Re: Mass bug filing: failure to use invoke-rc.d when required

On 15 May 2006, Bastian Blank told this: > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:10:52AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >> I propose to file bugs against the packages before the end of this >> week, and, after a couple of weeks, for packages that haven't been >> fixed already, start making NMUs (via DELAYED/7,

Re: Bug#368371: ITP: gp2c -- PARI/GP GP to C compiler

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:29:42AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 10:18:19PM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote: > > IMHO, pari-gp-c or pari-gp2c could be better than 'gp2c' to avoid > > this namespace pollution, at your option. > Good catch, I will consider this option.

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 05:03:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Er, of course we all might be affected by it, but the ftpmasters would be > affected *way* more by getting sued than *we* would be affected by their > getting sued, so I think it's ridiculously presumptuous to criticize the Who shou

Re: Packages violating policy 8.2

On 19 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow outgrape: setools is in the list, and contains libraries that it uses itself, but does not break it up into multiple installed packages. Setools is moving rapidly rnough that I do not intend to support multiple versions of the libraries until things

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Juergen A. Erhard wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > [...] They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random > > opinions on this decision *don't* matter. > > Wow, thanks for telling us. I thought

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

> the project by not consulting you first is so much bullshit, because *they* > are the ones who bear the primary liability from distributing these > packages, and other developers (as opposed to mirror operators) bear none at > all. They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:17:52PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > I'm afraid I have more interesting things to do than helping non-free > > software developers to get their non-free crap in the non-free archive. > > Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some people are > intere

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:58:18PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Oh, and the impression that pushing non-free packages in after several > > hours has a high priority, while (license-wise) simple packages linger > > for weeks in NEW was probably a bonus[1]. > > I have to agree this sucks but if

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Juergen A Erhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >> [...] They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random >> opinions on this decision *don't* matter. > Wow, thanks for telling us. I thought the Debian developers ele

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 21 May 2006 20:20:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> It's an important document and certainly something that every developer >> should read and endeavor to follow where it makes sense, but things go >> into the Developer's Reference rather than Polic

Bug#368383: dumb "manual page for..." NAME section on many man pages

>dotlock (1) - manual page for dotlock (GNU Mailutils 0.6.93) This is the default NAME section generated by help2man. Fairly useless, but there needs to be *some* default. Suggest that you file bugs on the particular packages which need either to provide a --name="short description" arg

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Am Sonntag, den 21.05.2006, 15:58 -0500 schrieb Raphael Hertzog: > No, if we should discuss before taking any action we wouldn't get > anything done. Oh, come on. Nobody expects you to ask before updating a simple package. > If you really want to contest the decision, you have the > GR. ROFL, ye

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > [...] They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random > opinions on this decision *don't* matter. Wow, thanks for telling us. I thought the Debian developers elected a DPL every year. Of course, since I'm not one

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 21 May 2006 20:20:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> As Bill Allombert just pointed out, the Intention To Package process was >> clearly subverted: >> > >>Assuming

Re: Unidentified subject!

Hmmm...interesting...the other time someone posted something explicit and someone replied to it and pointed it out, everyone joined in and investigated it...this time the person who points it out gets criticized...go figure...I always get the short end of the stick... On 5/21/06, Bas Zoetekouw <[EM

Re: Multiarch preparations needed for etch dpkg

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:27:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> - Allow arch specific depends >> I propose to use "Depends: : (>= 1.2-3)" as syntax for >> thses. While for etch no package should use them dpkg should accept >> them so inst

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As Bill Allombert just pointed out, the Intention To Package process was > clearly subverted: > >Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, >yo

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > If you have a reason to believe that the ftpmasters have *misjudged* the > > liability involved, > This is the whole point of the discussion. Not that I can see.

Re: [Fwd: Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers]

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 19:43 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit : > > Nexenta is absolutely rock stable OS (thanks to legendary Solaris > > history) > > Solaris history is indeed legendary, but not for its stability. Well, when you con

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:17:52 -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> If Sun doesn't fix the license (and I don't think it is our work to fix > > The license is good enough for Debian (ftpmasters took their decisions). > There's no fix to require, but it would be good to continue working them > to enhanc

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:58:18PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 21 May 2006, Thomas Weber wrote: > > Don't you think that the main problem here is that there *wasn't* any > > discussion, at least for the vast majority of Debian developers and > > users? > > No, if w

Re: alternatives and priorities

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Similary any vi extension should top vi itself. Also zile, emacs, > xemacs build kind of a progression. "Kind of progression"?? -Miles -- Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. -- Jerry Garcia --

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Given the word "estoppel" only has meaning in jurisdictions deriving > from English common law, I think it'd be silly to assume it works the > way you think it does in any of the other jurisdictions Debian or any of > its mirrors may come in con

Bug#368412: ITP: flup -- Implements Python Web Server Gateway Interface (WSGI)

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Kai Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: flup Version : 0.1913 Upstream Author : Allan Saddi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.saddi.com/software/flup * License : BSD Programming Lang: Python Description

Re: CAN-2005-3163: polipo permits reading files outside of web root di

Hi Tom, (I am the upstream author of Polipo.) I have just checked the sources of polipo 0.9.8-1, and this bug is still present. This is a serious security bug, but is mitigated by the Debian installation. The bug allows anyone who has access to Polipo's local web server to read any file that is

Re: Multiarch preparations needed for etch dpkg

On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:27:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Taggart and others <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Several people have been working on a project we've been calling > > "multiarch", > > to seamlessly support running applications for multiple different binary > > tar

[EMAIL PROTECTED] list has moved

The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list has been superseded by the list [EMAIL PROTECTED] (see: http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas). -Original Message- Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from fire.cisco.com (firebird.cisco.com) by Cisco.COM (PMDF V5.1-7 #12361) with ESMTP id <[

Re: [draft] Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Michael wrote: > > > Speaking realistically, such a move of Sun would be spectacularly bad PR > > for them esp. considering their statements about future Java licensing > > efforts they have committed to. > > That's true. But why did they release this license and used no other > wording? > > You

Re: Bug#368371: ITP: gp2c -- PARI/GP GP to C compiler

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 10:18:19PM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote: > > * Package name: gp2c > > Version : 0.0.4pl5 > > Upstream Author : Your truly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/ > > * License : GPL > > Programming Lang: C

Re: [draft] Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On 5/19/06, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (...) > > (b) the Software is distributed with your Operating System, and > > such distribution is solely for the purposes of running Programs > > under the control of your Operating System and designing, > > developing

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:51:38PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le Dim 21 Mai 2006 23:04, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > > Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by > > removing java! > > just do it, shall we ? Gets my, uncountable, vote. Cheers, Brett

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:06:42AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 00:55, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > > > > Good, but you shouldn't decide w

Bug#368395: ITP: blockattack -- Tetris Attack Clone

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Gonéri Le Bouder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: blockattack Version : 1.1.2 Upstream Author : Poul Sander * URL : http://blockattack.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C, C++ Description :

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Sonntag, den 21. Mai 2006: *snip* > The license is good enough for Debian (ftpmasters took their decisions). > There's no fix to require, but it would be good to continue working them > to enhance even more the license. Such a constructive behaviour would put > us in a

Re: Making init scripts use dash

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 05:45:46AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > > Well, most of those scripts can be fixed quite easily, some require > > a bit more work. I hereby promise to help fixing them to the extent > > of my capability.

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > If you have a reason to believe that the ftpmasters have *misjudged* the > liability involved, This is the whole point of the discussion. > or you are approaching this as a mirror operator who is > not comfortable with the license

Re: [Fwd: Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers]

Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 19:43 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit : > Nexenta is absolutely rock stable OS (thanks to legendary Solaris > history) Solaris history is indeed legendary, but not for its stability. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 00:55, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > > > Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some > > > people are interested in java in non-fr

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some people are > interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to try to forbid them to > work on that. Not if it hurts the project. And it does. > The license is good en

Re: Section of -dev packages

Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:06:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether? >> We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and >> since the pool structure is used sections have been

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > > Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some people are > > interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to try to forbid them to > > work on

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:09:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > At least so far as I understand it, the ftp-masters (i.e., the people who > did this check) are the people responsible for verifying and checking > licenses in uploaded packages and debian-legal exists as an advisory body > for the ftp

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:04 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > You think it does. Others do. Others don't. I don't. Start a GR if you > think the ftpmasters are wrong. There's no point in telling everyone that > you don't agree just for the sake of it. I think this is going to happen. > How c

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to try to forbid them to > > work on that. > > Not if it hurts the project. And it does. You think it does. Others do. Others don't. I don't. Start a GR if you think the ftpmasters are wrong. There'

Re: Unidentified subject!

o_O...I wonder if these explicit messages, and these obviously have the intent of being explicit are going to cause the same rise as the last explicit message sent to this list...a shame people send such nonsense to these helpful and knowladgeable lists...*sigh*... On 5/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [

Re: Section of -dev packages

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:06:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether? > We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and > since the pool structure is used sections have been quite useless. There are some reasons I'm not

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le Dim 21 Mai 2006 23:04, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by > removing java! just do it, shall we ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 22:38 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : > > Given this legal background of yours, could you please help by using that > > to improve the licence, instead of just complaining about how others > > handled it? Please give the righ

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 09:44 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit : > (Debian-devel, sorry for the spam.) Erast, you shouldn't post on public mailing lists if you don't even accept the email replies. Please fix your SMTP server by removing use of the stupid and broken MAPS RBL, or simply stop posting.

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Romain Beauxis wrote: > I know I shouldn't, but I was really upset by your answer. You shouldn't be upset. > I'm happy that people speak up and claim their fear with this licence, and > no, This is OK. They can ask questions and have a right to know why ftpmasters accepted

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 09:44 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit : > because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e. > FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin) Stop the lies. * The FreeBSD port is glibc-based. * There is no Darwin port. Fink is a toy based on APT and has nothing in common w

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Thomas Weber wrote: > Don't you think that the main problem here is that there *wasn't* any > discussion, at least for the vast majority of Debian developers and > users? No, if we should discuss before taking any action we wouldn't get anything done. If you really want to con

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 22:38 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : > Given this legal background of yours, could you please help by using that > to improve the licence, instead of just complaining about how others > handled it? Please give the right example. I'm afraid I have more interesting things

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On 5/21/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The precise terms are to be found in the license: as long as the license > is unchanged or unamended (with legally binding additions), the issues > should not be considered solved... No one has addressed my question about estoppel. My guess

Unidentified subject!

I want to suck dick -- Mobile Email from a Cingular Wireless Customer http://www.cingular.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 21:18, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> PS: Yeah I'm a bit pissed of that we only have people criticizing when >> we do great things. > > What great things? Taking irresponsible decisions that expose the whole > project to legal actions from Sun? I don't feel like thanking anyone for

Processed: Re: Bug#368383: dumb "manual page for..." NAME section on many man pages

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 368383 general Bug#368383: dumb "manual page for..." NAME section on many man pages Bug reassigned from package `man-db' to `general'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system ad

Re: alternatives and priorities

On Sunday 21 May 2006 22:48, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: --cut-- > Heck, even the installation number have problems. Just check out > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=popularity-contest>, > showing that 99.72% of the machines reporting to popcon have popcon > installed. I believe that whe

Re: alternatives and priorities

[Wouter Verhelst] > Which, I'm sure, is important for popcon maintainers; however, I > don't think it is very relevant in this discussion (unless you can > point me towards an editor that is implemented as a library ;-) The problem do not only affect libraries. There are other packages (with user

Re: SPNT Shopnet.com

Kolby, http://au.geocities.com/creepily23335/ Valarie Kurtz, Ref. jzm322 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 18:54 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e. > > FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept > > their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their > > communities will only grow

Unidentified subject!

Need 2 find some locals for sex only, monroe, La. -- Mobile Email from a Cingular Wireless Customer http://www.cingular.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: alternatives and priorities

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:23:09PM -0300, Maximiliano Curia wrote: > On Friday 19 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > So, instead of using static feature lists to define an application's > > priority with which it would be configured in the alternatives system, > > why not use popcon data to

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Hi! Le Dimanche 21 Mai 2006 19:34, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > PS: Yeah I'm a bit pissed of that we only have people criticizing when we > do great things. I know I shouldn't, but I was really upset by your answer. I'm happy that people speak up and claim their fear with this licence, an

Re: alternatives and priorities

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:51:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Gregor Herrmann] > > If you look at by_vote [0] the situation is different: > > http://popcon.debian.org/main/editors/by_vote > > > > [0] which seems more relevant to me: > > # is the number of people who installed this package

Re: Making init scripts use dash

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 04:49:49PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On 5/19/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 05:45:46AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > >> Well, most of those scripts can be fixed quite easily, some require > >> a bit more work. I hereby pr

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

I don't have a particular opinion for Java in Debian or not, but there are some points you raise: Am Sonntag, den 21.05.2006, 12:34 -0500 schrieb Raphael Hertzog: > In that case, ftpmasters accepted it, end of discussion. Don't you think that the main problem here is that there *wasn't* any disc

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 12:34 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > You are not responsible to make that decision in Debian, ftpmasters are. > Criticizing ftpmasters won't help them changing their minds. If not, it has to help changing the ftpmasters. > Thanks to everyone who worked (even privatel

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 13:38 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > It may be three times the usual examination, but when the license is not > *clearly* suitable for the archive under consideration (non-free, in > this case), the general recommendation is to check with debian-legal, > AFAICT. But th

Re: #252593: roxen2: Won't purge

* Turbo Fredriksson: > I've had some time left and I thought I'd spend that to fix some > bugs... > > What should I do with this bug? Roxen2 is only available in 'oldstable' > (woody)... But how do I direct an upload there? Or should I put it into > sarge, so that it can be removed THERE instead?

Re: Changing the default syslogd (again...)

* Nathanael Nerode: > (2) Upstream status. > There hasn't been a new upstream for sysklogd since 2001. > All of the others are active upstream. Have you checked if SuSE's syslog-ng is heavily patched? If it's mostly alright, it's probably a good indicator that syslog-ng is the way to go (and I a

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Raphael, > In that case, ftpmasters accepted it, end of discussion. You HAVE to > accept decisions of delegates within Debian, that's how we can effectively > work. Nope, you don't have to accept decisions made by delegates. You have the option to ov

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:18:44 -0500 Anthony Towns wrote: > [...] >> Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and >> myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which >> is three times the usual examination, > I

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Sonntag, den 21. Mai 2006: > PS: Yeah I'm a bit pissed of that we only have people criticizing when we > do great things. You can get applause if you do great things, not if you do harm to debian and opensource. As I said, the license has to be changed. Alex --

Re: drupal orphaned?

Re: Erik Steffl 2006-05-21 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > is drupal debian package effectively orphaned? It is already two > major upgrades (more than a year) behind upstream (and upstream > recommends to upgrade from one version to next so the upgrades to > current might get complicated). No, please

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 10:29:17AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > "..there's limited manpower in the world..." can not be an acceptable > argument for future development. Why not? It's certainly better than “with an unspecified amount of work done by an unspecified labor force, option A can be as go

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and > > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which > > is three times the usual examination, > > It may be three times the usual examination, but when the lice

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 18:54 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:44:50AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > > So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library? > > And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with > > missing GLIBC

Bug#368371: ITP: gp2c -- PARI/GP GP to C compiler

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: gp2c Version : 0.0.4pl5 Upstream Author : Your truly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description :

Re: Changing the default syslogd (again...)

Nathanael Nerode wrote: [snip] > The installer can use whatever seems most appropriate (does it even log?): The installer does log and puts the logs at /var/log/debian-installer/ on the successfully installed system. If the installation fails, the logs (in the installer ramdisk) are a valuable sou

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 19:40 +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:06, Erast Benson wrote: > -cut-- > > Clean way would be to extend SUN C library with missing GLIBC > > functionality. Btw, have you seen SUN C library code? Its done very > > clean, very polished code base which run

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:44, Erast Benson wrote: --cut-- > So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library? > And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with > missing GLIBC functionality? I'm just trying to understand your point of > view.. Glibc i

Re: Bug#368309: ITP: pcf2bdf -- convert X11 font from PCF to BDF format

Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Pcf2bdf is a font de-compiler. It converts an X11 font from Portable > Compiled Format (PCF) to Bitmap Distribution Format (BDF). > . > FONTBOUNDINGBOX in a BDF file is not used by bdftopcf, so pcf2bdf > generates irresponsible values. I don't

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:44:50AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library? > And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with > missing GLIBC functionality? I'm just trying to understand your point of > view.. Th

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 19:14 +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Sunday 21 May 2006 17:34, Erast Benson wrote: > --cut-- > > > > But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these "things" are > > > > existing applications which must run. The world is not 100% open > > > > sourced yet and we are in

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:06, Erast Benson wrote: -cut-- > Clean way would be to extend SUN C library with missing GLIBC > functionality. Btw, have you seen SUN C library code? Its done very > clean, very polished code base which runs at least on i386, amd64, sparc > and powerpc arches. Peace, but

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:17:04AM -0700, David A. wrote: > I've briefly folllowed this legal discussion and I understand there are > details and stuff to sort out. Somehow I'm struck by the impression > that there are forces that don't want Sun JVM even in non-free? No, I don't think your impress

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is > three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to > examine the lic

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sunday 21 May 2006 17:34, Erast Benson wrote: --cut-- > > > But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these "things" are > > > existing applications which must run. The world is not 100% open > > > sourced yet and we are in it, we are part of it, therefore my ideal OS > > > need to be capab

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 22:45 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote: > >> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added > >> to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it woul

Re: [draft] Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:59:33PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from > > > and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts > > > and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in > > > con

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 17:09 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Erast Benson wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > >> Then provide the Solaris libc and other support libraries somewhere > >> proprietary applications can use them, while building your system around >

Re: Packages violating policy 8.2

"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 5/21/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> For multiarch this will be an inconvenience though as people might >> want to install both 32bit and 64bit of a -dev package. For such small >> scripts spliting them into extra pac

Bug#368334: ITP: libexpertcoder-cil -- ExpertCoder is a toolkit that supports the creation of code generators based on expert systems.

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Victor Seva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libexpertcoder-cil Version : 0.2 Upstream Author : Rodolfo Campero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://expertcoder.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C# D

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 01:38:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > As has already been pointed out: what if Sun Java manages to enter a > future stable (or oldstable) release? > How quickly can Debian "effectively" drop a package from there? Is this really a problem? After all, nothing in main can

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

Erast Benson wrote: On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: Then provide the Solaris libc and other support libraries somewhere proprietary applications can use them, while building your system around glibc. It is not easy possible to achieve. I'd say it would be impossibl

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:18:44 -0500 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which > is three times the usual examination, It may be three times the usual examination, but whe

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:49 +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:35, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > > > > Do you really believe so? Do you understand that

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Erast Benson wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote: > >> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added > >> to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected > >>

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 23:05 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: > Erast Benson writes... > > > Once you accompany OpenSolaris kernel with GLIBC, you will kill this > > capability, you will not be able to run anything other than OSS compiled > > for your particular distro. That was my point. And isn't LSB i

  1   2   >