Ben Finney (04/03/2009):
> * Invoke the appropriate VCS tool to export the specified revision
> from the VCS repository URL to a temporary directory.
>
> * Pack the temporary directory to an appropriately-named tarball in
> the current directory.
AFAICT, that doesn't ensure reproduci
I have written a little Perl program that can ping two routers and configure
the routing table to route data to whichever router works.
Among other things it can be configured to run a script when a router becomes
available which can be used for a VPN.
If there is already a good program in Debi
Ben Finney writes:
> For an example of this approach, see the ‘docutils-manpage-writer’
> package.
The package is actually named ‘docutils-writer-manpage’.
--
\“The errors of great men are venerable because they are more |
`\ fruitful than the truths of little men.” —Friedrich N
Howdy all,
A Debian source package is constructed from a “pristine source”
tree, plus Debian-specific changes. The pristine source is usually the
tarball distributed by the upstream developer of the work.
The ‘uscan’ tool, as configured by the ‘debian/watch’ file in the
source package, allows ass
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 06:39:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If the facility is later implemented as a C executable (or whatever)
> instead of a shell lib, the shell lib would still have to be shipped in dpkg
> so that maintainer scripts don't fail ungracefully when trying to source it.
> That
Package: wnpp
Owner: Ryan Niebur
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libapp-nopaste-perl
Version : 0.04
Upstream Author : Shawn M Moore, C<< >>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/App-Nopaste/
* License : Artistic | G
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> If the -dbg files were more like these sizes:
>
...
>
>> I doubt there's be too much concern
>
> Remaining concerns:
>
> - each of these dbg packages requires manual modification to the source
> package (incl. adding the package to deb
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:25:06PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
> > got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
> > to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
> > install (to p
Package: wnpp
Owner: Ryan Niebur
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libgtk2-mozembed-perl
Version : 0.08
Upstream Author : the gtk2-perl team
* URL : http://gtk2-perl.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL-2.1+
Programmi
First, I'm a perl programmer so TMTOWTDI is pretty ingrained into my culture.
I use mydns -- yi.org is based off of it, and I also use it as an easy way
to set up dynamic virtual hosts for automated builds on another project, in
conjunction with libapache2-mod-macro and mod_proxy on the frontend,
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 03:45:19 Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> It is a network daemon, so you should also considering security:
> different implementations *could* help security,
> so redundancy not always is wast of time.
Having different programs to perform a task will decrease the portion of
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 22:59 +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:10:21PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:02:08AM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What does this have over PowerDNS?
> > >
> > > Probably nothing, else that I am using i
I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's
an invitation to create an account.
---
web link has invited you to open a free Gmail account.
To accept this invitation and register for your account, visit
Paul Wise (04/03/2009):
> Is ALSA supported by kFreeBSD or hurd or other unofficial ports?
Last time I checked, GNU/kFreeBSD provided with OSS, not with ALSA
(which is, as its name suggests, Linux-specific).
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> Quite a few packages support only OSS, not ALSA. Nowadays there's quite
> little probability that your sound board only has an OSS driver, and so
> there is quite little probability that quite a few packages work out the
> box.
Is ALSA su
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:12:22PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
> got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
> to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
> install (to pick
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:55:00PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:17:00PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Introducing either a shell library or a non-integrated dpkg-conffile
> > has a too high cost IMO. It will prompt maintainers to switch to it
> > (when the annoyin
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:11:12PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > I've got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really
> > useful to anybody?
> > Thoughts?
> I think they are useful, but probably not for the vast majority of
> users. [I'
I doubt most users will install them on their own, but I've found
them to be moderately useful in tracking down crashes. It's easier
to convince people to install a -dbg package than to convince them to
recompile the program from source.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:12:22PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
> got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
> to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
> install (to pic
On 2009-03-03, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
> got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
> to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
> install (to pick an example) th
Hi,
Don Armstrong writes:
> What I really wish for is the ability to have a relatively centralized
> location where the symbols from every single package ended up that was
> separate from the normal mirrors.
>
> The above, coupled with a coredump submission site which would accept
> coredumps an
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I've got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really
>> useful to anybody?
>>
>> Thoughts?
See #508585 and http://debug.debian.net/
It will be really nice to have this stuff gener
Adeodato Simó (04/03/2009):
> (pkg-multimedia-maintainers and pkg-phototools-devel Bcc'ed).
The latter Cc'd this time.
> 2. OpenEXR packages
> ===
>
> * openexr
> * ilmbase
>
> These two library packages I RFA'ed quite some time ago (#494877 and
> #494878), but the person w
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I've got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really
> useful to anybody?
>
> Thoughts?
I think they are useful, but probably not for the vast majority of
users. [I've used them on a few dozen occasions.]
What I really wish for is the ab
Steve McIntyre writes:
> I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
> got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful to
> anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever install
> (to pick an example) the amarok-dbg packages, but w
Hello,
(pkg-multimedia-maintainers and pkg-phototools-devel Bcc'ed).
I have several packages (all libraries except one) I can no longer take
proper care of, and I'd appreciate if somebody/group who knows how to
maintain a library would step up and take them.
They come in two groups:
1. Xiph.org
Hey folks,
I'm looking at my local mirror (slowly) update at the moment, and I've
got to wondering: are the large -dbg packages actually really useful
to anybody? I can't imagine that more than a handful of users ever
install (to pick an example) the amarok-dbg packages, but we have
multiple copie
Michelle Konzack writes:
> Am 2009-03-02 10:34:38, schrieb Bernd Schubert:
>> Maybe you should start to test Debian-Testing from time to time and
>> report bugs if something doesn't work for you? Just complaining *after*
>> a release isn't really helpful.
> How many Enterprises do you know, runn
Am 2009-03-02 10:34:38, schrieb Bernd Schubert:
> Maybe you should start to test Debian-Testing from time to time and report
> bugs if something doesn't work for you? Just complaining *after* a release
> isn't really helpful.
How many Enterprises do you know, running testing on there production
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:26:11PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> At 16:10, someone wrote in another thread:
> > I believe that you're using circular arguments with no relevance to the
> > actual case in hand.
>
> At 16:59, Joerg Schilling wrote :
> > Before you again and again try to present y
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antonio Radici
* Package name: cfengine3
Version : 3.0.1b3
Upstream Author : Mark Burgess
* URL : http://www.cfengine.org/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : tool for configuring and maintaining n
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antonio Radici
* Package name: libvariable-magic-perl
Version : 0.32
Upstream Author : Vincent Pit
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Variable-Magic
* License : GPL-1+ | Artistic
Programming Lang: Perl
Description
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lucas Nussbaum
* Package name: booh
Version : 0.9.1
Upstream Author : Guillaume Cottenceau
* URL : http://booh.org/
* License : GPLv2
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : image classifier and web album generator
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 08:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> > > Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
> > > changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
> >
> > Unfortunately it is not Debian who have to live with it, but the
Bill Unruh wrote:
> > Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
> > changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
>
> Unfortunately it is not Debian who have to live with it, but the users around
> the world. Debian is not being particularly harmed, but the u
Bill Unruh wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> > As a hint: "the work mkisofs" is the plain files that can be found in the
> > sub-directory "mkisofs" in the cdrtools source tree. Other sub-directories
> > in
> > this source tree colletion contain _other_ independen
Julien Cristau, le Tue 03 Mar 2009 20:36:23 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 20:27:54 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Are there plans on this issue? Drop packages? Always load snd_pcm_oss?
> >
> Make those packages depend on oss-compat?
Ah, didn't know that one. Very few packages d
Severity: wishlist
Package: wnpp
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Hi,
it might be neat to have pywikipediabot in Debian.
Package: pywikipediabot
URL: http://pywikipediabot.sourceforge.net/
see also
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_bot/Getting_started
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bill Unruh wrote:
There is absolutely no problem with distributing mkisofs binaries that are
linked against CDDLd libs that are a "different work".
Well, no, there is a problem. Whether that problem is due to a misreading of
the law, differing laws
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 20:27:54 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Are there plans on this issue? Drop packages? Always load snd_pcm_oss?
>
Make those packages depend on oss-compat?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 03 Mar 2009 20:27:54 +0100, a écrit :
> Quite a few packages support only OSS, not ALSA.
> [...]
>
> Are there plans on this issue? Drop packages? Always load snd_pcm_oss?
Put another way: how severe should bugs like
#517853 [G|M| ] [saytime] saytime: depends on the OS
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:41:40PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:09:29PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > You are uninformed: libc on Linux is under LGPL and the LGPL is as
> > > "incompatible" to GPL as the CDDL is "incomparible" to th
Hello,
Quite a few packages support only OSS, not ALSA. Nowadays there's quite
little probability that your sound board only has an OSS driver, and so
there is quite little probability that quite a few packages work out the
box.
Of course, there are solutions: fix the apps, load snd_pcm_oss, or
Bill Unruh wrote:
> > There is absolutely no problem with distributing mkisofs binaries that are
> > linked against CDDLd libs that are a "different work".
>
> Well, no, there is a problem. Whether that problem is due to a misreading of
> the law, differing laws (Under US, the concept of derivati
Darren Salt wrote:
> "End of discussion", as far as I'm concerned. I'm saying no more.
OK, wonderful to see that you no longer write non-fact based claims Once
you are willing to have a fact based discussion I am willing to continue.
For anyone who likes to know what to read before, it is:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Particularly in the case of cdrecord, I don't believe there is enough of
a case that we absolutely must have it that we should take a risk on the
licensing. If, on the other hand, you want your software in Debian, you
need to take into account our poi
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
...
As a hint: "the work mkisofs" is the plain files that can be found in the
sub-directory "mkisofs" in the cdrtools source tree. Other sub-directories in
this source tree colletion contain _other_ independent works.
You have to decide whether the G
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bill Unruh wrote:
I believe that you mean the above to apply to mkisofs, not to cdrtools, which
is a bunch of different program. The programs which are purely CDDL I assume
you have no problem with distributing (despite your discomfort with CDDL).
block 517957 by 449497
thanks
Hi Daniel!
I cc:ed the d-devel mailing list to get a wider opinion. Please keep at
least the BTS cc:ed.
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:37:33 +0100, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> Firmware is looked for under /usr/share/foo2zjs/firmware, but firmware
> is added on and therefore
I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
[snip]
> I am definitely not writing self contradicting statements, you are.
Keep telling yourself that; I don't think that anybody else believes you.
> Your problem seems to be that you repeat untrue claims from other people
> wit
Darren Salt wrote:
> [Mail-Followup-To set again. I note that the last one was ignored...]
>
> I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
>
> > Darren Salt wrote:
> >>> In order to create a derived work, you need to add own code of a
> >>> sufficient creation level. The simple
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:51:26PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> Chances are that I'll not be the last either. I think that he's a lost cause
> wrt getting that licensing sorted out, but you know, million-to-one...
million-to-one is the debian-devel S/N ratio you're aiming for?
Michael
--
To UN
I demand that Michael Banck may or may not have written...
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:33:57PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
>> Strange, then, that Eben Moglen's opinion, quoted in this very thread,
>> should refer explicitly to the C library and otherwise only to *system*
>> libraries.
> You're not
On Mar 03, Roger Leigh wrote:
> You could easily adapt these expressions and logic (if needed,
> they are very general) for use by modprobe.
I did this in 2004. Upstream was not interested.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 16:42 +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:02:08AM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> >
> > What does this have over PowerDNS?
>
> Probably nothing, else that I am using it and packaging it for my own
> and thought that it would be a good idea to
[Mail-Followup-To set again. I note that the last one was ignored...]
I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
> Darren Salt wrote:
>>> In order to create a derived work, you need to add own code of a
>>> sufficient creation level. The simple act of compiling does of course
>
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:42:19PM +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:02:08AM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
What does this have over PowerDNS?
Probably nothing, else that I am using it and packaging it for my own
and thought that it would be a goo
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:31:30 +0100
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> Darren Salt wrote:
>
> > > In order to create a derived work, you need to add own code of a
> > > sufficient
> > > creation level. The simple act of compiling does of course not create a
> > > deri
At 16:10, someone wrote in another thread:
> I believe that you're using circular arguments with no relevance to the
> actual case in hand.
At 16:59, Joerg Schilling wrote :
> Before you again and again try to present your speudo arguments that go in
> circles, carefully read the GPL..
I th
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:02:18 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > It's already there:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=514316
> >
> > I would happily include such a file, though it probably needs some thought
> > on the API before we c
To view the message, please use an HTML compatible email viewer!
Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > As the FSF is interested to see GPLd programs on OpenSolaris (*), the FSF
> > did confirm that there is no problem with linking a GPLd program like e.g.
> > GNU tar with the CDDLd libraries fron OpenS
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:33:57PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> Strange, then, that Eben Moglen's opinion, quoted in this very thread, should
> refer explicitly to the C library and otherwise only to *system* libraries.
You're not the first to point this out. It's unclear why you reiterate
this po
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:17:00PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Introducing either a shell library or a non-integrated dpkg-conffile
> has a too high cost IMO. It will prompt maintainers to switch to it
> (when the annoying part is the initial introduction of the support,
> being there already on
Darren Salt wrote:
> > In order to create a derived work, you need to add own code of a sufficient
> > creation level. The simple act of compiling does of course not create a
> > derived work.
>
> By that argument, it seems to me that if I compile (and link) cdrtools, it's
> not a derived work; b
I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
[snip]
> As the FSF is interested to see GPLd programs on OpenSolaris (*), the FSF
> did confirm that there is no problem with linking a GPLd program like e.g.
> GNU tar with the CDDLd libraries fron OpenSolaris and to publish the
> resu
[M-F-T set. Do *not* Cc to me.]
I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Tue Mar 03 11:07, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> The rules of the GPL end at "work" limit and neither libc nor libschily
>>> or libscg are part of the "work" mkisofs. For this
On 03 Mar 15:41, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:09:29PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > You are uninformed: libc on Linux is under LGPL and the LGPL is as
> > > "incompatible" to GPL as the CDDL is "incomparible" to the GPL.
> >
> > Er?
>
> W
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:09:29PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > You are uninformed: libc on Linux is under LGPL and the LGPL is as
> > "incompatible" to GPL as the CDDL is "incomparible" to the GPL.
>
> Er?
Well, it seems that you are uninfored
If you like to t
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 02:57:23PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Tue Mar 03 14:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
> > > changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
> >
> > We do live
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 02:14:41PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
> changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
We have. We forked cdrtools, as is perfectly okay with most open source
projects.
--
Home is where
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:09:29PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> You are uninformed: libc on Linux is under LGPL and the LGPL is as
> "incompatible" to GPL as the CDDL is "incomparible" to the GPL.
Er?
-
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
[...]
7. Additional Terms.
"Additi
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:09:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 03, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:43:53AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > The upstream maintainers decided that in the future the files in
> > > /etc/modprobe.d/ will be processed only if they have a
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:02:18 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:02:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > >
> > > Insert the typical winge here about dpkg conffile renaming code
> > > being deployed via cut-n-paste from a wiki page
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Mar 03 14:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
> > changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
>
> We do live with this change. We don't have cdrtools in the archive, this
> is how we live
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:58:20AM -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
> OK, good. So if Jorg were to dual license libscg, this would be
> sufficient for Debian to believe that they are able to distribute it?
> This is far weaker than the demand that all of the software be dual
> licensed or GPLed. Whether or
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> ... now it is only the two of us which needs to stop talking and start
> proposing patches as needed :-)
ok. Here's the plan:
- Identify a "candidate" package to add (as a patch) an upgrade
feature based on Config::Model.
- Then, I'll patch this source package to
On Tue Mar 03 14:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
> changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
We do live with this change. We don't have cdrtools in the archive, this
is how we live with such changes.
I've told you w
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sebastian Krause
* Package name: gremind
Version : 0.1.2
Upstream Author : Sergio Perticone
* URL : http://perticone.homelinux.net/~sergio/c++/gremind/
* License : GPL, LGPL
Programming Lang: C++
Description : Si
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Mar 03 13:38, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Repeating false claims does not make them correct.
>
> Repeating that correct claims are false does not make them false.
>
> There is enough weight on the side that I have described that I believe
> it is in Debian's int
On Tue Mar 03 13:38, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Repeating false claims does not make them correct.
Repeating that correct claims are false does not make them false.
There is enough weight on the side that I have described that I believe
it is in Debian's interest to follow them. After all, if we
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Mar 03 11:07, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > The rules of the GPL end at "work" limit and neither libc nor
> > libschily or libscg are part of the "work" mkisofs. For this reason,
> > there is no problem with the fact that mkisofs links against libschily
> > and libs
Harald Braumann writes:
>> Agreed. But VCS solution is a 80% success/20% silent
>> failure. Config::Model is a 80% success/20% abort. The latter should
>> be easier to deal with for average user.
>
> But you don't need to silently merge (and thus silently fail in some
> cases). You can still ask
Le mardi 03 mars 2009 à 13:09 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> You are uninformed: libc on Linux is under LGPL and the LGPL is as
> "incompatible"
> to GPL as the CDDL is "incomparible" to the GPL.
In what realm?
--
.''`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>
> > As said, license compatibility needs to be discussed separately. If you
> > like
> > to allow to publish binaries from GPLd programs for _any_ OS that does not
> > come with a GPLd "libc", you nee
On Tue Mar 03 11:07, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The rules of the GPL end at "work" limit and neither libc nor
> libschily or libscg are part of the "work" mkisofs. For this reason,
> there is no problem with the fact that mkisofs links against libschily
> and libscg.
The FSF certainly believes (and
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> As said, license compatibility needs to be discussed separately. If you like
> to allow to publish binaries from GPLd programs for _any_ OS that does not
> come with a GPLd "libc", you need to allow (*) to link _any_ GPLd program
>
On Tue Mar 03 00:58, Bill Unruh wrote:
> I understand this as well. That is a however a different issue than the legal
> one. It at least opens the possibility, both for Debian and for the many other
> Linux distributions. And relieving the Debian maintainers
> from having to try to keep up to date
Russ Allbery writes:
> Russell Coker writes:
>
>> If libschilly met the criteria for being a System Library then it
>> probably have been packaged for use by other programs. If you want to
>> make a case for including libschilly as a System Library then please
>> provide a list of some of the o
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
> As a hint: "the work mkisofs" is the plain files that can be found in the
> sub-directory "mkisofs" in the cdrtools source tree. Other sub-directories in
> this source tree colletion contain _other_ independent works.
So you like to enhance a program with a GPL licens
Bill Unruh wrote:
> I believe that you mean the above to apply to mkisofs, not to cdrtools, which
> is a bunch of different program. The programs which are purely CDDL I assume
> you have no problem with distributing (despite your discomfort with CDDL).
> Since it appears that mkisofs is the
>
On Mar 03, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Is there a chance upstream would accept a patch to implement this as a
> blacklist instead of a whitelist?
This is how it used to work (and still does).
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bill Unruh writes:
> OK, good. So if Jorg were to dual license libscg, this would be
> sufficient for Debian to believe that they are able to distribute it?
> This is far weaker than the demand that all of the software be dual
> licensed or GPLed. Whether or not he would be willing to dual licen
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > The "OS exception" in the GPL just allows you to omit things like
> > libc from "the complete source". The The "OS exception" in the GPL
> > does not allow you to treat license compatibility between GPL code
> > and "system li
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 08:12:16AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > If Red Hat wants to pay someone to put up with it, that's their call; it's
> > a lot easier to be polite in the face of an unending stream of personal
> > abuse if you're getting a paycheck
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 06:52:05PM -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
> I do not think we are there yet. The claim is that cdrecord cannot be
> distributed as any part of Debian because of legal issues. I am trying to find
> out what the issues are, and narrow them down to their essense.
Maybe do so in a d
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:08:33PM -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, James Vega wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:41:54PM -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
>>> Thus, is it correct that the issue centers around mkisofs, a program which
>>> is
>>> under the GPL2 license and is linked with l
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Mar 02 22:36, Bill Unruh wrote:
Are you claiming that he does/did not have the right to release the major
portion of the code under CDDL? (ie those portions that he did release in that
way?) Ie, that he did not have the permission of those other
after upgrading module-init-tools in unstable just now the boot process shows
a lot of warnings like:
modprobe: WARNING: All config files need .conf: /etc/modprobe.d/aliases, it
will be ignored in a future release.
there is blocks of those lines, one for each file in /modprobe.d,
those blocks
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
