Re: [Ltsp-discuss] LTSP Packages

2004-11-16 Thread Georg Baum
Am Dienstag, 16. November 2004 14:19 schrieb Jim McQuillan:
> Tom,
> 
> First thing to consider is the fact that the .deb packages for LTSP are
> quite old.  Ragnar Wisloff is working on updated packages for debian,
> but he's not ready to release them just yet.
> 
> I suggest you go to http://www.ltsp.org/ltsp-4.1.html and follow those
> instructions.

I'd suggest that, too. But if you want to use the old packages for some 
reason you can easily install the additional modules from the .tgz files 
and mix it with the .deb files.
BTW, the reason why I did not make a sound .deb back then was that I could 
not get it to work ;-(


Georg


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [Ltsp-discuss] LTSP Packages

2004-11-16 Thread Jim McQuillan
Tom,

First thing to consider is the fact that the .deb packages for LTSP are
quite old.  Ragnar Wisloff is working on updated packages for debian,
but he's not ready to release them just yet.

I suggest you go to http://www.ltsp.org/ltsp-4.1.html and follow those
instructions.

Jim McQuillan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Tom Allison wrote:

> [apologies for cross-posting, but the subject is a cross-over itself]
>
> I'm trying to configure my "big" debian workstation as a LTSP server for my
> other computers.
>
> There is a non-debian set of deb packages for the basic LTSP stuff, but
> nothing for the modules necessary for Sound, Wireless.  These are only
> available as TGZ packages.
>
> Isn't there some way in which I can convert these TGZ packages to DEB packages
> and then install them?  I know that LTSP is typically dedicated to only the
> /opt directories and I'm not sure if it would be easier to just stick with the
> TGZ files and ignore DEB since LTSP seems to be dedicated to a directory that
> isn't affected by Debian in any way.
>
> Experiences?
> Theories?
>
>
> ---
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE
> FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines
> robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match
> for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8
> _
> Ltsp-discuss mailing list.   To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
>  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
> For additional LTSP help,   try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



LTSP Packages

2004-11-16 Thread Tom Allison
[apologies for cross-posting, but the subject is a cross-over itself]
I'm trying to configure my "big" debian workstation as a LTSP server for 
my other computers.

There is a non-debian set of deb packages for the basic LTSP stuff, but 
nothing for the modules necessary for Sound, Wireless.  These are only 
available as TGZ packages.

Isn't there some way in which I can convert these TGZ packages to DEB 
packages and then install them?  I know that LTSP is typically dedicated 
to only the /opt directories and I'm not sure if it would be easier to 
just stick with the TGZ files and ignore DEB since LTSP seems to be 
dedicated to a directory that isn't affected by Debian in any way.

Experiences?
Theories?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: LTSP packages

2002-06-18 Thread Colin Watson
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 02:04:28PM +0200, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
> (It's my understanding that LTSP is made by binaries picked from
> various distros, and some things are compiled from source, e.g. the X
> packages). AFAIK the LTSP packages does not meet the demands of GPL
> and is thus non-free.

Ah. That would mean completely non-redistributable, not just non-free
(non-free package must still comply with their licence, it's just that
the licences there don't meet the DFSG).

I think the simplest way to have that in Debian is to construct a
package that, when installed, automatically downloads the binaries off
the net and puts them in the right place; if such a package can be
produced, it could go in contrib.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: LTSP packages

2002-06-18 Thread Colin Watson
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 06:46:44AM -0400, Tom Allison wrote:
> I noticed that the ltsp.org has a series of GPLed debian packages 
> for use in installing the lstp client/server files necessary.
> 
> I am wondering why these packages have not been incorporated into 
> the Debian Package library as official packages?
> 
> I asked on the ltsp list and the response was two fold:
> 
> The lstp .deb maintaner was not yet on the Debian Team.
> --Why can't someone sponsor him and get it in?
> 
> The ltsp .deb packages would have to be 'non-free' and Debian is 
> discouraging non-free packages.  I guess I don't get it.  it's GPLed.

Er, that seems odd. Where did he get this information? Do the packages
depend on anything non-free? (If so, they would be in contrib, not
non-free.) I can't find any relevant discussion of this on the obvious
Debian mailing lists in the last year and a half.

I've just had a look at the copyright file from the ltsp-core package.
Now, it says it contains "libraries and programs in binary form only"
from a Red Hat distribution, and indeed everything in Debian main is
expected to come with source code. However, I don't see any reason why
the Debian source package for ltsp couldn't come with the source code
from redhat.com and compile it itself; it would be complicated, but
surely not insurmountable. If that really does turn out to be
impossible, one of the standard examples of packages that go in contrib
is "free packages which require ... packages which are not in our
archive at all for compilation or execution", and ltsp could be
constructed as an installer package that goes there until something
better is sorted out.

I'm not qualified to maintain the packages myself, but if you want to
put the ltsp .deb maintainer in touch with me then I'd be happy to try
to clear up any misunderstandings and do what I can to help.

> In any event.  Even if there are packages of this type that are made 
> available to Debian and Debian refuses to acknowledge them directly 
> or indirectly, Debian is the one who loses.

Every Debian package must have a maintainer in Debian (sponsored or
otherwise). Conversely, all it takes to get a package into Debian is:
(a) a maintainer; (b) agreement from those who run the archive, which
generally consists of a licensing and sanity check rather than being any
kind of censorship board (I've never had a problem with getting any of
my packages in).

With a few notable exceptions, any notion of Debian refusing to
acknowledge a third-party package is usually based on a
misunderstanding.

> This would implicate that Debian doesn't have the technical support 
> base on this project (and others?) and may lead someone to walk away 
> from using Debian.

I'd really like to hear more information about this particular case to
back up this sort of comment. I had a brief look through the
ltsp-discuss mailing list (the web archives were very slow for me, so I
didn't get far), but it looks like the replies to your question there
were sent privately.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: LTSP packages

2002-06-18 Thread Arthur H. Johnson II

On a side note, here is an apt source line for LTSP packages:

deb http://termserv.berlios.de/debian stable main non-free

-- 
Arthur H. Johnson II
Catechist, St John Catholic Church, Davison MI USA
Debian GNU/Linux Advocate, Window Maker Advocate
President, Genesee County Linux Users Group

IRC:  [EMAIL PROTECTED],#debian
YIM:  arthurjohnson
AIM:  bytor4232
ICQ:  31770438

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Tom Allison wrote:

> I noticed that the ltsp.org has a series of GPLed debian packages
> for use in installing the lstp client/server files necessary.
>
> I am wondering why these packages have not been incorporated into
> the Debian Package library as official packages?
>
> I asked on the ltsp list and the response was two fold:
>
> The lstp .deb maintaner was not yet on the Debian Team.
> --Why can't someone sponsor him and get it in?
>
> The ltsp .deb packages would have to be 'non-free' and Debian is
> discouraging non-free packages.  I guess I don't get it.  it's GPLed.
>
> In any event.  Even if there are packages of this type that are made
> available to Debian and Debian refuses to acknowledge them directly
> or indirectly, Debian is the one who loses.
>
> Without doing any investigation, it appears that something like the
> ltsp.org project is supported by RedHat's RPMs and Suse.  There's
> extra work involved in finding the Debian packages.
>
> This would implicate that Debian doesn't have the technical support
> base on this project (and others?) and may lead someone to walk away
> from using Debian.
>
> I personally think that Debian is one of the best run and most
> intelligent distributions I have seen over the last 6 years.  But
> little holes like this turn into big problems when people are
> evaluating the distributions.  I would have trouble convincing
> someone that Debian would be a good solution for a K-12 educational
> alternative when something that is this K-12 educational
> infrastructure friendly is not available.
>
> I would like to suggest that we either get something like this
> incorporated into the Packages or, more importantly, consider an
> alternative to the non-free problems that plague a number of
> software packages out there that are not in the Debian-proper structure.
>
> Would it be reasonable to develop a program wherein the Debian
> organization identifies project websites which do provide Debian
> packages, which, for some reason cannot yet be included into the
> Debain Package Tree at this time, however, present a status suitable
> to the Debian philosophy (including non-free?), some history of
> presence, and a Standard of Quality which is not derogatory to the
> overall Quality of the Debian distribution?
> These would not have to be listed in the Debian Packages, but merely
> have Debian.org provide a space on their website to reference the
> other projects (ltsp.org for example) that do provide Debian
> Packages which, for some reason or another, can not yet be fully
> incorporated (if ever?).
>
> I think it is valuable for Debian to provide as much accessability
> to the software that is coming available.  I'm unclear as to the
> exact details of the standards which restrict the lstp.org packages
> from being incorporated into the Debian Package Tree, but the value
> of a project like this should not be overlooked.
>
> Thank you for letting me rant (a little).  I am not trying to flame
> anyone, I'm just concerned that we may be missing an opportunity here.
>
>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: LTSP packages

2002-06-18 Thread Hans Ekbrand
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 06:46:44AM -0400, Tom Allison wrote:
> I noticed that the ltsp.org has a series of GPLed debian packages 
> for use in installing the lstp client/server files necessary.
> 
> I am wondering why these packages have not been incorporated into 
> the Debian Package library as official packages?
> 
> I asked on the ltsp list and the response was two fold:
> 
> The lstp .deb maintaner was not yet on the Debian Team.
> 
> The ltsp .deb packages would have to be 'non-free' and Debian is 
> discouraging non-free packages.  I guess I don't get it.  it's GPLed.

The ltsp debs are non-free because there exists no source packages.

See. http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/termserv-devel/2001-December/000201.html

(It's my understanding that LTSP is made by binaries picked from
various distros, and some things are compiled from source, e.g. the X
packages). AFAIK the LTSP packages does not meet the demands of GPL
and is thus non-free. The problem is not so much of licensees as of
work: no one has uptil now taken the time to gather the source for
these packages, even if is available, under GPL, SOMEWHERE.

-- 
Note that I use Debian version 3.0
Linux emac140 2.4.17 #1 sön feb 10 20:21:22 CET 2002 i686 unknown

Hans Ekbrand

pgp9E9ps8U4qA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


LTSP packages

2002-06-18 Thread Tom Allison
I noticed that the ltsp.org has a series of GPLed debian packages 
for use in installing the lstp client/server files necessary.


I am wondering why these packages have not been incorporated into 
the Debian Package library as official packages?


I asked on the ltsp list and the response was two fold:

The lstp .deb maintaner was not yet on the Debian Team.
--Why can't someone sponsor him and get it in?

The ltsp .deb packages would have to be 'non-free' and Debian is 
discouraging non-free packages.  I guess I don't get it.  it's GPLed.


In any event.  Even if there are packages of this type that are made 
available to Debian and Debian refuses to acknowledge them directly 
or indirectly, Debian is the one who loses.


Without doing any investigation, it appears that something like the 
ltsp.org project is supported by RedHat's RPMs and Suse.  There's 
extra work involved in finding the Debian packages.


This would implicate that Debian doesn't have the technical support 
base on this project (and others?) and may lead someone to walk away 
from using Debian.


I personally think that Debian is one of the best run and most 
intelligent distributions I have seen over the last 6 years.  But 
little holes like this turn into big problems when people are 
evaluating the distributions.  I would have trouble convincing 
someone that Debian would be a good solution for a K-12 educational 
alternative when something that is this K-12 educational 
infrastructure friendly is not available.


I would like to suggest that we either get something like this 
incorporated into the Packages or, more importantly, consider an 
alternative to the non-free problems that plague a number of 
software packages out there that are not in the Debian-proper structure.


Would it be reasonable to develop a program wherein the Debian 
organization identifies project websites which do provide Debian 
packages, which, for some reason cannot yet be included into the 
Debain Package Tree at this time, however, present a status suitable 
to the Debian philosophy (including non-free?), some history of 
presence, and a Standard of Quality which is not derogatory to the 
overall Quality of the Debian distribution?
These would not have to be listed in the Debian Packages, but merely 
have Debian.org provide a space on their website to reference the 
other projects (ltsp.org for example) that do provide Debian 
Packages which, for some reason or another, can not yet be fully 
incorporated (if ever?).


I think it is valuable for Debian to provide as much accessability 
to the software that is coming available.  I'm unclear as to the 
exact details of the standards which restrict the lstp.org packages 
from being incorporated into the Debian Package Tree, but the value 
of a project like this should not be overlooked.


Thank you for letting me rant (a little).  I am not trying to flame 
anyone, I'm just concerned that we may be missing an opportunity here.


--
 06:30:01 up 3 days, 12:45,  1 user,  load average: 0.27, 0.19, 0.23
Linux is the future...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]