Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

[This is a thread that I posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] this morning and that led to a small discussion between Loic Minier and myself, see http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2007-October/000506.html . I have attached Loic's first answer to this post, making it a r

Re: libdb4.* madness in unstable

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:43:06AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez: > > Having 5 different versions of one library is just insane imho. What are > > Maybe you could help out with the bugs here: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED];tag=oldbdb;dist=

Re: Bits from the Testing Security team

Roland Mas writes ("Re: Bits from the Testing Security team"): > I thought the ability to just copy one binary (/usr/bin/dpkg) from one > box to another and be able to use it right away was precisely the goal > of static linking in that case. You still get that, unless the point was to play with n

Bug#447269: ITP: ustr -- Micro string library

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Vaclav Ovsik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: ustr Version : 1.0.1 Upstream Author : James Antill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.and.org/ustr/ * License : LGPL, BSD, MIT Programming Lang: C Description

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:11:13PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > How about just using non-free for that? In the past, patented packages > like gif encoders have been hosted there, so why can't we just use them > for mpeg encoders as well? I think you're thinking of non-us. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Out-of-tree kernel module popularity

On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:02 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Nevertheless on the user's side there is a demand for those > codecs which can be whitnessed by the broad acceptance of unofficial > repositories [see: http://popcon.debian.org/unknown/by_inst ]. I didn't know that table existed! I

Re: Giving away most of my packages

A brief update: Amaya wrote: > - xdigger: http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xdigger.html > No upstream, but easy to maintain. > Games team candidate? Taken by the games team. > - jail: http://packages.qa.debian.org/j/jail.html > There are much better tools out there, maybe RFRemoval? I will

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - madeeasy

"Clint Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:11:13PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: How about just using non-free for that? In the past, patented packages like gif encoders have been hosted there, so why can't we just use them for mpeg en

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Fabian Greffrath wrote: >> You all know about the unsatisfying situation of some codec libraries >> that are commonly called 'risky' or 'patented'; namely lame, xvid and >> friends. While being perfectly free software on the one hand, licensed >>

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

Fabian Greffrath wrote: > You all know about the unsatisfying situation of some codec libraries > that are commonly called 'risky' or 'patented'; namely lame, xvid and > friends. While being perfectly free software on the one hand, licensed > under the GPL or LGPL, they are surrounded by a cloud

Re: Bits from the Security Team

On Friday 19 October 2007 17.52:29 Steve Kemp wrote: > I don't believe that post contains significant new information, > (except that I like pies!), and as such I didn't believe it deserved > massive visibility. That you like pies is important. Seriously: I think exactly this kind of "not r

Re: Bits from the Security Team

Adrian von Bidder wrote: >>=20 > which is really a Bits from the Security Team. Full "Bits" will appear soon. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

Fabian Greffrath schreef: > ... > > Furthermore, there is nothing that might hold users back from using > this software in Europe, because IIRC software patents do not exist on > this continent. > > ... This is not entirely true. Software patents do exist in Europe, though unlike in the U.S. they'

Bug#447273: ITP: python-scipres -- system for creating animated presentations in Python

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: python-scipres Version : 1.0.0rc1 Upstream Author : Xavier Décoret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://artis.inrialpes.fr/Membres/Xavier.Decoret/resources/scipres/wiki/index.

Bits from the Security Team

Hi everybody, Allow me to point out the message at which is really a Bits from the Security Team. Why is - once again - a message that I'd consider appropriate for d-d, or perhaps even d-d-a (though I admit that the r

Re: libdb4.* madness in unstable

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:44:56PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > It appears to me that essentially it is a problem moving from 4.2 to > 4.6, but I see nothing about the intermediate versions. Having 2 > releases is largely better than having 5 versions around, isn't it? I was waiting for

Re: Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Similar effort has been put into the debian-unofficial.org project > which has been founded by Daniel Baumann in 2005 but has recently lost > priority (well, it died) because of his involvement in the Debian Live > project (Well, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I consider Deb

Re: Bits from the Security Team

On Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 17:36:21 +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > Allow me to point out the message at > > which is really a Bits from the Security Team. > > Why is - once again - a message that I'd consider appropriat

Re: SE Linux packages

On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:49:10PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > What I'm missing from your mail and blog entry is an explanation of why > > the existing packages in etch don't do the job for letting users run with > > strict > > policy. Is the "semanage user -m" bug th