On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:44:11PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5
* Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It
doesn't hang like NS though.
There are some sites that still require Netscape 4.77. A good example is
an
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It
doesn't hang like NS though.
There
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed.
the only libc5
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
me wrote:
some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to reboot, to
Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
navigator is much
* John Goerzen
| Since providing this capability requires only free software on
| Debian's part, where exactly is the problem?
Manpower.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:14:51PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in
the
kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a
whole
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:45:21AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]:
On Jun 22, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore.
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
which are libc5 related:
[SNIP]
and others, partially.
This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries,
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries?
There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
the package.
--
Debian GNU/Linux
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:26:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
Alternative 1:
You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
work.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed.
the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is compatible to
some pages
Le sam 21/06/2003 à 19:26, John Goerzen a écrit :
You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
Assuming it supports your hardware. Which it is not
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:26:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries?
I really don't understand why this is such a difficult problem. If, for
instance, gcc 2.7.2 could build these things three years ago, why can't it
now? It's
On Jun 22, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
the package.
This looks like a good enough reason to me.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [1676
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]:
On Jun 22, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
the package.
This looks like a good
haven't looked too closely at who started this thread
then?
From: Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
Package: libc5
Maintainer: Francesco Paolo Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in the
kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a whole
Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
that
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:27:57AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
work. Yes, it
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:57:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
M, that's the basis of freelosophy. Don't use proprietary formats and
don't
use proprietary software. The risk of being unable to use your own
documents is concrete. Who owns your docs? Corel does. Microsoft does.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
Alternative 1:
You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
Assuming it supports your
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:35:18PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
As long as these doc's exist someone will make money by providing the
means of reading them, if OOo does not.
That someone is Microsoft.
IMHO, the problem has been resolved.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
Also woody...
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:33:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine
wrote:
And surely Debian DOES NOT support
non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See clause 1 of
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
zlib1
The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
Which is the newer alternative to this package?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
zlib1
The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
Which is the newer alternative to this package?
There is none needed. zlib1(-altdev) and zlib1g(-dev) are
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
zlib1
The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
Which is the newer alternative to this package?
Huh ? What has that to do with it ?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
zlib1
The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
Which is the newer alternative to this package?
Err, Zack, I say zlib1...
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
zlib1
The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
Which is the newer alternative to this package?
That's zlib1 not zlib1g. We're not
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
documents.
That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing.
Wordperfect 11 is now a windoze-only program.
Also Applixware 5 (another dead
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
documents.
That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing.
Wordperfect 11 is now a
X-Spot: Who uses non-free software empoisons you, too. Say him to stop.
^^^
That's constantly in my header... so I'm ready to fight :-P
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
Word documents.
Is that still true for OOo 1.1beta2? Are there open bug reports
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:03:52AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Err, Zack, I say zlib1... zlib1g* is libc6 related.
Ok, thanks, never mind.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
X-Spot: Who uses non-free software empoisons you, too. Say him to stop.
^^^
That's constantly in my header... so I'm ready to fight :-P
M, that's the basis of
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Chris Halls wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
Word documents.
Is that still true
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
which are libc5 related:
I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to
can install the old libc5 support packages from archive.debian.org
without breaking their system.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it
was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck.
If he was really interested in his data, he should convert them in a
standard and portable format soon.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:59:46AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
which are libc5 related:
I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to
can install the old libc5
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
[lots of text snipped]
It is not a question of using non-free software, I use it almost
exclusively, but that of accessing documents that were created with
non-free software before there were free alternatives.
Please remember
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
|| Debian can continue to drag along support for libc5-binaries (hey,
|| nobody out there with need for libc4?)
(raises hand)
Ciao. Vincent.
On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine
wrote:
And surely Debian DOES NOT support
non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See clause 1 of
the Social Contract.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it
was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck.
If he was really interested in his data, he
Hi all
Someone could already know this amazing bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
which are libc5 related:
libc5
libc5-altdev
libc5-altdbg
altgcc
libdb1
libdb1-altdev
libdl1
libdl1-altdev
zlib1
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
which are libc5 related:
[SNIP]
and others, partially.
This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries,
Comments, ideas, complaints?
I agree
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
which are libc5 related:
zlib1
This is going to vanish shortly anyway unless the libc5 bug is fixed
since it breaks zlib builds. I'd only been
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone could already know this amazing bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015
I've seen this before; it seems that sometimes when the package is
built from source, the resulting library is missing some symbols for
some
xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
documents.
Phil.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Hi all
Someone could already know this amazing bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
documents.
Note that the packages won't be removed from your system, they will simply
no longer be in the Debian archive. This *may* become a problem if you
clean-install a future
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
documents.
Note that the packages won't be removed from your system, they will simply
no longer be in the Debian archive. This *may*
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
And pester wordperfect^WCorel to use libraries from the current millenium.
Or pester openoffice.org for a WP filter and booklet printing.
I was going to mention OOo, but since I don't know what it can currently do,
I wasn't about to put my foot in
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
documents.
In my experience, either AbiWord or KWord is able to read these
documents. But of course, libwpd can't be perfect... you give some and
take some :)
54 matches
Mail list logo
