Mac Address in C
Salve a tutti, esiste una funzione di sistema che mi restituisca il MAC address?? -- Per REVOCARE l'iscrizione alla lista, inviare un email a [EMAIL PROTECTED] con oggetto unsubscribe. Per problemi inviare un email in INGLESE a [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Mac Address in C
scusate il repost ma ho mandato la mail a fabrizio in privato -- Forwarded message -- From: Andrea Ferraresi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 4-giu-2007 22.06 Subject: Re: Mac Address in C To: Fabrizio Gattuso [EMAIL PROTECTED] tutte le informazioni della scheda vengono date dal comando ifconfig quindi basta dare il seguente comando ifconfig | grep HW ciao. Il 04/06/07, Fabrizio Gattuso[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Salve a tutti, esiste una funzione di sistema che mi restituisca il MAC address?? -- Per REVOCARE l'iscrizione alla lista, inviare un email a [EMAIL PROTECTED] con oggetto unsubscribe. Per problemi inviare un email in INGLESE a [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- .''`. Andrea Ferraresi [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : irc.FreeNode.net #lslug | JID [EMAIL PROTECTED] . `` Registered Linux user #388877 and Machine #289399 `- WebMaster http://www.lslug.org -- .''`. Andrea Ferraresi [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : irc.FreeNode.net #lslug | JID [EMAIL PROTECTED] . `` Registered Linux user #388877 and Machine #289399 `- WebMaster http://www.lslug.org -- Per REVOCARE l'iscrizione alla lista, inviare un email a [EMAIL PROTECTED] con oggetto unsubscribe. Per problemi inviare un email in INGLESE a [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: Mac Address in C
On 4 Giu, 22:10, Andrea Ferraresi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: scusate il repost ma ho mandato la mail a fabrizio in privato -- Forwarded message -- From: Andrea Ferraresi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 4-giu-2007 22.06 Subject: Re: Mac Address in C To: Fabrizio Gattuso [EMAIL PROTECTED] tutte le informazioni della scheda vengono date dal comando ifconfig quindi basta dare il seguente comando ifconfig | grep HW ciao. intendevo in C :) non da shell! -- Per REVOCARE l'iscrizione alla lista, inviare un email a [EMAIL PROTECTED] con oggetto unsubscribe. Per problemi inviare un email in INGLESE a [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Hi, Am Montag, 4. Juni 2007 02:45:07 schrieb Wouter Verhelst: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:09:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote: What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your immediate concern is zero, for all practical matters; that means you can simply ignore it, and nothing Bad will happen. Therefore, I don't think it makes it anything even remotely representing non-freeness. You might want to read Abkommen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und dem Königreich Belgien über die gegenseitige Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von gerichtlichen Entscheidungen, Schiedssprüchen und öffentlichen Urkunden in Zivil- und Handelssachen No idea how it is called in Belgium, but it's the German part of a treaty from 1958 dealing precisely with that sort of thing. So, it seems extremely likely that if I win in Germany in a civil case, I can have this decision executed in Belgium. Additionally, you might want to check European law for similar agreements (which would mean that the jurisdiction of your immediate concern spans 20 countries). Thomas
Re: Is there a way to positively, uniquely identify which Debian release a program is running on?
Frankly, helping vendors of non-free software lies far below the ability to provide our users the option to do partial upgrades, apt-pinning, etc. If we are not going to impact the utility to the users; I am indifferent to adding things to help non-free software vendors. Apart from the fact that the above may very well explain why Debian is not used in all places where it should be used, I don't really see what hurts in having a lenny system where lsb_release -n reports Debian GNU/Linux 4.1beta (lenny) or something similarat least *not* Debian GNU/Linux 4.0r0 (etch). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: I am not a specialist, but in France, private use of a work cannot be denied (as well as private copy, in some measure). Whether this applies only to countries following author rights doctrine instead of copyrights, I let it to someone more knowledgeable in this field. It applies to all countries who have implemented EC Directive 91/250/EC regarding copyright protection for coomputer programs. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0250:EN:HTML Basic principles 1) use of software is one of the exclusive rights (art. 4(a)) 2) uses by a lawful acquirer are deemed not an infringement (art. 5(1)) 3) a license may restrict or annul item 2 (art. 5(1) first part) IOW I don't need a license to run GPL software. If the person who made the software available to me obeys the GPL, I'm a lawful acquirer and I couldn't care less about what the GPL says. Only when I redistribute the software do I need to worry about the GPL provisions. IANYL, TINLA. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Thomas Weber wrote: No idea how it is called in Belgium, but it's the German part of a treaty from 1958 dealing precisely with that sort of thing. So, it seems extremely likely that if I win in Germany in a civil case, I can have this decision executed in Belgium. Additionally, you might want to check European law for similar agreements (which would mean that the jurisdiction of your immediate concern spans 20 countries). Just see EC Regulation 44/2001: A judgment given in a Member State is to be recognised automatically, no special proceedings being necessary unless recognition is actually contested. A declaration that a foreign judgment is enforceable is to be issued after purely formal checks of the documents supplied. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33054.htm Most relevant is article 5(1) that says that in matters relating to a contract, [jurisdiction is] in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What happened to popcon graphs?
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 01:39:11 -0300 Martín Ferrari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/31/07, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anyone knows why the popcon graphs on: http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=package are missing? This seems to explain the problem: br / bFatal error/b: Allowed memory size of 8388608 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 21 bytes) in b/home/igloo/public_html/popcon-graphs/graph.php/b on line b80/bbr / Maybe the popcon database grew too big to be handled in-memory by those scripts Usually, out-of-memory errors in PHP are actually script bugs that lead to some kind of infinite loop - there should be no reason for the script to load the entire database, just the record(s) for the specific package. Where should this bug be reported - against the popularity-contest package or against qa somewhere? -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpAob4EliaLR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. From the summary: If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community, have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court will have jurisdiction. The Regulation lays down a number of formalities that must be observed in such choice of jurisdiction agreements: the agreement must be in writing, or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves or, in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are aware. * Choice of jurisdiction is a general principle of private international law under which the parties to a contract are free to designate a court to rule on any disputes even though that court might not have had jurisdiction on the basis of the factors objectively connecting the contract with a particular place. Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something more than that to violate the DFSG. giving up something that you might value [or] otherwise demand compensation for applies equally well to cash money as it does to any other intangible which has value. A requirement to send an email to the licensor if you possibly can isn't cash money either, but it sure seems to be a fee to me. It's not a fee in the normal sense of the word, but it is a restriction in the sense that if you're not able to do it (and you may well not be able to), you're not able to make use of the priveleges you're offered in return. That's where the analogy to a fee comes in -- it stops some people from being able to participate. For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent rights stops Microsoft from being willing to distribute Linux. The requirement to pet a cat, even if it is only required if convenient, also only stops some people from being willing to participate. It has also been considered non-free since the beginning of Debian. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 22:45:52 +0200 sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 03 June 2007 21:30:26 Josselin Mouette wrote: Even if SQLite is more robust than Berkeley DB, I don't think you could recover anything from a corrupt database. Plain text will always turn out better in terms of disaster recovery. If performance is an issue, a text file can - just like a bdb file - be indexed. Corrupt indexes can be regenerated, but corrupt databases cannot. i believe that i also stated in my last posting to dpkg-devel that a good implementation would treat such a db as cache, and handle them being corrupted/deleted: http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2007/04/msg00015.html I like the idea that the flat files remain and that the db is just a cache. It would be fine if this cache is disposable in that way because it does solve the issues of corruption, upgrade paths etc. To me, the best solution would be for an option in /etc/apt/apt.conf (or similar) to enable and disable the sqlite cache. This would solve my problems because I could disable the sqlite during the initial stages and only enable it if the system has sufficient resources to run sqlite almost constantly during the rest of the installation. My problem is with trying to replace the flat files with any kind of database - I believe that the flat files should always exist on every system and a disposable cache (just like the apt-cache) suits this usage quite well. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgp7sArTaPCXQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Am Montag, 4. Juni 2007 08:51:56 schrieb Arnoud Engelfriet: Thanks for finding an english text. Just see EC Regulation 44/2001: A judgment given in a Member State is to be recognised automatically, no special proceedings being necessary unless recognition is actually contested. A declaration that a foreign judgment is enforceable is to be issued after purely formal checks of the documents supplied. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33054.htm Most relevant is article 5(1) that says that in matters relating to a contract, [jurisdiction is] in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. What about article 23(1)? If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a Member State, have agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction. But actually, that wasn't my point. I only wanted to show that I'm living in X. If you sue me and win in Y, I just don't care can be an expensive attitude in the EU. Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Ups, a professional. I'd better be quiet now ;) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Improving dependencies on shared libraries
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 01:30:39PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:37:08PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 11:02:37PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Right, I read your message too quickly, sorry. However the maintainer can change the symbols file in his package and update the dependency associated to this symbol and make sure that a binary using this symbol will depend on the version used to build the package. Miss one and you create a whole load of bugs. As much bugs as when you don't bump the shlibs... Most library packages use dh_makeshlibs -V anyway... If you miss symbols, I suppose the tool gets to decide how to handle it, and would probably default to something sane; this means we would get dh_makeshlibs -V per-symbol instead of per-library in this case; smaller pain than dh_makeshlibs -V. dh_makeshlibs -V should be kept for young libraries: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/08/thrd3.html#01359 -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: start-stop-daemon for user processes
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:56:37PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote: On Saturday 02 June 2007 21:45, Russ Allbery wrote: Take a look at runit. ?It's quite a bit like daemontools without the weird licensing. Runit doesn't appear to be useful for non-system tasks, like starting jackd and restarting it if it dies (i.e. on suspend/resume). It is, see http://smarden.org/runit/faq.html#userservices http://smarden.org/runit/faq.html#user Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Hi On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: I'm not really picky about names and would be quite relaxed if the official homepage http://www.sturmbahnfahrer.com/ would not support the suspicion by using a font that at least supports the ill feeling. So even if I don't want to spekulate about lawyers opinions - it seems to show at least bad taste of the authors. Isn't this just a standard blackletter font? Apart from that gothic fonts were forbidden by law in 1941 and replaced by latin type of lettering. So the feeling is really nothing more than a feeling in this case. Regards, Alexander -- http://www.emplify.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:40:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and have no obligation to provide source. You're *not* giving up the right to distribute binaries without distributing the corresponding source, because, without a license, you would not have the right to distribute binaries in the first place (with or without source). By accepting the GPL, you instead gain the right to distribute binaries with source, and you simply do *not* gain the right to distribute binaries without source. Similarly, by accepting the CDDL, you are not giving up the right to choose a venue in case you get sued over the software It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer have that freedom[1]. Therefore it is a freedom that I'm giving up. instead, you are simply gaining the right to use, modify, and redistribute the software under a given set of rules (which simply does not include the right to choose a court in which to settle disagreements). That is what matters, and that is what makes the software free. No. The GPL grants certain additional, limited rights without taking away any rights that I already have. The CDDL grants certain additional, limited rights *in exchange for* me giving up a right that I have. Even if my argument would be flawed (which I don't think it is, but just in case), that wouldn't even matter. What matters is that DFSG#1 talks about a royalty or other fee--i.e. money--not giving up rights; and any interpretation of the text that says it does talk about giving up rights is incorrect to begin with. Great, I'll start working on the Indentured Servitude Public License; I trust I can count on your support when it comes time for NEW processing. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ [1] Technically, not the right to choose a venue, but the right to not be sued in a venue where I have no legal presence. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database
On Monday 04 June 2007 01:34:01 Neil Williams wrote: That could actually be quite difficult - how would you migrate from one to the other? Have the raw files and the sqlite cache on the mirrors. Give the local program the option to use either. Then you could use the raw files if the sqlite cache can't be used. The installer will inevitably use the smallest possible combination of packages, the finished installation might need to use sqlite. Besides, you still have the same problems of trying to copy package sets and having to run sqlite before anything else can be done. I don't understand why you'd have to run sqlite before anything else. It is a library, not an RDBMS like PostgreSQL. Migrating from a busybox rootfs (without dpkg) would potentially cause more problems and making busybox depend on sqlite is plain crazy. No need with the above approach, as the dpkg from busybox could still use the raw files. wt -- Warren Turkal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: start-stop-daemon for user processes
On Sunday 03 June 2007 15:11:36 Vincent Danjean wrote: To be run by a user, you can look at launchtool (in the package with the same name). Description: Runs a command supervising its execution Runs a user-supplied command supervising its execution in many ways: [...] This looks like it may be what I need. The runit solution just didn't seem like it was intended for my use case. I will check this out. wt -- Warren Turkal
Re: What happened to popcon graphs?
Hi, * Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-04 09:22]: On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 01:39:11 -0300 On 5/31/07, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where should this bug be reported - against the popularity-contest package or against qa somewhere? Please file against qa since the popcon package does not include these php scripts. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgprIqawzixQu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. From the summary: If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community, have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court will have jurisdiction. True, if it's a EU country. Sorry for that omission. Signing away jurisdiction to the US is a lot more difficult. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:24 +0100 Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, that's why it is used in some embedded systems. Even so, it has no place in the rootfs for an embedded system, IMHO. I'd rather not have to repackage apt to remove this change. Why would it need to be on the root? Surely the binaries and data would just go on /usr and /var as normal? ? A rootfs is the base filesystem created for the installer and for test environments like chroot. It is a normal filesystem with /usr/bin etc., it is just v.v.v.small and designed only to achieve the most minimal functionality before the rest of the system is installed. apt/dpkg/busybox have to be part of that rootfs for any flavour of Debian, as do their dependencies. Perhaps just using sqlite as an (optional) cache for dpkg and/or apt would bring sufficient improvements to systems which desire it That could actually be quite difficult - how would you migrate from one to the other? The installer will inevitably use the smallest possible combination of packages, the finished installation might need to use sqlite. Besides, you still have the same problems of trying to copy package sets and having to run sqlite before anything else can be done. Migrating from a busybox rootfs (without dpkg) would potentially cause more problems and making busybox depend on sqlite is plain crazy. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpkH0N5Vvcns.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue (mostly) notwithstanding. From the summary: If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community, have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court will have jurisdiction. True, if it's a EU country. Sorry for that omission. Signing away jurisdiction to the US is a lot more difficult. I'd have to read the actual clause in the actual law, but the summary makes it sound like just one party's existance in the EU makes the jurisdiction clause apply. In any event, in the instant case (star) germany is the chosen jurisdiction. Don Armstrong -- EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise when you step right up to a urinal and use it with a smile. Get Dr. Mary Evers' EQUAL-NOW Adapter (pat. appld. for) -- purse size, fool proof, sanitary -- comes in nine lovely, feminine, psychadelic patterns -- requires no fitting, no prescriptions. -- Robert A Heinlein _I Will Fear No Evil_ p470. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
2007/6/4, Alexander Reelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: I'm not really picky about names and would be quite relaxed if the official homepage http://www.sturmbahnfahrer.com/ would not support the suspicion by using a font that at least supports the ill feeling. So even if I don't want to spekulate about lawyers opinions - it seems to show at least bad taste of the authors. Isn't this just a standard blackletter font? Apart from that gothic fonts were forbidden by law in 1941 and replaced by latin type of lettering. So the feeling is really nothing more than a feeling in this case. I can't believe that... gothic fonts are forbidden in Germany by law!!!??? Greetings, Miry
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On Monday 04 June 2007 01:20:16 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: ... This is only my (ill-informed) opinion - I am neither a German, nor a German lawyer :) I'm not really picky about names and would be quite relaxed if the official homepage http://www.sturmbahnfahrer.com/ would not support the suspicion by using a font that at least supports the ill feeling. So even if I don't want to spekulate about lawyers opinions - it seems to show at least bad taste of the authors. Isn't this just a standard blackletter font? I need to second Andreas. The authors are playing intentionally with the association to the NS regime where it is not required. We are not talking Castle Wolfenstein here. It is a car racing game. If Debian finds maintainers/sponsors for this game then I could imagine that we run into issues with mirroring - some sites may refuse to have this game on their servers. Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
[Bcc on [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that discussion happens on -devel] Hello, I've gone forward with the plan that I exposed in http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/ImprovedDpkgShlibdeps Please grab the code with: $ bzr get http://bzr.debian.org/private/hertzog/shlibdeps/ The repository contains two scripts: a new dpkg-gensymbols that is used to generate DEBIAN/symbols file during the build process and a replacement for dpkg-shlibdeps that uses symbol files to generate dependencies and normal shlibs if there's no corresponding symbols file. If you want to try it out, you can install it: $ sudo make install (It will crudely copy files in the system but make uninstall will remove them and bring back the system to its previous state) How does it work to generate a dependency - dpkg-shlibdeps works as usual except that instead of looking at *.shlibs file, it first tries to find *.symbols file. Then for each ELF binary it will generate the list of dynamic symbols that it uses. For each symbol, it will go through the list of libraries (in the same order as they are referenced in the binary) and try to find the symbol in the corresponding symbol file. If yes, it checks the minimal version of the library which provides it and compares/updates the minimal version needed by the whole package. If the symbol is not found in a *.symbols file, then we check against the libraries which are listed by the binary but for which we haven't found an *.symbols file. If the symbol is present in one of those libraries, then we record the dependency indicated by the corresponding shlibs file. If the symbol is found nowhere it displays a warning (maybe it should fail?). At the end, it computes the resulting dependency. dpkg-shlibdeps will use symbols file available in /etc/dpkg/symbols/. So if you want to try it out without recompiling many packages, you can simply generate the symbols file that you want and put them in this directory. Checking what it generates is easy enough: $ dpkg-shlibdeps -e/bin/ls -O shlibs:Depends=libselinux1 (= 2.0.15), libc6 (= 2.3.6.ds1-13), libacl1 (= 2.2.11-1) In this sample I only have installed a symbols file for libc6: http://people.debian.org/~hertzog/libc6.symbols What does it mean for library maintainers - Library maintainers are supposed to maintain the *.symbols file. For this, they have to create files debian/package.symbols.arch (dpkg-gensymbols will try too fallback to debian/symbols.arch, debian/package.symbols and debian/symbols). They are required to provide the minimal version (as used in the dependency generated) associated to each symbol. Then during the build process, dpkg-gensymbols will use those symbols file and merge information concerning newer symbols provided by the library. The result is provided inside the package itself as a DEBIAN/symbols file. The canonical way to call dpkg-gensymbols during a build is: dpkg-gensymbols -ppackage -Ppackagebuildtree (the version is extracted from the changelog, and all the libraries found in the packagebuildtree are scanned) If you want to explicitley list the libraries that will be scanned, then you can pass several -elibrary-file (you can use glob expression like -edebian/libc6/lib/*.so*). Library maintainers who want to avoid any mistakes can use the -c option (for compare) which will make the compilation fail if the generated symbols file differ from the maintainer supplied file. In that case, the build log contains a diff between the two symbols files and he can analyze the differences (and update his file if necessary). Creating a first version of the symbols file is not difficult either. For the sake of example, here's how I did with the libc6 package. I included the etch package first so that I have history of symbols starting from etch. $ aptitude download libc6/stable libc6/unstable $ dpkg -x libc6_2.3.6.ds1-13_i386.deb /tmp/etch-libc6 $ dpkg -x libc6_2.5-9_i386.deb /tmp/sid-libc6 $ dpkg-gensymbols -v2.3.6.ds1 -plibc6 -e/tmp/etch-libc6/lib*.so* -Olibc6.symbols $ dpkg-gensymbols -v2.5-9 -plibc6 -e/tmp/sid-libc6/lib*.so* -Olibc6.symbols Note that -P/tmp/etch-libc6 should have been enough but since the etch package of the libc6 contains multiple versions of the same shared libraries I had to specify precisely which files I wanted to scan with -e. Note also that you should do that for all architectures in case symbol information differ from on arch to the other. Since this is painful, I'll try to generate files ready to be downloaded (see below). If you know that there's no difference between architectures, you don't need to bother but using -c during build will help you ensuring that you were right and that there's indeed no difference. Other benefits -- Since symbol information is integrated in the package itself, a debdiff --controlfiles ALL would directly show if a package introduces new symbols or removes existing ones.
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On Monday 04 June 2007 10:38:45 Miriam Ruiz wrote: 2007/6/4, Alexander Reelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: I'm not really picky about names and would be quite relaxed if the official homepage http://www.sturmbahnfahrer.com/ would not support the suspicion by using a font that at least supports the ill feeling. So even if I don't want to spekulate about lawyers opinions - it seems to show at least bad taste of the authors. Isn't this just a standard blackletter font? Apart from that gothic fonts were forbidden by law in 1941 and replaced by latin type of lettering. So the feeling is really nothing more than a feeling in this case. I can't believe that... gothic fonts are forbidden in Germany by law!!!??? Haha, certainly not in 1941 :/ Geez. This must be referring to some non-German juristiction. In Germany, the § 86 of the German Strafgesetzbuch, titled Verbreiten von Propagandamitteln verfassungswidriger Organisationen, is forbidding symbols of organisations that are non-constitutional http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/86.html. Here an overview about forbidden symbols: http://www.turnitdown.de/ns-symbole.html http://www.hagalil.com/deutschland/rechts/erkennungszeichen/rechtsextremismus.htm What people are doing is to use kind of similar symbols to circumvent trouble. There are edit distances in the writing, birth dates, positions of letters in the alphabeth, ... did you know that the London shirt company Lonsdale has the letter NSDA in their name? They are selling a real lot for that reason. Package whatever you want. But value your time. And value your intellect. Steffen
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/6/4, Alexander Reelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: I'm not really picky about names and would be quite relaxed if the official homepage http://www.sturmbahnfahrer.com/ would not support the suspicion by using a font that at least supports the ill feeling. So even if I don't want to spekulate about lawyers opinions - it seems to show at least bad taste of the authors. Isn't this just a standard blackletter font? Apart from that gothic fonts were forbidden by law in 1941 and replaced by latin type of lettering. So the feeling is really nothing more than a feeling in this case. I can't believe that... gothic fonts are forbidden in Germany by law!!!??? Only in the (1000-8) years between 1941 and 1945. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Apart from that gothic fonts were forbidden by law in 1941 and replaced by latin type of lettering. So the feeling is really nothing more than a feeling in this case. I can't believe that... gothic fonts are forbidden in Germany by law!!!??? No. Between 1941 and now some major events lead to some changes in Germany. It may come to a surprise to many people, but for example, the Nuremberg Laws have been dropped. Marc -- BOFH #218: The UPS doesn't have a battery backup. pgpOQlxez1QQs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is there a way to positively, uniquely identify which Debian release a program is running on?
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:28:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Frankly, helping vendors of non-free software lies far below the ability to provide our users the option to do partial upgrades, apt-pinning, etc. How does /etc/debian_version of lsb_release hinder that? I'm not suggesting we ditch partial upgrades or apt-pinning. Please reread my email. If we are not going to impact the utility to the users; I am indifferent to adding things to help non-free software vendors. How are we going to impact our users? I really don't understand your email. Regards Javier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Hi Miriam, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2007/6/4, Alexander Reelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: I'm not really picky about names and would be quite relaxed if the official homepage http://www.sturmbahnfahrer.com/ would not support the suspicion by using a font that at least supports the ill feeling. So even if I don't want to spekulate about lawyers opinions - it seems to show at least bad taste of the authors. Isn't this just a standard blackletter font? Apart from that gothic fonts were forbidden by law in 1941 and replaced by latin type of lettering. So the feeling is really nothing more than a feeling in this case. I can't believe that... gothic fonts are forbidden in Germany by law!!!??? no, not nowadays. I don't know if such fonts were really forbidden by written law (whatever that mean for the nazis) at that time. But they were abolished as 'un-german' around 1940. Nowadays showing nazi symbols in the public and denying the holocaust is forbidden in Germany and some other countries. The german term 'Sturmbahn' as in 'Sturmbahnfahrer' describes a trail were you have to vanquish some barriers to train your physical fitness. This is often used in military lingo. But I also know it from places, where you can train your dog. So a 'Sturmbahnfahrer' is someone who drives over a 'Sturmbahn'. I find the name for the game a little bit awkward, too. It may confuse people as we can see in this discussion. But after having a glance at the games homepage I wouldn't see any association with nazis. Michael -- biff4emacsen - A biff-like tool for (X)Emacs http://www.c0t0d0s0.de/biff4emacsen/biff4emacsen.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:54:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Library maintainers who want to avoid any mistakes can use the -c option (for compare) which will make the compilation fail if the generated symbols file differ from the maintainer supplied file. In that case, the build log contains a diff between the two symbols files and he can analyze the differences (and update his file if necessary). I think this should be the default behaviour. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:54:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Library maintainers who want to avoid any mistakes can use the -c option (for compare) which will make the compilation fail if the generated symbols file differ from the maintainer supplied file. In that case, the build log contains a diff between the two symbols files and he can analyze the differences (and update his file if necessary). I think this should be the default behaviour. Well, the default behaviour that I intended to use is somewhat different and more suited to small libraries maybe: - the maintainer runs a script 'update-symbols' which downloads the latest symbols files for all arches in debian/ from a central server which extracts the symbols file from the last-built package. - the maintainer builds the new upstream package and the new symbol information is auto-merged in the generated symbols file - go back to first step for the next version This scheme allows to simply follow the history of the package without complicating too much the life of the maintainer. Furthermore non-versioned libraries export many private functions which can appear and disappear, and it shouldn't necessarily fail because of that. So this option is probably well suited for versioned libraries but too much hassle for non-versioned ones. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
The debian-legal checklist: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check. Anthony Towns writes: [...] And as far as the actual effects go, I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in your license: if you set foot in Australia, with an Australian judgement against you, there's a good chance of it being enforced; and if you don't, there seems to be a practical possibility of your extradition anyway, based on [0]. Extradition is for criminal cases, not civil cases. I cannot imagine how a choice of venue clause would significantly either help or hurt a criminal defendant. Confident assertion of legal facts, with little basis, no references, and without an IANAL disclaimer, or I am a lawyer and this is legal advice, or a I am a lawyer but this does not constitute legal advice: Check Since copyright is increasingly covered by criminal penalties (in at least Australia and the US) as well as civil ones, I don't think that dismissal is even particularly useful. As has been previously discussed on -legal -- several times, I might add -- there are a variety of reasons that the rest your argument is flawed. Condescending dismissal of arguments: Check. To summarize: Most of the expense of non-local defense litigation is in advance of any court judgment on the merits. The cost to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction is an order of magnitude (or more) less than litigating it through trial. It is harder to set aside a default judgment than to dismiss a complaint for improper venue. Confident assertion of legal facts, [...]: Check. In the example Don presented, of the Debian star maintainer removing some output from the Debian star package, that the star upstream claims constitutes a copyright notice, then there are the following options: 1. avoid the conflict by removing star from Debian 2. avoid the conflict by replacing the output at upstream's request 3. dispute the claim that they're copyright notices and keep acting At this point upstream likewise has some choices -- ignore the (perceived) license violation, sue in the court that's most convenient for them, or sue in the court that's most likely to act against you. If they ignore the violation, then that's where it ends. If they sue in the court that's convenient for them, then: 4. they need to demonstrate jurisdiction (which should be relatively easy even without a choice of venue clause, because Debian operates globally anyway: in the Berlin case ffis would be a potential target, I'd imagine) 5. they'd need to subpoena the respondent (ffis, pavel, SPI, whoever) following usual procedures 6. they'd need to convince the judge that the case is worth hearing and that they're correct At step (3) we've already decided upon a response to the claims, which we could file either with representation or by post at point (6). If those comments are dismissed by the judge and we're ruled against, we have another choice: 7. we can accept the ruling that we're violating the author's copyright, and remove the program or comply with upstream's request 8. we can continue doing things the way we think's appropriate, but not in places where we've been ruled against And if upstream doesn't like that, which they presumably wouldn't, 9. upstream can start asking other jurisdictions to enforce the penalties already indicated And as it happens, all of that applies without a choice of venue clause too, the only option you lose is the chance of dismissing the case on jurisdictional technicalities at point (6). Even if the license provides for recovery of costs and attorneys' fees It does provide for recovery of costs and attorneys' fees. No need to be hypothetical. Those are the costs of a choice-of-venue clause. The (apparently one and only) benefit is that it is cheaper for the licensor to sue people and/or the results of lawsuits are more predictable. The benefit is that it's clearer as to how the license will be enforced. Is it a big benefit? No, probably not. Supposedly Sun have it on their TODO list to remove it, though presumably it's safe to say they've been more focussed on getting Java under GPLv2 and seeing what happens with GPLv3 over the past little while. Is that truly acceptable in a free software license? Is it acceptable that a free software license makes it cheaper for the licensor to sue people, or that the results of lawsuits are more predictable? Of course it is. Is it acceptable that a free software license has drawbacks associated with it for potential licensees? Well that's a no-brainer too: all licenses (with the possible exception of public domain equivalents) have drawbacks of some kind. Cheers, aj signature.asc
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:14:16AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: But even so, when you say things like I'm personally more concerned about licensing than the average developer and I [...] expect people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis with counter arguments, come to a complete understanding of the problem, and then make a determination you are saying your understanding is more important than other people's. No, I'm saying that people who disagree should engage my analysis instead of remaining silent or discarding them with offhand comments. Holding people who agree with you to that standard might be a way to start? If I had time to do so, I'd consider it. Since I don't, I content myself with trying to make sure my messages approach this standard, setting an example instead. Well, when you hold people to different standards based on whether they agree with you or not, you can pretty safely expect that you'll end up with a pretty biassed group. In any event, the important thing (afaics) isn't to have a forum where regulars can post their understanding of issues, it's to help the people you're communicating with have a better appreciation for the complexities involved in their issue and how they might choose to approach them. That can mean pointing out possible drawbacks in existing licenses, explaining tradeoffs between licenses, or suggesting alternative ways of drafting licenses that avoid having to make some tradeoffs, but it doesn't mean making the tradeoffs for other people. Almost all this happens on -legal, actually. That's not my experience. From what I've seen, -legal mostly consists of people who aren't particularly experienced in free software development or professionally trained in any sort of legal analysis making unconditional claims about whether particular clauses are good or bad (mostly the latter) and how they'll be enforced. Obviously (I hope), I don't consider you to be inexperienced in free software development, but just in this thread you've made a reasonable number of unconditional statements, including ones that're simply wrong. I hope you can see why that can be frustrating, and why it can be more annoying when it's done by people whose only contribution to free software seems to be participating on -legal. I've personally been involved in trying to resolve the GFDL issue, making sure that the GPLv3 is DFSG free, and have been working along with Simon and a few others to try to fix the RFC issue. [In the case of the CDDL, it's interesting to note that this very issue was supposedly going to be fixed or at least looked at in an upcomming revision of the CDDL.] Well, the GFDL issues have been going to be fixed for some years now too; which, afaics, means that leaving Debian's interests up to folks on -legal (including yourself in this case) isn't very effective. Maybe it's not possible to be more effective on this score -- I'm not involved enough to say -- but I do know -legal could be a lot more effective in other respect, if it wasn't so insular: ie, less unconditional about what's free and less likely to inflate things that are regarded in the rest of the free software community as a non-issue (or a feature!) into a disaster wrt DFSG-freeness. No, punting to a GR is not a good solution -- it's slow to come to a resolution, it annoys developers who have to inform themselves about something they'd rather not worry about, and it ends up with -legal folks complaining that the resolution doesn't make sense. If it's the case that a signficant proportion of contributors to -legal and Debian Developers feel that an improper decision has been made, there's little else that can be done besides bringing it to a GR. What contributors to -legal feel is irrelevant to the above -- things go to a GR if, and only if, Debian Developers care sufficiently about it. And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's still not a *good solution* for deciding these things; it's a last resort, and the only other options we currently have a ftpmaster decides and it's obvious to pretty much everybody. What would make it more welcoming? A large part of the problem is the need to continuously point out counter arguments, [...] What makes it unwelcoming is the appearance of a consensus that doesn't brook argument, even when that consensus differs significantly from that of other sections of the free software (or open source) community. The problem is that it's very difficult to know if the consensus differens from the silent majority because the silent majority is nearly silent. When you're saying a license from the Free Software Foundation is non-free, it's *very easy* to tell you're going against another section of the free software community. We've done that with the Affero General Public License, the GNU Free Documentation License, and there's been the occassional attempt to
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:25:41AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Non-developer, non-maintainer, non-applicant: Check. Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent rights stops Microsoft from being willing to distribute Linux. The requirement to pet a cat, even if it is only required if convenient, also only stops some people from being willing to participate. It has also been considered non-free since the beginning of Debian. Condescending dismissal of arguments: Check. Is it really not obvious why -legal isn't taken very seriously sometimes? I don't consider the venue for deciding conflicts is chosen in advance as remotely equivalent to you must pet a cat. An analogy I would accept is something of the form you don't get to exercise your right/ability to where is an action, not the lack of an action. enforce your patents against other users of this software would be one example, distribute compiled code without source code would be another. If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO, you need to argue the same thing about you don't get to exercise your patent rights. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Chao ban ve may bay
Cho minh hoi ve may bay tu Ha Noi di Narita Japan vao toi thu 6 tuan sau co gia bao nhieu, lieu co the dat ve tu bay gio ko? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Library maintainers are supposed to maintain the *.symbols file. For this, they have to create files debian/package.symbols.arch (dpkg-gensymbols will try too fallback to debian/symbols.arch, debian/package.symbols and debian/symbols). They are required to provide the minimal version (as used in the dependency generated) associated to each symbol. While this seemed sensible on my first read, I think it's a burden to effectively maintain multiple *.symbols.* files for multiple arches or packages (for example flavors of the same library) with only small differences between the lists. I was about to suggest adding a way to share such lists, for example an include mechanism, but all of this seems to be at the wrong level: I think dpkg-* tools should only be concerned about debian/symbols or DEBIAN/symbols, and leave handling of architecture / package specific overrides to higher level stacks such as debhelper. I suppose maintainers will resort to the same file generation tricks that they already use to share file lists, shlibs information or whatever, and CDBS will provide new hooks for overrides as well Quid of udebs? Are these affected by the changes? Since symbol information is integrated in the package itself, a debdiff --controlfiles ALL would directly show if a package introduces new symbols or removes existing ones. That a cool feature by itself, it means I will be able to review symbol changes without resorting to custom scripts or manual diffs! -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO, you need to argue the same thing about you don't get to exercise your patent rights. You're aware that most of the people arguing that choice of venue clauses are non-free also hold the opinion that patent non-enforcement as a condition of the copyright license is also non-free? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:42:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO, you need to argue the same thing about you don't get to exercise your patent rights. You're aware that most of the people arguing that choice of venue clauses are non-free also hold the opinion that patent non-enforcement as a condition of the copyright license is also non-free? No, not at all. It's been years since I've followed -legal, and I certainly don't keep track of who thinks what. I fundamentally don't think it *matters* what individual subscribers to -legal think. What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and open source community, that Debian can use to work out what software we'll distribute in main. I don't think it's remotely obvious that the DFSG rules out all patent non-enforcement clauses, I'm pretty sure it's not remotely obvious that the DFSG rules out choice of venue clauses, and so far I haven't seen any real reason why Debian needs to rule out those clauses. I can _certainly_ see why those sort of things might be more of a drawback than a benefit and we might want to discourage their use, but we can say bad in ways other than non-free. Cheers, aj, who suspects he's against patent non-enforcement clauses in the past signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer have that freedom[1]. [...] [1] Technically, not the right to choose a venue, but the right to not be sued in a venue where I have no legal presence. Err, that's not a violation of your rights, it's a waste of the court's time... If the court doesn't see it as a waste of its time, and issues you with a summons anyway, you're involved. Cf [0]. You might as well say you've got the right not to be flamed on a list you're not subscribed to. Cheers, aj [0] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Library maintainers are supposed to maintain the *.symbols file. For
this, they have to create files debian/package.symbols.arch
(dpkg-gensymbols will try too fallback to debian/symbols.arch,
debian/package.symbols and debian/symbols). They are
required to provide the minimal version (as used in the dependency
generated) associated to each symbol.
While this seemed sensible on my first read, I think it's a burden to
effectively maintain multiple *.symbols.* files for multiple arches or
packages (for example flavors of the same library) with only small
differences between the lists.
I was about to suggest adding a way to share such lists, for example
an include mechanism, but all of this seems to be at the wrong level:
I think dpkg-* tools should only be concerned about debian/symbols or
DEBIAN/symbols, and leave handling of architecture / package specific
overrides to higher level stacks such as debhelper.
While I agree on the burden, I don't think it's wise to rely on other
tools to merge multiple informations in a single file which would then be
given to dpkg-gensymbols.
I want to first do archive-wide rebuilds and see how many packages have
differences between arches and what's best to handle them.
Quid of udebs? Are these affected by the changes?
No (or at least they shouldn't). The problem with udebs is multiple:
1/ they are meant to be small, so we don't want to integrate symbols file
in the .udeb
2/ dpkg-shlibdeps does follow executable - library - package -
/var/lib/dpkg/info/package.{shlibs,symbols} to find out the
dependencies. However with udebs the step library - package can't be
done with dpkg --search (it's currently done this way by dpkg-shlibdeps).
If those two problems are solved, then it can also be done for udebs of
course.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: While I agree on the burden, I don't think it's wise to rely on other tools to merge multiple informations in a single file which would then be given to dpkg-gensymbols. Hmm, how is this different from the way *.shlibs files are handled currently? I want to first do archive-wide rebuilds and see how many packages have differences between arches and what's best to handle them. Good idea; gathering some data should help. -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:30:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Obviously (I hope), I don't consider you to be inexperienced in free software development, [...] To expand on that a bit more: IMHO, Debian is fundamentally about what its contributors want -- we're focussed on doing right by our users and the free software community, but ultimately, as far as Debian's concerned, the first and foremost representatives of both those groups are the users and free software community members who actually make Debian work. The opinions that matters are the ones belonging to people who're actually building Debian; and ultimately legal expertise is kind-of irrelevant to that. Microsoft might have some of the world's best experts on understanding IP law and the effects of the GPL, but as far as Debian's concerned, the newest of new-maintainers and the least contributors to Debian should have infinitely more say in what's sufficiently free for Debian. The point where legal expertise comes in is in understanding the consequences of legal texts -- this clause will prevent development in such-n-such a circumstance, or that clause will prevent distribution under some other conditions; not in deciding whether those circumstances or conditions are enough of a concern to actually make something non-free. Confident statements from non-developers on what is and isn't free enough isn't incredibly good at the best of times, and is actively harmful when it's got a history of not matching the way Debian actually works. And when analysis of licenses tends to amount to not much more than we've discussed this issue already, it's not free there's not much point to the debate at all, afaics. But if no one on -legal sees what I'm trying to get at by now, I guess there's not much point to this debate either. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:01:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:42:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO, you need to argue the same thing about you don't get to exercise your patent rights. You're aware that most of the people arguing that choice of venue clauses are non-free also hold the opinion that patent non-enforcement as a condition of the copyright license is also non-free? No, not at all. It's been years since I've followed -legal, and I certainly don't keep track of who thinks what. I fundamentally don't think it *matters* what individual subscribers to -legal think. I'm just saying that you need to argue the same thing isn't much of a barrier, since AFAIK the people arguing against choice-of-venue clauses on this theory have already done so in the past and are likely to do so again if given cause ;) What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and open source community, that Debian can use to work out what software we'll distribute in main. That's a good goal; but Debian has disagreed with other folks in the past because we believed their interpretations were irrational and contrary to the long-term interests of Free Software, and it's my own opinion that various folks in the wider community are in this position today, so I hope that such meshing is the result of a sustained dialogue and not just Debian giving in to whatever the folks with the cool technology of the day that everyone wants to use have are peddling as a license. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libpkg / libupt / libept gets popcon support
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:57:55AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: BTW, xapian full text index of package descriptions is coming :) Committed now! \o/ Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:07:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and open source community, that Debian can use to work out what software we'll distribute in main. That's a good goal; but Heh. Now there's a compressible phrase. :) (meshes does not mean matches or includes. When I joined we were more permissive than both the BSD and GNU camps (GNU complained about the BSD license, BSD complained about the GPL, we didn't mind either), but we've never done that blindly, as the KDE, Affero or GFDL stuff should attest. I don't see why you'd expect us to start now) Debian has disagreed with other folks in the past because we believed their interpretations were irrational and contrary to the long-term interests of Free Software, [...] I don't think you'd have to look very hard to find people who consider debian-legal's intepretations of various things to be irrational and contrary to the long-term interests of Free Software. Unfortunately trying to have a discussion between those viewpoints to resolve (or at least clarify) the differences isn't often successful. I've already listed some of the ways I think -legal regulars could change that situation, if they're interested. But I guess ultimately, along with James, Ryan, Joerg and Jeroen, I'm one of fairly few people who really don't have much cause for concern whether -legal becomes a really useful discussion area or not. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're going to ignore the court case, it doesn't matter to you, but if you ever plan on travelling to germany or doing business with people in germany (or live in some part of germany that isn't close enough to berlin to defend yourself there) it can be a significant cost. Not sure whether it matters anyhow, but if you live in Germany and have fear of such clauses, you'd rather buy your stuff nowhere except the local grocery or supermarket. Gerichtsstand ist $place_where_the_selling_company_is_registered is a very common clause in written german selling or service contracts, not only but in particular if you buy online. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Loïc Minier wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: While I agree on the burden, I don't think it's wise to rely on other tools to merge multiple informations in a single file which would then be given to dpkg-gensymbols. Hmm, how is this different from the way *.shlibs files are handled currently? I don't see much similarity. - shlibs are not created by any dpkg-* tool, but symbols files are - dh_makeshlibs create shlibs file but without using any local file as input, all the input comes from the command line - dh_installdeb installs maintainer provided shlibs file but it doesn't use any dpkg-* tool to do that, it merely copies the file over For me the symbols files are coupled to dpkg-gensymbols and any manipulation is best done by this tool instead of letting other high-level tools chime in. I'll gladly add any required feature do dpkg-gensymbols directly. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The debian-legal checklist: [...] In the example Don presented, of the Debian star maintainer removing some output from the Debian star package, that the star upstream claims constitutes a copyright notice, then there are the following options: [ rather long essay snipped ] Confident assertion of legal facts, with little basis, no references, and without an IANAL disclaimer, or I am a lawyer and this is legal advice, or a I am a lawyer but this does not constitute legal advice: little basis seems overly subjective to me, but besides that: Check Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Michael Welle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The german term 'Sturmbahn' as in 'Sturmbahnfahrer' describes a trail were you have to vanquish some barriers to train your physical fitness. This is often used in military lingo. But I also know it from places, where you can train your dog. Do you have references for that? I've never heard that word[1], but then I didn't do military service, nor do I keep a dog... Google gives some hits that point to what you describe (the fitness trail), but also to online games and actually a photo album by a SS officer. Well. Regards, Frank [1] and I'm german, not swiss as my sig might suggest to some -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On Monday 04 June 2007 14:20, Frank Küster wrote: Michael Welle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The german term 'Sturmbahn' as in 'Sturmbahnfahrer' describes a trail were you have to vanquish some barriers to train your physical fitness. This is often used in military lingo. But I also know it from places, where you can train your dog. Do you have references for that? I've never heard that word[1], but then I didn't do military service, nor do I keep a dog... Google gives some hits that point to what you describe (the fitness trail), but also to online games and actually a photo album by a SS officer. Well. FWIW, Dutch has a similar word: stormbaan (a literal translation of Sturmbahn). All top google hits for that are related to obstacle courses. I have to agree with earlier posters though that the choice of font on the homepage of the game indicates that the authors at least considered the association with Sturmbannfürher. Cheers, FJP pgpZSJEVdVhZK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Hi Frank, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael Welle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The german term 'Sturmbahn' as in 'Sturmbahnfahrer' describes a trail were you have to vanquish some barriers to train your physical fitness. This is often used in military lingo. But I also know it from places, where you can train your dog. Do you have references for that? I've never heard that word[1], but then I didn't do military service, nor do I keep a dog... Google gives some hits that point to what you describe (the fitness trail), but also to online games and actually a photo album by a SS officer. Well. it comes from the back of my mind, so no direct references. Military services didn't liked me, too ;). Maybe I know the term from some fellows who are grown up in GDR. I will try to determine this. The term is not in my active vocabulary. If one trusts google, 'sturmbahn' seems to be quite common in military lingo. VG hmw -- biff4emacsen - A biff-like tool for (X)Emacs http://www.c0t0d0s0.de/biff4emacsen/biff4emacsen.html
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Then, would simply sturmbahn be a suitable name for the package? Greetings, Miry 2007/6/4, Michael Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Michael Welle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The german term 'Sturmbahn' as in 'Sturmbahnfahrer' describes a trail were you have to vanquish some barriers to train your physical fitness. This is often used in military lingo. But I also know it from places, where you can train your dog. Do you have references for that? I've never heard that word[1], but then I didn't do military service, nor do I keep a dog... Google gives some hits that point to what you describe (the fitness trail), but also to online games and actually a photo album by a SS officer. Well. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindernisbahn
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
The troll checklist: Anthony Towns writes: The debian-legal checklist: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check. Ad hominem attack: Check. (For what it's worth, I am an upstream maintainer of one package in Debian (ircd-ircu) and another GPL'ed software package that is not. I am not inclined to adopt the obviously orphaned ircd-ircu package just to satisfy people who look at credentials over facts.) Anthony Towns writes: [...] And as far as the actual effects go, I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in your license: if you set foot in Australia, with an Australian judgement against you, there's a good chance of it being enforced; and if you don't, there seems to be a practical possibility of your extradition anyway, based on [0]. Extradition is for criminal cases, not civil cases. I cannot imagine how a choice of venue clause would significantly either help or hurt a criminal defendant. Confident assertion of legal facts, with little basis, no references, and without an IANAL disclaimer, or I am a lawyer and this is legal advice, or a I am a lawyer but this does not constitute legal advice: Check Blatant and proud ignorance of the field: Check, check and check. (I am not a lawyer. Under US law, I am not required to declare that when I make legal commentary. As a rule, I do not offer legal advice to anyone, since I do not wish to practice law.) Since copyright is increasingly covered by criminal penalties (in at least Australia and the US) as well as civil ones, I don't think that dismissal is even particularly useful. Totally missing the point: Check. (Choice of venue is for civil cases. Extradition is for criminal cases. Your attempt to link the two is irrelevant to whether choice of venue is free.) As has been previously discussed on -legal -- several times, I might add -- there are a variety of reasons that the rest your argument is flawed. Condescending dismissal of arguments: Check. I was -- and am -- in no mood to repeat the full reasons for these positions for the fourth or fifth time. If you cannot bother to read the archives, that is your loss. To summarize: Most of the expense of non-local defense litigation is in advance of any court judgment on the merits. The cost to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction is an order of magnitude (or more) less than litigating it through trial. It is harder to set aside a default judgment than to dismiss a complaint for improper venue. Confident assertion of legal facts, [...]: Check. I said it was a summary and that it had been discussed on -legal before. Citations are available in the archives. In the paragraph above, except for the last sentence (which has been supported by others in this thread), the data are also from my personal experience of being sued in a California federal court while I was a resident of Virginia. That experience is a major reason that I am so adamantly against this kind of clause in licenses for free software. In the example Don presented, of the Debian star maintainer removing some output from the Debian star package, that the star upstream claims constitutes a copyright notice, then there are the following options: 1. avoid the conflict by removing star from Debian 2. avoid the conflict by replacing the output at upstream's request 3. dispute the claim that they're copyright notices and keep acting At this point upstream likewise has some choices -- ignore the (perceived) license violation, sue in the court that's most convenient for them, or sue in the court that's most likely to act against you. If they ignore the violation, then that's where it ends. If they sue in the court that's convenient for them, then: 4. they need to demonstrate jurisdiction (which should be relatively easy even without a choice of venue clause, because Debian operates globally anyway: in the Berlin case ffis would be a potential target, I'd imagine) 5. they'd need to subpoena the respondent (ffis, pavel, SPI, whoever) following usual procedures 6. they'd need to convince the judge that the case is worth hearing and that they're correct Debian's global activities do not in general affect jurisidiction over individuals, so (4) primarily applies to Debian rather than its developers or end users. Nitpick: The plaintiff would need to issue a summons to the defendant. A subpoena is for testimony or other fact discovery[1]. A defendant does not become a respondent until he responds to a particular filing[1]; the plaintiff would usually also be a respondent to certain motions[1]. [1]- Ask Wikipedia, Google, or whatever floats your boat. These are not obscure legal facts or specific instances, they are basic terms. Would you take someone seriously who had strong
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Michael Welle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The german term 'Sturmbahn' as in 'Sturmbahnfahrer' describes a trail were you have to vanquish some barriers to train your physical fitness. This is often used in military lingo. But I also know it from places, where you can train your dog. Do you have references for that? I've never heard that word[1], but then I didn't do military service, nor do I keep a dog... Google gives some hits that point to what you describe (the fitness trail), but also to online games and actually a photo album by a SS officer. Well. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindernisbahn Cheers, Michael -- .''`. | Michael Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : | Free Java Developer http://www.classpath.org `. `' | `-| 1024D/BAC5 4B28 D436 95E6 F2E0 BD11 5923 A008 2763 483B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On 2007-06-04, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --=_Part_840_15471732.1180961520043 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Then, would simply sturmbahn be a suitable name for the package? Fahrer means 'traveller' or something like that in my limited german vocabulary. I don't think that sturmbahnfarer is unsuitable. One who travels through a course with many obstacles ... /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Hi Miriam, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then, would simply sturmbahn be a suitable name for the package? is this an yes/no question? I for myself with decent knowledge of german language and history have no big issues with the name. But I understand that some people have bad feelings about the name due to its closeness to some nazi terms. Perhaps you can add a little piece of prosa explainig the term? In general I find it very interesting, what feelings are introduced into people by words (not doings). It is difficult, but exciting, to pay attention to all this people from different cultures all the time. Michael PS: Debian contains a package named stalin. -- biff4emacsen - A biff-like tool for (X)Emacs http://www.c0t0d0s0.de/biff4emacsen/biff4emacsen.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 04:20:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: ... This is only my (ill-informed) opinion - I am neither a German, nor a German lawyer :) I'm not really picky about names and would be quite relaxed if the official homepage http://www.sturmbahnfahrer.com/ would not support the suspicion by using a font that at least supports the ill feeling. So even if I don't want to spekulate about lawyers opinions - it seems to show at least bad taste of the authors. Isn't this just a standard blackletter font? I think it looks like the 'wittenberger fraktur' font. -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/| | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org | |join the new debian-community.org to help Debian! | |___ Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
* Sune Vuorela [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 2007-06-04, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --=_Part_840_15471732.1180961520043 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Then, would simply sturmbahn be a suitable name for the package? Fahrer means 'traveller' or something like that in my limited german vocabulary. Fahrer = driver -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBFsend no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Le Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:52:00PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit : Then, would simply sturmbahn be a suitable name for the package? Greetings, Miry Dear Miriam, I think that the opinions expressed on -devel (I feel a bit sorry for the traffic) are diverse and redundant enough to suggest that we have now quite a good overview. I found a thread on happypenguin.org through the following Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=sturmbahnfahrer+bad+taste There is somebody who identifies himself as the author and who answers to similar questions. http://www.happypenguin.org/show?Sturmbahnfahrershowall=1 Definitely, without his input, there is not much more to say... Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:27:13AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: The troll checklist: Heh. Free advice: the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. Anthony Towns writes: The debian-legal checklist: On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check. Ad hominem attack: Check. I'm sorry, but I don't get why anyone considers that an ad hominem attack. Confident assertion of legal facts, with little basis, no references, and without an IANAL disclaimer, or I am a lawyer and this is legal advice, or a I am a lawyer but this does not constitute legal advice: Check Blatant and proud ignorance of the field: Check, check and check. (I am not a lawyer. Under US law, [...]) Uh, dude, IANAL is a way of indicating that you may not actually have a clue what you're talking about because it's all just amateur opinions. Once upon a time -legal used to be littered with it; now days the concept that regular posters to -legal might be mistaken seems to be rather alien. As has been previously discussed on -legal -- several times, I might add -- there are a variety of reasons that the rest your argument is flawed. Condescending dismissal of arguments: Check. I was -- and am -- in no mood to repeat the full reasons for these positions for the fourth or fifth time. If you cannot bother to read the archives, that is your loss. See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my loss at all. 4. they need to demonstrate jurisdiction (which should be relatively easy even without a choice of venue clause, because Debian operates globally anyway: in the Berlin case ffis would be a potential target, I'd imagine) Debian's global activities do not in general affect jurisidiction over individuals, so (4) primarily applies to Debian rather than its developers or end users. The CDDL primarily applies to Debian rather than end-users anyway, being about distribution and development (at least in so far as we distribute CDDL software anyway)... In any event, the example Don raised specifically talked about Debian being the respondent. Nitpick: The plaintiff would need to issue a summons to the defendant. A subpoena is for testimony or other fact discovery[1]. A defendant does not become a respondent until he responds to a particular filing[1]; the plaintiff would usually also be a respondent to certain motions[1]. [1]- Ask Wikipedia, Google, or whatever floats your boat. These are not obscure legal facts or specific instances, they are basic terms. Would you take someone seriously who had strong programming opinions but thought CC was the name of a C compiler or claimed to know the Pearl _scripting_ language? It's interesting that you started the mail offended about the ad hominem attack of noting you're not a developer; yet somehow you think a computer expert who tries to avoid paying attention to legal arguments getting subpoena and summons confused is an ignoramus who shouldn't be taken seriously. And that is exactly an ad hominem fallacy -- attacking the person in order to discredit their arguments, even though the flaws the person may have don't actually affect their argument. The argument which, I'll note that you didn't actually address at all. How many free software licenses have been enforced thanks to choice of venue? It doesn't matter, simplicity isn't a requirement for freeness. Not all drawbacks are shifted costs. The effect of choice of venue is to shift a significant potential cost from the software licensor to the software's users. Disclaimers of warranty and liability do that too. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Hi, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then, would simply sturmbahn be a suitable name for the package? sorry, I forgot to mention that the name seems to sound much better without the term 'fahrer'. Michael -- biff4emacsen - A biff-like tool for (X)Emacs http://www.c0t0d0s0.de/biff4emacsen/biff4emacsen.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Hi, On Monday 04 June 2007 10:38, Miriam Ruiz wrote: I can't believe that... gothic fonts are forbidden in Germany by law!!!??? They were merely deprecated, but not forbidden, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiqua-Fraktur_dispute - the german version of that page gives a bit more info. Nowadays these kinds of fonts are often used to make stuff look older or to look german, and _sometimes_ the desired effect is to look like ~65 years ago. regards, Holger pgpnBG20I3f3I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Hi, * Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-03 14:18]: Le Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 02:30:43AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit : Package: wnpp * Package name: sturmbahnfahrer I have very bad feelings when I read the name of this game. It is a very bad taste play on the word sturmbahnführer, which is a rank which was only awarded in the SS divisions when Germany was ruled by the nazis. If you google with sturmbahnfahrer, you will not find any page which is not related to the game: this word does not exist in German. Maybe you could ask the upstream authors if they could consider renaming their game before including it in Debian? Otherwise, well, do what you want. But this name is really disgusting. I did this 2 days ago and got an answer. To quote from his mail: Uh... I thought Sturmbahn was german for a military training course, or stormbaan as we call it in Holland. Turns out it is 'bann', and the word does not exists in german. I speak German, but probably not as good as I originally thought. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgp8PCc5eweKi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Anthony Towns writes: Uh, dude, IANAL is a way of indicating that you may not actually have a clue what you're talking about because it's all just amateur opinions. Once upon a time -legal used to be littered with it; now days the concept that regular posters to -legal might be mistaken seems to be rather alien. In dealing with areas that I have researched thoroughly and lived through, I am not afraid to say that facts are facts. When I am not sure, I throw in appropriate qualifiers (such as I cannot imagine xxx, At least in the US, ... or even IANAL). When I do not think I have enough good information to make a useful contribution, I make no comment. When appropriate, I cite the relevant documents. I am no stranger to the idea that I might be wrong. When someone points out facts that contradict my position, I pay attention. When the only critiques are based on me not having a secret decoder ring -- whether the ring means JD or DD -- I tend to discount them. I do not pretend Debian should pay much attention to whether I think choice of venue is an appropriate tradeoff for the DFSG, for the reasons you mention. I do believe that many of the arguments in favor of choice of venue clauses are factually wrong[1], that those should be corrected before a decision is made, and that the decision should not be a casual one. [1]- e.g. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00140.html [snip] Nitpick: The plaintiff would need to issue a summons to the defendant. A subpoena is for testimony or other fact discovery[1]. A defendant does not become a respondent until he responds to a particular filing[1]; the plaintiff would usually also be a respondent to certain motions[1]. [1]- Ask Wikipedia, Google, or whatever floats your boat. These are not obscure legal facts or specific instances, they are basic terms. Would you take someone seriously who had strong programming opinions but thought CC was the name of a C compiler or claimed to know the Pearl _scripting_ language? It's interesting that you started the mail offended about the ad hominem attack of noting you're not a developer; yet somehow you think a computer expert who tries to avoid paying attention to legal arguments getting subpoena and summons confused is an ignoramus who shouldn't be taken seriously. And that is exactly an ad hominem fallacy -- attacking the person in order to discredit their arguments, even though the flaws the person may have don't actually affect their argument. I have not attacked your position by attacking you. I have pointed out where and why your posts were wrong, stated why I did not think my corrections needed to be backed up by specific citations, and asked if you would take seriously someone who made analogous errors of fact in a different area. You asserted in another post that -legal was often not taken seriously by the rest of Debian; it seems fair to point out why there may be similar feelings in the other direction, at least as far as legal analysis goes. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:53:11 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] To expand on that a bit more: IMHO, Debian is fundamentally about what its contributors want -- we're focussed on doing right by our users and the free software community, but ultimately, as far as Debian's concerned, the first and foremost representatives of both those groups are the users and free software community members who actually make Debian work. It seems you are implying that analyzing licenses and spending time to reply to questions sent to debian-legal is *not* a contribution to the Debian Project. If you really think that participating to debian-legal is not a contribution to the Debian Project, then please have a GR to abolish this list, so that I can stop wasting my time in dissecting issues and providing analyses that will get ignored by decision-makers. I used to be happy with the Debian Project having a transparent and open license analysis process, but it seems that this is just hypocrisy: the real decisions about which packages are acceptable for main are taken by a few people who seem to deliberately ignore any advice from debian-legal. Just like the FSF and OSI, who accept or reject licenses behind closed doors, without any real public explanation of the rationale... Your attitude towards debian-legal participants and towards non-DDs is rather insulting and does not encourage me to consider the idea of applying for the NM process. [...] And when analysis of licenses tends to amount to not much more than we've discussed this issue already, it's not free there's not much point to the debate at all, afaics. On the contrary, you could read the archived discussions and explain why you think the arguments made are invalid. I think there's not much point in repeating arguments that have already been made in the past (and are publicly archived for future reference), unless new data or counter-arguments are provided. But if no one on -legal sees what I'm trying to get at by now, I guess there's not much point to this debate either. Frankly speaking, it seems to me that you are trying to persuade debian-legal regulars to act as yes men who blindly follow what the majority of the open source community does. Hence, it seems you're trying to make debian-legal become pointless and useless. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp8eBREqCXYU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:01:24 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and open source community, that Debian can use to work out what software we'll distribute in main. Then, I think you have to start by reconciling the open source community with the free software community: OSI and FSF already have a non-negligibly different set of accepted licenses. *Red Warning* This message is from a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant. As a consequence, everything I say has to be checked and double-checked. Debian developers, instead, know the truth by definition and never say anything wrong: hence, no need to check what a DD says. Seriously, could you please stop this discrimination against non-DDs? I think Debian users should have the right to express their opinions and arguments on Debian lists: whatever they say should be considered for its merits, just like it should be done for Debian developers. It's not that users are second-class citizens or Harijans: after all the Debian Social Contract is a promise made by Debian developers to the Free Software Community (which, IMO, includes free software users). -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpa962MPShRu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 11:25 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:54:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Library maintainers who want to avoid any mistakes can use the -c option (for compare) which will make the compilation fail if the generated symbols file differ from the maintainer supplied file. In that case, the build log contains a diff between the two symbols files and he can analyze the differences (and update his file if necessary). I think this should be the default behaviour. Well, the default behaviour that I intended to use is somewhat different and more suited to small libraries maybe: - the maintainer runs a script 'update-symbols' which downloads the latest symbols files for all arches in debian/ from a central server which extracts the symbols file from the last-built package. - the maintainer builds the new upstream package and the new symbol information is auto-merged in the generated symbols file - go back to first step for the next version I second Mike's request. It is important that this becomes the default behavior, so that libraries fail to build on other architectures, where the symbol list can be different. This scheme allows to simply follow the history of the package without complicating too much the life of the maintainer. Furthermore non-versioned libraries export many private functions which can appear and disappear, and it shouldn't necessarily fail because of that. So this option is probably well suited for versioned libraries but too much hassle for non-versioned ones. It seems normal to update the file manually when the library switches some symbols to not be exported. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 12:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
2/ dpkg-shlibdeps does follow executable - library - package -
/var/lib/dpkg/info/package.{shlibs,symbols} to find out the
dependencies. However with udebs the step library - package can't be
done with dpkg --search (it's currently done this way by dpkg-shlibdeps).
Why couldn't the package - udeb mapping, which is currently done in
the .shlibs file, be done in the .symbols file ?
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`-our own. Resistance is futile.
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:30:36 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's still not a *good solution* for deciding these things; it's a last resort, and the only other options we currently have a ftpmaster decides and it's obvious to pretty much everybody. I'm rather surprised to hear you saying that, since you seem to have been the proposer of GR-2006-001... [...] The official position of Debian is what we allow in main. That is to say? Bugs never happen?!? Nothing can possibly enter main by mistake or overlook?!? [...] Unfortunately, since -legal in general becomes an amorphous set of individuals who reserve the right to hold whatever opinions they like whenever questioned, there's little hope of -legal ever learning from its mistakes. Are you going to call the orwellian thought police, since I hold my *own* opinions?!? -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpFcSwbFQLaj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 10:54 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : Creating a first version of the symbols file is not difficult either. For the sake of example, here's how I did with the libc6 package. I included the etch package first so that I have history of symbols starting from etch. $ aptitude download libc6/stable libc6/unstable $ dpkg -x libc6_2.3.6.ds1-13_i386.deb /tmp/etch-libc6 $ dpkg -x libc6_2.5-9_i386.deb /tmp/sid-libc6 $ dpkg-gensymbols -v2.3.6.ds1 -plibc6 -e/tmp/etch-libc6/lib*.so* -Olibc6.symbols $ dpkg-gensymbols -v2.5-9 -plibc6 -e/tmp/sid-libc6/lib*.so* -Olibc6.symbols Again, this doesn't take into account existing symbols that change their ABI across versions. I won't insist too much, as I have already explained at large how heavy a burden it puts on the maintainer's shoulders. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On Monday 04 June 2007 14.20:46 Frank Küster wrote: Michael Welle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The german term 'Sturmbahn' as in 'Sturmbahnfahrer' describes a trail were you have to vanquish some barriers to train your physical fitness. [...] [1] and I'm german, not swiss as my sig might suggest to some Just some trivia since we're speaking about .ch ... it's Kampfbahn here. Never heard the combination with Fahrer, though. (I'm doing military service, but not on troops where the Kampfbahn is our business) -- vbi -- OpenPGP encrypted mail welcome - my key: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 21:13 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : We could create a .symbols-udeb however... we just need to scan the udeb during build and put the resulting symbols file in the main library. That wouldn't be too difficult to do. We can probably keep this as extension for the future. :) Yes, this looks like a better way to implement this than the current mix. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Touching a file in another package
Le dimanche 03 juin 2007 à 21:34 +0200, Bastian Blank a écrit : You can provide a proper interface to show that the list needs to be updated. A file in /var/lib/gnomevfs for example. In which case checking the timestamp of /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules would be enough. It will trigger backups and integrity checks. Indeed, but this is something you expect anyway after installing a package. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 12:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
2/ dpkg-shlibdeps does follow executable - library - package -
/var/lib/dpkg/info/package.{shlibs,symbols} to find out the
dependencies. However with udebs the step library - package can't be
done with dpkg --search (it's currently done this way by dpkg-shlibdeps).
Why couldn't the package - udeb mapping, which is currently done in
the .shlibs file, be done in the .symbols file ?
Hum, right. It could. I'm not sure I like it though.
Having to maintain one set of symbols is complicated enough that having
two set of symbols in the same file is probably not desirable. We could
decide to add a new field containing the udeb name (if there's any) but
then udeb are udebs precisely because they are minimal and probably
compiled with different options than the main lib so that sharing the set
of symbols is probably not the good choice.
We could create a .symbols-udeb however... we just need to scan the
udeb during build and put the resulting symbols file in the main library.
That wouldn't be too difficult to do. We can probably keep this as
extension for the future. :)
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 10:54 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : Creating a first version of the symbols file is not difficult either. For the sake of example, here's how I did with the libc6 package. I included the etch package first so that I have history of symbols starting from etch. $ aptitude download libc6/stable libc6/unstable $ dpkg -x libc6_2.3.6.ds1-13_i386.deb /tmp/etch-libc6 $ dpkg -x libc6_2.5-9_i386.deb /tmp/sid-libc6 $ dpkg-gensymbols -v2.3.6.ds1 -plibc6 -e/tmp/etch-libc6/lib*.so* -Olibc6.symbols $ dpkg-gensymbols -v2.5-9 -plibc6 -e/tmp/sid-libc6/lib*.so* -Olibc6.symbols Again, this doesn't take into account existing symbols that change their ABI across versions. I won't insist too much, as I have already explained at large how heavy a burden it puts on the maintainer's shoulders. I understood your point, unfortunately it doesn't look like there's much to do except giving up all the other benefits that I expect from this way of handling dependencies on shared libs. We can theoretically already have problems like those, if the maintainer forgets to bump the shlibs when such a change happen. Agreed, it's far less likely given that any other change requiring shlibs bump would hide this problem whereas with this new system, it wouldn't be the case unless the application also uses one of the new symbols. In the end, it will be the maintainer's decision to use symbols file or not, but I really hope that the libraries that are in the top of our dependency tree will be early and careful adopters. Libraries that are in early development stage can safely decide to not use symbols file and stay with simple shlibs bump. If you have concrete suggestions, I'm all ears. But I think that if something needs to be done, it's more on the side of early QA with some tool testing a package with the oldest possible libraries. It would be nice if something could be automated here, but I don't see what and how. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On 6/4/07, Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just some trivia since we're speaking about .ch ... it's Kampfbahn here. Never heard the combination with Fahrer, though. (I'm doing military service, but not on troops where the Kampfbahn is our business) In Afrikaans (descendant of Dutch) it is hindernisbaan, which is actually very similar to the german hindernisbahn. Hindernis == obstacle. If there is one thing this longish thread did is to make me feel better about my poor german, considering some of the english produced by the germans. Eg: non-constitunional (should be unconstitutional). But no-one said english was logic :-) What with unkempt (no such word as kempt though) and disheveled (no such word as sheveled) :-) Groete, Izak -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
I demand that Izak Burger may or may not have written... [snip] But no-one said english was logic :-) It isn't. It's not logical either. :-) What with unkempt (no such word as kempt though) and disheveled (no such word as sheveled) :-) You mean dishevelled, unless you're using American English. -- | Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + Output *more* particulate pollutants. BUFFER AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING. If enough data is collected, anything may be proven by statistics. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
I did this 2 days ago and got an answer. To quote from his mail: Uh... I thought Sturmbahn was german for a military training course, or stormbaan as we call it in Holland. Turns out it is 'bann', and the word does not exists in german. I speak German, but probably not as good as I originally thought. sounds like either there was some wrong information in your mail, or upstream didn't understand it - or didn't see the point. I guess you wanna explain this in a bit better way to him. Probably add a link to http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_militaire_rangen_van_de_Schutzstaffel Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Zeimetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bzed.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a way to positively, uniquely identify which Debian release a program is running on?
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:16:08PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: Think about Enterprise (non-free) software like Oracle, HP Openview, Tivoli, Remedy... Do you expect vendors of this software to understand^Wimplement package management based dependencies for *all* Linux distributions? LSB tries to simplify the Linux environment for such software. Lsb_release is defined as the an answer to the question which distribution am I running in and which release is it? For the kind of cash the enterprise vendors tend to charge, yes actually now that you ask, I think I can expect them to figure out dependancies and making proper packages. Opera seems to manage, and they are giving away their non-free software for free. Managing to package and test your code on most major distributions is actually a good way to ensure the programmers didn't go do something stupid that is going to cause problems later. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 21:29 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : Again, this doesn't take into account existing symbols that change their ABI across versions. I won't insist too much, as I have already explained at large how heavy a burden it puts on the maintainer's shoulders. I understood your point, unfortunately it doesn't look like there's much to do except giving up all the other benefits that I expect from this way of handling dependencies on shared libs. I agree that the benefits are worth the deal, but we should make clear that the price to pay for these benefits is a continuous effort from the maintainer. Therefore it should not be used by maintainers not aware of its subtleties. If you have concrete suggestions, I'm all ears. A possible part of the solution would be a script parsing the diff between headers and emitting warnings such as: * type foo has changed, please check it doesn't affect functions bar/baz/... * enum foo has new possible values, please check it doesn't affect functions ABI * OMFFSM function bar's prototype has changed! * struct foo has changed, please kill upstream Of course it wouldn't be enough to detect more subtle changes like new supported file formats, which only change the code, not the headers. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
License discussions in Debian (was: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta)
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my loss at all. I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever) where our policy with regard to individual software's licenes could be discussed with the input of those who actually set this policy: the ftpmasters. If debian-legal isn't the place for you (and AFAIK none of the other ftpmasters is a regular), maybe we need a new start and a different format. But it's a pity that there's no way to get the ftpmasters' opinion except by trying, and no regular way at all, it seems, to get the reasons for their decisions. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
Michael Welle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then, would simply sturmbahn be a suitable name for the package? sorry, I forgot to mention that the name seems to sound much better without the term 'fahrer'. Except that it totally leaves out the information that it's a car driving game... Regards, Frakn -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On 6/4/07, Darren Salt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mean dishevelled, unless you're using American English. I have the wrong dictionary installed in my mail client... we South Africans actually use british english rather than American english. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License discussions in Debian (was: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta)
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 23:08 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit : I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever) where our policy with regard to individual software's licenes could be discussed with the input of those who actually set this policy: the ftpmasters. I don't feel there is much disagreement between the general consensus on debian-legal and what is actually accepted by the ftpmasters. If the only case we have is the CDDL, on which people on debian-legal don't agree at all, maybe we could focus on more important infrastructure issues. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Bug#427297: ITP: sturmbahnfahrer -- simulated obstacle course for automobiles
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 21:33 +0200, Izak Burger wrote: [...] But no-one said english was logic :-) What with unkempt (no such word as kempt though) I didn't think there was, but http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/kempt?view=uk disagrees ;) Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:24 +0100 Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, that's why it is used in some embedded systems. Even so, it has no place in the rootfs for an embedded system, IMHO. I'd rather not have to repackage apt to remove this change. Why would it need to be on the root? Surely the binaries and data would just go on /usr and /var as normal? ? A rootfs is the base filesystem created for the installer and for test environments like chroot. OK. Perhaps just using sqlite as an (optional) cache for dpkg and/or apt would bring sufficient improvements to systems which desire it That could actually be quite difficult - how would you migrate from one to the other? If the database is just a cache, then it should get transparently rebuilt as soon as you change it. The installer will inevitably use the smallest possible combination of packages, the finished installation might need to use sqlite. Besides, you still have the same problems of trying to copy package sets and having to run sqlite before anything else can be done. If it's an optional cache, then there's no need to actually build the cache if it's not possible; you can just fall back to the real data. Migrating from a busybox rootfs (without dpkg) would potentially cause more problems and making busybox depend on sqlite is plain crazy. Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between busybox and sqlite. If enabled, sqlite would be part of dpkg, probably either statically linked or dynamically loaded. I would think static, for safety. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. pgpZ4v1UNWvZq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#427558: ITP: fenix0.92 -- development environment for making 2D games
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: fenix0.92 Version : 0.92a Upstream Author : Fenix Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://fenix.divsite.net/ * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/fenix * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : development environment for making 2D games Fenix is an interpreted script programming language, especially designed to developing and running 2D games. It has a full graphic library, sound engine and full featured 2D game engine, making game development extremely easy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:29:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 21:29 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : Again, this doesn't take into account existing symbols that change their ABI across versions. I won't insist too much, as I have already explained at large how heavy a burden it puts on the maintainer's shoulders. I understood your point, unfortunately it doesn't look like there's much to do except giving up all the other benefits that I expect from this way of handling dependencies on shared libs. I agree that the benefits are worth the deal, but we should make clear that the price to pay for these benefits is a continuous effort from the maintainer. Therefore it should not be used by maintainers not aware of its subtleties. Considering the number of bugs I see because of maintainers who don't notice they need to change package names due to upstream soname changes, or who routinely fail to bump their shlibs when new symbols are added, I think there is definitely room here for a recommended solution for maintainers that aren't watching the subtleties, even without trying to bump dependencies based on API extensions. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database
On Monday 04 June 2007 15:23:54 Roger Leigh wrote: Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between busybox and sqlite. If enabled, sqlite would be part of dpkg, probably either statically linked or dynamically loaded. I would think static, for safety. Doesn't Busybox include an implementation of dpkg? wt -- Warren Turkal
checklib... (Re: checklib)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:24:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [] - `objdump' can handle one file at time (and not buggy). I don't understand that comment. ,[ Manual page objdump(1) ] | SYNOPSIS |objdump [-a|--archive-headers] SNIP objfile... | DESCRIPTION |objdump displays information about one or more object files. ` That also means, that test case for `readelf' in prev. message wasn't read. Anyway. checklibs...[0] is a script (sh + sed) to find redundant linked libraries. As example, here's output for /bin/*: ,-*- |[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/bin$ time /tmp/ck/checklibs... 2/tmp/chl_stderr.log |[/lib/libnsl.so.1] ? [./cpio ./ksh ./mt ./mt-gnu ./rzsh ./zsh ./zsh4 ] |[/lib/libresolv.so.2] ? [./ip ./ping ./ping6 ] |[/lib/libcfont.so.0]? [./loadkeys ] |[/lib/libuuid.so.1] ? [./mount ./umount ] | |real0m1.043s |user0m0.920s |sys 0m0.144s |[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/bin$ `-*- I don't know about false positives, but if you are linking for more fun, there's more ;) Results are quite interesting and are subject to testing. Xchat and XMMS plugins is easy way to start. Hope, this script will be useful and *interesting*. [0] ftp://flower.upol.cz/checklibs.../ I was very excited about to implement something as interesting as this one. My last message with flame-like subject was just a need to reply, while nothing was ready. But unlike cleaL10n, checklibs... wasn't downloaded for sport interest. Funny, that i've spent all time for latter, while started from former. Sorry, for bugs, i'll fix them soon. While being at checklibs... i've found *features* in dash, busybox's sed (fixed upstream, not in sid), readelf (sid). Also, statement about prominent bug in the BaSH (#1 in the man page) regarding speed was conformed. It's 2-3 times slower, than dash. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i386 33meg boot iso
To: All Wow!!! I have tried to install debian 4 or 5 times and hungup on vidio drivers or mem address for the drivers. I downloaded the 33 meg. i386 boot iso on 6/4/07 daily build #2 It whent from boot to a desktop system in 35-40 minutes with only input at the prompts. If you need any other info from me, email me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will be away from my computer for about 12 days but I will be checking email. Thank you !!! Russ Delo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why not move Apt to a relational database
I'm sorry I don't have more time to comment on this. On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:55:01AM +0100, Justin Emmanuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Based on a relational database it will run faster, also there should be some more data stored about the programs to facilitate system restoring. Is this really true? I'll freely admit that I have only cursory experience with RDBMSes. However, with the current apt cache code, lookups are basically a pointer dereference (and maybe a page fault). I don't see how an RDBMS could possibly improve on that. There might be other benefits to an RDBMS, but I'm not convinced this is one. One benefit which I didn't see listed in your mail is that it might become easier to augment the cache with more information; a great deal of slowness in aptitude's startup, for instance, comes from reading tables that aren't included in apt's global cache. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted wacom-tools 0.7.7.10-2 (source amd64)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:09:29 +0930 Source: wacom-tools Binary: xserver-xorg-input-wacom wacom-tools wacom-kernel-source Architecture: source amd64 Version: 0.7.7.10-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Ron Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Ron Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: wacom-tools - utilities for wacom tablets and other hid devices xserver-xorg-input-wacom - X.Org X server -- wacom input driver Closes: 427428 Changes: wacom-tools (0.7.7.10-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Don't depend on the xorg module dir actually existing when --with-xmoduledir is used (again). This is an upstream regression to the patch submitted for 0.7.4.1-3. Closes: #427428 Files: c9a98daea3f8d5d31276d28cebb0fce9 697 graphics optional wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2.dsc efb3049b548ee18416a3afa6bdfefc77 173769 graphics optional wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2.diff.gz add9f4db6841b4397880bf511dcee7b8 54806 utils optional wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2_amd64.deb 705961a07d33eba56f8627e01c5fa241 47082 x11 optional xserver-xorg-input-wacom_0.7.7.10-2_amd64.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGY6yKp4BCHGgCHOQRAi+gAJ9Ld4++ufJ96eK+teY7uN4HDcCywQCdHpSp UOk358X/Kqp1/2SnumaMSkU= =FsTm -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2.diff.gz to pool/main/w/wacom-tools/wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2.diff.gz wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2.dsc to pool/main/w/wacom-tools/wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2.dsc wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2_amd64.deb to pool/main/w/wacom-tools/wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-2_amd64.deb xserver-xorg-input-wacom_0.7.7.10-2_amd64.deb to pool/main/w/wacom-tools/xserver-xorg-input-wacom_0.7.7.10-2_amd64.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted empathy 0.6-1 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:27:47 +0200 Source: empathy Binary: empathy Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.6-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Telepathy Maintaince Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Sjoerd Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: empathy- High-level library and user-interface for Telepathy Changes: empathy (0.6-1) unstable; urgency=low . [ Dafydd Harries ] * Add watch file. . [ Sjoerd Simons ] * New upstream release Files: 3cadcfdf94634747710b665e59936730 973 gnome optional empathy_0.6-1.dsc 22893f1b97ceb540f9bffcfe6dd68369 1143826 gnome optional empathy_0.6.orig.tar.gz aeac1596bfe60d0a8dd1a3f2cbebedd3 1906 gnome optional empathy_0.6-1.diff.gz 9f5c049206842d551a031ee6d173844f 499928 gnome optional empathy_0.6-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGY8MXgTd+SodosdIRAmk+AJ9qZwz9uzFiwLPlf2vqgU9Wq19gHACgixYZ 2ATcIsBGx7O5KfNIIE9KOjs= =1q/c -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: empathy_0.6-1.diff.gz to pool/main/e/empathy/empathy_0.6-1.diff.gz empathy_0.6-1.dsc to pool/main/e/empathy/empathy_0.6-1.dsc empathy_0.6-1_i386.deb to pool/main/e/empathy/empathy_0.6-1_i386.deb empathy_0.6.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/e/empathy/empathy_0.6.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted wacom-tools 0.7.7.10-3 (source amd64)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:15:35 +0930 Source: wacom-tools Binary: xserver-xorg-input-wacom wacom-tools wacom-kernel-source Architecture: source amd64 Version: 0.7.7.10-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Ron Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Ron Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: wacom-tools - utilities for wacom tablets and other hid devices xserver-xorg-input-wacom - X.Org X server -- wacom input driver Changes: wacom-tools (0.7.7.10-3) unstable; urgency=low . * Reapply the patch to fix 64/32 bit cross builds, that seems to have been lost or misapplied too. Files: fe5b716653c15f22998cf85b3335080d 697 graphics optional wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3.dsc f00f33255988146f2bc7362409086d3e 174262 graphics optional wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3.diff.gz 04189b68817be79d3949a33eb7649197 54864 utils optional wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3_amd64.deb c6c2c8ac7b6eb08901e2942b12fab89a 47114 x11 optional xserver-xorg-input-wacom_0.7.7.10-3_amd64.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGY8QXp4BCHGgCHOQRAn6MAJ9QvwNG39GfeHWsA78FpdEmzRA4gACbB3ny irFCPjHSRi7qeM/QE19E02c= =S6de -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3.diff.gz to pool/main/w/wacom-tools/wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3.diff.gz wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3.dsc to pool/main/w/wacom-tools/wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3.dsc wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3_amd64.deb to pool/main/w/wacom-tools/wacom-tools_0.7.7.10-3_amd64.deb xserver-xorg-input-wacom_0.7.7.10-3_amd64.deb to pool/main/w/wacom-tools/xserver-xorg-input-wacom_0.7.7.10-3_amd64.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted sobby 0.4.3-1 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:31:38 +0200 Source: sobby Binary: sobby Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.4.3-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Philipp Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Philipp Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: sobby - a dedicated server for collaborative editing Changes: sobby (0.4.3-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release * Bump build-dependencies to include the newest templates from net6 and obby Files: 52a0270496c333711145dc3d66c48c8e 702 net optional sobby_0.4.3-1.dsc 90fd8c4935d71ec0458ff0378d53a3bf 123021 net optional sobby_0.4.3.orig.tar.gz 5287c7ca17c9a4af44a36b5c5251b0b7 5790 net optional sobby_0.4.3-1.diff.gz e4a41b0b53a95a80b5e8b811f50874e2 145772 net optional sobby_0.4.3-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGY8Rw7Ro5M7LPzdgRAnLAAJ9dTP2IITlnf7V3uceUtxFIS5AnjQCfRsn/ jaBUSLGk4rFyMR+gvRdioCc= =XrgO -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: sobby_0.4.3-1.diff.gz to pool/main/s/sobby/sobby_0.4.3-1.diff.gz sobby_0.4.3-1.dsc to pool/main/s/sobby/sobby_0.4.3-1.dsc sobby_0.4.3-1_i386.deb to pool/main/s/sobby/sobby_0.4.3-1_i386.deb sobby_0.4.3.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/s/sobby/sobby_0.4.3.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted dnprogs 2.39 (source i386 all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:58:58 +0100 Source: dnprogs Binary: libdnet libdnet-dev dnet-common dnet-progs Architecture: source i386 all Version: 2.39 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Patrick Caulfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Patrick Caulfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: dnet-common - Base package for Linux DECnet dnet-progs - DECnet user programs and daemons libdnet- DECnet Libraries libdnet-dev - DECnet development libraries Headers Closes: 427324 Changes: dnprogs (2.39) unstable; urgency=low . * Fix compile error with latest kernel headers. Closes: #427324 Files: 4fa71fff13bf48467dd3893254a6b7f8 550 net extra dnprogs_2.39.dsc 66d6499cfe53d02de545a21d8e7b90f1 615929 net extra dnprogs_2.39.tar.gz f9a739d9633a7748cfdc2b65e52d7719 35440 net extra dnet-common_2.39_all.deb 7976c39eb1d55ac7114791d3f1b6647d 214638 net extra dnet-progs_2.39_i386.deb 57f00a44d3f0a583bea435b9860b35a4 76060 libs extra libdnet_2.39_i386.deb 1debcc21281b3ffc9c064b5c3a309160 264984 libdevel extra libdnet-dev_2.39_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGY9ZWhej7/PCycRMRAnCsAJ9KtUtXZaBzre0s59Vve1o+D0gbcwCdGEVP nZZXetaHAz0l4T3bQqp/H0E= =fRbi -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: dnet-common_2.39_all.deb to pool/main/d/dnprogs/dnet-common_2.39_all.deb dnet-progs_2.39_i386.deb to pool/main/d/dnprogs/dnet-progs_2.39_i386.deb dnprogs_2.39.dsc to pool/main/d/dnprogs/dnprogs_2.39.dsc dnprogs_2.39.tar.gz to pool/main/d/dnprogs/dnprogs_2.39.tar.gz libdnet-dev_2.39_i386.deb to pool/main/d/dnprogs/libdnet-dev_2.39_i386.deb libdnet_2.39_i386.deb to pool/main/d/dnprogs/libdnet_2.39_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted pidgin-librvp 0.9.6-1 (source amd64)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 01:43:44 -0700 Source: pidgin-librvp Binary: pidgin-librvp Architecture: source amd64 Version: 0.9.6-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Devin Carraway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Devin Carraway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: pidgin-librvp - MS Exchange RVP instant messaging plugin for Pidgin Changes: pidgin-librvp (0.9.6-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream version, supporting Pidgin 2.0.1 directly + Remove librvp-pidgin-compat.patch: obsoleted + Add gaim-path-autoconf.patch: replace old gaim paths for plugins and pixmaps with pidgin equivalents Files: 1b8e205dae1b904827880cf819a024e7 642 net extra pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1.dsc 2f4814d955af52b4b23fabfab5dc2650 465348 net extra pidgin-librvp_0.9.6.orig.tar.gz 54d8ce4c135e3ae4da9b61538ee3e1f9 3511 net extra pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1.diff.gz 19086b34bc3ba4b72ec459d6f44cc9e7 182766 net extra pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1_amd64.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGY9ERU5XKDemr/NIRApjLAJ4772pw3UGX+A5xtz1iyfLCEqEphACeOiB/ VQGGhOCSWhQ3LVxaINN9mk4= =vgIo -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1.diff.gz to pool/main/p/pidgin-librvp/pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1.diff.gz pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1.dsc to pool/main/p/pidgin-librvp/pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1.dsc pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1_amd64.deb to pool/main/p/pidgin-librvp/pidgin-librvp_0.9.6-1_amd64.deb pidgin-librvp_0.9.6.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/p/pidgin-librvp/pidgin-librvp_0.9.6.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted apt-proxy 1.9.36 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:06:08 +0100 Source: apt-proxy Binary: apt-proxy Architecture: source all Version: 1.9.36 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Chris Halls [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Chris Halls [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: apt-proxy - Debian archive proxy and partial mirror builder Closes: 182855 266000 274679 303357 319005 322242 330492 348985 366262 382078 386546 387243 393483 397399 397403 398217 404679 Changes: apt-proxy (1.9.36) unstable; urgency=low . [ Chris Halls ] * Merge NMUs by Steinar H. Gunderson, Thomas Huriaux and Steve Langasek. Thanks guys! (Closes: #404679) * Close a longstanding bug where clients would hang when receiving files from the cache. The problem was caused by reusing the same file handle for several requests at once. (Closes: #274679, #382078, #322242, #397399, #397403, #398217) * Change the meaning of min_refresh_delay parameter, so the delay is measured from the modification time of the file on the backend instead of the time a client last requested this file. Now apt-proxy will always query backends when a file is too old (Closes: #266000) * Set process name to apt-proxy * Properly deal with escaped characters, including ~ in URLs on FTP backends. Unescape URLs and check for invalid characters when parsing a request. A big thanks to Ben Hutchings for the patch (Closes: #393483, #366262) * Fix [EMAIL PROTECTED] given in backend server URLs and add a test case. Thanks Jason Thomas for the patch (Closes: #348985) * Fix exception when sending ftp password to backend (Closes: #387243) * Remove extra '/' in HTTP GET requests (Closes: #330492) * Uncompress Packages.gz and Packages.bz2 on the fly, and update databases from these files (Closes: #319005, #303357) * Add unit tests for valid URLs containing /../ (Closes: #182855) * Remove obsolete GZipFetcher from fetchers.py . [ Mark Sheppard ] * Generate an error if a client attempts to retrieve http://server:/ (Closes: #386546) * When returning an error, generate an HTML page containing the error Files: a94c54a184f0e6d1ab2b9816df99b63a 726 admin extra apt-proxy_1.9.36.dsc a8b6cea540a9b0888dae5d2adad811ef 107319 admin extra apt-proxy_1.9.36.tar.gz db6c19bf0482c2a7cef6f9e562876b98 83942 admin extra apt-proxy_1.9.36_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGY+TKexmdExmX588RAti9AJ4xvPtmRRjc4PatmoSrr9DepsWTLwCffpqK GpPMR+LAX33FZoHHqOsZF44= =gVmq -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: apt-proxy_1.9.36.dsc to pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.9.36.dsc apt-proxy_1.9.36.tar.gz to pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.9.36.tar.gz apt-proxy_1.9.36_all.deb to pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.9.36_all.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
