In response to the Request For Package (RFP) #280209, [1]_ I've hacked
up a quick codeville package. The diff is attached. There are some
debian-legal matters concerning Open Source License v2.0 (and even
v2.1), so it'll probably end up in non-free (not that I agree with
these legal banterings
Robert Millan wrote:
Just thought I should give you a better reply.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:24:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Robert, your (frankly autistic) worldview worries me. What do you
believe would be in a freebsd-kernel or netbsd-kernel package? What do
you believe would be in a
retitle 220401 ITP: kernel-linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel
thanks
I think you're very confused. Unfortunately, I don't have time for discussing
this with you. I'll just rename the package.
Now back to hacking.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:02:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Robert
Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
* Package name: linux-experimental
I really don't care either way, but would you consider using
kernel-linux-whatever instead?
I considered it, but it's redundant and unnecessary. I'll stick with the
: GPL
Description : Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]
Linux 2.4 kernel re-packaged as a standard Debian package. For details, see:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00204.html
Package sources available in:
http://people.debian.org/~rmh/linux/
List
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:36:27PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] and others, see:
He no longer works for transmeta. Should be changed?
J
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:31:17PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:36:27PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] and others, see:
He no longer works for transmeta. Should be changed?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is ok now.
--
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:31:17PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:36:27PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] and others, see:
He no longer works for transmeta. Should be changed?
s/transmeta.com/osdl.org/
J
--
* Package name: linux-experimental
I really don't care either way, but would you consider using
kernel-linux-whatever instead? Just for consistency's sake. As
someone else said, eventually there will be a kernel-freebsd or
kernel-netbsd, and having an uniform scheme to call these
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
* Package name: linux-experimental
I really don't care either way, but would you consider using
kernel-linux-whatever instead? Just for consistency's sake. As
someone else said, eventually there will be a
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
* Package name: linux-experimental
I really don't care either way, but would you consider using
kernel-linux-whatever instead?
I considered it, but it's redundant and unnecessary. I'll stick with the
name choosed by
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 freebsd-kernel or netbsd-kernel package? What do
you believe would be in a linux-kernel package? When someone
Hi Robert,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:23:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
* Package name: linux-experimental
I really don't care either way, but would you consider using
kernel-linux-whatever instead?
I
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 freebsd-kernel or netbsd-kernel package?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Did you consider ease of finding alternative packages through the normal
UI like dselect and aptitude? I, for one, appreciate similar things to
exist next to each other.
Well no (I use apt-get), but I think I can assume that (I
Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
* Package name: linux-experimental
I really don't care either way, but would you consider using
kernel-linux-whatever instead? Just for consistency's sake. As
someone
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
Just thought I should give you a better reply.
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
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:49:49PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Yes.
Could you elaborate? The obvious interpretation of your Yes is that
you do not understand a large part of your target audience (new users
who do not customize their kernels). By and large, that set of users
does use
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
Just thought I should give you a better reply.
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)
Overly terse answers (and your previous dismissals of questions as
trivial despite attempts to explain why they are non-trivial) do not
reassure anyone that you are capable of packaging a critical system
component, especially in an ambitiously different way.
I'm reassured.
On Jun 23, Rob Browning wrote
I was going to try out qmail, and I just wanted to see if anyone had
made a package of 1.01. I mailed Christian, but I haven't heard back
from him yet, and I thought someone else might have packaged it for
their own internal use.
Sorry, I haven't had time to
Hi,
I've got a copy of qmail-1.01 built with diffs I got from Christian.
The diffs worked out of the box, which is why I've not uploaded anything
(since Christian has obviously already done the work, and I didn't want to
tread on his toes).
I've since applied some of the anti-spam patches
I was going to try out qmail, and I just wanted to see if anyone had
made a package of 1.01. I mailed Christian, but I haven't heard back
from him yet, and I thought someone else might have packaged it for
their own internal use.
Thanks
--
Rob
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail
I have a package called bridge-0.2 that has additional protocol filtering
bridging features that I expect to be included in the 2.1.X kernels and
some tool enhancements. This package requires patching the kernel right
now.
I would like the bridge-0.1 version to be kept in stable debian for the
25 matches
Mail list logo
