-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:47:15PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might
have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a thing;
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
every package to add an ubuntu tag, and then be done with it,
right? That would work well and be very easy to implement.
You are so hung up on this point, it's not even funny.
Do you really think users
On 1/19/06, Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you could check changelogs.ubuntu.com which holds changelog and
copyright files of the packages.
Hi Reinhard,
are the changelogs on changelogs.ubuntu.com only from stable releases or
do they include testing/dapper? Also, I was checking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
available via http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having
unmaintained recipes and therefore some of them do not work
properly. I think it would be an easy task for Debian maintainers to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:26:05AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]:
Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
every package to add an ubuntu tag, and then be done with it,
right? That would work well and be very easy to implement.
You are so
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really think users who fail to notice an Origin tag from
apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
-ubuntuN suffix in the version number?
Actually it seems fairly likely that they would -- version numbers are
_far_
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spare disk space isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
Spare bandwith isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
I see. Can we please have the numbers? Exactly how much disk space
is needed?
Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 08:48, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
For those following along at home, it seems klik is some sort of
gateway to install Debian packages on various non-Debian distributions.
I imagine it's an ftp frontend to alien.
Well..
In fact, it is a scripted version of apt that can
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are
It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
distinguishing version numbers for binaries being by far the least of
these). If
Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 09:57, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
No where in his web page is written that in fact klik is a refactoring of
actual debian packages.
Ok I was wrong it is written in small at the end:
Thanks to debian for the software compilation and packaging.
Romain
--
Satan is an
On Thursday 19 January 2006 09:57, Romain Beauxis wrote:
My own feeling about it is that the author is not very honnest with the
debian packaging work.
From klik.atekon.de: Thanks to debian for the software compilation and
packaging.
Hum... It allows non permanent installation which can be
Le Mer 18 Janvier 2006 20:58, Steffen Joeris a écrit :
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP
License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting
that they accept the PHP Licence for all
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Some reasons:
* compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back
and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubuntu might do
[Eric Dorland]
This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
[Nathanael Nerode]
IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
after several years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal.
At which point it
Md wrote:
This reminds me that there should be a list of modules which MUST NOT be
added to the initramfs because loading them too early is both useless
and as in this case actively harmful.
I'm testing this solution:
I added a blacklist file in /etc/mkinitramfs/, put blacklist
net-module
On Jan 19, Davide Natalini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
udev now can rename the interfaces, because they haven't a name yet.
udev still loads the modules, you just have been lucky.
This is not a solution in any way.
furthermore this (or something similar) could be useful if we need some
modules
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 20:44 +, Dallam Wych wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:03PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for
programs
in the base system
* allowing us to provide python early on installs to make
After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
If not, is there a way to remove packages from Experimental?
Regards
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:35:45PM +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
If not, is there a way to
[Jérôme Warnier]
After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
Hmmm, I thought experimental was garbage-collected automatically in
this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jan 19, Davide Natalini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
udev now can rename the interfaces, because they haven't a name yet.
udev still loads the modules, you just have been lucky.
This is not a solution in any way.
Maybe network interface renaming
On Jan 19, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've looked into the Suse sysconfig package, and it includes all the
network configuration utils, such as ifup and dhcp handling, and
they're coupled with the udev rules. As previously said those
Look harder, because there is no
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 12:43 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:35:45PM +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
experimental (currently, Sid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jan 19, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Merging that into Debian would mean that udev would replace some
ifupdown planned functionality.
Wrong.
I think that ifupdown maintainers are the ones who can say that for
sure, looking
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 21:51, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian
regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull
by Debian (in most
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-01-19 19:21:07]:
In Ubuntu, we've split the package in
order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are part
of base).
Then what's the benefit of having python(-minimal) be essential at all?
you are able to do init.d
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:54:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Interfaces renaming must be handled by udev because if it's not then
network hotplug handlers will be called with the wrong interface name.
When are those network hotplug handlers called?
I've got udev loading the network drivers,
On Jan 19, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interfaces renaming must be handled by udev because if it's not then
network hotplug handlers will be called with the wrong interface name.
When are those network hotplug handlers called?
When udev receives the events from the kernel, like
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
available via http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having
unmaintained recipes and therefore some of them do not work
properly. I think it would be an
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
distinguishing version numbers for
Md wrote:
udev now can rename the interfaces, because they haven't a name yet.
udev still loads the modules, you just have been lucky.
This is not a solution in any way.
maybe I miss something, but for what I see we don't need udev not to
load the modules: we just need they are not loaded
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-01-19 19:21:07]:
In Ubuntu, we've split the package in
order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are
part
of base).
Then what's the benefit of
On Jan 19, Davide Natalini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maybe I miss something, but for what I see we don't need udev not to
Indeed. udev can rename the modules without any need to mess with the
initramfs or change anything else. Even if the driverss have already
been loaded, network hotplug events
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years*
before
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25:45AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could
be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is
metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an
Ubuntu developer in the same
2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html
snip
the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it
can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution.
Please read the message to debian-legal that I originally referenced. It
outlines recent
Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
What does /bin/sh point to?
Could you please explain what is exactly what you need to check?
ls -l /bin/sh
In other words, what does /bin/sh point to?
What shell is /bin/sh? bash? zsh(gods no)?
Nathanael Nerode writes:
Then the *source* packages can legitimately use the same Maintainer: field.
If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian, the
binaries
can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in Debian, because they
are essentially the same package.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:08:42AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Eric Dorland]
This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
[Nathanael Nerode]
IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
after several
I was wondering if the developers thought Backports will ever become an
official part of Debian, one where the bugs are tracked on the BTS
etc... I really want to use backports, I'm just intimadated by:
I provide these files without any warranty. Use them at
your own risk. If one of these
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
To clarify explicitly:
- Ubuntu does not use
Hi,
* Let's modify pbuilder to run test-build tests and (if
possible) also the generic tool and test-install tests.
These belong, I think, better into pbuilder then piuparts,
but it might be that piuparts should run them also.
pbuilder hook is available for
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Do you really think users who fail to notice an Origin tag from
apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
-ubuntuN suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
arguing on abstract
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
unmodified, and
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
python. That is a ease of development helper for ubuntu.
All of those can be done today using dependencies.
.config scripts, for example, cannot.
--
- mdz
--
To
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
which do not support
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for
programs
in the base
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
Debian?
No.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Norbert Tretkowski [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:02:03 +0100]:
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
Debian?
No.
Is this to be read as the person behind backports.org, I don't have
in mind working to make them official, or I believe
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:41:19 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, the text of the amendment says at its very end:
,
Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation
document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority
to pass.
`
But AFAICS
* Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Norbert Tretkowski [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:02:03 +0100]:
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
Debian?
No.
Is this to be read as the person behind backports.org, I don't have
in mind working to make them
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
rider to be added to
* Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
Debian?
No.
i remember a conversation where you pointed out some principal
problems (security support, manpower) but in general were in
On Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:35 AM, Jérôme Warnier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
Further to
* Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
Debian?
No.
i remember a conversation where you pointed out some principal
problems (security support,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
available via http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having
unmaintained recipes and therefore some of them do not work
properly. I think it would
* Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 17:38:45]:
* Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
Debian?
No.
i remember a
Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
Debian?
No.
i remember a conversation where you pointed out
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.
I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit
that
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
On second thoughts...
The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG.
The amendment intentionally talks only about what Debian is going to
do (allow
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
rider to be added to the SC,
* Frank Küster [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:04:03 +0100]:
The answer also depends on the understanding of officially supported.
By definition, backports are not part of a release and can never get the
same level of support as a stable release gets, like upgrade tests (we
already don't support
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006, Simon Richter wrote:
I'm unconvinced that bumping the priority on the other terminal
emulators is an adequate solution, hence I'm opening this general bug
for discussion on how to reflect individual users' choices properly.
We had a similar problem for GNOME
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:31 +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Some reasons:
* compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported
back
and forth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
available via http://klik.atekon.de/.
You know, I almost didn't bother to visit the web site, since you're
unwilling to even sign your name to your message, and you didn't say
anything about what klik is or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How did bin-NMU numbers work for the old numbering scheme on native
packages?
In a Complicated Way. Essentially, the debian revision and NMU revision were
filled in with 0s (which were, accordingly, not supposed to be used in normal
version numbers).
What prohibited
aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
MJ Ray's already done such a summary; it's rather trivially inadequate,
due to the information its summarising being equally inadequate.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00901.html
So the summary amounts to patents. Is that right? In other words,
Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 08:48, Peter Samuelson a écrit?:
For those following along at home, it seems klik is some sort of
gateway to install Debian packages on various non-Debian distributions.
I imagine it's an ftp frontend to alien.
Well..
In fact, it is a scripted version of apt that
Apologies to AJ and the ftpmasters. I found the *important* part of the
thread, which I'd apparently missed during December, in which the
ftpmasters...
drumroll
explain what would be needed for mplayer to go into Debian now, barring
finding additional problems.
Congrats Jeroen van
Colin Watson wrote:
FWIW the relevant design docs from when this was done in Ubuntu are
here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EssentialPython (requirements)
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PythonInEssential (details)
The rationale for the set of included modules is in the latter, and was
basically
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
b) include only the modules
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
non-controversial.
Em Qui, 2006-01-19 às 07:32 -0700, Joseph Smidt escreveu:
I'm just intimadated by:
I provide these files without any warranty. Use them at your own
risk. If one of these packages eats your cat or your rabbit, kills
your neighbour, or burns your fridge, don't bother me.
Hmmm... Just thinking
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]:
Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
upstream explicitly objects to.
Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no?
On 10539 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Congrats Jeroen van Wolfellaar, ftpmaster extraordinare, not afraid to take
on
the difficult cases (he also managed the REJECT on rte IRRC).
Nope, he didnt reject rte.
--
bye Joerg
16. What should you do if a security bug is discovered in one
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]:
Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
upstream explicitly objects to.
Why?
Le Jeu 19 Janvier 2006 22:47, Matt Zimmerman a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]:
Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be
part of base, but not full python, and this is
On Jan 19, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
Yes, I object to asking for removal of MPEG encoders because there is no
good reason to do it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 15:15 -0500, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
The ffmpeg package doesn't include any faad, mp3, or other encoders for
which patents are actively enforced. Therefore there is no reason to
remove it from
On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
proper interpretation would be:
(b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs 1:1
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]:
Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
of base, but not full python, and
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
And third, klik doesn't really install. It brings exactly 1 additional
file (the *.cmg) onto the system. It works with user only privileges.
Hang on. You loop-mount with user-only privileges? How?
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
distro's agree on then.
And one more problem:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
Ah, ok. Then
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
But if this amendment passes, we would still have to modify the DFSG for
the sake of
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
Ubuntu
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:54, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
But if this amendment passes, we
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
And third, klik doesn't really install. It brings exactly 1 additional
file (the *.cmg) onto the system. It works with user only privileges.
Hang on. You loop-mount with user-only privileges? How?
The klik client installation
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:26:29 +0100, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact that
works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
resolution to allow these
* David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 17:58]:
For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for breaking
the standard library in to its component parts and not installing it all by
default. This problem has been largely abrogated as of late, but I'd rather
not see us
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
proper interpretation would be:
(b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
two
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no
way arguing for any sort of exception or
On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:11:11 -0500, Christopher Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has
the authority to determine these matters of interpretation?
Specifically, who decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The
developers do,
Thanks to those who saved me the time and hassle of filing some wnpp
bugs.
bricolage
#348948
dbacl
#348949
libcache-mmap-perl
#348951
libmasonx-interp-withcallbacks-perl
#348952
libparams-callbackrequest-perl
#348953
libstring-crc32-perl
#348954
scottfree
#348950
--
To
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
the
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
