Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It occurs to me that people who want servers to have their network
> configurations automagically configured for them are just asking for
> trouble. If this was a problem with standard ifupdown for a server
> interface, I would agree with you. But autoc
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.01.2110 +0200]:
>> Actually I agree that critical is too high, grave might be reasonable, as
>> it causes system downtime. (System downtime is something anybody running
>> servers would agree is a ve
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really can't get this to be critical in any way; it does not make the
> entire system break (unless you count temporary loss of network access on a
> laptop critical),
Since, as the bug explains and the other comments in the log explain,
the
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG
>
> | What matters is not what the Debian package dependencies look like,
> | but the shared library dependencies in the programs themselves.
>
> libfoo will obviously have a NEEDED which lists libbar (a
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: foo
> Depends libfoo, libc6
>
> Package: libfoo
> Depends: libbar | libbar-ssl, libc6
>
> Package: libbar
> Depends: libc6
>
> Package: libbar-ssl
> Depends: libc6, libssl
>
> (Assume that foo, libfoo and libbar are all licenced under the GPL,
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, it still doesn't answer the question I asked about
> transitive linking, where there is no shared library dependency from the
> GPL application to a GPL incompatible library.
Yes, it does.
It is not allowed to ship a binary which includ
Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:21:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> You cannot distribute GPL'd source which has been modified to link to
>> a GPL-incompatible library when the only way the source would be
>> useful
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, I see the confusion (or maybe have some of my own). I am not talking
> about a GPL application that has been modified to use libssl. I am
> talking about a GPL application that uses a library, and that library
> could or could not link to libssl - t
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you provide a pointer to the discussion? I am curious to read it,
> if possible. Of course, if it's just in one of your mbox's, don't worry
> about it.
Just in mbox.
>> The fact that this is transitive linking means that it is perfectly
>> legal t
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Anyhow, the point is that certain GPLd programs have special
>> exceptions that allow them to be linked with openssl. However, note
>> that *all* the GPL'd code in
Daniel Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I'm confused. In the netatalk README.Debian it says that the
> Debian project has decided that OpenSSL is GPL-incompatible and
> therefore he can't distribute the ssl-based portions of netatalk (like
> encrypted authentication with classic macs).
Can someone take a look at #373797 and give advice?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes ("Re: severities of blocking bugs"):
>> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > As opposed to writing to demand that the maintainer spend their free
>> > time to help you
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAIR, a package
> should not have to depend on python2.3 and python2.4; instead, applications
> that need a specific version of the interpreter should depend on it
> themselves.
I hope that it will be possible for such apps to do it without
specifying
"LEE, Yui-wah (Clement)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is a clean way to introduce a delay between the
> scripts in /etc/init.d ?
Don't.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
> glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
> no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that
> I am very glad that I can avoid, thank
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Most maintainers are much more cooperative when you tag the bug as
>> > +patch and say somethin
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most maintainers are much more cooperative when you tag the bug as
> +patch and say something like:
How do you think I should have applied this advice in the case of bug
#360851?
> As opposed to writing to demand that the maintainer spend their free
> ti
James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It is true that gnutls uses libgcrypt, but libgcrypt doesn't provide
>> anything like the same symbols as libcrypto.
>
> What functionality are you after? libgcrypto provides most of the
> ciphers of libcrypto (the big players at least) as well as hash e
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be statically linked?
No. Take a look at the symbols in libcrypto, and notice that they are
not in any of those libraries.
It is the case that libssl requires libcrypto, and that
libgnutls-openssl does not need anything like that.
But libcrypt
Is there a GPL-compatible libcrypto replacement? The only libcrypto I
know of is the one bundled with openssl, which AFAICT is under the
same license as openssl itself, which is GPL-incompatible.
We have gnutls as a replacement for openssl itself, but what about
libcrypto?
(Indeed, some things
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You probably hit a soft spot there because suddenly the bug became RC
> and blocks the package from entering testing. The destinction between
> normal and important is purely visual while serious and above have
> real effects.
This may be true, b
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nope. A corner-case bug in a compiler may break compilation of a single
> package. The build failure of this package is a serious bug for this
> package; it is not a serious bug for the compiler.
Well, except that it seems to me that any code generat
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
>> of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
>>
>> I have recent
I have always thought that when bug X is blocking bug Y, the severity
of bug X should be at least as big as the severity of bug Y.
I have recently been told by a maintainer that my logic in this regard
is faulty. Is it?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
>> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
>> likely, then SPI could be liable.
>
> Oh, very good point. I ha
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The person who I thought was Marting has apparently revealed
> that the identity documents that were preseted to the key signing
> party participants were ones that did not come out of a trusted
> process. Typically, the identity papers ar
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I am actually quite ambivalent about whether I think what he did was
>> wrong; I think to determine that I would need to read carefully what
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, if KSPs are not changed, then the Web of trust becomes
> effectively worthless. Manoj should be far more concerned about
> that, then about Martin's demonstration of this.
Personally, I'm especially worried about the developers who were taken
in by t
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Claiming that what Martin did was good since he was showing
> something useful for our community is equivalent to saying it was a
> "red team attack". Nobody used that term explicitly probably because
> they are unfamiliar with it. I kno
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Based on this thread, I would think that Stave Langasek was
> dead on: any transitive trust in Debian's keyring is
> non-existenet. So, using the signed key as a mesure of trust in the
> identity of a NM candidate by the DAMS is probably mi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is to forestall those of you who seem to be be arguing
> that the debconf6 KSP crack was a red team attack -- here is how that
> attack differed from a legitimate red team effort (I have been a
> member of red teams before, and have le
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess You can't read. I have never stated that I know it is
> a forgery: I can't since I do not have that data. I have stated I
> have absolutely no trust path to the identity proclaimed, so I am
> going to treat it as though it were; s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I claim to be president George Clooney, and show you a
> document that proves I am such, and I earnestly claim it was not
> forged, but Bubba looked at all kinds of documentation that says I am
> such a person, you would proclaim from th
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really think either you are deliberately being obtuse, or
> nothing I can say will get this through to you. I fail to see how
> one can assert that there was no forgery going on -- do you
> automatically assume that if a shiney laminated
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 08:57:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> > If I were to crack a key signing party, using Bubba's travel
>> > documents, I too would swear up and down the street that he in
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 03:40:59AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> > What problems with the information in the BTS are you talking about?
>
>> the usertags, which are wrongly set and removed.
>
>> please don't get me wrong; generally the btslink informa
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:57:43PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
>
>> The identification showed his real name and real likeness [0]. He did not
>> misrepresent any information in either obtaining the document or in
>> presenting it to those who re
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Once he has broken faith, nothing coming from that source can
> be accepted, since the source is now tainted. Any information flow
> with that origination is tainted, and since you offer the same
> statements, without any form of untaintin
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any act of deception, meant to exploit the weaknesses of the
> system rather than participating in a key signing in good faith is
> likely to have had this effect, yes.
That's true. What about Martin's actions, as they have been reported,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If people start bringing in forged documents, no amount of caution
>>> on part of laypeople like most software developers is proof against
>>> such deception. If such deception is accepted behaviour, we may as
>>> well throw out thetrust metric, an
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell verbalised:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There is a
>>> certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
>>> delibrate
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There
> is a certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
> delibrate forgeries.
Except that there was nothing forged about Martin's ID card, as it has
been report
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>python-gnome has a build-dependency on libgtkhtml-dev which
>> should be trivially removable since none of its binary packages use it.
>
> python-gnome is also deprecated and should go away when po
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But the standards of "reasonable" are different for minors than for
>> adults. Right?
>
> Constitutional law doesn't differentiate.
Yes, it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has opened a can of worms; because your transnational ID was as
> official as it could get. Most of us do not know what other countries
> consider to be official, and it's more of an intent and goodwill
> rather than scientific or legally binding o
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But then again people could lookup say mexican IDs and visas before
> going to a KSP in mexico so they have some clue what it should look
> like.
Actually, in the present case, I believe it turns out that Martin
Krafft's ID was exactly what it cl
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The vote at champoeg was when the Oregon Territory voted to become
> Canadian. We're on the south side of the border exclusively due to
> the threat of military force when the US couldn't handle the fact
> that we don't want them here the first time arou
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 27 May 2006 16:03, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:19:21PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On 27 May 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
>> >>> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 02:04:31PM -0500, M
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 27 May 2006 15:52, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If only that were true. The Americans give me hell. Canada
>> > practically waves me through. Last time
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If only that were true. The Americans give me hell. Canada
> practically waves me through. Last time I drove back to Oregon, US
> customs decided that it was appropriate to violate the rights the US
> constitution claims I have by searching my vehicle
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 27 May 2006 12:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > (The fact that most of the constitution is not applied to foreign
>> > national is more a shame tha
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 12:00:43PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> I have been maintaining the following gnome-1 support packages:
>
>> bonobo gal0.x gnome-libs gnome-print gtkhtml gwrapguile imlib
>> libca
Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (The fact that most of the constitution is not applied to foreign
> national is more a shame than something to be proud of for USA-ians.)
But then, as it happens, it does apply to foreign nationals who are
under the jurisdiction of the United State
I have been maintaining the following gnome-1 support packages:
bonobo gal0.x gnome-libs gnome-print gtkhtml gwrapguile imlib
libcapplet libglade oaf
I have been doing so because gnucash (which I maintain) was the last
major gnome-1 package, and the gnome maintainers (quite reasonably)
did n
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would be more inclined to do that to the people who signed his key
> based on the Transnational Republic ID.
So, who are those people? Is Manoj one of them?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What do you think we get by having the signed ID? What advantages
>> accrue to Debian by having this check that someone's real name is what
>> we think it is?
>
>> I think it's a good thing, I agree with our practice, but I'm not sure
>> what vast sec
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the core issue here is if we deem presenting purchased
> identification at an event designed to extend the web of trust
> acceptable behaviour.
I don't think anyone has said that it's satisfactory.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What would you suggest instead?
>
> Stop signing keys for Debian developers, since purchased ID's
> are acceptable in this community? ;) At this point, I am not sure what
> my stance is going to be.
What do you think we get by having the s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
> unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
> signing party recently. This was apparently to belabour the obvious
> point that large KSP's are events where it is
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Debian policy says:
>
> | 8.2 Run-time support programs
> |
> | If your package has some run-time support programs which use the
> | shared library you must not put them in the shared library
> | package. If you do that then you won't be
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Take a look at http://bugs.debian.org/367800. I cloned the bug, but
> neither of the clones seem to have appeared on the page for gnucash,
> nor did the severity of the bug get increased. The title did get
> changed, howe
Take a look at http://bugs.debian.org/367800. I cloned the bug, but
neither of the clones seem to have appeared on the page for gnucash,
nor did the severity of the bug get increased. The title did get
changed, however.
Any ideas what's going on?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:24, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
>>
>> Upstream reports t
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doesn't work for me.
>
> # grep apt.config /etc/pbuilderrc
> APTCONFDIR="/etc/pbuilder/apt.config/"
> # cat /etc/pbuilder/apt.config/apt.conf.d/allow-unauthenticated
> APT::Get::AllowUnauthenticated 1;
>
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Presumably the problem is that the packages cannot be authenticated.
>> Presumably that's because the key inside the chroot is the old 2005
>> one? How
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Presumably the problem is that the packages cannot be authenticated.
>> Presumably that's because the key inside the chroot is the old 2005
>> one? How
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /usr/sbin/pbuilder update --override-config --configfile /etc/pbuilderrc.sid
Ok, this gets me a good sid chroot. But I can't build with it. When
I try to build, using, say, pbuilder build gnucash_1.9.6-3.dsc, I get
seemingly normal pbuilder output, lot
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No solution to the bug, but an easy workaround: Create a sarge chroot
> tar.gz on your sarge machine, change pbuilderrc to point to sid (I have
> copies for each distribution), and then update the tar.gz to sid, like
> this:
>
> /usr/sbin/pbuilder update
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
Upstream reports that the SQL subsystem is known not to work. So that
means that until it gets to working, I certainly won't be building it
for Debian.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSC
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:11:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6,
>
> And you should've used pbuilder to check if it is buildable.
So I would love to use pbuilder on my fancy fast com
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:08, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
>>
>> I think so.
> G
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So are we getting close to the point where you will build gnucash-sql?
I think so.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6, the first beta release of the new
>> gnome 2 gnucash. Since this is now in beta, I judged it opportune to
>> upload it to un
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:11:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6,
>
> And you should've used pbuilder to check if it is buildable.
Sorry, but I don't have the resources to use p
I have just uploaded gnucash 1.9.6, the first beta release of the new
gnome 2 gnucash. Since this is now in beta, I judged it opportune to
upload it to unstable. The final 2.0 release is expected in a short
number of weeks. Many thanks to the fabulous upstream gnucash team!
Is there any partic
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As it turns out, bug blockers currently don't display information
> about the package those bugs are in and what their status is (e.g. if
> there's a patch already).
But this could be added. It would be a nice feature to request.
(Hint hint)
--
T
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 23:54]:
>> Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > what about the transition to python 2.4? is it going to start or etch
>> > is going to sh
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 10:48]:
>> Le jeudi 11 mai 2006 à 10:09 +0200, Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
>> > what about the transition to python 2.4? is it going to start or etch
>> > is going to ship with 2.3?
>>
>> An upload of pytho
Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> hi,
>
>> there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
>> whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
>
> what about the t
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> Ok, the maintainer has not fixed the bugs, has not packaged the last
>> version of it in time, etc, but he has done a great job anyway, and I
>> still don't see the point of hijacking the
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> gnome-bin
> gnome-libs-data
> gnucash
> gnucash-common
> gtkhtml
> libgnome32
> libgnomesupport0
> libgnomeui32
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> libxaw8 is abandoned upstream and there are no plans to fix it for the Xorg7
> transition. This is a >= serious bug for any package still build-depending
> on libxaw8-dev, as they FTBFS and this isn't going to be fixed on the xaw8
> side.
Or, a Debian
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
>
>> As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed. That's
>> a bug.
&g
The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed. That's
a bug.
alsa-utils should depend on "python | python-minimal", or perhaps the
python packages should Provide python-minimal.
Does this seem right?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. But there are user expectations, and when you talk about
> source package for Gnus, the assumption is that the orig,tar.gz comes
> from the FSF, and the debian changes are in the diff.gz. There are
> debian specific changes to Gnus, a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this case, there have been deeply felt and vehement
> protests for Debian removing a critical subset of the software
> shipped with make/gnus, with people appealing to keep the code
> together with the docs even if it meant removing the
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Still, regardless of whether the state of Utah recognizes a marriage,
>> that is surely a different question from whether the marriage has, in
>> fact, occurred.
>
> Making that distinction is, IMO, cracking open a very large barrel
> of very nasty monkey
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is same-sex marriage legally recognized in Utah? If not, then
> there is only "hetero marriage". You can't discriminate against
> what doesn't exist.
To my knowledge, the courts of Utah have never said anything about
same-sex marriages entered into in
Eldon Koyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 18 20:27-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> So, if a married same-sex couple were students at BYU, that would be
>> fine?
>
> BYU is a private, religious school. The church which runs it will never
> acknowledg
Eldon Koyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think BYU takes their honor code very seriously (with the
> exception of the football team).
What does such an exception mean? That the honor code isn't really
taken seriously?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Eldon Koyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think BYU takes their honor code very seriously (with the
> exception of the football team). If you were to report such behavior to
> the proper person, there would likely be some disciplinary action taken
> to match the seriousness of the off
Eldon Koyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think BYU takes their honor code very seriously (with the
> exception of the football team). If you were to report such behavior to
> the proper person, there would likely be some disciplinary action taken
> to match the seriousness of the off
Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes for sure, but useless zipped information is useless
> anyway.
And you know it's useless how?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some few maintainers are obnoxious and anti-helpful. All of these
> have bugs which have had a patch attached to them for a long time
> without mantainer comment (not even 'no, this patch doesn't work
> because X'). However, not all such bugs reflec
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20 Mar 2006, Greg Conner told this:
>> So we got caught trying to br BYU students. You guys win that
>> battle.
>
> Interestingly enough:
>
> ,[ http://honorcode.byu.edu/Ecclesiastical_Endorsement.htm ]
> | Requirements
> |
> | Wh
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, there are no invariant sections, but there is (a short) front and
> back cover text.
>
> How do we proceed with these documents?
The resolution which passed excludes documentation with front cover
texts. Read it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
"Damyan Ivanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you prefer to get bugreports via BTS or should these be forwarded
> directly upstream?
BTS is always good. It's fine if you also report them upstream; if
you submit them to the upstream bugzilla, please mention the correct
link in a "forwarded-to"
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'm one of the people who actually helped design the GNU Makefile and
>> configure standards, and --host does not "signal that you're
>> cross-compil
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:15:46PM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> >Well, you shouldn't pass --host *except* when cross-compiling; the
>> >autotools-dev package shows how to do this. But at least --build is always
>> >a sane t
201 - 300 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
