---
Debian Testing Security TeamSeptember 9th, 2005
secure-testing-team@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
cannot make a license non-free.
Yeah, but
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 194 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 86 (new: 0)
Total number of packages
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
Could you explain why DFSG#5
On 8/11/05, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/11/05, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Just one more question: what happened to my original emails?
I read them. Most likely I saved the wrong one for
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote:
In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright
owner.
Thomas Bushnell writes:
Can you be specific
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| The Covered Code is a commercial item, as that term is defined in
| 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of commercial computer
| software and commercial computer software documentation, as such
| terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995).
On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Looks like its entire chain is ready, so now you need a hint. Ask
debian-release to do this:
the page on excuses was speaking of an hint...
what is it ?
choice 1) a plain english email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
choice 2) a procedure
* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050909 10:01]:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Looks like its entire chain is ready, so now you need a hint. Ask
debian-release to do this:
the page on excuses was speaking of an hint...
what is it ?
choice 1) a plain
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 00:47 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Arthur de Jong]
I'm not sure if I need some statement on the copyrights on the
generated html files. The css file that is just copied has a BSD
license.
Generally, output from a program is not considered to be copyrighted.
The
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
it's up to you explaining why.
Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I am refusing
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
arthur de
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
it's up to you explaining why.
Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Eh, bump, please?
http://net-tools.berlios.de
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/9/05, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Eh, bump, please?
http://net-tools.berlios.de
Planned: new release 1.65 which contains all the debian patches. Use of some
netdev features.
Great, but when?
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home
Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
discriminated against.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.
Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be
meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated
against.
Why do you think that a copyright owner
This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your
email list subscription for the following list:
info tourisme
To confirm this subscription, please follow the below URL:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be
meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
meaningfull to
On Friday 09 September 2005 15:46, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be
The subscription of the email address:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To the mailing list:
info tourisme
is all set. Thanks for subscribing!
Date of this subscription: Fri Sep 9 09:25:23 2005
Please save this email message for future reference.
Title: E-mail message content
Well you look up now and we WON 6 GAMES IN A ROW! Who does it better than us? And now here we are with our best play of the week here for you to get an easy win! With as HOT as we have been how can you let yourself stay away from this? We have an
This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your
email *removal* for the following list:
info tourisme
To confirm this unsubscription, please follow the below URL:
http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/u/info_tourisme/debian-devel/lists.debian.org/10184726/
This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your
email *removal* for the following list:
info tourisme
To confirm this unsubscription, please follow the below URL:
http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/u/info_tourisme/debian-devel/lists.debian.org/10184726/
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
discriminated against. If everybody
The removal of the email address:
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
From the mailing list:
info tourisme
is all set.
Date of this removal: Fri Sep 9 10:26:04 2005
Please save this email message for future reference.
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?
YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate against
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of
Scripsit Rogério Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was a bit surprised to see a bug like 254248 being tagged as won't
fix.
There are other strange wontfix tags for cdebootstrap, including a
handful of quite reasonably looking translation updates.
Significantly, all of those wontfix tags were added
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
of their rights to assure the rights of the commons.
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?
Debian has always been full of software
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
of their rights to assure the rights of the commons.
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree
*in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitrary
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:41:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
some restrictions present in the CDDL.
It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
license is free,
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
Matthew regardless of license conditions.
Although I don' dispute this assertion per se, the problem at hand is that
*geography*
necessarily discriminates
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:41, MJ Ray wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
some restrictions present in the CDDL.
It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
license is free, then it's
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
This seems remarkably similar to the argument The user has carte
blanche to exercise DFSG freedoms;
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:10, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
This seems remarkably similar to the
Matthew Garrett writes:
A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big
evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and
suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry
greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:57, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the
On 9/9/05, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Security support for testingThe Debian testing security team is pleased to announce the beginning of
full security support for Debian's testing distribution.
This is great news, and thank you!
[...]
We also invite you to add the following lines to
On 9/9/05, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing
etch/security-updates main contrib non-free
deb-src
http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing
etch/security-updates main contrib non-free
Could I replace 'etch' with
Package: general
Severity: important
The error message is:
Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM unable to
dlopen(/lib/security/pam_mysql.so)
Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM [dlerror: /lib/tls/libm.so.6:
symbol _rtld_global_ro, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file
reassign 327417 glibc
thanks
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:28:16AM +0200, Thomas Becker wrote:
Package: general
Severity: important
The error message is:
Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM unable to
dlopen(/lib/security/pam_mysql.so)
Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package name: gaim-slashexec
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Lawler bleeter from users.sf.net
Daniel 'datallah' Atallah
owner 327425 !
thanks
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package name: gaim-slashexec
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Lawler bleeter from
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:47:34PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package name: gaim-slashexec
Version : x.y.z
^
Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:20PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for
not honoring
$DEBEMAIL)
Err, it does?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:20PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for
not honoring
$DEBEMAIL)
Err, it does?
Hamish
See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324341 . It now
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
that choice of venue makes is that it potentially
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
licensor gets
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
You seem to assert that licenses
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even
if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal
or something such ?
Court procedures always go by the local law of the forum.
--
Henning Makholm
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only
On 9/9/05, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits.
No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
jurisdiction, no harassment results.
Eh? They can
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
impression that it was generally accepted.
I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held.
Can
The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not
Matthew Garrett writes:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
that choice of venue makes is
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits.
No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing
against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ?
The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the
fact that the licensor can
Matthew Garrett writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
unlikely to deter them.
The point is that the cost *for me* of defending
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
unlikely to deter them.
The
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
--cut--
That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned
exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author
thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something
we consider at all. We
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
isn't very realistic.
No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
legal cases. In any case, Discriminates against poor people who have an
insurance policy
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
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:24:19PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that
can't actually be exercised in life? There is no freedom not to be
sued, so it's impossible for a license to contravene that.
There are the DFSG freedoms to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 327417 glibc
Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via
mysql isn't working anymore.
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `glibc'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
[This message is cross-posted to multiple mailing lists for announcement
purposes only. Please edit the address list before replying! Suggested
address for followups is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
In an attempt to improve the situation with Debian kernel documentation I
have recently initiated
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:00:00 +0200
Source: gnumeric
Binary: gnumeric-doc gnumeric-common gnumeric gnumeric-plugins-extra
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.5.90-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:30:22 +0100
Source: newt
Binary: libnewt-dev libnewt-pic libnewt0.51 newt-tcl whiptail python-newt
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.51.6-31
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Alastair McKinstry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:56:49 +0100
Source: slang2
Binary: libslang2-dev libslang2 libslang2-udeb libslang2-pic slsh
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.0.4-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 20:35:31 +0200
Source: mod-vhost-ldap
Binary: libapache2-mod-vhost-ldap
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.2.5-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: OndÅej Surý [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: OndÅej
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:31:35 +0200
Source: libimage-exif-perl
Binary: libimage-exif-perl
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.00.3-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Julien
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:44:37 +0200
Source: ncftp2
Binary: ncftp2
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1:2.4.3-15
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Noèl Köthe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Noèl Köthe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 02:58:00 -0700
Source: qpsmtpd
Binary: qpsmtpd
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.30-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Devin Carraway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Devin Carraway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:33:45 +0100
Source: bibletime
Binary: bibletime
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.5-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Daniel Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Daniel Glassey [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:08:23 +0200
Source: lablgl
Binary: liblablgl-ocaml-dev liblablgl-ocaml
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.01-7
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian OCaml Maintainers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:44:53 +0100
Source: gnomesword
Binary: gnomesword
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.1.2-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Daniel Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Daniel Glassey [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:58:41 +0200
Source: libgtk-perl
Binary: libgnome-perl libgtk-pixbuf-perl libgtk-imlib-perl libgladexml-perl
libgtk-perl libgnome-print-perl libgtkglarea-perl libgtkxmhtml-perl
Architecture: source i386
Version:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:24:04 +0200
Source: socks4-server
Binary: libsocks4 socks4-clients socks4-server
Architecture: source i386
Version: 4.3.beta2-14
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Christoph Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:30:45 +0200
Source: x10
Binary: x10
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.06-12
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Matej Vela [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:15:56 +1000
Source: ssmtp
Binary: ssmtp
Architecture: source i386 sparc
Version: 2.61-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Anibal Monsalve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 04:25:33 -0700
Source: wmufo
Binary: wmufo
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.2.1-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Debian QA Packages [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:11:36 +0100
Source: anna
Binary: anna
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 1.15
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Changed-By: Colin Watson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:04:56 -0400
Source: xorg-x11
Binary: libxkbui1 libxtst6-dbg xserver-common xlibs-static-dev libxp6-dbg
libxevie-dev libdmx-dev libxevie1 libice6-dbg libxaw6-dbg libdmx1-dbg x-dev
libxv1 libxext6-dbg libxau6-dbg
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
