On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:08:38PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote:
>
> You're absolutely right, it's a clone, albeit one officially endorsed by
> those being cloned. My package description is sourced from a
> debian-multimedia package, I'll post a replacement to the ITP shortly.
Thanks.
> However, one
On 07/10/08 at 06:34 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 05:56 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 06/10/08 at 18:36 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >firmware-nonfree (U)
> > > >mklibs (U)
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 18:10 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 06:02:17PM +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> > The page could have an "Expert" subpage (or let's name it kamikaze, so
> > people don't get impressed by the name ;)
>
> Frankly, I'm not sure why to have distributions in
* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-06 21:28]:
> Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>octave-vrml
Fixed in version 1.0.6-3, which was uploaded to unstable and unblocked by
luk. Should be in testing in three days from now.
--
Rafael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
Le lundi 06 octobre 2008 à 21:28 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>linux-2.6 (U)
There are old talks about a possible solution, but none of the
maintainers is answering.
> Dave Beckett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cairo
Fix is ready, but needs d-i team appr
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The best reference for patent enforcments I have is
> http://www.mpegla.com/news.cfm.
>
> However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
>
> a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisation
> b) debian does not sell hardware
Many rec
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The best reference for patent enforcments I have is
>> http://www.mpegla.com/news.cfm.
>>
>> However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
>>
>> a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisat
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 21:28:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>xorg (U)
#500228 and #500231 (which want to be merged, I think) shouldn't be RC,
I'll downgrade.
>xorg-server (U)
>xserver-xorg-video-glint (U)
>
#488669 and #500358 are the same, kernel changes in the sparc64 pci code
b
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daigo Moriwaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libeventmachine-ruby
Version : 0.12.2
Upstream Author : Francis Cianfrocca
* URL : http://rubyeventmachine.com/
* License : GPL, Ruby's License
Programming Lang: Ruby
Le mercredi 08 octobre 2008 à 00:07 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
> >
> > a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisation
> > b) debian does not sell hardware
>
> Many recipients of
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 09:03, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Unclaimed patents are precisely the reason we don't have any MPEG encoders
>> in Debian (see http://techliberation.com/2006/05/11/mpeg-patent-thicket/).
>
> Wrong. We dont have mpeg encoders in De
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 09:03, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Unclaimed patents are precisely the reason we don't have any MPEG encoders
> > in Debian (see http://techliberation.com/2006/05/11/mpeg-patent-thicket/).
>
> Wrong.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 03:44:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> It has been already suggested to resurrect the non-us archive for such
> cases, but this is not even necessary, since it is not a problem for us
> to distribute such software from the US.
>
> At the very least, we could distrib
Hi Reinhard,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 12:11, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Can you please backup that claim?
Well, no and yes ;-)
You confirm it yourself, but then say its not comparible. I only said that
those patents are being enforced, which they are. (I didnt mention whether
thats comparible
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific "patented"
>> section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in
>> countries where it is not a problem.
>
> While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impair
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>acpid (U)
AFAICT acpid in Lenny is RC-bug free. But maybe the list was created before the
package migrated.
>citadel (U)
Unstable version is fine but waiting for migration.
Michael
--
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific "patented"
>>> section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in
>>> countries where it is not a problem.
>>
>> While we are at it, would be nice
On 2008-10-07 11:26 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>acpid (U)
>
> AFAICT acpid in Lenny is RC-bug free. But maybe the list was created before
> the package migrated.
Hm? It was you who upg
Sorry, your email containing an attachment can not be distributed through
Internet.Com discussion lists.
The only acceptable format for posting to isp-australia is ASCII
Text, with NO attachments.
Please, re-send your post to continue your discussion on
isp-australia.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hi Reinhard,
* Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-07 13:09]:
> Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >xine-lib (#498243)
>
> Needs help. That report is a security report from ocert. The full report
> can be seen here: http://www.oce
Hi!
Luk Claes schrieb:
>>> Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>gem
>> This was fixed by an NMU, but can't transition to testing due to dependency
>> on
>> libquicktime 2:1.0.3+debian-2. What to do in cases like this?
>
> Contact the release team to see if it's possible to unbl
Am Montag, den 06.10.2008, 21:28 +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> On 06/10/08 at 18:44 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
[..]
> Debian XML/SGML Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>sgml-base
http://bugs.debian.org/477751 - Some time ago I already asked to tag
this bug `lenny-ignore' but did not ge
Thomas Viehmann schreef:
> Hi,
>
> Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>>> Next try: http://194.39.182.225/debian/xen/try4.
>> Hmm.. these packages are not available anymore?
>> URL changed?
> Your local Debian sid mirror, e.g. package
> xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64.
Strange, I don't see the packages
Didier Raboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
>
> This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and 'patented' to
their sources.list, right.
Do you see a
Hi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 09:03, Robert Millan wrote:
> Unclaimed patents are precisely the reason we don't have any MPEG encoders
> in Debian (see http://techliberation.com/2006/05/11/mpeg-patent-thicket/).
Wrong. We dont have mpeg encoders in Debian because those patents are being
enforce
> win32-loader
Waiting for loadlin, waiting for yasm, for which a patch just got
commited upstream.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Debian GNOME Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>libgda3 (U)
libgda3 has been fixed in unstable with high urgency. Needs unblocking.
> Debian Python Modules Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>matplotlib
Seems to be fixed in t-p-u, but hasn't migrated to testing yet. [1] says
"Unblock request by lu
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 12:11:49PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >>acpid (U)
> >
> > AFAICT acpid in Lenny is RC-bug free. But maybe the list was created before
> > the package migrated.
>
> Hm? It was you who upgraded the severity of #487815 to serious just six
> days ago. Which was correct
Hi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
I dont think we should support the obsolete, useless & wrong patent system by
doing this.
Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160 juristrictio
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impaired software
> such as libdvdcss.
Presumably they couldn't be distributed from ftp-master (which is in the USA)?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/Pau
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:54:22PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
>
> Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160 juristrictions
> on
> this
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Debian GNOME Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>libgda3 (U)
>
> libgda3 has been fixed in unstable with high urgency. Needs unblocking.
unblocked
>> Debian Python Modules Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>matplotlib
>
> Seems to be fixed in t-p-u, but hasn't mig
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Didier Raboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
>>
>> This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
>
> This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and 'patented' to
> the
Didier Raboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you see a particular problem with requiring that?
> Yes...
>
> If I am in a country where the usage of the "patented" repo is forbidden for
> whatever reason, I could (legally) not rebuild the whole "main" myself.
"Usage" is generally not the problem
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
>
> I dont think we should support the obsolete, useless & wrong patent
> system by doing this.
I fully agree with you in pr
Michael Banck dijo [Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 06:14:23PM +0200]:
> > Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160 juristrictions
> > on
> > this planet (to apply for this category)?
>
> "How do you tell if a piece of software violates a patent? Run wc -l on
> the source; if the numbe
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:25:12 +0200
Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From #501423: FTBFS in lenny: Unsatisfiable build-dependency:
libloudmouth1-dev(inst 1.4.0-1 ! >= wanted 1.4.1)
> Am Dienstag, den 07.10.2008, 18:57 +0100 schrieb Neil Williams:
> > Migration to testing happens auto
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 20:21 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> $ rmadison libloudmouth1-0
>
> libloudmouth1-0 |1.4.0-1 | testing | alpha, amd64, arm,
> armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
> libloudmouth1-0 |1.4.2-1 | unstable | alpha, amd64, arm,
> armel,
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> - introduce a new section 'patented'
> - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
> - source packages in 'main' may produce binaries in 'patented'
> - binary packages in 'main' must not depend on packages in 'patented'
> -
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:42:07 +0100
"Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 20:21 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > $ rmadison libloudmouth1-0
> >
> > libloudmouth1-0 |1.4.0-1 | testing | alpha, amd64, arm,
> > armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:02:11 +0100
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > britney only considers installability, not buildability.
>
> Maybe it should - after all, in the phase prior to a release, the
> ability to build the entire release from source *is* important. To me,
> this is precisel
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm assuming there are records of unblocks beyond the mailing list
> archive?
The release team's hint files are available:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/
In this case:
testing/hints/luk:unblock gossip/1:0.31-1
We move hints that were done
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:02:11 +0100
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > britney only considers installability, not buildability.
>>
>> Maybe it should - after all, in the phase prior to a release, the
>> ability to build the entire release from source *is* impo
Matthew Garrett dijo [Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 02:35:11AM +0100]:
> Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Keeps the fan from spinning constantly in the noisy Acer Aspire
> > One. Provides also tools to query several machine-specific EC
> > registers
>
> Be careful with this - it can't perfo
Le mardi 07 octobre 2008 à 17:13 -0400, Felipe Sateler a écrit :
> Wasn't dpkg supposed to use max(shlibs, build-depends)? The rationale, IIRC,
> is
> because a particular program might rely on a specific bugfix in a given
> version
> of the library. Since bugfixes don't cause shlibs bumps, this
On Tue, Oct 07 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Didier Raboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
>>
>> This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
>
> This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the
> same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can
> not be built with the software contained in main.
s/can not be built/can not be built and installed/
It's nece
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps instead of trying to come with a hierarchical classification,
> we should simply expose what we know about patents and any other
> distribution issue in a machine readable way.
>
> What a bout a debian/distribution or debian/copyright2 file whi
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:30:12PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Matthew, and out of personal curiosity (as I will probably continue to
> use this, at least until something better comes along): What does the
> danger amount to? Say, a random lock-up? Or will it lead to hardware
> malfunction (or sho
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fully agree with you in principle. The 'restricted' idea is basically
> a convenience service for our users and distributors.
Such convenience services already exist (debian-multimedia.org,
debian-unofficial.org), Deb
"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I fully agree with you in principle. The 'restricted' idea is basically
>> a convenience service for our users and distributors.
>
> Such convenience services already exist (debian-multimedia.org,
> debian-unofficial.org), Debian doesn't need to start one
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you see a particular problem with requiring that?
>
> Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the
> same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can not be
> built with the software contained in main.
De
Hi,
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:46:11 +0200
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Agreed, that would be nice. While this is something to consider for
> > squeeze release goals, how do we solve the problem for lenny?
>
> I see no proper fix, except using an /etc/default file, which is ugly.
53 matches
Mail list logo
