inside the WINE environment, so it's a
clear fit for contrib.
The main page of the NdisWrapper project has a link to a GPLed NDIS
driver, so it seems like the main reason to remove ndiswrapper from
Debian is spite.
Michael Poole
software said server is running. Correct?
In essence, yes.
Do you have a problem netcat being in main?
That is a disingenuous comparison. netcat is to network data as hex
editors are to file data. The suggested graphviz-client is very
different.
Michael Poole
build. As long
as that is true, free hardware is not possible on the same scale as
free software or with many of its benefits.
Michael Poole
Chasecreek Systemhouse writes:
On 14 Dec 2004 09:03:20 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hardware design has very different and higher third-party costs than
software design, and the cost to make and test minor revisions can be
a significant fraction of the cost to do
also be moved to contrib.
Michael Poole
and permanent fashion than
when the restrictions are a matter of missing code or permissions.
Michael Poole
liability or liable for actual damages for distributing a
package like hot-babe.
Michael Poole
. At least to me, unstable means
a set of generally useful packages and experimental means a set of
less stable packages useful if you want to beta-test future releases.
Michael Poole
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:24:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels.
Robert, your (frankly autistic) worldview worries me. What do you
believe would be in a
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Robert Millan writes:
And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't
claim it doesn't have any disadvantages.
Please explain why the putative advantages
Robert Millan writes:
And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't
claim it doesn't have any disadvantages.
Please explain why the putative advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
1) I haven't built a 2.4 kernel lately, but in linux-2.6, selecting
some mandatory
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:44:55AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
How do the current kernel packages guarantee this?
Why would Robert's package need to behave any differently?
The current kernel packages don't make the old stuff just
Eduard Bloch writes:
Do you see now that 8 of your 10 percent come directly from the
application code and other two maybe from the optimized libc? There is
not{hing| much} we have won using an optimised kernel. But the placebo
effect has been demonstraded once again.
You have not shown what
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# time bzip2 -9k linux-2.6.0-test5.tar
real2m40.974s
user2m33.679s
...
user2m49.316s
Even then, it's about only 10 percent. Let's compare them with vanilla
kernel, optimised for P4:
What are you trying to measure here? If you want to
life will this package make easier? As
a user, I have never been confused by Debian's normal Linux kernel
packages. What specific benefits would your proposed package offer?
Michael Poole
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are (at least) the following benefits:
- Easy understanding of the package. Developers looking at the package will
find every piece in the place Debian packages normaly put it. The binaries
are in .deb, pristine upstream sources are in
Julian Mehnle writes:
Don't you agree on my understanding of a sender address (or source
mailbox) being the address (or source mailbox) the sender sends
from? If so, please state it explicitly, so I have something I can
argue against. :-)
Mail is not sent from any particular address at all;
Julian Mehnle writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
Mail is not sent from any particular address at all; it is sent by a
person or program. It is delivered to one or more addresses. The
From: address and SMTP and envelope sender addresses are for human
understanding and status reporting.
It does
Michael Stone writes:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
The shared library is 179 kB. Why don't you just provide the optimized
versions in the same package? Are the any stability/correctness issues
Now for the real overachiever, what would be really
85 matches
Mail list logo
