Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:03:14AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 07:30:48PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 17:54, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:

> > > The thing I want say is: Debian is about free software, IMHO we should
> > > not have such a prominent sponser promoting non-free
> > > software. Especially as we probably don't need it.

> > Jeroen, please calm down.  I admit that while the registration page
> > could have been a bit more tasteful (i.e. less blatant advertising), it
> > would be a very bad idea for us to refuse their sponsorship.  Debian has
> > been accepting donations from proprietary software companies for a long
> > time.  We should thank them for their donation, and continue our work.

> We should not advertise directly or indirectly non-free software. I
> don't say we should refuse their sponsership totally, but if they
> provide hosting on non-free software I think that is a valid reason to
> refuse it. Same goes for the adverising link, actually the URL of the
> debconf 2 registration already advertised lindows.

If you're so upset that Debian would accept sponsorship built on 
non-free software, surely that means you're proficient in developing web 
scripts and you've already begun work on a replacement for the Lindows 
IIS site, yes?  After all, complaining about the deficiencies of the 
present solution without stepping up to provide an alternative is not 
particularly becoming behavior in a Debian developer.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpk15dcnfmGe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: New Packages (i18n version of APT)

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:52:03PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> > I REALLY REALLY would like to see translated apt in woody.
> > And i cannot understand why apt-i18n is not installed so we could
> > test it. Adding apt-i18n to unstable will not break anything, but
> > interested developers can test this before adding it to real apt.

> Because it is a bad idea? The people who made it still have not produced a
> complete patch against normal APT, so instead of doing that they just
> opted to try and force their work into the archive.

Since when have ftp-master taken it upon themselves to act as 
gatekeepers, preventing bad ideas from entering the archive?  I suspect 
that this particular package is being held to a much higher standard 
than most, for no other reason than because it has 'apt' in its name.  I 
would be quite disappointed if this were the case -- if the package 
doesn't cause massive hemorrhaging of the archive, why should it not be 
allowed in, even if it is regarded as bad design?  Does anyone really 
think there's no badly designed software in the archive already?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpiL5DH1e6rv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: perl getpwnam returns x

[Martin Schulze]

Kirk Ismay wrote:
> I have just copied one of my perl programs from an old slink system to a 
> new machine running potato. Its a perl program for managing users and such.
> 
> On slink, getpwnam(foo) returns the hash for the password, on potato i get 
> an x.
> Both are using shadow passwords.
> 
> Perl Version on slink:
> perl, version 5.004_04
> 
> Perl Version on potato:
> perl, version 5.005_03
> 
> Any suggestions would be helpful. I'm running the script as root in both 
> cases from a cron job.

getpwnam.passwd = x as it is written in /etc/passwd.
getspwnam.passwd = encrypted password.

That's how I seem to recall it works in C so it should work the same way
in Perl.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

*****SPAM***** Re:ÇÊ¿äÇÏ½Ã´Ù´Â°Í ¿©±â´Ù ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

[¹ÎÁö]

Àý´ë ¼ºÀθ¸ Ŭ¸¯ÇÏ½Ã°í ¹Ì¼º³âÀÚ´Â Áö¿ì¼¼¿ä.


¹Ì¼º³â ÃâÀÔ±ÝÁö±¸¿ª
http://4.36.234.192/~duadua63/cgi-bin/index.cgi?ID=6761747"; 
target="_blank">Çѱ¹¼ºÀÎÀÔÀå
[ http://4.36.234.192/~mailxx99/cgi-bin/splist/maillist.htm"; 
target="_blank">¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ 
]




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

*****SPAM***** Re:ÇÊ¿äÇÏ½Ã´Ù´Â°Í ¿©±â´Ù ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

[¹ÎÁö]

Àý´ë ¼ºÀθ¸ Ŭ¸¯ÇÏ½Ã°í ¹Ì¼º³âÀÚ´Â Áö¿ì¼¼¿ä.


¹Ì¼º³â ÃâÀÔ±ÝÁö±¸¿ª
http://4.36.234.192/~duadua63/cgi-bin/index.cgi?ID=6761747"; 
target="_blank">Çѱ¹¼ºÀÎÀÔÀå
[ http://4.36.234.192/~mailxx99/cgi-bin/splist/maillist.htm"; 
target="_blank">¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ 
]




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

Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main

[Ben Pfaff]

Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Package: gnu-standards
> Version: 2002.01.12-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> 
> The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of
> which meets the DFSG.
> 
> The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of the
> DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim distribution, changes
> are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> 
> Please move this package to non-free.

If it can't be in main then I'm orphaning it.  I don't maintain
software in non-free.


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

Re: problem with gvd

[Jérôme Marant]

"Carl B. Constantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I've had the following problem while trying to do a dist-upgrade this
> morning:
...
> ideas on a fix?

  Please read the BTS. I've already sent a patch and the maintainer will
  upload soon.

  Cheers,

-- 
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org
  


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

O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Ben Pfaff]

Package: wnpp
Severity: normal

Orphaned because it's now considered non-free.

Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Package: gnu-standards
> Version: 2002.01.12-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> 
> The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of
> which meets the DFSG.
> 
> The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of the
> DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim distribution, changes
> are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> 
> Please move this package to non-free.

-- 
"If a person keeps faithfully busy each hour of the working day, he
 can count on waking up some morning to find himself one of the
 competent ones of his generation."
--William James


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

Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main

[Joseph Carter]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 11:57:53PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of
> > which meets the DFSG.
> > 
> > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of the
> > DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim distribution, changes
> > are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> > 
> > Please move this package to non-free.
> 
> If it can't be in main then I'm orphaning it.  I don't maintain
> software in non-free.

The powers that be have decided to close this bug, apparently without
reading that the FDL isn't the only problem.  Do as you like with it.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   My opinions are always right
 
 lilo: well then, you are probably a responsible thinker. 
Welcome to a very small club.
 Overfiend: welcome me when you join :)



pgpgGM01knU3s.pgp
Description: PGP signature

please rebuild gtkmathview 0.3.0-4 on hppa, m68k and arm

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

Package gtkmathview (version: 0.3.0-4) hasn't been rebuilt on hppa since
Wed 13 March and on m68k since Wed 27 March, could someone please
trigger the rebuilt of it on these archs?

BTW, on arm the package has been successfull rebuilt on April 2 and
April 6, but the package is still reported as out of date on arm in
update_excuses.html, anybody knows the reason?

TIA,
Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney


pgpeFY6ZsGp5H.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main

[Ben Pfaff]

Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 11:57:53PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of
> > > which meets the DFSG.
> > > 
> > > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of the
> > > DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim distribution, changes
> > > are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> > > 
> > > Please move this package to non-free.
> > 
> > If it can't be in main then I'm orphaning it.  I don't maintain
> > software in non-free.
> 
> The powers that be have decided to close this bug, apparently without
> reading that the FDL isn't the only problem.  Do as you like with it.

Well in that case I'm canceling the orphaning (with this message)
and (under separate cover) sending RMS a note inquiring why the
maintainers' guide is not under the FDL.
-- 
"The USA has no monopoly on stupidity.
 They just work longer hours."
--Richard Heathfield


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

gmetadom failure on HPPA never reported in update_excuses

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

I noticed that another package of mine, which is needed to build
gtkmathview, wasn't successfully rebuilt on hppa, namely package
"gmetadom".

I'm wondering why the hell "gmetadom" isn't mention as out of data on
hppa in update_excuses which reports only:

 * gmetadom (- to 0.0.3-5)
 + Maintainer: Stefano Zacchiroli
 + Too young, only 4 of 10 days old
 + Not considered

Such a misleading output may cause a lot of trouble now that woody is
(really) coming.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney


pgpwWL8Iea6gv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:19:21AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 03:13, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > Please show use any figures first before you assert this.
> > 
> > I know rsync imposes some load for the computing of the md5sum but
> > sendind only the difference outweighs it repeatedly. 
> 
> It's my understanding that rsync imposes a large computational burden on
> the server in exchange for a large bandwidth savings.  At a certain
> number of rsync clients, this burden can become too onerous for the
> server to handle.
> 
> Also, the benefits almost all accrue to the client.  The server gains a
> small benefit (bandwidth savings), and pays a cost that's both high and
> hard to manage.  (Our users wouldn't stand for connection limits, I
> don't think.)
> 
> I don't have any figures to show to prove this.  Then again, neither do
> you, so I guess we're even.

A large mirror in Australia does provide an rsync server to access debian
packages. When redhat 7.0 came out so many people tried to rsync it at the
same time, the machine promptly fell over. 

It's not clear how low the connection limit is now, but low enough to be
irratating.

Almost all the processing for rsync is on the server side and the server
friendly version is patented or something (IIRC).
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhouthttp://svana.org/kleptog/
> Ignorance continues to thrive when intelligent people choose to do
> nothing.  Speaking out against censorship and ignorance is the imperative
> of all intelligent people.


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Martin Schulze]

Joe Drew wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 15:09, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > I don't *like* the registration page being hosted on IIS. But I prefer a
> > > registration page to no registration page at all.
> > 
> > Is it that difficult to make a registration page with free software?
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, no. But I didn't have time to learn how and
> do it, and Lindows.com decided that they wanted to pay one of their
> engineers to do it. It's quite simple: nobody else did it, so I took
> Lindows.com up on their offer.

This is rather unfair, since nobody asked for this type of help.

I know that there are several people in our project who do speak PHP,
which would be a proper language to do so, it's also enabled on auric,
klecker and pandora.  If that's not good enough, there's still perl
and python run through /cgi-bin/ just like it is on master.  We also
have databases in use on several hosts.

> Why should we refuse? Lindows.com came to us, not the other way around.

This is an ethical question.  We, since we are affiliated with Free
Software and trying to enforce and distribute this, should, of course,
refuse to accept donations of non-free software.

You may not aware of the discussion we had last year, when VMware
offered to donate five (or another amount, not sure anymore) licenses
of their vmware product to Debian in order to help us develop
boot-floppies.

We *did* refuse to accept it.  Single developers may use this product
on their own and may even receive a donation from VMware Inc., but the
Debian project must not depend on non-free software and should
publically refuse such donations, especially as long as there are free
alternatives (even if they still need to mature).

> Remember, Lindows.com wants to contribute to us. We should accept their
> support with open arms provided they don't try to subvert our
> principles. A web page on a proprietary OS doesn't subvert our
> principles, IMO.

If Debian Conference 2 is an official Debian even, then we now do
depend on non-free, proprietary software, run by a third party, even
if there are free alternatives (like php, perl, python, as well as
developers who would be willing to spend an afternoon on implementing
a registration form).

This is what bugs me, and this is the part with which I have a severe problem.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Aurelien Jarno]

Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Package: gnu-standards
> > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> >
> > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
> > one of which meets the DFSG.
> >
> > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
> > of the DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim
> > distribution, changes are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> >
> > Please move this package to non-free.

The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?

In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to 
non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example : 
open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Martin Schulze]

Colin Walters wrote:
> It's also probably worth pointing out, as you seem to see yourself as
> "the Dutch RMS", that the Free Software Foundation also accepts
> donations from proprietary software companies: 
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/thankgnus/2002supporters.html

This is a bogus argument.  The Debian Project is not the Free Software
Foundation, otherwise we would have ceased the non-free section on our
FTP servers already.

Regards,

Joey

PS: You don't need to be insulting to Jeroen.

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

RE: gpg -e errors - All garbled output

[David D.W. Downey]

Hehe, meant to send an email earlier than this. Realised my mistake
later on. 

--
David D.W. Downey ("pgpkeys") <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
libpam-pgsql Home Site: http://libpam-pgsql.codecastle.com
Newbies: http://linuxnewbie.codecastle.com Admins:
http://admin.codecastle.com
Developers: http://devel.codecastle.com && http://lfs.codecastle.com


-Original Message-
From: Alan Shutko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 8:25 PM
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: gpg -e errors - All garbled output


[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I don't know if my locale is causing it or what. The problem is that 
> as soon as I try to gpg -e to edit a key I get the following junk.

[23:24:22] wesley:~ $ gpg --help|grep -e -e
 -e, --encryptencrypt data

-- 
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
BE ALOOF!  (There has been a recent population explosion of lerts.)


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





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

Re: Release notes

[Raphael Hertzog]

Le Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 04:58:18PM +0100, Rob Bradford écrivait:
> With the release nearly upon us this is an *URGENT* request for
> information regarding the woody release notes. The following issues need
> addressing.
> 
> Draft release notes are available at
> http://www.debian.org/releases/woody 

Concerning i386 : the ide flavor doesn't exist as a boot floppy flavor.
It does exist however as a kernel flavor ... not sure how to handle
that.

I also think that you should explain better how to setup a 2.4 kernel
for those who wish it. Booting on the third CD would install it
automatically, otherwise apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.18-{386,586tsc,686}

I also wish you can speak of discover, it is simple to install and it
may help many users by autoloading the required modules for their
hardware.

You also speak of a DVD distribution, while it may be possible, I've
never heard of someone doing it officially ... better leave it out until
we actually provide some DVD images ?

The section 3.3.1 about upgrading from pre-potato release links to the
upgrade-i386 directory which doesn't exist. I don't know if those files
will be added or if the section should be revamped (or deleted).

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com


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

Re: Woody now more installable than potato

[Josip Rodin]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:58:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  Josip> I checked had a stagnating number of subscribers than a few
>  Josip> months before, the traffic on the web pages continues to
>  Josip> slowly grow or stagnate in the new year, and the major
>  Josip> mirrors' traffic is also growing bit by bit.
> 
>   This is wonderful news. So we are not growing uncontrollably.
> 
>  Josip> So it seems that even though we are in a period of stagnation
>  Josip> when it comes to attracting new users, journalists and hype,
>  Josip> the community acts like we're doing just fine. :)
> 
>   You seem to be suffering from some weird assumption that
>  unbridled growth, or growth at all, is somehow desirable. 

You seem be able to blatantly maliciously misinterpret what I said.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Wilmer van der Gaast]

Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:54:06 +0200:
>  You may not aware of the discussion we had last year, when VMware
>  offered to donate five (or another amount, not sure anymore) licenses
>  of their vmware product to Debian in order to help us develop
>  boot-floppies.
>  
Just wondering, is your computer free or non-free? Did you get all the
blueprints of your CPU/chipset/VGA/etc? Nahh.. Probably not. Will
someone give them to you if you want them? Probably not.

Your computer's non-free.. A virtual computer can be non-free too, and
until Plex86 becomes usable I'll have to use it.. It runs a non-free OS
as well (as long as someone pays me for doing stuff with Windows, that
is).

-- 
*=-+-__
   |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __
   : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ is ing there an if to debiand on  \
~~-+-=-+~+-=*


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

Re: Release notes

[Philip Hands]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:51, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> You also speak of a DVD distribution, while it may be possible, I've
> never heard of someone doing it officially ... better leave it out until
> we actually provide some DVD images ?

John Winters of linuxemporium.co.uk was asking me about this last week,
and has a DVD writer, so seems to be planning to distribute Debian DVDs.

I don't see any harm in making up jigdo files for DVDs --- I don't see
much point having the actual images floating around though, they're too
big & not useful to most people.

It's not going to be a top priority, so even if I do them, they'll
probably be after the dust settles after the CD stampede, and I'll need
to liaise with a few people that actually have burners to test
bootability etc.  Of course, DVDs are definitely something that need
multiboot, since you only get one.

Of course, if loads of people with DVD writers mail me, I'm likely to be
persuaded to make some beta DVDs before the release, so we can check
bootability before the event.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
Say no to software patents!  http://petition.eurolinux.org/

|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 10:01, Ben Pfaff ha scritto:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: normal
> 
> Orphaned because it's now considered non-free.
> 
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Package: gnu-standards
> > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > 
> > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of
> > which meets the DFSG.
> > 
> > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of the
> > DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim distribution, changes
> > are not allowed.  This violates section 3.

people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software and with the FDL
being used for more and more documents (i release all the docs i write
under it and i continue to consider them *free*) we need to:

1. write the DFDG; or
2. update the DFSG to include explicitly documentation.

federico

-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Best friends are often failed lovers. -- Me


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Release notes

[Steve McIntyre]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:13:38PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:51, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> You also speak of a DVD distribution, while it may be possible, I've
>> never heard of someone doing it officially ... better leave it out until
>> we actually provide some DVD images ?
>
>John Winters of linuxemporium.co.uk was asking me about this last week,
>and has a DVD writer, so seems to be planning to distribute Debian DVDs.
>
>I don't see any harm in making up jigdo files for DVDs --- I don't see
>much point having the actual images floating around though, they're too
>big & not useful to most people.
>
>It's not going to be a top priority, so even if I do them, they'll
>probably be after the dust settles after the CD stampede, and I'll need
>to liaise with a few people that actually have burners to test
>bootability etc.  Of course, DVDs are definitely something that need
>multiboot, since you only get one.
>
>Of course, if loads of people with DVD writers mail me, I'm likely to be
>persuaded to make some beta DVDs before the release, so we can check
>bootability before the event.

I'll be making/selling DVDs; I have some images made that I'm looking
over.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/


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

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Michael Meskes]

Just some short questions.

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> libqt3-psql

I just came back from vacation and saw that the new qt3 uploads that fix
the problem are still waiting in the queue. Would it be possible to get
this package back into woody if I upload an NMU for version 3.0.1 (the
qt3 version in woody) that fixes the single release crical bug in
libqt3-psql?

> galeon logtrend-httpagent  rie

IIRC galeon is not moved to woody just because it depends on mozilla
which has an RC bug. Since mozilla is not removed but will be fixed
before the release (at least that's how I understood Anthony's mail) I
wonder if galeon then can make it back in. Or did you just removev
galeon 1.0.3 and 1.2.0 (which depends on mozilla) is not affected at
all?

Michael


-- 
Michael Meskes
Michael@Fam-Meskes.De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


pgpMttYEay0XS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 05:06, Joseph Carter ha scritto:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into the common reference area?
> > 
> > Who should I talk to about this?
> 
> Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?
but
because it seems a blatantly non-free _software_ license but maybe it is
a blatantly free _documentation_ license :)

-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Those who do not study Lisp are doomed to reimplement it. Poorly.
 -- from Karl M. Hegbloom .signature


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

mirrors [Re: Release notes]

[Josip Rodin]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:13:38PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> after the dust settles after the CD stampede

Speaking of which, what's the tactic to get this done efficiently? I suppose
we could coordinate with several mirror maintainers to have them rsync copies
of the final images before the users find out?

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


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

Re: Bug#141345: ITP: sextractor -- Builds a catalogue of objects from an astronomical image.

[Wilmer van der Gaast]

[EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sat, 6 Apr 2002 09:44:48 +0100 (BST):
>  sextractor stands for Source Extractor, it's usually referred to as
>  SExtractor but he went and named the binary 'sex' so jokes abound in
>  the astronomy community about 'doing sex', etc,..
>  
Hmm... Won't that conflict with this X editor called sex Adam Olsen was
talking about?

-- 
*=-+-__
   |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __
   : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ sex etaile it withe th for been t \
~~-+-=-+~+-=*


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

Re: mirrors [Re: Release notes]

[Michael Banck]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:38:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:13:38PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > after the dust settles after the CD stampede
> 
> Speaking of which, what's the tactic to get this done efficiently? I suppose
> we could coordinate with several mirror maintainers to have them rsync copies
> of the final images before the users find out?

Don't worry, ./ will be faster. There's nothing we can do about it... ;)

Michael

-- 
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:12:16AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:03:14AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > We should not advertise directly or indirectly non-free software.
> 
> Er, we _host_ non-free software on our servers, and distribute it via
> our mirror network.  If you want to go on a crusade, then there are
> targets closer to home.

IMHO the non-free section should be removed.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpjWa9NAYIzW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Apache2 Debian Packages

[Josip Rodin]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 11:24:22PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > Reasons enough to release woody+1 not too late.
> > 
> > Speaking of which, woody+1 sounds like it's going to be a release similar to
> > link -- no huge changes to cause a prolongued release time.
> 
> So, the Debian Installer is already ready for prime-time? I haven't seen
> to much talk about it on -boot lately, but I assumed that this might be
> the thing which will hold up woody+1 for the most part. Good News.

Oops, there go my hopes... :)

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


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

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo]

El día 07 Apr 2002, Mark Purcell escribía:
> 
> According to 
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=openh323gk&ver=2.0b4-1&arch=m68k&stamp=1017326211&file=log&as=raw
>  
> openh323gk-2.0.b4-1 was built for m68k on 28 Mar, however this package 
> doesn't seem to of been uploaded to the archives which is why this package 
> hasn't been released to testing.
> 
  Almost the same happens with gpgme, only that it has been compiled on
  1 Apr. I think that some m68k uploads are being missed or not uploaded
  even.

  Could some of the m68k guys check this, please?

Thanks
 
PS: I'm CCing this to the m68k list 
--  
  Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpQlG2pSskZc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:05:03AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a ?crit :
> > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > Severity: serious
> > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > >
> > > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
> > > one of which meets the DFSG.
> > >
> > > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
> > > of the DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim
> > > distribution, changes are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> > >
> > > Please move this package to non-free.
> 
> The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> 
> In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to 
> non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example : 
> open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".

We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
are under the GNU FDL.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgp0I7YA1WioQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>IMHO the non-free section should be removed.

IMHO you should write less email and fix more bugs.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
 
Commander Taco 
wastes our time with these dumb polls 
but we keep reading
-- Syberghost (slashdot)


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

Python module for debconf

[Josselin Mouette]

Being tired of the shell, and not knowing perl enough, I have written a
little python module for debconf.

I haven't tested it thouroughly, but it seems to work fine. Of course, I
intend to use it, but if people are interested, it can be found at :
http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~jmouette/debian/

It is "documented" in the README file.

Also, before using it, I would like to have advice on the way to act if
a package depends on python-debconf but it is preconfigured using
apt-utils, when its dependencies haven't been installed yet. The
interpreter may even not be installed, or the script can fail if it
doesn't find the module.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Webalizer & Analog log reading

[Martin WHEELER]

Anyone else experiencing the same problem as me, wrt apache's access
log default ownership settings?

When I first set up Apache, logrotate dutifully created new access logs
with owner and group as specified in httpd.conf.

The anacron / logrotate combo has recently taken to creating *new*
access logs under different ownership and group attribution -- thus
preventing both Webalizer and Analog from reading access.log, and
providing the usual report, and necessitating manual intervention to
change ownership.  (Which fixes the problem.)

Anyone got a permanent fix for this behaviour?
(Or, more likely, can tell me where I've gone wrong?)
-
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r5 (potato+testing)

Server version: Apache/1.3.23 (Unix) Debian GNU/Linux
Server built:   Feb  7 2002 13:56:56

logrotate 3.5.9

Mar 30  2001 /usr/sbin/anacron

Webalizer V2.01-09 (Linux 2.2.19pre17) English

analog 5.22

TIA
-- 
Martin Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gpg key 01269BEB @ the.earth.li

(please also cc off-list)


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

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Colin Watson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:21:14AM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:56:12PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The build on sparc is due to something else, don't have time to
> > investigate that right now; mips doesn't seem to have even attempted the
> > build.
> 
> antlr build-depends on fastjar, which is not available on mips and mipsel.

Oh, right. It built once in the past:

libantlr-dev |2.7.1-2 |  unstable | mips

Should that binary just be removed, then?

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: Package metadata server

[Sam Couter]

Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It could probably be done with HTTP, using cgi scripts (i dont know much
> about this), that way standard clients can be used to retrieve pieces of
> the Packages's file by putting the querry in the url.

And then you get the solution which has been mentioned before but not
commented on much:

Packages contains package names, versions and pointers (filenames) to
the rest of the package metadata.

I you want information about a particular package, download the file
containing the metadata for that package. Then you don't have to
download stuff you're not interested in, and you don't have to
re-download all the metadata for packages which haven't changed.
-- 
Sam "Eddie" Couter  |  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian Developer|  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C


pgpkxPCqEPT3R.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ilisp debian package

[Will Newton]

On Saturday 06 Apr 2002 4:16 pm, Will Newton wrote:

I have still not had any response to this. Can anyone tell me the correct 
procedure for getting these bugs closed?

The changelog looks like this:

ilisp (5.11.1-7) unstable; urgency=low

  * well 125744 was fixed, but I put the files in the old place on
accident.
  * Fixed 140049 - bad symlinks
  * Fixed 138669 - typo in ilisp-cmu
  * Fixed 137011 - ilisp-pkg issues

 -- Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:26:21 -0500


> ilisp is being removed from woody because of a bug that is fixed but not
> closed. According to your changelog the following bugs are fixed, but are
> not closed:
>
> 125744
> 140049
> 138669
> 137011
> 98132
> 128856
> 129980
> 87652
> 123631
> 121266


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

Re: ilisp debian package

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:26:30PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> On Saturday 06 Apr 2002 4:16 pm, Will Newton wrote:
> 
> I have still not had any response to this. Can anyone tell me the correct 
> procedure for getting these bugs closed?
> 
> The changelog looks like this:
> 
> ilisp (5.11.1-7) unstable; urgency=low
> 
>   * well 125744 was fixed, but I put the files in the old place on
> accident.
>   * Fixed 140049 - bad symlinks
>   * Fixed 138669 - typo in ilisp-cmu
>   * Fixed 137011 - ilisp-pkg issues

Read up on the BTS docs, but the common ways are:

The phrase "Closes: #140049" in the changelog

Email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body: "close 140049"

IIRC

check the documentation for full details.

HTH,

>  -- Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:26:21 -0500
> 
> 
> > ilisp is being removed from woody because of a bug that is fixed but not
> > closed. According to your changelog the following bugs are fixed, but are
> > not closed:
> >
> > 125744
> > 140049
> > 138669
> > 137011
> > 98132
> > 128856
> > 129980
> > 87652
> > 123631
> > 121266
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Martijn van Oosterhouthttp://svana.org/kleptog/
> Ignorance continues to thrive when intelligent people choose to do
> nothing.  Speaking out against censorship and ignorance is the imperative
> of all intelligent people.


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

Re: ilisp debian package

[Josip Rodin]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:26:30PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> I have still not had any response to this. Can anyone tell me the correct 
> procedure for getting these bugs closed?

Since you're not a maintainer, you shouldn't close them. However, you can
tag them "fixed", by sending 'tag  fixed' commands to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> The changelog looks like this:
> 
> ilisp (5.11.1-7) unstable; urgency=low
> 
>   * well 125744 was fixed, but I put the files in the old place on
> accident.
>   * Fixed 140049 - bad symlinks
>   * Fixed 138669 - typo in ilisp-cmu
>   * Fixed 137011 - ilisp-pkg issues
> 
>  -- Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:26:21 -0500

Craig's syntax is incorrect, it should be 'Closes: #140049' etc.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


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

Re: ilisp debian package

[Josip Rodin]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:34:13PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Read up on the BTS docs, but the common ways are:
> 
> Email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body: "close 140049"

No! Don't fucking do that!

Geez, how many times does one have to repeat that.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


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

Re: how-to push a package in testing ?

[christophe barbé]

Hi Anthony Towns,

Would it be possible to remove the current gphoto2 package (final-1) from woody 
?
It is clearly broken until the new libusb enter woody and when libusb
arrive a new gphoto2 will follow.

I am afraid that gphoto2 will be broken in the official woody release if
the release happens before the updated libusb package. 

The sane problem is apparently solved and gphoto2 2.0final-3 is build on
arm.

Christophe


On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 02:42:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 01:56:07PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
> > I see two solutions :
> > . upgrade of libusb and packages depending on it
> 
> The packages (by source) appear to be:
> 
> kdegraphics (arm)
> sane-backends (alpha, mips, buggy)
> sane-frontends (alpha, ia64)
> gphoto2 (arm)
> xsane
> gtktiemu -> libticables3, libticalcs3, libti68k
> tilp
> libgpio
> pencam
> 
> sane-backends has two RC bugs, one of which has been open for more than a
> week. 139509 appears like it should get sane-backends to build on mips; it's
> not clear what'll fix it on alpha, but that needs to happen too.
> 
> sane-frontends has a versioned build-dependency on libc6-dev, which makes
> it fail on alpha and ia64, since those architectures use libc6.1-dev (which
> provides: libc6-dev).
> 
> gphoto2 doesn't build correctly on arm, see:
>   http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=arm&pkg=gphoto2&ver=2.0final-3
> 
> kdegraphics seems to need a newer version of gphoto2 to be built on arm
> before it will work.
> 
> There may be other packages which need to be upgraded at the same time
> as libusb. All of them need to be built on all architectures and free
> of release critical bugs for this to happen.
> 
> Cheers,
> aj
> 
> -- 
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
> 
>   ``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each 
>toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey



-- 
Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8  F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E

Dogs come when they're called;
cats take a message and get back to you later. --Mary Bly


pgplzyWFWBX9S.pgp
Description: PGP signature

iptables_1.2.6a-3_m68k missing

[Laurence J. Lane]

iptables 1.2.6a-3 is being held back because it's out of date
on m68k.

   http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html.gz#iptables

iptables_1.2.6a-3_m68k was built, according to the buildd log,
but package does not appear to have been uploaded.

Who can look into this problem?


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

Re: ilisp debian package

[Will Newton]

On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 2:44 pm, Josip Rodin wrote:

> Since you're not a maintainer, you shouldn't close them. However, you can
> tag them "fixed", by sending 'tag  fixed' commands to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OK, if Craig hasn't done it by the end of today I will do that.


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

Re: gmetadom failure on HPPA never reported in update_excuses

[Mark Brown]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:24:40AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> I'm wondering why the hell "gmetadom" isn't mention as out of data on
> hppa in update_excuses which reports only:

It's only out of date if it was previously built for an architecture.
AFAICT from madison it has never been built for HPPA.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


pgpHWQ3dseanZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Thomas Hood]

On 07 Apr 2002 Mark Purcell wrote:
> According to 
>
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=openh323gk&ver=2.0b4-1&arch=m68k&stamp=1017326211&file=log&as=raw
 > openh323gk-2.0.b4-1 was built for m68k on 28 Mar, however this
> package doesn't seem to of been uploaded to the archives which
> is why this package hasn't been released to testing.

Ditto powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb :
 
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=powermgmt-base&ver=1.3&arch=m68k&file=log

This is keeping powermgmt-base and apmd updates out of woody.

Someone plug the AppleTalk cable back into the Mac Classic.

--
Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: how-to push a package in testing ?

[Julien BLACHE]

christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi *,

> The sane problem is apparently solved and gphoto2 2.0final-3 is build on
> arm.

Not exactly. I uploaded another NMU, now sane-backends should build on
SPARC (and hopefully HPPA but it's not critical). It will be installed
today, we can expect to have all arches in at most 2 days...

I uploaded with urgency=high, so chances are the libusb-dependent
packages will enter Woody next week (around wednesday, sane-frontends
needs another 2 or 3 days from now on).

Hopefully.

Thanks to Julien LEMOINE for his help on SANE.

JB.


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

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Erich Schubert]

> IIRC galeon is not moved to woody just because it depends on mozilla
> which has an RC bug. Since mozilla is not removed but will be fixed
> before the release (at least that's how I understood Anthony's mail) I
> wonder if galeon then can make it back in. Or did you just removev
> galeon 1.0.3 and 1.2.0 (which depends on mozilla) is not affected at
> all?

Galeon 1.0.3 (depending on mozilla 0.9.8) was removed because I did not
tag the serious bug reports against galeon 1.2.0 "+ sid".
Galeon 1.2.0 needs mozilla 0.9.9 and can thus not enter testing right
now (and i've been changing some packaging things lately, so there have
been a few recent uploads anyway)

So when mozilla 0.9.9 is fixed, both moz 0.9.9 and galeon 1.2.0 will
hopefully be allowed into woody by aj. Time will tell ;)

Greetings,
Erich


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

Re: ilisp debian package

[David Starner]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:04:43PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 2:44 pm, Josip Rodin wrote:
> 
> > Since you're not a maintainer, you shouldn't close them. However, you can
> > tag them "fixed", by sending 'tag  fixed' commands to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> OK, if Craig hasn't done it by the end of today I will do that.

Why? Considering how close to the release we are, and how easy it is,
why not do it now? It certainly won't interfer with the maintainer
closing them.

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Joe Drew]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 04:54, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > To the best of my knowledge, no. But I didn't have time to learn how and
> > do it, and Lindows.com decided that they wanted to pay one of their
> > engineers to do it. It's quite simple: nobody else did it, so I took
> > Lindows.com up on their offer.
> 
> This is rather unfair, since nobody asked for this type of help.

Actually, I asked for help with specifically this. Nobody actually did
anything except for Lindows.com.
 
> I know that there are several people in our project who do speak PHP,
> which would be a proper language to do so, it's also enabled on auric,
> klecker and pandora.  If that's not good enough, there's still perl
> and python run through /cgi-bin/ just like it is on master.  We also
> have databases in use on several hosts.

Yep - and I _could have_ spent the time to do it with PHP or perl or
whatever, too. The fact is, these people didn't step up, and I didn't
have the time, and Lindows.com just did it. What am I going to say to
them: "I know you have spent time and effort on this, but just on
general pragmatic reasons I'm going to refuse you. By the way, can we
have some more money?"

Yes, we're Debian. Yes, we're dedicated to Free Software. No, nobody
else did anything for this. No, I didn't have time to waste. Yes, I care
about Free Software: but Yes, I care a lot more about getting the job
done. If having this done on a free software platform was so vitally
important (as it appears now), it seems to me that someone would have
stepped forward in this entire discussion to say "Here's a working
alternative" or even "I would have done it if I were asked." Nobody has.
Nobody's even suggested they might have done it.

Frankly, this is tiring me out. In reference to nobody in particular, if
all we're going to do is flame on about Free vs proprietary software for
the rest of this thread, let's just drop it.

-- 
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Please encrypt email sent to me.


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

Re: New Packages (i18n version of APT)

[Michael Piefel]

Am  6.04.02 um 21:52:03 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> Because it is a bad idea?

As Steve pointed out, good or bad idea is not really a good reason for
delaying packages, at least it has not been so far. Furthermore I don't
think it is a bad idea, for the following reason:

You, Jason, did not add full i18n support to APT, and were not willing
to accept my patches for woody. This is OK, as APT is a very central
package and has been in different shades of freeze for quite some time.
Thus the only way to get i18n support for APT into woody was to create a
new package. I am very willing to throw it away once it's not needed
anymore.

> The people who made it still have not produced a complete patch
> against normal APT, so instead of doing that they just opted to try
> and force their work into the archive.

What is this? Face it, it's a lie. I have produced a complete patch -
otherwise apt-i18n would not be possible. The patch is complete insofar
as it works reliantly and fits nicely into the build process.

You did not quite like it? That's OK with me. But what's not OK is that
you do not provide any meaningful feedback. You said you want different
domains for the utilities and the library; I asked why, you didn't
answer. I provided another patch adding >200 newly marked translatable
string, you said some of them weren't appropriate; I asked which, you
didn't answer.

Don't say I didn't make the patch to your likings when you are not
willing (or able) to tell others what exactly your likings are.

Bye,
Mike

-- 
|=| Michael Piefel
|=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
|=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831


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

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Wouter Verhelst]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:

> El día 07 Apr 2002, Mark Purcell escribía:
> > 
> > According to 
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=openh323gk&ver=2.0b4-1&arch=m68k&stamp=1017326211&file=log&as=raw
> >  
> > openh323gk-2.0.b4-1 was built for m68k on 28 Mar, however this package 
> > doesn't seem to of been uploaded to the archives which is why this package 
> > hasn't been released to testing.
> > 
>   Almost the same happens with gpgme, only that it has been compiled on
>   1 Apr. I think that some m68k uploads are being missed or not uploaded
>   even.

If you look very closely, you'll find that these both have been built by
'arrakis', a box of which I am the buildd admin. This was a result of a
fucked mail setup at my side. I'm uploading everything as I type this.

- -- 
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be

"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
  -- From the movie "Antitrust"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6

iD8DBQE8sGJOWgZ1HEtaPf0RAv1wAJ0QKM+FGzetXIGn8Nx1TapF4Mha4gCeK/IO
OLnfyGwC7tiNwc+fGfAxwYQ=
=Nsh7
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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

Re: problem with gvd

[Carl B. Constantine]

* J?r?me Marant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Carl B. Constantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I've had the following problem while trying to do a dist-upgrade this
> > morning:
> ...
> > ideas on a fix?
> 
>   Please read the BTS. I've already sent a patch and the maintainer will
>   upload soon.
> 

I did read the BTS and saw the bug listed there which is why I didn't
report it again. At the time I didn't see any mention of a patch but I
may have overlooked something.

-- 

__   _   Carl B. Constantine
   / /  (_)__  __   __  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /  (2.4.17)  http://www.duckwing.ca 
 //_/_//_/\_ _/ /_/\_\  Stormix 2000
PGP key available on request


  Up the line - out the server- past the firewall - nothing but Net!!


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Jérôme Marant]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Being tired of the shell, and not knowing perl enough, I have written a
> little python module for debconf.
>
> I haven't tested it thouroughly, but it seems to work fine. Of course, I
> intend to use it, but if people are interested, it can be found at :
> http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~jmouette/debian/

  Hi,

I personaly prefer to use Python rather than Perl.
However, there is a drawback in using a python-debconf:
as long as python is not essential, you will force people
to install python in order to be able to install other
packages (since there will be a dependency on python-debconf).

Currently, the advantage of using the shell or the perl
interfaçe to debconf is that perl-base is essential, so
it will necessarily be installed on your system.

I think that this can be discussed though.

Cheers,

-- 
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org
  


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

Re: problem with gvd

[Jérôme Marant]

"Carl B. Constantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


> I did read the BTS and saw the bug listed there which is why I didn't
> report it again. At the time I didn't see any mention of a patch but I
> may have overlooked something.

  Probably. There are patch tags and the bug is in the "pending upload"
  section.

-- 
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org
  


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Joey Hess]

Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Being tired of the shell, and not knowing perl enough, I have written a
> > little python module for debconf.
> >
> > I haven't tested it thouroughly, but it seems to work fine. Of course, I
> > intend to use it, but if people are interested, it can be found at :
> > http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~jmouette/debian/
> 
> I personaly prefer to use Python rather than Perl.
> However, there is a drawback in using a python-debconf:
> as long as python is not essential, you will force people
> to install python in order to be able to install other
> packages (since there will be a dependency on python-debconf).
> 
> Currently, the advantage of using the shell or the perl
> interfaçe to debconf is that perl-base is essential, so
> it will necessarily be installed on your system.

What's worse, you can really only safley use essential and base packages
in debconf config scripts. You can of course depend on python and use
this python module in your postinst, after dependencies are met, but
depednencies (and even pre-dependencies!) will not be guaranteed to be
met when a package is preconfigured.

Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
after woody is released. It looks nice.

-- 
see shy jo


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

Re: please rebuild gtkmathview 0.3.0-4 on hppa, m68k and arm

[Philip Blundell]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 09:08, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> BTW, on arm the package has been successfull rebuilt on April 2 and
> April 6, but the package is still reported as out of date on arm in
> update_excuses.html, anybody knows the reason?

Dunno, just some or other random delay.  It's showing as uploaded now,
see http://auric.debian.org/~pb/shame/arm.html.  Update_excuses only
cares about packages that have actually been installed in the archive,
and it can take a day or so for this to happen following a successful
build.

p.


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

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Thomas Hood]

I wrote:
> Ditto powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb :
>http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=powermgmt-base&ver=1.3&arch=m68k&file=log

Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If you look very closely, you'll find that these both
> have been built by 'arrakis', a box of which I am the
> buildd admin. This was a result of a f[s]cked mail setup
> at my side. I'm uploading everything as I type this.

powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb was built on "kullervo".  
Is it fscked up to?

--
Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software

Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
if I'm only using packages from main.
-- 
 - Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  -  http://www.sacredchao.net
  "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
   okay to be different, to not conform to society."
   -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: ilisp debian package

[Will Newton]

On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 3:20 pm, David Starner wrote:

> Why? Considering how close to the release we are, and how easy it is,
> why not do it now? It certainly won't interfer with the maintainer
> closing them.

OK, done. I just don't want to step on anyone's toes.


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dim 07/04/2002 à 17:54, Joey Hess a écrit :

> What's worse, you can really only safley use essential and base packages
> in debconf config scripts. You can of course depend on python and use
> this python module in your postinst, after dependencies are met, but
> depednencies (and even pre-dependencies!) will not be guaranteed to be
> met when a package is preconfigured.

That's what I was afraid of.

> Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
> after woody is released. It looks nice.

Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: gmetadom failure on HPPA never reported in update_excuses

[Randolph Chung]

In reference to a message from Stefano Zacchiroli, dated Apr 07:
> I noticed that another package of mine, which is needed to build
> gtkmathview, wasn't successfully rebuilt on hppa, namely package
> "gmetadom".

it needs some c++ work. For one thing it references internal libstdc++
symbols (__STL_BEGIN_NAMESPACE, etc). Instead you should use "namespace std;",
etc. 

You can try building your package on paer.debian.org (when it comes back up) 
or sarti.debian.org, which are both hppa machines.

randolph
-- 
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.TauSq.org/


pgpGBM4Pepcxu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joel Baker]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
> 
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> drawn? Is it possible to draw one?
> 
> IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> if I'm only using packages from main.

As noted - that will mean most of the GNU stuff goes right out the window.
Perhaps Woody+1 will no longer be "Debian GNU/Linux"?

I've said it before, but once again: the world of "writing" (that is, the
various forms of documentation, RFCs - many of which are 'non-free' under
the DFSG, and similar things does *not* have the same baseline of what it
means to be 'free', because it comes from a vastly different world. One in
which 'open distribution of work' is the primary goal, and the basic means
of 'modifying' a work all preserve the origional document intact (that is,
annotation, commentary, and bibliographical reference).

The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things
which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness
which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next?

Folks, if RMS - who I think most folks will acknowlege is a zealot, whether
they agree with his zealotry or not - is not only willing to put up with,
but actively encourages, the use of a core license which Debian considers
to be non-free, then I think it's time to take a step back and seriously
consider *how* we ended up with the world on it's ear.

I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and
the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in
which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us
saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these
types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we
want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow
itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom
large numbers of people ignore.

(Sort of like some folks ignore Jerodan for his Hurd cheerleading, or me
for the *BSD cheerleading, for example...)
-- 
***
Joel Baker   System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/


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

Re: please rebuild gtkmathview 0.3.0-4 on hppa, m68k and arm

[Rick Younie]

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> Package gtkmathview (version: 0.3.0-4) hasn't been rebuilt on hppa since
> Wed 13 March and on m68k since Wed 27 March, could someone please
> trigger the rebuilt of it on these archs?

On m68k it's waiting on gmetadom.  It's easier to see what's
going on at bruno.fmepnet.org.

Rick
-- 


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

g++-3.0 library support?

[Leo \(Martin Oberzalek\)]

Hello,

it's not possible linking a C++ library compiled with g++-2.9x to a C++
application compiled with g++-3.0.

We all no the reasons...

My question is how I should handle this, on debian distributions that
are based on gcc-2.9x?

I have a C++ library. And I wan't to create debs for g++.2.9x and
g++-3.0. Technically this is no problem. 

I created 4 debs. 

1) libfoo  => shared g++-2.9x library
2) libfoo-dev  => development files (includes, .a, docu)
3) libfoo-gcc3 => shared g++3.0 library
4) libfoo-gcc3-dev => development files (.a only, since
   include files and docu are the same)

the g++-2.9x library files are called libfoo.so
for g++-3.0  libfoo-gcc3.so

The files of both packages are located in /usr/lib

So if I wanna link an programm with the gcc-3.0 version, -lfoo-gcc3 has
to be used and for gcc-2.9x, -lfoo.

Are there any better ideas?

Martin

-- 
Perhaps today IS a good day to die!



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

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Otto Wyss]

> A large mirror in Australia does provide an rsync server to access debian
> packages. When redhat 7.0 came out so many people tried to rsync it at the
> same time, the machine promptly fell over. 
> 
What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
and therefore it can't be a big problem. 

I'm asking any provider of an ftp/rsync Debian server if any comparable
figures could be extracted from the server log. Or if anyone could
measure how much CPU load the download of the Packages/Packages.gz files
really reads.

O. Wyss

-- 
Author of "Debian partial mirror synch script"
("http://dpartialmirror.sourceforge.net/";)


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Chris Lawrence]

On Apr 07, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?

Why would debconf have to depend on python?  You stick the module in
and only bytecompile if python is installed.

(This is the same silly attitude that has lead to a lot of unnecessary
-elisp packages.)


Chris
-- 
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/


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

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>  Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
>  Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
>  Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?
> 
>   Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use
>  a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this
>  license, then? 

I can't answer any of your questions ;-)

What I do know is:

  1. The GFDL is a published license of the FSF, intended for use by
 documentation.

  2. The documentation provided by gmp-4.0.1 is now GFDL. This indicates a
 move by GNU to use this license more broadly.

  3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
 that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
 non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.

  4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
 can make demands for "good" documentation.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_-   Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road  _-
_-   e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
  available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Joey Hess]

Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
> > after woody is released. It looks nice.
> 
> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?

Um, I can include a language binding in debconf w/o making it depend on
that language.


-- 
see shy jo


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

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into the common reference area?
> > 
> > Who should I talk to about this?
> 
> Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?

You clearly have an opinion on this issue ;-)

I suppose this stems from the "invarient section" clause in the GFDL?

While this declaration is "broader" than the same feature in the GPL, I
don't see the problem.

The GPL allows the license and the copyright statements to be both
required, and invarient. The GFDL simply recognizes that documents often
have historical, philosophical, or political statements that should, yes
need, to be protected from modification. These sections, such as the
history section of my book, writen by Ian M., deserve protection if truely
"free speech" is to continue to be protected. The technical material can
then be left "modifiable" as is needed and useful to such matherial.

What would be a more suitable "Free Documentation License" in your view?

Waiting is,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_-   Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road  _-
_-   e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
  available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/


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

Re: iptables_1.2.6a-3_m68k missing

[Matthias Klose]

Laurence J. Lane writes:
> iptables 1.2.6a-3 is being held back because it's out of date
> on m68k.
> 
>http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html.gz#iptables
> 
> iptables_1.2.6a-3_m68k was built, according to the buildd log,
> but package does not appear to have been uploaded.
> 
> Who can look into this problem?

can this safely be built on Mac (2.2 kernel)?


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Martin Schulze]

Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:54:06 +0200:
> >  You may not aware of the discussion we had last year, when VMware
> >  offered to donate five (or another amount, not sure anymore) licenses
> >  of their vmware product to Debian in order to help us develop
> >  boot-floppies.
> >  
> Just wondering, is your computer free or non-free? Did you get all the
> blueprints of your CPU/chipset/VGA/etc? Nahh.. Probably not. Will
> someone give them to you if you want them? Probably not.
> 
> Your computer's non-free.. A virtual computer can be non-free too, and
> until Plex86 becomes usable I'll have to use it.. It runs a non-free OS
> as well (as long as someone pays me for doing stuff with Windows, that
> is).

This is your personal decision which is fine and nobody can misaccept
it.  You are free not only to switch between different pieces of Free
Software but also between Free and non-free software.  As long as this
is your personal system and decision and it doesn't affect third
projects badly.

However, if the Debian project would embrace such software (too much),
it would place the wrong signals into the software world and would
make the project lose their creditability.  Just think about the fact
that we refused to put KDE in potato's non-free directory but would
use/embrace/depend on non-free, proprietary software that we may not
even distribute?  Does that sound sane to you?  I hope not.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

Re: ilisp debian package

[Craig Brozefsky]

Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sunday 07 Apr 2002 3:20 pm, David Starner wrote:
> 
> > Why? Considering how close to the release we are, and how easy it is,
> > why not do it now? It certainly won't interfer with the maintainer
> > closing them.
> 
> OK, done. I just don't want to step on anyone's toes.

My sincerest apologies for the delay.  I have had hard time keeping up
with devel and devel-announce for reasons of my own stupidty in
configuring gnus and since I had done the [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body
containing closes BUGID in it, which apparently is not supported
anymore (I was going from docs) I assumed the bugs were all closed
out properly.

-- 
Craig Brozefsky   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Free Software Sociopath(tm) http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Ask me about Common Lisp Enterprise Eggplants at Red Bean!


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

The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
> 
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
"Transparant copy" is for example.

> IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> if I'm only using packages from main.

The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free. IMHO
a FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is free documentation,
just as GPL-licensed software is free software. It places additional
restriction, but those restriction aren't really harmful. IMHO the
restrictions of the FDL are less harmful than those of the GPL, as the
FDL doesn't limit from doing useful things. The GPL does, you can't
link GPL'd code with code under the BSD license with advertisement
clause. So if we are going to move all FDL'd documentation to non-free
we can better move all GPL'd software to non-free at same time.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgp0gjaoQS6XZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: g++-3.0 library support?

[Matthias Klose]

King "Leo (Martin Oberzalek)" writes:
> Hello,
> 
> it's not possible linking a C++ library compiled with g++-2.9x to a C++
> application compiled with g++-3.0.
> 
> We all no the reasons...
> 
> My question is how I should handle this, on debian distributions that
> are based on gcc-2.9x?

use only gcc-2.95.

> I have a C++ library. And I wan't to create debs for g++.2.9x and
> g++-3.0. Technically this is no problem. 
> 
> I created 4 debs. 
> 
> 1) libfoo  => shared g++-2.9x library
> 2) libfoo-dev  => development files (includes, .a, docu)
> 3) libfoo-gcc3 => shared g++3.0 library
> 4) libfoo-gcc3-dev => development files (.a only, since
>include files and docu are the same)
> 
> the g++-2.9x library files are called libfoo.so
> for g++-3.0  libfoo-gcc3.so
> 
> The files of both packages are located in /usr/lib

how about compatibility of sonames across distributions?

> So if I wanna link an programm with the gcc-3.0 version, -lfoo-gcc3 has
> to be used and for gcc-2.9x, -lfoo.
> 
> Are there any better ideas?

yes, use only one version. Which package does require this setup?


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Jérôme Marant]

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > Aside from this problem, I wouldn't mind including the module in debconf
>> > after woody is released. It looks nice.
>> 
>> Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
>
> Um, I can include a language binding in debconf w/o making it depend on
> that language.

  I guess that the package will have to predepend on python, right?
  So, unlike the current debconf usage, a debconf dependency is no
  longer sufficient.   

-- 
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org
  


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

Re: how-to push a package in testing ?

[christophe barbé]

Thank you for taking care of sane.

Christophe

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:13:18PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hi *,
> 
> > The sane problem is apparently solved and gphoto2 2.0final-3 is build on
> > arm.
> 
> Not exactly. I uploaded another NMU, now sane-backends should build on
> SPARC (and hopefully HPPA but it's not critical). It will be installed
> today, we can expect to have all arches in at most 2 days...
> 
> I uploaded with urgency=high, so chances are the libusb-dependent
> packages will enter Woody next week (around wednesday, sane-frontends
> needs another 2 or 3 days from now on).
> 
> Hopefully.
> 
> Thanks to Julien LEMOINE for his help on SANE.
> 
> JB.
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8  F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E

Cats seem go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for
what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch


pgp5klSUxX2rk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Martin Schulze]

Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > Severity: serious
> > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > >
> > > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
> > > one of which meets the DFSG.
> > >
> > > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
> > > of the DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim
> > > distribution, changes are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> > >
> > > Please move this package to non-free.
> 
> The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?

I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
the DFSG or not.  However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.

This article may be helpful:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0111/msg6.html

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Martin Schulze]

Joe Drew wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 04:54, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > To the best of my knowledge, no. But I didn't have time to learn how and
> > > do it, and Lindows.com decided that they wanted to pay one of their
> > > engineers to do it. It's quite simple: nobody else did it, so I took
> > > Lindows.com up on their offer.
> > 
> > This is rather unfair, since nobody asked for this type of help.
> 
> Actually, I asked for help with specifically this. Nobody actually did
> anything except for Lindows.com.

Hmm, I don't remember any such question but that doesn't have to imply
that there wasn't.  Hence, if you've asked and haven't received any
help, I will apologize for calling your behaviour unfair.

However, I still cannot find a request for help with setting up a
registration site/form on this list, neither including nor excluding
specs, searching from November 2001 until now.

Here's the thread listing from the mailbox, extracted via
'grepmail Drew', which is also available at



Mutt 1.3.25i   luonnotar:/tmp/x [27/27 msgs, 4 new, 57K bytes]   (threads)
   1 N   Dec 04 Joe Drew39 Debconf in Toronto, or lack thereof
   2 N   Dec 04 Jaime E. Villate22 +->
   3 Ns  Dec 04 Eric Dorland58 | +->
   4 N   Dec 04 Adam Majer  13 +->
   5 O   Feb 25 Tollef Fog Heen 20 Re: Debconf 2?
   6 O   Feb 25 Joe Drew21 +->
   7 O   Feb 27 Joe Drew22   +->
   8 O   Feb 28 Russell Coker   32 +->
   9 O   Feb 28 Joe Drew23   +->
  10 Mar 01 James A. Treacy 30 Re: Debconf 2 in Toronto: July 6-8th, 
2002
  11 O   Mar 03 Matt Zimmerman  19 +->
  12 O   Mar 04 Joe Drew27   +->
  13 O   Mar 05 Matt Zimmerman  20   | +->
  14 O   Mar 05 Martin Schulze  29   +->
  15 O   Apr 06 Martin Schulze  81 Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration
  16 O   Apr 06 Joe Drew55 +->
  17 O   Apr 06 Sean 'Shaleh' Per   14   +->
  18 O   Apr 06 Martin Schulze  26   +->
  19 O   Apr 06 Joe Drew28   | +->
  20 Os  Apr 06 Jeroen Dekkers  70   +->
  21 O   Apr 06 Joe Drew58 +->
  22 Os  Apr 07 Jeroen Dekkers 102   +->
  23 O   Apr 06 Joe Drew35   | +->
  24 Os  Apr 07 Jeroen Dekkers  59   |   +->
  25 Os  Apr 06 Nathan E Norman 64   | +->
  26 O   Apr 07 Martin Schulze  63   +->
  27 O   Apr 07 Joe Drew46 +->

None of your mails contain a request for help, so I'm wondering where
you sent your request for help.

> Yes, we're Debian. Yes, we're dedicated to Free Software. No, nobody
> else did anything for this. No, I didn't have time to waste. Yes, I care
> about Free Software: but Yes, I care a lot more about getting the job
> done. If having this done on a free software platform was so vitally
> important (as it appears now), it seems to me that someone would have
> stepped forward in this entire discussion to say "Here's a working
> alternative" or even "I would have done it if I were asked." Nobody has.
> Nobody's even suggested they might have done it.

I'd be glad to provide a working alternative, but not earlier than in
three weeks if that's sufficient.  I would have been able to provide
one four weeks ago as well, if you had asked.

> Frankly, this is tiring me out. In reference to nobody in particular, if
> all we're going to do is flame on about Free vs proprietary software for
> the rest of this thread, let's just drop it.

Before dropping, please send clarification to the observation from
above, so I know if I shall apologize or not.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dim 07/04/2002 à 20:50, Joey Hess a écrit :

> > Isn't it a bit heavy to make debconf depend on python ?
> 
> Um, I can include a language binding in debconf w/o making it depend on
> that language.

But that won't solve the problem ; if a package using the python module
is preconfigured when the interpreter is not installed, the config
script will fail.

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Wouter Verhelst]

On 7 Apr 2002, Thomas Hood wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Ditto powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb :
> >http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=powermgmt-base&ver=1.3&arch=m68k&file=log
> 
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you look very closely, you'll find that these both
> > have been built by 'arrakis', a box of which I am the
> > buildd admin. This was a result of a f[s]cked mail setup
> > at my side. I'm uploading everything as I type this.
> 
> powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb was built on "kullervo".  
> Is it fscked up to?

Not sure. Roman Hodek is kullervo's buildd admin; you'll have to ask him
(or wait for his reaction ;-)

Note that m68k-builders are *not* on debian-68k (that's a users'
forum) but on [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be

"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
  -- From the movie "Antitrust"


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Joe Drew]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 15:30, Martin Schulze wrote:
> However, I still cannot find a request for help with setting up a
> registration site/form on this list, neither including nor excluding
> specs, searching from November 2001 until now.

You were looking in the wrong spot. Check Message-Id:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, my initial mail to
debian-devel-announce on DebConf 2:
"As well, all those who are willing or able to help administrate (for
example, by getting some sort of web application up where people can
sign up for rooms), contact me as well."

As I said, a couple of people contacted me (1 to code a web application,
and more than one person offered hosting, I believe) and I specifically
sent the person who was willing to code the web application the LSM's
registration software, which they were kind enough to supply me, but
nobody ever actually *did* anything. When Lindows.com came to me with a
fully completed and functioning (albeit simple; I just get an e-mail for
every registration) web page, I decided to use it.

However, no apologies from anybody are needed. As I said, I'm very
concerned about Free Software, and Debian's use of it, and I completely
understand that this is a very big deal for many people. It's just that
I'm more concerned about getting the job done at this point in time than
how it's being done.
 
-- 
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Please encrypt email sent to me.


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

Re: g++-3.0 library support?

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

> 
> So if I wanna link an programm with the gcc-3.0 version, -lfoo-gcc3 has
> to be used and for gcc-2.9x, -lfoo.
> 
> Are there any better ideas?
> 

unfortunately not, the ABI is different between the two.


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

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Paul Slootman]

On Sat 06 Apr 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 
> Over the past few weeks most of the following packages have been removed
> from the upcoming release due to bugs and such [0].
[...]
> dnrd   logtrend-consolidation  pptp-linux

Could someone give a pointer where I can found out why pptp-linux has
been removed? Its BTS page shows only a single unresolved bug, and a
minor one at that (spelling mistake in README.Reference). No RC-bugs,
fixed or unfixed.

Alternatively, what needs to be done to have this package in woody?
Recently, ADSL (MXstream as the dutch telco KPN calls it) has taken
quite a flight here in the Netherlands, and for that pptp-linux is
needed...


Paul Slootman


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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 19:12, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
> 
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet
should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT
is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way.

> IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> if I'm only using packages from main.

IYO. IMHO they *are* free. i explain why: if i write a 300 pages book
about something and 2 pages about my motivations, greetings to people
that helped me, etc. i want you to fix the 300 pages of technical stuff
but i don't see why you should the 'feelings' i put in that 2 pages.
you're *free* to adapt the document to your liking and even add some
comments (invariant) criticizing my own, but litterature (even technical
one) is much different from code.

federico

-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  99.% still isn't 100% but sometimes suffice. -- Me


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Dale> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
 Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
 Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?

 >> Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use
 >> a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this
 >> license, then? 

 Dale> I can't answer any of your questions ;-)

Well, since there are these other issues being raised
 (specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen
 to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we
 should wait for the dust to settle down before moving things into an
 area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think?

manoj
-- 
 "Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can*
 you believe?!"  Bullwinkle J. Moose
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Woody now more installable than potato

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


 Josip> You seem be able to blatantly maliciously misinterpret what I said.

I was presenting the flip side of the coin, yes. Malice was
 not the intent.

manoj
-- 
 "All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda
 system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are
 helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and
 to consume." Noam Chomsky
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> > > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > > Severity: serious
> > > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > > >
> > > > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
> > > > one of which meets the DFSG.
> > > >
> > > > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
> > > > of the DFSG.  The second license allows only for verbatim
> > > > distribution, changes are not allowed.  This violates section 3.
> > > >
> > > > Please move this package to non-free.
> > 
> > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> 
> I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> the DFSG or not.  However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
> parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.

i can be wrong but the new fdl specifies that invariant sections should
be off-topic. 

--8<
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject
(or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly
within that overall subject. (For example, if the Document is in part a
textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are
designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that
says that the Document is released under this License. 


-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Viviamo in un mondo reale, Ciccio. -- Lucy


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software

> > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> > included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> > outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> > drawn? Is it possible to draw one?

> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.

> As noted - that will mean most of the GNU stuff goes right out the window.
> Perhaps Woody+1 will no longer be "Debian GNU/Linux"?

> I've said it before, but once again: the world of "writing" (that is, the
> various forms of documentation, RFCs - many of which are 'non-free' under
> the DFSG, and similar things does *not* have the same baseline of what it
> means to be 'free', because it comes from a vastly different world. One in
> which 'open distribution of work' is the primary goal, and the basic means
> of 'modifying' a work all preserve the origional document intact (that is,
> annotation, commentary, and bibliographical reference).

> The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things
> which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness
> which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next?

The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say "All software
in Debian will remain 100% free", it says "Debian will remain 100% Free
Software."  Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
Free Software, even if it's documentation.  Now, this may be an 
oversight in the original phrasing, but this is the Social Contract that 
we've all agreed to uphold as Debian developers -- unless and until it's 
clarified to address the various issues that arise with other forms of 
data, we really don't have anything else we can point to when judging 
the license on documentation.

> I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and
> the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in
> which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us
> saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these
> types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we
> want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow
> itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom
> large numbers of people ignore.

I'm intrigued by this idea, and think it does indeed have a lot of
merit.  Documentation, after all, is akin to source code in the sense 
that both are intended as human-readable content, not as obscure 
instructions to be delivered directly to a computer.  If we allow an 
author to place restrictions on how we can modify some kinds of source 
code while still considering the code free, why should the same not be 
allowed for other types of source code, like documentation?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpHCnjfvImQi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update excuses openh323gk (2.0b2-1 to 2.0b4-1) (mk68k)

[Thomas Hood]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 16:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2002, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb was built on "kullervo".  
> > Is it fscked up to?
> 
> Not sure. Roman Hodek is kullervo's buildd admin; you'll have to ask him
> (or wait for his reaction ;-)

Well, powermgmt-base_1.3_m68k.deb has just appeared in
the archive.  Perhaps that's his answer.  :)

--
Thomas Hood


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> > included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> > outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> > drawn? Is it possible to draw one?
> 
> It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> "Transparant copy" is for example.

Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In
fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as
documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing
familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. What is a
document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin to
distinguish what makes free documentation different from free software
when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of data is software
or documentation in the first place?

...

> The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.

I agree. I'm sure someone could show me a non DFSG compliant license I
consider free. But that wasn't what I said. I said I consider a document
with invariant sections non-free, which is my own personal judgement,
and not the FSF's or DFSG's. It just happens that, right now, the DFSG
agrees with my point of view.

-- 
 - Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  -  http://www.sacredchao.net
  "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
   okay to be different, to not conform to society."
   -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:14:08PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
> > Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > 
> > I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> > the DFSG or not.  However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> > released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> > probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
> > parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.
> 
> i can be wrong but the new fdl specifies that invariant sections should
> be off-topic. 

The funny thing is that this is made clear in the thread he pointed
at. That thread is a really interested read BTW (it makes me subscribe
to debian-legal :-).

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpVu28cB1yzE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 16:08, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet
> should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT
> is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way.

What about inline stylesheets? What about XSLFOs in an XML document?

> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.
> 
> IYO. IMHO they *are* free. i explain why: if i write a 300 pages book
> about something and 2 pages about my motivations, greetings to people
> that helped me, etc. i want you to fix the 300 pages of technical stuff
> but i don't see why you should the 'feelings' i put in that 2 pages.
> you're *free* to adapt the document to your liking and even add some
> comments (invariant) criticizing my own, but litterature (even technical
> one) is much different from code.

I agree. The needs of nontechnical writing are not the same as the needs
of technical writing. However, say I want to take a 10 page chapter out
of your book and, e.g., strip it down into a 4 page quick reference
guide. The FDL says I have to preserve your 2 pages of greetings and
thanks. I believe invariant sections (in the general sense) are a good
idea, and necessary for nontechnical writing. However, I believe
Invariant Sections (as in the FDL) impose restrictions that are
non-free.

-- 
 - Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  -  http://www.sacredchao.net
  "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
   okay to be different, to not conform to society."
   -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Rsyncable GZIP (was Re: Package metadata server)

[Robert Tiberius Johnson]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> and therefore it can't be a big problem. 

Here are some experiments, and a mathematical analysis of different
approaches.  The only missing piece of data that I had to fudge is: how
often do people run apt-get update?  If anyone can give me server logs
containing If-Modified-Since fields, that would be great.

Quick Summary:
--
Diffs compressed with bzip2 generated the smallest difference files, and
hence the smallest downloads.  Using the scheme described below, I
estimate that mirrors retaining 20 days worth of diffs will need about
159K of disk space per Packages file and the average 'apt-get update'
will transfer about 24.2K per changed Packages file.

xdelta would have slightly higher bandwidth and disk space requirements,
but would be applicable to binary files (such as debs).  rsync has no
disk space requirements, but uses 10 times as much bandwidth and
requires more memory, cpu power, etc, on the server.  rsync also has the
advantage of already being implemented, but managing a series of diffs
seems like a trivial shell script.

So in my opinion, diff/bzip2 or xdelta looks like the way.

Example: Diffs between unstable main Packages file from Apr 6 and 7:
---
diff+bzip2: 12987 bytes
diff+gzip:  13890 bytes
xdelta: 15176 bytes
rsync: 163989 bytes (*)
(*) rsyncing uncompressed Packages files with 
rsync -a --no-whole-file --stats -z -e ssh

The Scheme (proposed earlier by others)
--
Assuming debian admins tend to update relatively frequently, the
following diff-based scheme seems to offer the best compromise on mirror
disk space and download bandwidth:

For the 20 most recent Packages files, the server stores the diff
between each pair of consecutive Packages files.  apt-get then simply
does:

do
{
  m = md5sum of my Packages file
  d = fetch Packages_diff_${md5}.bz2
  if (d does not exist)
  {
fetch Packages.gz
break;
  }
  patch my Packages file with d
} while (d is not an empty file)

This scheme easily allows mirrors to tweak the parameters to best suite
their own disk space and bandwidth limitations, and they are not
required to have any cgi-scripts or extra services running.  For
example, a mirror that's tight on disk space can just delete some of the
older diffs, but it will incur a slight bandwidth penalty as a result.

The only disadvantage to using diffs (compared to rsync or some other
dynamic scheme) is the additional disk space requirement.  The disk
space requirement is very small, and disk space is cheaper than cpu
time, memory, and bandwidth.

Analysis:
-

The anlysis uses gp, a great math tool that's available in debian.

I. Diff vs. xdelta
--
By looking at debian-devel-changes, I figured that between Feb. 1 and
April 1, an average of 75 packages were uploaded each day.  There are
around 8000 packages listed in testing main, so the probability that any
given package changes on any given day is p=75/8000.  Thus the expected
number of packages that change in s days is (1-(1-p)^s)*8000.  For
example, the expected number of changed packages in 60 days is 3453. 
Comparing the Packages files from Feb. 7 and April 7 shows 3884 changed
packages, so the model seems reasonably accurate.

My experiments with diff, xdelta, bzip2, etc. concluded that if you diff
two Packages files with 75 changed packages between them, and then
compress the diff with bzip2 -9, the resulting file is about 7936 bytes,
or roughly 106 bytes per changed package.  Thus the average size of a
compressed diff between Packages files seperated by s days is

diffsize(s)=(1-(1-p)^s)*8000*106

The xdelta of the same files is about 25% larger.  If this scheme is
extended to all deb files, not just Packages files, it may just be more
convenient to use xdelta, though.

II. Successive diffs vs. all-at-once diffs
--
This analysis applies to either diff or xdelta; it doesn't matter.

A. Disk space
The next question is, should we diff consecutive Packages files, or
should we compute diffs between the last 20 Packages files and today's
Packages file?  The latter will allow apt-get to fetch just one diff and
be done with it.  However, it uses more disk space on the mirrors.  The
former may require apt-get to fetch several patches in order to update
its Packages file, but will use less disk space on the mirrors.

There is actually a spectrum of choices here.  A mirror may store diffs
between every 3, 4, 5, etc. Packages files.  So, if a client has the
Packages file from 14 days ago, it will first be given a patch bringing
its Packages file to 9 days ago, then 4, and then to the current
Packages file.  If a server stores diffs between Packages files
seperated by s days, and stores d days back, then it will need 

dspa

Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal

[Thomas Hood]

For those interested in the status of the GNU Free
Documentation License issue: Please read the interesting thread
"The old DFSG-lemma again" on debian-legal from Nov. 2001.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg6.html

In the thread, Branden Robinson expressed concerns about
ensuring DFSG-compliance of GFDLed documents.  RMS cleared
up several questions and argued convincingly (IMHO) that the GFDL
is DFSG compliant. (Let the need formally to extend the Debian
Free "Software" Guidelines to cover "Documenation" be duly noted.)
Documents that aren't DFSG compliant are also not correctly
licensed according to the terms of the GFDL.  Nevertheless, it
may remain appropriate to write up some instructions for making
sure that the GFDL is correctly used; and the GFDL might perhaps
be clarified a bit too.

Were there any other important debates about the GFDL that should
be read?

--
Thomas Hood


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: New Packages (i18n version of APT)

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Michael Piefel wrote:

> You, Jason, did not add full i18n support to APT, and were not willing
> to accept my patches for woody. This is OK, as APT is a very central
> package and has been in different shades of freeze for quite some time.

Bzzt, I accepted the parts of your patches that met my criterea and asked
you to rework the rest, you never did, so big surprise that it is
incomplete.

> Don't say I didn't make the patch to your likings when you are not
> willing (or able) to tell others what exactly your likings are.

Seems to me you re-iterated what I wanted pretty well in your email.

Jason


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

Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards

[Joel Baker]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> 
> > The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things
> > which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness
> > which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next?
> 
> The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say "All software
> in Debian will remain 100% free", it says "Debian will remain 100% Free
> Software."  Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
> Free Software, even if it's documentation.  Now, this may be an 
> oversight in the original phrasing, but this is the Social Contract that 
> we've all agreed to uphold as Debian developers -- unless and until it's 
> clarified to address the various issues that arise with other forms of 
> data, we really don't have anything else we can point to when judging 
> the license on documentation.

Pardon me, but I feel the need for a quote coming on.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Take it tongue in cheek, please, it's not a flame. But it *is* meant to
point out that there is 'free' as in beer, 'free' as in software - and
'free' as in publication. If the Social Contract says that we are 100% Free
Software, then we have *no place* distributing documentation which isn't
software, do we?

Yes, it's hyperbole, but it also points out what I consider to be a really
glaring schism between what our social goals are, what we've written down
as our social goals (the codified form), and what we expect to meet them.
It happens. But it's also something that we need to address, or we're going
to end up in a very untenable position.

As for the social contract... it might be an oversight, but I think, as I
noted above, that it's a question, really, of what 'Free' means in this
context - and whether 'Free' as we apply it to code is really the right
definition to apply to something which isn't code; I would call it 'speech'
except that that could cause confusion with the traditional concepts that
come to mind when anyone in the US says 'free speech'.

> > I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and
> > the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in
> > which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us
> > saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these
> > types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we
> > want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow
> > itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom
> > large numbers of people ignore.
> 
> I'm intrigued by this idea, and think it does indeed have a lot of
> merit.  Documentation, after all, is akin to source code in the sense 
> that both are intended as human-readable content, not as obscure 
> instructions to be delivered directly to a computer.  If we allow an 
> author to place restrictions on how we can modify some kinds of source 
> code while still considering the code free, why should the same not be 
> allowed for other types of source code, like documentation?

Exactly - though the 'mapping' isn't precise, it seemed like a worthy
place to start. I can think of at least 3 commonly used methods of "make
a new document while preserving the old" (annotation, commentary, and
bibliographical reference). I wonder if perhaps someone who has more
familiarity with publishing "open" standards documents, white papers, and
the like could weigh in on what the community standard for "freedom" in
such things really means, and how that might map to what Debian now expects
of software to meet the DFSG.

I'll also note that, having read over the discussion on Debian-Legal, I
fail to see why we couldn't accept the GFDL as intended by the FSF, and
just file a bug against any package which disobeyed the intent of the
license as being non-free, just like we can do if an author mistakenly uses
code which can't be under the GPL or linked to it, and uses a GPL license.

[ Yes, this also goes well beyond the GFDL, but that is the most clear 
  example that comes to hand easily. ]
-- 
***
Joel Baker   System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/


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

Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update

[Torsten Landschoff]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>   * gs-common's license issues need to be resolved

Just to keep people from wasting their time to fix this: My local 
gs-common edition has the following changes: 

  * debian/control: Add dependency on gsfonts. Rationale: gs is quite
useless to most people without the fonts and in comparison to the
gs package they are not really that big. If you really don't want 
them to be installed, please use the equivs package to tell dpkg 
that a missing gsfonts package is okay.
+ libdb2 should build with this change as it was only missing the
  gsfonts build dependency (closes: #126475)
+ Follows the request by Tim Hull to pull gsfonts with gs
  (closes: #65594)
  * Acknowledge the NMU by LaMont Jones (closes: #133902).
  * debian/control: Clean up some obsolete stuff:
+ Does not conflict with gs_x, gs_svga, gs_both anymore. Those 
  packages are long gone now and the package names violate policy
  (closes: #137430).
  * scripts/*: Copy those scripts from the gs source package instead of
gs-aladdin as we want gs-common in main (closes: #141206).
  * scripts/dvipdf: Add from the gs source (closes: #117442).
  * man/*: Copy from gs source.
  * debian/links: Install symlinks for the manpages of ps2pdf1[234] 
which are documented in the ps2pdf manpage.
  * debian/rules: Run dh_installmanpages to get the stuff those 
installed (closes: #116144).
  * debian/copyright: Add (lintian).

There are only a few minor things I want to sort out before uploading 
and I guess this is my last chance to fix something :) Basically I
want to get rid of the debconf support in gs-common since the only 
question asked does not make any sense to me (was brought in by the 
defoma patch by Yasuhiro Take) and therefore I am going to eliminate 
that. 

That question selects if you want defoma to substitute unavailable 
printer fonts when displaying Postscript files. I am going to turn 
that off for now. I don't think we really need it for woody.

Thanks

Torsten


pgpnH4c69FHSO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il lun, 2002-04-08 alle 00:15, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > > sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> > > included as "documentation" (and probably is in a lot of places, in or
> > > outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
> > > drawn? Is it possible to draw one?
> > 
> > It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> > "Transparant copy" is for example.
> 
> Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In
> fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as
> documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing
> familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. What is a
> document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin to
> distinguish what makes free documentation different from free software
> when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of data is software
> or documentation in the first place?

TeX is turing complete. apart from that, i'd say that

a program is mainly intended to be run on a computer
documentation is mainly intended to be run on a brain

even with such strange documents as literate programs (cfr. the WEB
system), the program and the documentation are easily distinguishable
(and they are in the *same* document!)
 
-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Viviamo in un mondo reale, Ciccio. -- Lucy


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Richard Braakman]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:53:07PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> IMHO the non-free section should be removed.

Well, go for it.  In the meantime, stop antagonizing people who do nice
things for us.

-- 
Richard Braakman
"I sense a disturbance in the force"
"As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get."
  (Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)


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