On 6/12/06, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
last post wins school of debate. People
On 2/21/06, Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a specific counter example, consider
http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
which is a project porting a windows driver to linux. This port
appears to be possible
On 2/20/06, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib.
This proposal is clear enough.
My reasons are:
- The sole purpose of these packages is allowing the use of non-free Windows
drivers.
- There are no free
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
in a sense, by
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them.
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
write any code for it.
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
documents, or even about having to act in accord
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
the basis of a
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
trusted, you make it about honour; when you think
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
between contradicts the foundation documents and modifies
the foundation documents.
First of all, you're
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
deadlock DOES NOT mean
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
or not?
The constitution says:
... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4).
I think that's pretty clear.
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
require a supermajority.
This comment seems insincere.
If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is
It seems to me that we have some responsibility for the licenses used
on these presentations.
It also seems to me that we should structure our approach to these
licenses similarly to the way we approach other license issues.
That is: we should encourage people to use a DFSG license, and we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:04:57 -0400
Source: silc-toolkit
Binary: libsilc-1.0-2-dev libsilc-1.0-2
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.9.12-4.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Tamas SZERB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Raul Miller
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false.
It is, in places, a bit
For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false.
It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
an interesting commentary -- it has less
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps that is indeed what you would do. I don't consider lawyers to
be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves. They
are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice
and legal representation, but
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL.
There are some exceptions to this. For example, if you're not the
On 5/11/05, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL did not use the word equals.
Neither that is to say nor namely are equal to equals.
Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic
distinctions as claiming that that is to say does not connote
equivalency?
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'm not going to say that your point of view isn't perfectly valid
as your own point of view; but I don't have any reason to believe that
it's a good predictor of how a court case involving the FSF suing
FooSoft for linking against GNU
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
terms of the law that is actually applicable
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
Most of this is focused on contract law issues. I've written a
separate post suggesting the obvious alternative (Tort law)
Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license to
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
That's another re-statement of what a work based on the Program
means.
The GPL just equated the two, before the colon! It states, clearly, that
the a work based on the program is a derivative work under copyright
law
On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
is clearly non-free *without* any such stretching or contriving.
I don't think the issue at that
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that a work based on the Program is a derivative work under
copyright law, and then says that is to say, a work
containing..., which is NOT a re-statement of a derivative work
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matters
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
The GPL simply defers to copyright law to define derivative work
On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define work based on the
Program in terms of derivative work under copyright law, and then,
after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what is a
derivative work under copyright law, but
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Second sentence in Section 0: The Program, below, refers to any
such program or work, and a work based on the Program
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:16:25AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
However, if somebody writes a graphviz-client which just pushes the
dot file over the network to graphviz.example.com on some port and
gets a postscript file back, it can go into main. No matter what
software said server is
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:02:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The social contract says ...but we will never make the system depend on
an item of non-free software. not but we will never make the system
depend on an item of non-free software /which we must distribute/.
We don't make the
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 11:33:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Please suggest any case which you don't think this criteria adequately
covers.
The bios.
Unless, we decide that the bios we put in non-free isn't the bios we
need to boot the machine.
--
Raul
Raul Miller wrote:
Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the
software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an
opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into
a context where we can't know that we're doing the right
Raul Miller wrote:
The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse
with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not
known to us.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:51:22PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
I don't understand you.
Hmm...
An API
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:33:41AM -0500, I clumsily wrote:
I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
contained in the API was designed to work with.
That should have read:
I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
contained in
[just some minor additions.]
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:14PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No, I argue that because you've pried chips off the board, the
hardware is broken.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:39:59PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Er, no. Flash can be overwritten with
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:41:46AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
You are currently saying that the GNU in GNU/Linux is justified by the
glibc and not by any other GNU software, because these GNU software
are common on other unixes.
Maybe what he was saying, but that's obviously not the real issue.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:57:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Hard to understand? We'd require a certain level of voter approval
before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
can't win. How is this hard to understand?
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:50:02AM +0200, Jochen
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
At this point; under my version; I can express my opinions
with no fear of harming my candidate. Under your amendment; if I do
not vote; the vote is nullified. However, if I vote against the
option -- the option
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:57:13PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
I don't believe that it's acceptable for an otherwise beaten option
to win due the the otherwise winning option being discarded due
to a quorum requirement, as John suggests might happen.
Under the proposed system, we would do
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
The amendment uses the concept of a Quorum requirement to inhibit
stealth decisions by only a handful of developers. While this is a
good thing, the per-option quorum from the amendment has a tendency to
further
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:39:08PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
example: quorum of 20, two ballots on the measure, plus the default
option. two major schools of thought: those that support option A, and
those that support option B.
If the quorum of 20 is significant, neither school of
Today is the last day of our vote for our new leader.
Because we've had a variety of problems, and for reasons documented
in the Robert Grudin quote, under Date Input Format in the info docs
on the date command, I'm declaring that the vote is over at midnight,
as measured at the international
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
As has previously been announced
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0102/msg4.html), polls for the
debian leader election will open March 7. The nominees should currently
be campaigning.
We have nominations for:
Branden Robinson
Ben Collins
Anand Kumria
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:
[lots of stuff deleted -- basically a bitch about new maintainer]
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:57:41AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
Good point :-)
Not really:
[1] This point (if it really erik's point -- hard to tell) is
not well expressed by erik's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Stallman) writes:
Meanwhile, you don't seem to be concerned about the mob of people
who are attacking me.
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:06:53PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
I may now be even more concerned that you seem to consider the authors
of free KDE software a
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:47:01AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
I don't see us making this kind of check for code written in perl, or
code wirtten in C, or any other language.
Perl is available under two licenses: GPL + Artistic. Not much room
for a reasonable person to introduce conflict there.
C
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:52:04PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
Fortunately, my part of it is done - KDE is being uploaded to Debian
now to join Qt in main. Unfortunately, not by any action of KDE. Troll
Tech made the decision. KDE and Debian both benefit. I can speak
for a sizable portion of
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:35:44AM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
'explorer' also depends on it (using the old qt1g package name)
Explorer also has nine bugs, some important, six over two years old.
Note especially:
#29053: package explorer depends on obsolete library libstdc++2.8 (1y, 308d)
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 06:09:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
nobody's telling anyone to get any particular ISP or that they have to
pay for a premium quality service.
True.
it's simple - if you want a service that's worth having, you pay
whatever it costs. if you don't want that, then pay
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 09:06:55PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
i think you misread what i said. i said that missing or incorrect
reverse DNS is *NOT* a good reason for bouncing mail.
I guess I did.
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
There's no legal difference between Debian and people who recieve
it from us. [Legally, there's no such entity as Debian.]
Nor is there a difference from the viewpoint of our social contract.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:35:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Then why do we have DSFG #8
Their position was that the words permission to copy, distribute and
modify do not grant permission to distribute a modified version. In
other words, they say you can distribute the software, and you can
modify the software, but you can't modify it and then distribute the
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they
too ask permission (We do expect and appreciate...). Non-free. If
she had written just We
I've an outstanding, unanswered question which I've sent to UW in a
related context (IMAPD): what specific clause of the copyright is being
violated, when modified versions are distributed.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:46:40PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
Their position was that
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 03:39:05PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
I don't see why Debian (or GNU, or Linux) bothers with the IMAPD of
UofW so much at all. Aren't there quite some replacements by now?
[1] The copyright appears to meet our standards (DFSG).
[2] The only alternative imap daemon
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:23:11AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
For simplicity's sake, I think it's just good enough to include /sbin,
/usr/sbin and /usr/local/sbin in user's default path.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:42:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think if someone has to do such a
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:34:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
We can put everything in /bin and make /sbin a link to /bin.
This way the utilities the FHS liste can be found in /sbin, but there
physical place is elsewhere. This does not violate the standard.
This has nasty implications with
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:40:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In other words, I think the choice of directory should be controlled by
factors intrinsic, not extrinsic, to the program in question.
I think this is a reasonable viewpoint.
--
Raul
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:30:08PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
to create guidelines to what we consider a free documentation, as in free
speech..
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 09:03:25PM +0100, Richard P. Groenewegen wrote:
[2] Logging in is still impossible: my password is accepted but
apparently I cannot connect to the X-server (here is my
.xsession-errors:)
Xlib: connection to :0.0 refused by server
Xlib: Client is
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:00:46AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
So how many other developers are not using unstable?
Raul Miller wrote:
Perhaps this should be taken up on another list, if you expect input
from more than a few people.
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 02:43:25PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:27:00PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
What am I supposed to do? I could make debconf depend on perl-5.005, but it
really works with any version of perl 5. Also, if only perl-5.004-base,
perl-5.005, and perl-5.005-base were installed, and the alternatives pointed
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:58:06AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Or simpler:
grep-status -P netscape | grep-dctrl -FStatus -sPackage -n \
'install ok installed' | xargs dpkg --purge
Or simpler, and closer to the original intent:
dpkg --get-selections | grep 'netscape' |
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:00:46AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
So how many other developers are not using unstable?
Perhaps this should be taken up on another list, if you expect input
from more than a few people.
For what it's worth, I'm using a slink system with potato in my
apt/sources.list,
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:57:12AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
As far as I know, leaving inetd accepting connections would,
worst case, fail -- which is no different from having the service
disabled. In other words, I don't see that disabling the daemon
solves anything useful.
On Mon, Oct
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 02:10:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(What is the problem with --rename, btw? I'm curious, and dpkg-divert is
horribly underdocumented)
From dpkg-divert --help:
--rename causes dpkg-divert to actually move the file aside (or back).
There's no reason to remove the
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:13:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
it may be an important tool, but that doesn't give you or anyone else
the right to pester people in their own homes. it really does no good
to apologise or even to promise not to call back - by that time, the
damage has been
to do it IMHO is to have
certain packages flagged as daemons, and they should be upgraded
(by whatever program that is in charge) one by one.
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:06:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Under what circumstances would this be in effect during an upgrade
but not otherwise
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:58:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
One benefit always moving it has, is that it tests all code paths on upgrade
(including the add a /bin/sh symlink) which makes it more likely to catch
any bugs while we're still working on potato.
I don't see how this makes
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:31:42PM -0700, Yves Arrouye wrote:
b) give the Project Leader the ability to stop stupid things like the
/usr/doc - /usr/share/doc debate, and just pick an option.
That's been the case at some point. Isn't it true anymore?
The DPL has this ability. In this
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 07:36:28PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Consider if we have bugs 0-199 and you take the first digit. You end up
with 10 bugs in each bucket except bucket '1' which has 110. Put that on a
broader scale and account for expired bugs and you see the trouble.
Why not base
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 08:36:01AM -0400, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
yea...I just did an update today and something decided to remove
/bin/sh during the upgrade...and didn't put it back before it
was needed... so if something hoses for you just recreate it by
linking it to like bash...
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 08:56:23AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
The idea is that when you upgrade the package like telnetd, there
may be new shlib dependencies, etc. which means that you should stop
spawning new daemons until it is configured. Of course, this may
not happen for every release, but
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 02:59:38AM -0400, Rick wrote:
I'm uncertain whether this is a good idea or not. I have helped many
people install redhat linux and, frankly, the daemon enable screen
confuses them. They don't know what all these things are or which ones
they may need. If this gets
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:07:03AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:44:25AM -0400, Raul Miller was heard to say:
A wonderfuly horrible hack has occurred to me, by the way: A cron job
which runs every minute: /bin/sh -c exit || /sbin/rebuild-bin-sh
Hmm. There's
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 08:06:10PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
i show no regard for those who demonstrate they are fools. i show
contempt for those who demonstrate that they are annoying fools. guess
which category you fall into.
Ok, try this on for size:
How many network services do you get
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 03:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In any case, I fail to see how pressing `_' in dselect before any
unnecessary daemons are installed could possibly be less secure than
saying No, I don't want services activated by default and then
installing them anyway.
How long
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:44:25AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 12:30:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Just having /bin/sh included in the .deb is Good Enough -- diversions
work as designed.
Good Enough is not good enough (TM).
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 11:55:54PM
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:06:02AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
[ as I understand it, a security 'breach' could only occur with this
system if a user had execute permissions but *not* read permissions
on a file that wasn't of a normal executable format; in other words:
rwx--x--x
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:53:44AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
i'm talking about the current practice of postinst scripts in various
packages enabling the services that they provide (if any). i am not
talking at all about which packages are base or required or extra or
whatever - i'm talking
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 05:01:05AM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote:
Yes, probably; but no. RMS is referring to the fact that many authors
of many pieces of xemacs haven't assigned copyright to the FSF,
meaning that copyright remains with them, or possibly even their
employer, depending on sticky
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 07:31:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
Ok, you#re right. But the classic http daemons (cern for example) used/use
chroot() for security reasons. You#re right, the current apache package
supports symlinks, but will all users use apache? Will all users use
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 03:00:51PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
If somebody could come up with a better method of handling this it would be
most welcome.
I'd suggest releasing a bash (which doesn't use #!/bin/sh scripts for
install/remove) that, in postinst, divert's bash's /bin/sh. Leave
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 09:57:53PM +1000, Drake Diedrich wrote:
One way to minimize the harm of unintentionally installed or
misconfigured daemons would be to add a default ipchain/ipfwadm policy
rejecting all TCP SYN (incoming initialization) and non-DNS UDP packets
except those from
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 08:25:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
ROTFL, why should I change dhelp to support a broken file format?
...
dhelp supports all formats.
...
These statements contradict each other.
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 06:01:00PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
But who said mtools need to depend on floppyd package?
$ dpkg -L mtools | grep floppyd
/usr/bin/floppyd
/usr/bin/floppyd_installtest
/usr/share/man/man1/floppyd.1.gz
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:08:39PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Pseudonymes have been used throughout the history, so that's not
a problem. For our protection, however, I'd recommend that you and
tftp work out a agreement so that at least one Debian developer (you,
for example) always
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:46:38AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:56:53PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
PGP is legally classified in the same category as atomic weapons.
No, it's not. Atomic weapons are controlled by international treaties,
and AFAIK it would
There is currently no default -- it varies on a per-package basis.
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 09:21:29AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
I note that
### to run vtund as a server on port 5000, uncomment the following line:
#--server-- 5000
isn't uncommented by default.
Sure, but in the context
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 07:23:53PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:50:40AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Treaties are different from laws.
On the contrary, ratified treaties are a binding part of the Finnish
legislation, as if they were ordinary laws passed
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 09:05:43PM +0200, Marcel Harkema wrote:
I am going to rename the poc (portable object compiler) package to objc if
no-one objects. The upstream author requested this. Also, libgc4 (boehm
gc) support is dropped. A new additional package will be introduced with
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:08:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Correction: mtools in slink does *not* depend on anything but libc6, so
there is still time to do it, cleanly.
Maintainer, please do it.
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:28:08PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
...
First, I believe this
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 04:23:22PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Then we'll have to agree where we register docs. I have the
following directories on a fresh potato system (with few packages):
/usr/share/doc/HTML/
/usr/doc/HTML/
And they are _not_ symlinks. They get created by
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:18:43AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks
for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe
them to be pretty reasonable.
Or you could.
--
Raul
P.S. you made this suggestion
[about a flat-file installation tool].
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:58:02PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
If you make such a tool and people start to use it on a large scale, you'd
better be sure you get the package dependencies right.
The context was data files which have no particular
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:22:32AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
I think the key difference is that if some one screws with the BTS or
the Debian web site, it's not going to *me* any harm during the time
it takes to discover and undo the damage. If someone installs a bad or
malicious libc6 in
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:05:37AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
Why even involve debhelper? At least in the case of the Project Gutenberg
files some of which I have, they are just long ascii files so the rules
file could just stick them into (for example) /usr/share/doc/etexts call
doc-base
1 - 100 of 483 matches
Mail list logo
