uot; on further
consideration since British spelling is used elsewhere in the document.
All of my changes have now been pushed to the Debian Policy repository and
the document is in the state in which I intend to release it tomorrow as
part of the Policy 3.9.3 release. Please review and send any
Russ Allbery writes:
> @@ -869,8 +908,12 @@ Copyright 2009, 2010 Angela Watts
> GFDL
>
>
> -GNU Free Documentation License 1.0, or
> -http://spdx.org/licenses/GFDL-1.1";>1.1.
&
on this specification over the years. The
- following alphabetical list is incomplete, please suggest missing people:
+ following alphabetical list is incomplete; please suggest missing people:
Russ Allbery,
Ben Finney,
Sam Hocevar,
@@ -134,43 +137,47 @@
Single-line
exception is in effect a dual-licensed work that can be redistributed
either under the GPL-2+, or under the
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
document. Review of all the changes
is, of course, welcome.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.de
generate announcing our membership) that Debian is not adopting
the OSI license review process for Debian and that Debian will continue to
conduct its own license review as we do now, and that we continue to
disagree with OSI in some areas on what licenses should be considered
free.
--
Russ Allbery (r...
sort of purge of icky licenses
> on their side.
We would need to start by identifying the licenses that we care enough
about to demand that they be purged. I suspect that list may be of zero
size, mostly on the "care enough about" front.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
eir
holders and substantial public confusion already exists.
Note, though, that as I understand it people have to actually *use* the
permissive grant that you've given them and create confusing products to
undermine your mark. If you let people do it, but no one does, that's a
differe
our stable maintenance policies, and I think this is a
good example of such a license.
If I were packaging such a piece of software, I would proactively remove
that clause from the license (nothing seems to prevent me from doing so),
which would resolve the whole problem. That's
rietary license with the difficult of renaming available as the stick.
I think those two things are entirely consistent.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
move forward anyway.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877gzqqmth@windlord.stanford.edu
t's very easy to blunder into an argument that
one never intended and cause significant offense.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
the issues that I come up with (if any).
However, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to do that within the
time frame that you mention above, and I don't think the process should
block on that work, so the deadline you propose sounds reasonable to me.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian
ng copyright and license
status in debian/copyright.
but I don't think people have read that as saying what we're trying to say
above, although I believe that's the intention. Maybe because it
conflates two things: a change in Policy, and not requiring additional
informat
t individual files within that package have headers that look like:
Copyright 2008 Russ Allbery
or:
Copyright Joe Smith 1995
with the same GPL notice (so there's no ambiguity about any files under a
different license). Does the Debian package maintainer need to include
all those oth
not *require* any
of that. This is probably going to require special language around the
case of a Files: * stanza.
This is something we were discussing in the previous round of discussion
last December, and I'm increasingly convinced we really need to get this
out of the way somehow and not
licenses. That is, you
> can have "Files:" && "Copyright:" || "Files:" && "License:", but you
> can't have "Files:" && "Copyright:" && "License:"
I think this is way too much overhead. I
and improve even faster, and I
certainly wouldn't want to stand in the way of that, but it's not part of
my metric of success.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.or
d lists are not an invention of DEP-5 -- they're a standard field
type in Policy -- so I don't think there's a huge need to get rid of them.
They're a fairly natural structure for Upstream-Contact, which I don't
think poses the same problem.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.
ay:
Formatted text, no synopsis: one or more free-form copyright
statement(s). Any formatting is permitted; see the examples below for
some ideas for how to structure the field to make it easier to read.
instead?
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.o
space the continuation lines over by several more
spaces, which in a free-form field indicates unwrappable text (just as in
the Description field for a package).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-
is probably the simplest.
It occurs to me that an alternative would be to say that line-based lists
support something akin to RFC 5322 continuation semantics: if a line
starts with two or more spaces, it's taken as a continuation of the
previous line. Then you could do:
Copyright: 2001 Russ A
Sorry about the bogus subject line. For some reason, our spam filtering
software (from Sophos) is absolutely convinced that SPDX is a spam hosting
site (and has persisted in that belief for well over a year now).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~ea
ambiguity for humans. However, SPDX also doesn't list the Expat license
(under that name), so using MIT for the Expat license would bring us more
in line with SPDX's registrations.
I can see pluses and minuses either way. I think I'm not quite willing to
support the change, but i
Russ Allbery writes:
> I noticed in reviewing another patch that the Copyright header is a
> line-based list. One unfortunate implication of that is that this means
> lines are required to be longer than 80 columns if the name of the
> copyright holder is long. For example:
>
to be used in
copyright notices for software owned by Stanford because it's the official
legal name under which the university holds property. See:
http://otl.stanford.edu/inventors/inventors_copyright.html
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
age in each paragraph type. Patch is
> attached.
> Does this look ok? Does anyone think there's a better way to do this?
> Have I introduced any errors in the conversion?
Yes, please. This looks great. Thank you!
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/
d the feedback in this thread, I think
> there is a general preference for the second option. Russ, does this
> meet your needs?
Yup. That option seems fine to me.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
o be worth
explaining.
But we should probably decide explicitly if that's something we want to
rule out.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscr
I'd set an expiration date on it from
the start and extended it periodically, it would have expired now and it
would be clear that it's no longer my key.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-pr
ocument,
which is not part of Policy, just managed as part of the debian-policy
package and via the same process.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of &quo
Ben Finney writes:
> That doesn't seem right at all, though; English “Ian” is not pronounced
> “ee'-en”, but “ee'-ən”.
I think that depends on your dialect. I've heard both. (The difference
is fairly subtle.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) &l
ed to refer to the associated product and not some different product.
However, at the point that one is making that argument, one is well into
lawyer territory with murky and inconsistent outcomes in trials.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle
x27;s employer goes south. Employers are
legally permitted in the US to intercept and read all of an employee's
e-mail sent to a work address, for example.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...
? Often this sort of thing ends up being essentially a
marketing tactic by the vendors involved in developing the specification
rather than being something useful for improving technical quality.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To
igh for upstream statements about licensing. It's much less likely that
upstream will be wrong when they declare the license to be an MIT or
2-clause BSD license. But misunderstanding of public domain is
widespread.
Hell, I have stuff of my own that's distributed under a license that sa
-domain keyword for things that aren't actually in the public
domain but just have a license saying "this is in the public domain" or
"you can treat this as if it's in the public domain," since in many
countries that use Debian those works are *not* in the public do
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:32:38AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>>> I.e. regarding my example, even if DEP5 should be corrected to also
>>> mention License: in header paragraph, I should _still_ below that
>>
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:23:44AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> But there are two other main reasons why I want an overall package
>> license:
>> * It's common to release GPL'd software that includes some
>> 2-clause-BSD-li
ed under compatible terms. In that case, it's nice
to be able to just specify a general package license and make it
explicit that one is not claiming to have a comprehensive listing of all
files with their copyright and license statements.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
ifically requested this, since one of the
purposes to which I want to put DEP-5 requires some way of specifying the
collective copyright and license for a package as a whole, regardless of
the individual licenses of some files. This is not the same thing as a
Files: * block that's overridden by
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> On to, 2011-01-13 at 17:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Yeah, I think Source should be optional for native packages.
> Would anyone oppose making such a change? Does Policy allow it? If
> there's consensus for, and it's ok by Policy, then
volved with in Debian.
Yeah, I think Source should be optional for native packages.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
ly do.
I suspect a blacklist on the Planet Debian side could kill most of the
bugs after looking over Page Info. I personally blocked four different
sites and that got 95% of them.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
eople like and are interested in.
I would have absolutely no concerns about such a thing on Planet, provided
that the links were constructed such that they didn't become accidental
web bugs.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
quite uncomfortable with hosting my web site, which as
previously mentioned has some affiliate links to an on-line bookstore, on
the Stanford network even though it was on my personal hardware, and felt
much more comfortable about that once I moved my personal web site to my
own VMs hosted elsewher
Russ Allbery writes:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:56:18 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> I respectfully disagree. Depending on the context and the situation,
>>> I may consider someone asking me to give them money to be intrusive
>>> an
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:56:18 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I respectfully disagree. Depending on the context and the situation, I
>> may consider someone asking me to give them money to be intrusive and
>> obnoxious, and I reserve the right to com
und. They're culture-dependent, unlikely to
be universal, and not very likely to change anyone's behavior.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of &q
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Where I personally draw the line is that I'm fairly comfortable with
>> Debian-involved people advertising their own services on Planet Debian:
>> their own companies, their own consulting services,
d by how many people
are endorsing it. But one of the points of Planet Debian is that it
includes all of the project, in all of our disagreements.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@list
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Anyway, presumably decent feed reader software either has or could have
>> added to it a similar feature to suppress particular posts from the
>> collective feed by various criteria. The authorship information is in
>> th
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> The little minus next to someone's name seems to deal with that
>> reasonably well if one doesn't feel up to ignoring it.
> I get no “little minus” next to anyone's name on the Planet Debian
> syndication
.
Meeting one's fellow developer in person also (at least for me) helped a
lot in turning random political content I strongly disagree with from
something that pissed me off into something that just makes me roll my
eyes and remember the good conversation we had. :)
--
Russ Allbery
many, many other problems with our current
practices.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@l
l use the
>> field name no matter what it's called, though.
> I feel it is not, but if you judge this as nitpicking, I shall stop.
Sorry, that probably came across poorly. I was referring to my own
contribution as bikeshed painting, not to yours. I'm probably making too
much of this
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:23:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> It seems like overkill to me, but I guess I don't really care. But if
>> the source is only URLs, then for some of my packages I either need to
>> omit it or duplicate Homep
as
> redistributing non-pristine "source" tarballs.
But that field name also isn't an accurate representation of what's going
on when the packaging is based on a Git tag. No manipulation is involved
other than running git archive against a tag.
--
Russ All
an upstream release tarball available from some URL *or* freeform
text describing where the source came from.
I don't think it's horribly important that the URLs in Source be
machine-extractable, since that purpose is already served well by
debian/watch. The field is primarily meant for human
iles field in each paragraph for per-file
license information, with a note in DEP-5 saying that if you want to
declare copyright and license for the entire package, without making
claims about specific files, you should put the fields in the first
(header) paragraph of debian/copyright.
urce
instead.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hbht48a4@windlord.stanford.edu
tead.
I object to this change unless Policy is also changed to specify
README.source as the location for documenting where the upstream source
came from instead of debian/copyright. As long as debian/copyright is the
location where that should be specified, the repacking should be
documented there
ented in DEP-5 (with the exception that I don't
think we need to explain file glob patterns, except that DEP-5 should be
clear about whether {} is allowed or not). I find the references to find
behavior very confusing and never guess correctly about what find would
do.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@de
icense of the build system, an "anywhere in
the tree" pattern for Makefile.in is very helpful. Likewise, sometimes,
for files like config.guess and config.sub. I realize doing this is
optional from the ftp-master perspective, but I do that with my packages.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.
s not.
> Comments on Comment?
Looks fine to me, although as a very minor point I'd replace Debian
ftpmaster team with upstream, since that's the more typical case.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hello everyone,
I'm claiming DEP-7 for Java web application packaging, as outlined in the
DEP-0 procedure. Here is the metadata:
Title: Java Web Application Packaging
DEP: 7
State: DRAFT
Date: 2010-08-24
Drivers: Russ Allbery
URL: http://dep.debian.net/deps
ial statement if for no other reason
than that the Debian project doesn't have any single primary focus.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "
g the primary
>> point of distribution of the software.
> Since the syntax allows multiple URIs, and since the URIs may be long, I
> think that allowing newlines in the field will make it more
> readable. for instance by making it free-form (not formatted, see
> below).
I ag
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> On la, 2010-08-21 at 01:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I was assuming that's how we'd get to a 1.1 version. I haven't read
>> DEP-0 recently, though, so I guess I have a poor grasp of how this is
>> supposed to work. I'll
he license text in a machine-readable
format, in essence.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas
nk that people are going to want to
parse and extract individual copyright holders for some reason? If so, we
would need to standardize the format quite a bit, and I'm not sure it's
worth it.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UN
you don't want to
throw away information. It's also a divergence from the Debian control
file format, which allows only one instance of a field per stanza,
probably for much the same reason.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
year list using a range; for instance, do not
write `1996--1998'; instead, write `1996, 1997, 1998'.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> On pe, 2010-08-20 at 17:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think a better approach would be to, once the document has settled
>> down, publish it with a version number and give that version of the
>> document a permanent URL. So, for instance, we wo
point, so I'll
> force a decision: I'll keep the Upstream-Contact and Upstream-Name
> fields in the spec.
+1
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
I recommend that this
> additional requirement is mentionned in the DEP.
Order of paragraphs is significant in debian/control files. It never
occurred to me that anyone would think that the order of paragraphs wasn't
significant.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http
,
> word-wrapping is OK, desc-escape is used.
> * Everything else: newlines are not significant, word-wrapping is OK,
> desc-escape is not used. Normal RFC822-style handling of line
> continuations applies.
I think we could merge all three of these into the same case by using the
Descr
ny mailing list ban capabilities should not
apply to debian-vote, since that list has special constitutional roles.
For that list, we should stick with the current rather high bar for
listmaster intervention.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagl
stated in a structured form. They're usually just defenses
of why thet claimed license information is what it is (when it may, for
example, contradict or supplement information included in the source
files).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/
card processing (less than 5%). Ideally, they should be run on the
same business model as Kiva or Network for Good where they don't take
*any* overhead and are instead supported entirely by separate donations
directly to the non-profit micropayment broker.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@
were program code, so that license text
> that uses one of the many conventions for plain text formatting
> will display OK.
Sounds fine to me, except that the parenthetical is missing some words.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:18:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I would prefer to use the same syntax as .gitignore, since it already
>> deals with all of the complicated cases of matching files in particular
>> paths versus a file by that name any
to everyone. I
personally am ambivalent; paragraph comes with the nice implication that
it's separated by a blank line, and I don't find it confusing. But I've
probably been dealing with this stuff for too long.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www
gant.
I can't imagine how this could possibly matter to anyone. I routinely add
or remove extra indentation for licenses when I move them from file to
file even without DEP-5. But DEP-5 can certainly say that the leading
spaces are not part of the field value.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I can definitely see the desire for this metadata, but it feels to me
>> like it would be better tracked in a separate file, such as Charles's
>> proposed upstream metadata fi
DEP-5, namely automated analysis of
licenses.
I'm not sure how to resolve that. Having a list that's guaranteed to
never remove any keyword or change the meaning of any keyword after it's
made the list is probably the best approach, since then people don't have
to worry about the mea
hink Upstream-Maintainer makes the most sense as the name of the field.
I have no objections to keeping fields that people want to use, even if I
don't want to use them, as long as they're marked optional.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:18:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> I would prefer to stick to a Debian control file format, since
>> otherwise implementing DEP-5 aware checks in tools like Lintian is
>> going to be more painful than it needs to be
e forms of their names vary over
time, and I'm not sure you'd reliably get the right data. I think you'd
want to have a field somewhere where you can track people by CPAN ID,
which wouldn't change.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/&g
freeform
text here so that I can say other things where needed, like the date at
which I last synchronized source or to mention that the files are slightly
modified.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-proje
Copyright 2010 Angela Watts
the Copyright field for a stanza covering both file A and file B need
contain only:
Copyright 2008 John Smith
Copyright 2009, 2010 Angela Watts
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To
many other places we could store such information. For example, upstream
usually provides much more complete contact information including
preferred methods of contact and related information, in a README file
that we would normally install with the package documentation.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.or
mat that has reached consensus among the
people discussing it and isn't going to keep changing. I'm also waiting
for consensus on format before changing packages for which I'm upstream to
use this format for their LICENSE files.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
gt; 'any'.
We should say explicitly that the copyright field is a rollup of all
relevant copyright declarations for that group of files, yes.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lis
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> > Would a generic multi-line Comment: field be sufficient?
>>
>> Yes.
> Would an end-line comment syntax, like the one that already works in the
> ‘debian/control’ file, be sufficient?
> If so, then we can avoid di
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> * An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
>> no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of the
>> distribution as a whole. (In US
st match counts.
I would prefer to use the same syntax as .gitignore, since it already
deals with all of the complicated cases of matching files in particular
paths versus a file by that name anywhere in the tree and does so in a
well-specified way.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
use case could be served by just
allowing a comment field in the files section, I suppose, and that may
be a better approach since it's more general.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ.
information.
> * Make it possible to say "this package is licensed under foo
> except fileA which is licensed under bar"
I'm not sure why you don't think this is already possible. I do this all
the time using the existing DEP-5 specification.
--
Russ Allbery (r..
e number is already well
over 1,000, or in other words I think we already have more than enough to
have something useful to work on.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a sub
301 - 400 of 559 matches
Mail list logo
