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

[David Starner]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I don't know.  Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> consensus.

Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes of the DFSG. A number of people would argue
that small, nonfunctional invariant bits are okay, but anything more
isn't. And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
should distribute non-software that doesn't have to modifieable. Where's
the rough consensus?
 
> I think we're guaranteed to not resolve it this time around; solving
> this would be too much of a distraction from woody.

True. Probably better let it all pass for woody, like we did for KDE in
the distant past.

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

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 23:54, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> > would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> > that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.
> 
> Why do we need to pull gcc from main? We just need to pull gcc's
> documenation from main. 

Technically, yes.  But how useful is a compiler with no documentation?

The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
option; it damages the project for zero gain.  This is especially true
in the long term, as projects follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
GFDL docs.


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

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

[Robert Tiberius Johnson]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 19:36, Adam Heath wrote:
> 54 days with of Packages(sid/main/i386) gives 900k of xdeltas.

Thanks for the info.  I think that keeping 54 days of diffs (or xdeltas)
is unnecessary -- most of the benefit is accrued by keeping only 20 days
or so.  But I need real stats on frequency of updates to verify this for
certain.

> The problem with xdelta tho, is that it requires both old and new version to
> be available on the same side of the link, to do it's magic.

That's true, but I don't see a problem with that.  If I understand
debian correctly, ocassionally a master server scans over all the newly
uploaded packages and produces a new Packages file.  At that time, the
server will have a copy of the old and new Packages file, and can
produce the delta, placing it in a file with name based on the hash of
the old Packages file.  The master server can then delete the oldest
delta file and replace the old Packages file with the new one.  Mirrors
pick up these changes, and then clients with the old Packages file will
be able to download the delta, since they can compute the same hash. 
Let me know if I got something wrong here.

Best,
Rob



-- 
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)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I don't know.  Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
> 
> Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
> software, for the purposes of the DFSG. A number of people would argue
> that small, nonfunctional invariant bits are okay, but anything more
> isn't. And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
> should distribute non-software that doesn't have to modifieable. Where's
> the rough consensus?

In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
some things packaged for Debian might not be software.  His problem
seemed to be with corner cases, and wanting a good definition of
"software".

Search for "bright line" in the thread, and maybe you'll see what I
mean.


-- 
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)

[Aurelien Jarno]

Le Lundi 8 Avril 2002 05:08, David Starner a écrit :
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be
> > > not?
> >
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free by our community are using this license.  Thus, the
> > onus is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.
>
> Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A
> strictly literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant
> Sections. Any body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is
> free is basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the
> readings or scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want
> to change the status quo.

DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a 
DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".

Aurelien


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

Re: Scripts in /etc/init.d Question and Comment.

[Aaron Schrab]

At 19:35 -0400 07 Apr 2002, JPS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> me to raise my awareness!). How about prefacing the scripts in
> `/etc/init.d' with something along the lines of:
> 
>   if [ ! $EUID == 0 ]; then
>   echo "Sorry, this script must run with root privileges."
>   if

If this is done, that bit of code shouldn't be used (at least in most
cases) since $EUID is a bashism.  I'd suggest something like:

  if [ ! -O / ] # Check if root directory is owned by current user

-- 
Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.schrab.com/aaron/
 However, since procmail is the ultimate supply of rope for mail hacking,
 here are the directions for tying a noose: -- Philip Guenther


-- 
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 =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)

[David Starner]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". 

Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
in Debian.

In any case, I don't see why an invariant rant about the evils of
Microsoft-extended Kerbeous (for example) is all right in documentation
and not in a comment in source code. I certainly don't want to see
non-modifiable fonts or game data in Debian. 

-- 
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: Scripts in /etc/init.d Question and Comment.

[Mark Eichin]

$EUID is a bash-ism; you'd need to run "id" instead.

Also, the echo should include the name of the script...


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

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

[Craig Brozefsky]

Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> me.  I did not intend to use the Closed: syntax in the changelog, but
> instead sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with close BUGID as
> described in my copy of bug-maint-mailcontrol.txt which I guess is out
> of date and I should have paid closer attention.

To clarify, I the real problem was me mis-addressing the mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
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]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a 
>DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".

I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
referred to.   Flame away.

http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
 
 This port may thing it's fortified, butt I seem to be mounting a
 pretty good assault
-- #sodfest97


-- 
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)

[Craig Sanders]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to
> > > be not?
> > 
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free by our community are using this license.  Thus, the
> > onus is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.
> 
> Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A
> strictly literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant
> Sections. Any body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is
> free is basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the
> readings or scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want
> to change the status quo.

you're not allowed to change the license or the author's name of a
GPL-licensed program so, by your "strictly literal reading of the DFSG"
that makes the GPL non-free.

The GPL, BSD license and other licenses we consider to be DFSG-free all
allow "invariant sections" - specifically, attribution, copyright,
license, and similar administrivia.

even where this isn't specifically stated in the license, tradition &
custom within the free software community take it as a given that these
things are not to be changedbut acknowledging that requires the
application of common sense, which just proves that you're not playing
the debian game.

personally, i think that many debian people just like to argue
pedantically for the sake of arguing pedantically.  doesn't matter what
the issue is, the main thing is that a good (i.e. long-winded and
tedious) argument is had until everyone is bored into apathy.

this practice is, of course, a wonderful morale booster.  hip hip hooray.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch


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

论新网络经济时代

[ff88]

debian-devel:您好!
   
互联网从无到有，在短短的几年时间里迅速发展壮大，各大网站也由开始的大把大把烧钱，到现在逐步走向
成熟，一夜之间，我们发现，现在网上有用的免费资源已经少的可怜了。各大门户网站纷纷推出了收费服务，
收费电子邮件，收费主页空间，收费注册搜索引擎，其实这也无可厚非，网站要生存，就要有盈利，但我们网
民该怎么办呢？面对昂贵的上网费用已经是捉襟见肘了，再想去享受那些优质（收费）服务就更难了，因此，
我们普通网民也要学会在网上来养活自己，传统的网络广告商也不会再轻易的给你发来支票了。现在，国外最
火的网上赚钱模式MLM（多层次信息网络营销MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING 
）已经登陆中国，给广大网民又提供了一
条赚钱的崭新之路，如果你想成功，那就应该勇敢的去接受新事物。
   
具体信息请大家登陆网站：http://www.linkto.tk/.并欢迎大家到我们的论坛来发言！！！;
   
   
如果您觉得这封邮件有些参考价值，请转发给你的朋友，如果引起了您的反感，我们致以诚挚的歉意！！

致
礼!
  　　 
  　　 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  　　 2002-04-08


-- 
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)

[David Starner]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:01:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> you're not allowed to change the license or the author's name of a
> GPL-licensed program so, by your "strictly literal reading of the DFSG"
> that makes the GPL non-free.

True. But by long tradition and, as you say, common sense, that's
accepted. What does that have to do with other invariant stuff? 
 
-- 
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: Scripts in /etc/init.d Question and Comment.

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2002, JPS wrote:
> `/etc/init.d'. Every once in a while I attempt to execute one of these
> scripts while logged in as a non-root user. For example, I might type
...

The problem is, the initscript should actually check if it has the rights it
needs, if it is to do what you want...  this is not always easy, or
possible.  Do recall that we will have SE linux in Debian somewhat soon, and
checking just for rootness is not enough there.

Anyway, it is a good idea to add such a test to the initscript, when it is
simple to do so, yes.  Maybe we should add a footnote to policy with a
strong hint that people do exactly that?   And that failure to start the
daemon/create the files/cd to a root-only directory/etc should be handled
gracefully, probably...

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
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 =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a 
> DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".

Why?  What freedoms are important for software that aren't for documentation?

If the GFDL fails the DFSG, I'd say the proper response *isn't* to craft
a new set of guidelines for documentation to make it fit.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: Scripts in /etc/init.d Question and Comment.

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:36:17AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002, JPS wrote:
> > `/etc/init.d'. Every once in a while I attempt to execute one of these
> > scripts while logged in as a non-root user. For example, I might type
> ...
> 
> The problem is, the initscript should actually check if it has the rights it
> needs, if it is to do what you want...  this is not always easy, or
> possible.  Do recall that we will have SE linux in Debian somewhat soon, and
> checking just for rootness is not enough there.

Sometimes it's too much. Some init scripts have targets, such as
checking the status of the daemon, that are perfectly executable by
ordinary users.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
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 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."

Since I had to use grep to find it in the mail, it was well hidden
and I don't consider this a proper call for help like done by other
people who actively seek for help and receive them.  Personally, I
don't wonder why only two people volunteered.  Hence, my initial
statement remains.

Thanks for the clarification,

Joey

-- 
There are lies, statistics and benchmarks.

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: New Packages (i18n version of APT)

[Michael Piefel]

Am  7.04.02 um 16:53:16 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> 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.

Oh, I'm very sorry that I didn't read your mind correctly.

The problem is I really don't know which parts met your criteria and
which didn't. Perhaps your email indicating this was not sufficiently
clear to someone who takes the easy path like me. It would also help if
I could see your current source; the CVS archive on cvs.debian.org does
not seem to be current.

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: [bdale@gag.com: Bug#141688: FTBFS: config.sub/guess out of date]

[Michael Vogt]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:25:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sending this bug report to debian-devel so that hopefully the maintainer
> of this package will see it.
> 
> Please rename your package.
Yes, my fault. I renamed it to "libxbase" and just uploaded it again.
Sorry for any trouble I caused you.

bye,
 Michael

> - Forwarded message from Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bdale Garbee)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Bug#141688: FTBFS: config.sub/guess out of date
> Date: Sun,  7 Apr 2002 16:24:17 -0600 (MDT)
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=4.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_FOUND,SENT_BY_BTS 
> version=2.11
> 
> Package: xbase
> Version: 2.0.0-1
> Severity: important
> 
> This package fails to build from source on ia64 because the config.sub/guess
> files are out of date.  See the autotools-dev package for a good solution.
> 
> Bdale

-- 
GPG Fingerprint = EA71 B296 4597 4D8B 343E  821E 9624 83E1 5662 C734
You Know You've Been Playing Too Much Nethack When...
You look both ways down the corridor, start to sweat... 
then realise you're looking at your EMail address


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

Re: Description to man pages

[Colin Watson]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Otto Wyss wrote:
> The best would be if "man  would bring up a list of man pages
> with a choose facility when more than one page exists. Maybe this change
> in behavior could be set through an environment variable.

No need. Try 'man -a '.

Also, when more than one page exists man will ask you if you want to
display the next one it's found after displaying the first one. Try it.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: ITP: arp-fun -- ARP Spoofing utility

[Jerome Petazzoni]

>> > What does this package do, that dsniff's 'arpspoof' doesn't ?

>> I know, but I'd like to have it in Debian for the users to be able to
>> choose the one the see fit, as we do in editors, window-managers...
>> I think you know what I mean :-)

I'll consolidate this opinion : last time I really NEEDED dsniff's arpspoof,
it did not work. I don't know why ; maybe it was because my host had many
eth. interfaces, some of them with "redundant" routes and other crap ; but
arpspoof died immediately with a not-very-explicit error message. debugging
with strace first, gdb then, did not yield interesting results, so I gave
up. I would have been VERY PLEASED to have another arp spoofing program
in debian at this time ...

after RAID mirrors, here come "same functionality software" mirroring :-)
so when one package breaks, you can fallback on the other one :-)

regards,
Jerome Petazzoni 


-- 
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

[Martin Quinson]

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?

Please check #139437...

Thanks, Mt.

-- 
Si les grands esprits se rencontrent, les petits esprits, eux, se cognent.


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

autobuilder question

[Tom Cato Amundsen]

Does rameau (arm autobuilder) use outdated mirror, or does not source
build depends on all autobuilders work as expected.

Solfege depends on python-gnome, and python-gnome depends on
python-gdk-imlib, but the build log say:

Checking for source dependency conflicts...
  /usr/bin/sudo /usr/bin/apt-get $CHROOT_OPTIONS -q -y install swig
gettext python2.1-dev m4 libgnome-dev texinfo python-gnome
Reading Package Lists...
Building Dependency Tree...
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
  python-gnome: Depends: python-gdk-imlib (>= 0.6.8-17) but it is not
going to be installed
E: Sorry, broken packages

Other archs are ok.

python-gdk-imlib 0.6.8-17 for arm is available on ftp-master (the file
is dated feb 7). The python-gnome_arm.deb does depend on
python-gdk-imlib, so I don't see where the problem is.
-- 
Tom Cato Amundsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GNU Solfege - free eartraining, http://www.gnu.org/software/solfege/


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

cdrom: lost interrupt

[Erik Steffl]

  I realize this is not strictly debian development question, I am
looking for any hints related to how it all works (or doesn't work)
together (kernel ide drivers, VIA MB, IRQs). I did found some
indications that ide was quite broken sometime early in 2.4 series but I
didn't find anything about whether it was (completely) solved or where
to go from here. It looks like HW is OK so I am wondering whether it can
be a kernel problem - that's what I'm hoping to get more info about, I
don't expect you guys to help me to set up the system, just some
pointers to kernel info that might help to shed some light (note that my
problem is quite different from most of the 'lost interrupt' problem in
significant way - my drive works except for audio reading).

  system:

hdc: TDK CDRW321040B, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive
Linux jojda 2.4.17 #1 Wed Mar 13 01:33:28 PST 2002 i686 unknown
debian unstable
VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C693A/694x (abit)
kernel config: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_VIA82CXXX=y
dma access both on and off (same problem)
32 bit access both on and off (same problem)

  the cdrom is a cd r/rw writer

  problem:

  when I try to rip the audio it doesn't work much (it works VERY
slowly, hours per songs) and I get the following messages in
/var/log/syslog:

Mar 29 00:47:12 localhost kernel: hdc: lost interrupt

  further testing showed that approximately 30-60 reads are OK, then one
failure, 30-60 good reads, one failure (the number of successfull reads
fluctuates).

  what works:

  reading raw cd using cat /dev/cdrom|od (it cannot read certain part of
CD but I guess that's the feature of filesystem)

  reading data CDs, when I mount data CD I can read it to my heart
content (and more)

  writing CD: so far I only tried to burn one data CD which worked
without any problems, CD is readable.

  other info:

  the same problem occurs with another CD-ROM drive and also when I
connect cdrom to ide0 (as slave, /dev/hdb). Hardrive connected to both
ide0 and ide1 works without any problems. I also tried to turn off dma
and 32 bit access, no change.

  I don't see any IRQ conflict, ide1 is on 15, nothing else is on 15 (as
listed by BIOS and /proc/interrupts).

  Is it possible that it's a HW problem considering that data cd reading
and buring works? I mean those use IRQs too (and I see the numbers
rising when I read data CD and cat /proc/interrupts). Could it be some
kernel problem? I mean how could the interrupt be lost when trying to
read audio but not when reading data? I don't really know what the
difference is, anybody can shed some light on this?

  BTW cd ripping works fine under windows, even though I've read that it
doesn't mean much 'cause windows often pools hw instead of using IRQ.

  The web search revealed nothing interesting, only that most people who
have lost interrupt problem can't even mount the CD.

  This is what /proc/interrupts says (I haven't used the CD since I
rebooted and I cannot use it now since there's no CD inside and I am not
around):

jojda:/home/erik# cat /proc/interrupts 
   CPU0   
  0:   15518706  XT-PIC  timer
  1:   8968  XT-PIC  keyboard
  2:  0  XT-PIC  cascade
  5:  0  XT-PIC  SoundBlaster
  8:  1  XT-PIC  rtc
  9:  0  XT-PIC  usb-uhci, usb-uhci
 10:  33210  XT-PIC  eth1
 11: 530613  XT-PIC  eth0
 12:  39386  XT-PIC  PS/2 Mouse
 14: 593071  XT-PIC  ide0
 15: 21  XT-PIC  ide1
NMI:  0 
LOC:   15518583 
ERR:  0

  here's what lspci says:

jojda:/home/erik# lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C693A/694x [Apollo
PRO133x] (rev c4)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C598/694x [Apollo
MVP3/Pro133x AGP]
00:07.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C686 [Apollo Super South]
(rev 40)
00:07.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
00:07.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. UHCI USB (rev 16)
00:07.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. UHCI USB (rev 16)
00:07.4 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C686 [Apollo Super ACPI]
(rev 40)
00:0b.0 Ethernet controller: D-Link System Inc RTL8139 Ethernet (rev 10)
00:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8139
(rev 10)
00:0f.0 VGA compatible controller: 3Dfx Interactive, Inc. Voodoo 3 (rev
01)
jojda:/home/erik# 

  TIA!

erik


-- 
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: Python module for debconf

[Stefan Hornburg Racke]

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >   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.   
> 
> No, pre-depending on python will not ensure that your package's
> config script has python available at preconfgiuration time.

So we are really restricted to a fix set of packages at preconfiguration
time ? Hmm, that's not nice. Can the configuration delayed by the
package itself until after the PreDepends packages are installed ?

Ciao
Racke

-- 
Think of it !

For projects and other business stuff please refer to COBOLT NetServices
(URL: http://www.cobolt.net; Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Phone: 0041-1-3884400)


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

Re: Dependencies on libpgsql2.1

[Oliver Elphick]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 02:09, Colin Watson wrote:
> I'm currently in the process of filing bugs on those packages in
> unstable that still depend on libpgsql2.1 rather than libpgsql2, or
> upgrading bugs to grave where they'd already been filed. Since the
> versions in woody all appear to be fine, I'm making sure all these bugs
> get tagged 'sid' so that they don't affect the release.
> 
> I hope this will help the new postgresql to get into testing a little
> more quickly.

There was quite a serious upstream bug with postgresql 7.1.3: after a
crash it was possible for sequences to go backwards.  This has been
cured in 7.2.1 and it is highly desirable that that version be in
woody.  Perhaps we should be filing RC bugs against the woody versions
of these packages?

-- 
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight  http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C

 "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything,  
  by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, present
  your requests to God. And the peace of God, which  
  transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts  
  and your minds in Christ Jesus."   Philippians 4:6,7  


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

Re: Bug#139945: ITP: prokyon3 -- a multithreaded MP3 manager and tag editor for Linux.

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Emanuele Aina 

| Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> criticò:
| 
|  > My principal objection to calling anything related to the Hurd
|  > "production ready" is that THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR BACKUP HARDWARE
|  > OF ANY KIND.  WTF?  No tape, no CD or DVD burners, no USB, no
|^
| Ehm...
| If we are talking about how the linux kernel *cough* supports *cough* CD
| writers. Using my CD-rw like a normal disk is still one of my little
| dreams... :-(

You might have luck with 2.4 and the UDF filesystem and udftools.
Haven't tried it myself, so I'm not sure it'll work. :)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.


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

Re: Debian's problems, Debian's future

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Jeroen Dekkers 

| It does also other things, like making distribution creation more
| flexible. I'm thinking of having a some kind of package file for every
| source package. That would include the current information and maybe a
| lot more things like URL of upstream, license, etc. This file would be
| stored in every package pool directory
| (i.e. pool/main/f/foobar/Packages). 
| 
| Then we create a lot of bigger Packages files, only including the
| packagename, version number and some other things which might be
| useful (but not too much). Those bigger Packages files can be a lot
| more flexible, for example we could have a different Package file for
| different licenses, different upstream projects (gnome, kde, gnu, X,
| etc), different use of machines (server, desktop), etc.

(I know, old mail, but I am catching up)

It seems like you want to put the control file outside the deb package
and add more information to it.  (And have apt-ftparchive not include
all the information from the control file into the packages file.)

Is this about correct?

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.


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

Re: Spelling bug: publically versus publicly

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Drew Parsons 

| On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 02:27:18PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
| > I don't want to start a flame war, I just want a quick opinion.
| > Two bug reports against libforms0.88 want me to correct the spelling of 
| > "publically" for "publicly":
| > 
| > >From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
| > 
| >   publically
| >adv : in a manner accessible to or observable by the public;
| >  openly; "she admitted publicly to being a communist"
| >  [syn: {publicly}, {in public}] [ant: {privately}]
| > 
| 
| What's this WordNet?

Yes, I know, old email, but it seems no one answered this question.

: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ > apt-cache search wordnet
dict-gcide - A Comprehensive English Dictionary
dict-wn - WordNet v1.7
dictd - Dictionary Server
lg-issue27 - Issue 27 of the Linux Gazette.
wordnet - Electronic lexical database of English language
wordnet-base - Electronic lexical database of English language
wordnet-dev - Electronic lexical database of English language
wordnet-doc - Documentation for WordNet.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ > 

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.


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

Re: dpkg triggers

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Brian May 

| On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 02:18:37AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
| > I'm working on a hack for dpkg to allow equivalent functionality to rpm 
| > triggers.
| 
| What applications does this have?

Recompile bytecode files when installing a new version/variant of an
interpreter (emacs, python), for instance.  This is currently solved
by running /usr/lib/emacsen-common/emacs-package-install in postinst.
Python isn't really solved in a clean way.

I would love to see this, it could make a lot of things _much_ cleaner
and easier.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.


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

Re: Bug#140349: ITP: cvs-conf -- Manage your configuration files via CVS

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* martin f krafft 

| also sprach Sebastien J. Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.03.28.1819 +0100]:
| >  cvs-conf allows users to manage their configuration files using
| >  CVS. On the server, a global configuration project is created and
| >  each host is a part of the global configuration module. The
| >  advantage of cvs-conf is its capaicity to restore all file
| >  permissions (user, group and rwx).
| 
| i am not doubting this, but there's a reason why CVS disables the
| permission storage mechanism by default: it works only sporadically
| (read the source).

It does not disable anything.  If you had read the info file it states
pretty clearly:

   All `,v' files are created read-only, and you should not change the
 permission of those files.  The directories inside the repository
 should be writable by the persons that have permission to modify the
 files in each directory.  This normally means that you must create a
 UNIX group (see group(5)) consisting of the persons that are to edit
 the files in a project, and set up the repository so that it is that
 group that owns the directory.

   This means that you can only control access to files on a
 per-directory basis.

See #10448 and #15516 (and my comments to them).

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen, CVS maintainer
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.


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

Some missing packages (built, but not uploaded?)

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

The dillo and gpm packages are missing some binaries.  The dillo
binary for ia64 was built on 2002-03-22, but is still missing from the
archive.  The gpm binary for powerpc was built on 2002-03-23, but is
also missing from the archive.

Could someone have a look to find find out what happened.


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

Re: Bug#141070: ITP: aptconf -- debconf infrastructure for setting up apt sources

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously Mark Eichin wrote:
> google finds supersparrow 0.0.0 from Feb 2001 on supersparrow.org and
> sourceforge, and nothing more recent -- is there any life to it?  it
> certainly sounds interesting...

That is Horms-versioning. He starts version numbers at 0 instead of
1 (which (almost) did cost VA a few customers actually since they did
not trust something with that version number :). There is life to it
though, and it is being used actively (see http://www.vergenet.net/
and the various sites hosted by it).

Wichert.

-- 
  _
 /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |


-- 
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)

[Sebastian Rittau]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:05:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:

> > I don't know.  Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
> 
> [...] And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
> should distribute non-software that doesn't have to modifieable.

I think nobody says (or at least means) that documentation don't need to
be modifiable at all. What is meant is that exactly what the GFDL says:

| A "Secondary Section" [...] 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 "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections [...]

Invariant sections are thought for greeting, (non-technical) forewords,
motivation chapters and the like. It seems to be consensus that
documents with too many or too large invariant sections are non-free.
(As an example see the GConf API reference at developer.gnome.org.)

 - Sebastian


-- 
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)

[Sebastian Rittau]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:

> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.

As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.

 - Sebastian


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

Re: mirrors [Re: Release notes]

[Wilmer van der Gaast]

Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sun, 7 Apr 2002 13:48:51 +0200:
>  Don't worry, ./ will be faster. There's nothing we can do about it... ;)
>  
You can always ask them not to post it before the mirrors are ready,
not?

-- 
*=-+-__
   |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __
   : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ it pm josip rodin abour an do apr \
~~-+-=-+~+-=*


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[David N. Welton]

Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Of course it's nice of them that they help, but I still think it's
> wrong that the registration page is hosted on a server with non-free
> software and with a link to a site trying to sell non-free
> products. Certainly because we can make the registration form with
> free software without any links to non-free stuff.

You're not too far off the mark, but the missing ingredient here is
you getting off your ass and making it happen (i.e. writing code,
finding someone to host the machine) instead of just complaining and
telling other people what they should and shouldn't do.

-- 
David N. Welton
   Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/
 Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
   Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/


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

Re: autobuilder question

[Philip Blundell]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 10:00, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
>   python-gnome: Depends: python-gdk-imlib (>= 0.6.8-17) but it is not
> going to be installed
> E: Sorry, broken packages
> 
> Other archs are ok.
> 
> python-gdk-imlib 0.6.8-17 for arm is available on ftp-master (the file
> is dated feb 7). The python-gnome_arm.deb does depend on
> python-gdk-imlib, so I don't see where the problem is.

Most likely python-gdk-imlib depends on a package that is not
installable.  This can happen if one of its dependencies conflicts with
something else that is required by solfege's build-depends, or because
some package further down the dependency tree is not up to date.

The build log you were looking at is several days old now; solfege is in
the queue again and there is a fair chance it will build successfully
next time.

p.


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

Bug#141748: ITP: openca -- Open Source Certification Authority

[Brian May]

Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: openca
  Version : 0.8.1
  Upstream Author : Multiple; see website.
* URL : http://www.OpenCA.org/
* License : "Apache-style" license
  Description : Open Source Certification Authority


openca allows for a two part CA (from docs):

1. Here it is how it works. The CA (2) Computer is the most important:
on it it is istalled the ca software and the CA SECRET KEY. Because
of it's security needs, we think it must be left disconnected by any
network (this is the only way to protect a computer from network
attacks(!!!)) and file tranfers (Requests/Certificates/CRLs/etc...)
with other computers get executed via removable support
( i.e. floppy/rw/etc...).

2. The RA Server is a bit more complicated. It has a secure (with client
auth turned on) apache server installed. Services offered only to RAs
permit to approve/reject requests BEFORE they get signed by the CA.
On the RA Server there is also an LDAP server (for certificates
availability).

3. There is another Web server (Secure Server) that is used by the
normal users to make certificate requests, import CA Certificate, import
requested certificates and import other users' certs. You can activate
this server on the same machine of the RA Server: this can save a litte
work and is the currently adopted choice.

Oh, sorry, did I say 2 parts? obviously, I still have some learning to
do myself...

There are currently some major problems with packaging it for
Debian, so this may take some time. For instance:

- requires openssl 0.9.7, which has not yet been released upstream.

- some system-specific data is hardcoded, which is obviously
a big no-no for a Debian package... Things like E-Mail address, URL,
and organisation have been hardcoded... Hopefully these
have been isolated to a few config files, not sure yet.

- since I I still learning how this works, the current
way I have split the packages could be considered restrictive.
(should be easy to change).

Any help appreciated; if you want to try it out
(with limitations described above), I have a copy at
http://snoopy.apana.org.au/~ftp/debian/>.

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux scrooge 2.4.18 #1 Wed Apr 3 13:18:14 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=



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

Re: Bug#140349: ITP: cvs-conf -- Manage your configuration files via CVS

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.07.1306 +0200]:
> It does not disable anything.  If you had read the info file it states
> pretty clearly:
> 
>All `,v' files are created read-only, and you should not change the
>  permission of those files.  The directories inside the repository
>  should be writable by the persons that have permission to modify the
>  files in each directory.  This normally means that you must create a
>  UNIX group (see group(5)) consisting of the persons that are to edit
>  the files in a project, and set up the repository so that it is that
>  group that owns the directory.
> 
>This means that you can only control access to files on a
>  per-directory basis.
> 
> See #10448 and #15516 (and my comments to them).

we're talking about the PreservePermissions configuration option,
which is something different. i should have been more clear.

-- 
martin;  (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
"i'm always frank and earnest with women.
 uh, in new york i'm frank, and in chicago i'm ernest."
-- the long kiss goodnight


pgpzg8y3YNH7V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

TV/Uydu Yayinlarina Artik Sifre Kisitlamasi Yok! -ekcannrx

[kfxxysuk]

Sayin Internet Kullanicisi,

Turkiye'de yayin yapanlar basta olmak uzere, Dunya'daki tum sifreli TV 
kanallarini cozen ve basit bir TV kartiyla bu yayinlari bilgisayarinizdan size 
izleme olanagi saglayan, sifre kirici programlarin kayitli oldugu,

DECODER CD (v2.0)" satisa sunulmustur (40 EURO + KDV).
(Digital, Analog, d2Mac ve Nagra formatindaki tum yayinlar icindir)

Garantilidir, odemeli olarak gonderilir. 
Detayli bilgi isteyenlere elektronik tanitim brosurlerimiz gonderilecektir 

"Net-Pa" Internet Marketing Center Ltd. Sti.® 
A. Menderes Cad. Atagun Is Merkezi, Kat: 4 Sakarya, TR 
TEL: 0 (264) 281 38 85 (PBX)  ICQ: 572 98 144   
Abdullah Güçlü, GSM: 0 (532) 310 49 16 (09:00-17:00)   
Germany: 0049 (172) 682 01 69 - Belgium: 0032 (494) 25 02 30

CC. A: 1-830


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Joe Drew]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 02:44, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Since I had to use grep to find it in the mail, it was well hidden
> and I don't consider this a proper call for help like done by other
> people who actively seek for help and receive them.  Personally, I
> don't wonder why only two people volunteered.  Hence, my initial
> statement remains.

Since you're the only person who's volunteered in any way, even after
this long thread, I am not convinced that anything would have actually
gotten done.

Two quotes come to mind:

"A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that
no one would find fault with what he had done." 
- John Henry Cardinal Newman 

"Nobody ever did anything so well that no one could find fault with it."
- Leo Menard, my grandfather

The latter is especially true.

I'm finished talking about this issue.

-- 
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: Scripts in /etc/init.d Question and Comment.

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JPS  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is something that has always bothered me about the scripts in
>`/etc/init.d'. Every once in a while I attempt to execute one of these
>scripts while logged in as a non-root user.

This is Unix. It gives you enough rope to hang yourself.

Mike.


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

Re: autobuilder question

[Tom Cato Amundsen]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:33, Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 10:00, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> > Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> >   python-gnome: Depends: python-gdk-imlib (>= 0.6.8-17) but it is not
> > going to be installed
> > E: Sorry, broken packages
> > 
> > Other archs are ok.
> > 
> > python-gdk-imlib 0.6.8-17 for arm is available on ftp-master (the file
> > is dated feb 7). The python-gnome_arm.deb does depend on
> > python-gdk-imlib, so I don't see where the problem is.
> 
> Most likely python-gdk-imlib depends on a package that is not
> installable.  This can happen if one of its dependencies conflicts with
> something else that is required by solfege's build-depends, or because
> some package further down the dependency tree is not up to date.
> 

Thanks, that explains it.

> The build log you were looking at is several days old now; solfege is in
> the queue again and there is a fair chance it will build successfully
> next time.

Just of curiosity, is the queue for the autobuilders available anywhere,
either on the web or by logging into the machines?

> 
> p.
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
-- 
Tom Cato Amundsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GNU Solfege - free eartraining, http://www.gnu.org/software/solfege/


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

Re: mirrors [Re: Release notes]

[Tom Cato Amundsen]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 10:15, Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Sun, 7 Apr 2002 13:48:51 +0200:
> >  Don't worry, ./ will be faster. There's nothing we can do about it... ;)
> >  
> You can always ask them not to post it before the mirrors are ready,
> not?
> 

Hah, it is their hobby to take down servers using the slashdot effect.

> -- 
> *=-+-__
>|[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __
>: http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ it pm josip rodin abour an do apr \
> ~~-+-=-+~+-=*
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
-- 
Tom Cato Amundsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GNU Solfege - free eartraining, http://www.gnu.org/software/solfege/


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

Re: autobuilder question

[Philip Blundell]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:53, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> Just of curiosity, is the queue for the autobuilders available anywhere,
> either on the web or by logging into the machines?

Yes (kind of) - see http://auric.debian.org/~pb/shame/arm.html and
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/arm-all.txt

p.


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

Re: g++-3.0 library support?

[Leo \(Martin Oberzalek\)]

Am Son, 2002-04-07 um 21.35 schrieb 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. 

> > Are there any better ideas?
> 
> yes, use only one version. Which package does require this setup?

Currently non existing one; But I'll create a package of an application
that won't compile with gcc-2.95. Patching the package will be very
difficult.

The alternative will be packing all required libraries of this package
into this package too.

Or maybe creating a package bar-shared which contains all required
libraries and the package bar will then depend on the shared package.

The third possibility is linking these libraries statically.

Which method would you suggest?

-- 
"Da Gandalfs Kopf jetzt heilig ist, laßt uns einen anderen finden,
den zu spalten richtig ist!"
   (Gimli in LOTR)



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

Re: Python module for debconf

[Junichi Uekawa]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Hornburg (Racke)) cum veritate scripsit:

> > No, pre-depending on python will not ensure that your package's
> > config script has python available at preconfgiuration time.
> 
> So we are really restricted to a fix set of packages at preconfiguration
> time ? Hmm, that's not nice. Can the configuration delayed by the
> package itself until after the PreDepends packages are installed ?

Should it really? That's ridiculous, considering the goals of 
debconf.


regards,
junichi

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423  7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4


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

libmagick5, releasable?

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi,

I've noticed that some reports around libmagick5 incompatibility
are floating around -bugs-dist.

It's unnerving considering that we are trying to release,
and apparently, a new upstream version has been uploaded today.

There needs to be some checking, 

a. if the program runs
b. if the program compiles


regards,
junichi

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423  7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4


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

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

[Thimo Neubauer]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> kvdr   masqmailxtell

As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
because I don't understand why masqmail has to go:

masqmail (- to 0.1.16-2)

* Maintainer: Debian QA Group
* 12 days old (needed 10 days)
* Trying to remove package, not update it
* Not considered

masqmail depends on:

 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0), libident (>= 0.22-1),
 liblockfile1 (>= 1.0), netbase

None of these packages have RC bugs. masqmail itself just has two
important bugs which will even be closed in the next release. What is
the problem? Did I miss something?

If there is any problem with masqmail itself, I'll let the upstream
author package a new version which I'll sponsor (he wants to maintain
his program).

Slightly confused
Thimo

-- 
Thimo Neubauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 frozen! See http://www.debian.org/ for details


pgpAPeDgBBup5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Accepted traceroute 1.4a12-6 (i386 source)

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> Quite the contrary.  I think he makes a fine treasurer.  However, there
> is an improtant difference between the treasurer and the DPL.  If the
> treasurer runs amok, then the DPL can replace him.

Wrong, the DPL can not change the SPI board membership.

Wichert.

-- 
  _
 /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |


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

Re: Dependencies on libpgsql2.1

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:12:12AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 02:09, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I'm currently in the process of filing bugs on those packages in
> > unstable that still depend on libpgsql2.1 rather than libpgsql2, or
> > upgrading bugs to grave where they'd already been filed. Since the
> > versions in woody all appear to be fine, I'm making sure all these bugs
> > get tagged 'sid' so that they don't affect the release.
> > 
> > I hope this will help the new postgresql to get into testing a little
> > more quickly.
> 
> There was quite a serious upstream bug with postgresql 7.1.3: after a
> crash it was possible for sequences to go backwards.  This has been
> cured in 7.2.1 and it is highly desirable that that version be in
> woody.  Perhaps we should be filing RC bugs against the woody versions
> of these packages?

If the problem is in postgresql, it sounds like the most appropriate
thing to do is to file a serious bug against postgresql, tagged 'woody',
rather than adjusting the bugs on the packages using it.

I guess I (or somebody more experienced with postgresql) should start
NMUing fairly soon.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
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)

[Mark Purcell]

Wouter,

Thanks for the upload of openh323gk hopefully it should clear testing now.

While I'm sure there is some history and some good reasons for the m68k 
autobuilders list on nocrew.org.  It does make it difficult for non-m68k 
maintainers to find out where to forward their email such as mine.

Especially when the page at http://lists.debian.org/ports.html states that 
the debian-68k is listed as the 'Debian port to m68k'. Maybe you could either 
get an @lists.debian.org alias for your nocrew.org list or direct reference 
the @nocrew.org list to it from the ports.html page above.

Mark


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

Subversion packages

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

Hi,

 in case someone's curious about the current status of subversion, you
 can fetch packages for i386 from:

http://people.debian.org/~mmagallo/packages/subversion/

 These are just an update of David Kimdon's packages.  I only tweaked
 stuff here and there to get it to build with current versions of neon
 and apr.  If you want only the client stuff (creation of repositories
 included) you need only subversion-client and the library.  The
 subversion-server package contains an Apache module which I haven't
 tested at all.

 You'll need some packages from http://www.debian.org/~dwhedon/debian/
 and http://pandora.debian.org/~thom/apache2/, too.

 Caveat emptor: although I haven't got it to corrupt a repository, I've
 got it to segfault.  The segfaults happen inside db4, which can be
 scary if you care about your version-controlled data.  Other than, give
 it a look, there are some nice things to play with.

 Marcelo


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

Re: Debian Conference 2 Registration

[Richard Braakman]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:30:29AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> Two quotes come to mind:

[...]

You left out my favourite :)

  "Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself."
- A. H. Weller, according to the first google hit.

Richard Braakman


-- 
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)

[Richard Braakman]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> option; it damages the project for zero gain.  This is especially true
> in the long term, as projects follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
> GFDL docs.

On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
from taking such a misguided course of action.  I think the FSF is making
a big mistake with the GFDL.

Richard Braakman


-- 
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 Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:33:11PM +0200, Thimo Neubauer wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > kvdr   masqmailxtell
> 
> As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
> because I don't understand why masqmail has to go:
> 
> masqmail (- to 0.1.16-2)
> 
> * Maintainer: Debian QA Group
> * 12 days old (needed 10 days)
> * Trying to remove package, not update it
> * Not considered

I understand it had an RC bug (#138124) at the point when it was
removed.

> None of these packages have RC bugs. masqmail itself just has two
> important bugs which will even be closed in the next release. What is
> the problem? Did I miss something?

Only that not all of the removals were done in the five seconds before
Anthony mailed -devel-announce. :)

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
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

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson 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?
> 
> Please check #139437...

... and #79538 and #123074.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
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)

[David Starner]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> 
> > Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> > status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> > interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
> 
> As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
> invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.

Take a closer look at the GCC documenation, at funding free software. 

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

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:43, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". 
> 
> Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> in Debian.

Documentation isn't software.  Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.  So,
if we're to be true to our creed, here's what we have to do:

rm -rf /etc
rm -rf /usr/share/doc /usr/share/man /usr/share/info
rm -rf /var
rm -rf /dev

...and so on.  There, now Debian is 100% Free Software. :-)

Once you start stretching the meaning of words like this, you've gone
way off track; see Bill Gates's antitrust testimony or Clinton's "I did
not have sexual relations with that woman" speech for details.  

Debian has a set of values, described by the DFSG.  It's clear (at least
to me) that the description is imperfect.  We need to change it, or
append an additional statement (the DFDG, or whatever).  In the
meantime, we hold to the spirit, not the letter, of the DFSG, and
acknowledge that things are not quite as clear as they should be for
now.

I fear the alternatives to this path.


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

Re: Debian's problems, Debian's future

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:28:12PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Jeroen Dekkers 
> 
> | It does also other things, like making distribution creation more
> | flexible. I'm thinking of having a some kind of package file for every
> | source package. That would include the current information and maybe a
> | lot more things like URL of upstream, license, etc. This file would be
> | stored in every package pool directory
> | (i.e. pool/main/f/foobar/Packages). 
> | 
> | Then we create a lot of bigger Packages files, only including the
> | packagename, version number and some other things which might be
> | useful (but not too much). Those bigger Packages files can be a lot
> | more flexible, for example we could have a different Package file for
> | different licenses, different upstream projects (gnome, kde, gnu, X,
> | etc), different use of machines (server, desktop), etc.
> 
> (I know, old mail, but I am catching up)
> 
> It seems like you want to put the control file outside the deb package
> and add more information to it.  (And have apt-ftparchive not include
> all the information from the control file into the packages file.)
> 
> Is this about correct?

Yes, at least adding everything which is now in the normal Packages
file. The normal Packages file would just be an index then. I think
this is the best way to do the things I want.

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]


pgpdUSNzhHMUs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a 
> > DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
> 
> Why?  What freedoms are important for software that aren't for documentation?

Revisionist history, for one.  I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
GCC, for example.

What do we want when we want freedom in software?  Are we really all
that interested in stealing credit for things, or putting words in other
people's mouths?  Or are we just interested in having control in how the
system works?

And if it's the latter, how does changing a historical document affect
the system's operation?

> If the GFDL fails the DFSG, I'd say the proper response *isn't* to craft
> a new set of guidelines for documentation to make it fit.

If software is licensed under the GFDL with Invariant Sections, yes. 
But we're not talking about software; we're talking about documentation.


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

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

[Thimo Neubauer]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:33:11PM +0200, Thimo Neubauer wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:24:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > kvdr   masqmailxtell
> > 
> > As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
> > because I don't understand why masqmail has to go:
> > 
> > masqmail (- to 0.1.16-2)
> > 
> > * Maintainer: Debian QA Group
> > * 12 days old (needed 10 days)
> > * Trying to remove package, not update it
> > * Not considered
> 
> I understand it had an RC bug (#138124) at the point when it was
> removed.
> 
> > None of these packages have RC bugs. masqmail itself just has two
> > important bugs which will even be closed in the next release. What is
> > the problem? Did I miss something?
> 
> Only that not all of the removals were done in the five seconds before
> Anthony mailed -devel-announce. :)

Ok, that sounds reasonable :) However, is there any way of getting it
into testing again? The RC bug is fixed for quite a while...

CU
   Thimo

-- 
Thimo Neubauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 frozen! See http://www.debian.org/ for details


pgpprWynQn34p.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: g++-3.0 library support?

[Junichi Uekawa]

King "Leo (Martin Oberzalek)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:

> The alternative will be packing all required libraries of this package
> into this package too.

This would be rather painful.

> Or maybe creating a package bar-shared which contains all required
> libraries and the package bar will then depend on the shared package.
> 
> The third possibility is linking these libraries statically.

Probably the easiest, and probably the most possible solution
to do it right now would be to link it statically, until Debian
as a whole decides to start moving towards a gcc-3 transition.

regards,
junichi

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423  7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4


-- 
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)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> > option; it damages the project for zero gain.  This is especially true
> > in the long term, as projects follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
> > GFDL docs.
> 
> On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> from taking such a misguided course of action.  I think the FSF is making
> a big mistake with the GFDL.

I'm curious about your reasoning.  Have you posted it already?  If not,
maybe it would be good to hear once woody is out.


-- 
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 Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:12:07PM +0200, Thimo Neubauer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:33:11PM +0200, Thimo Neubauer wrote:
> > > None of these packages have RC bugs. masqmail itself just has two
> > > important bugs which will even be closed in the next release. What is
> > > the problem? Did I miss something?
> > 
> > Only that not all of the removals were done in the five seconds before
> > Anthony mailed -devel-announce. :)
> 
> Ok, that sounds reasonable :) However, is there any way of getting it
> into testing again? The RC bug is fixed for quite a while...

I understand from what Anthony said that it'll have a chance to get in
sometime over the next few days: that is, if it continues to remain
clean as far as update_excuses.html is concerned then it should be able
to get back into woody.

(IANTRM)

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: mirrors [Re: Release notes]

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:48:51PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> 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... ;)

We can do something about it, that is we will not allow downloads
before most servers have the images.

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]


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

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

[Erich Schubert]

> As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
> because I don't understand why masqmail has to go:

This is "had had to go".
AJ mailed "over the past few weeks". note the plural.

Greetings,
Erich


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

Re: ITP: arp-fun -- ARP Spoofing utility

[Robert van der Meulen]

Quoting Jerome Petazzoni ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'll consolidate this opinion : last time I really NEEDED dsniff's arpspoof,
> it did not work. I don't know why ; maybe it was because my host had many
> eth. interfaces, some of them with "redundant" routes and other crap ; but
> arpspoof died immediately with a not-very-explicit error message. debugging
> with strace first, gdb then, did not yield interesting results, so I gave
> up. I would have been VERY PLEASED to have another arp spoofing program
> in debian at this time ...

I'd be interested in details about that bug.

Greets,
Robert

-- 
( o>  Linux Generation  

Re: Orphaned packages in testing which were never in stable

[Michael Stone]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:08:10AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> I have this sneaking suspicion that we need a tool more appropriate than
> the BTS to handle the WNPP.  The BTS seems rather fragile for this
> purpose - the format for bug titles and to a greater extent the way
> followups for bug reports are handled (not going to the bug sumbitter)
> both seem rather fragile and aren't really handled all that well by the
> mechanisms normally used when interacting with the BTS.

Yes. Using the BTS for this purpose is ridiculously complicated, far
from intuitive, and prone to breakage. If only someone were to write
something better. :)

-- 
Mike Stone


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

Re: Stupid Arithmetic Tricks

[Walter Tautz]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Erich Schubert wrote:

> > A little knowledge of series tells me to apply n*(n+1)/2 to sum an 
> > arithmetic
> > progression of common difference 1, starting at 1.  This seems even quicker:
> > 100*101/2 becomes 5*101*10 becomes 505*10 = 5050.
> 
> Yep, but you aren't teached these formulas when in primary school you
> just learned adding and summation... the teacher was said to have
> expected his pupils to need the whole lesson for doing this calculation.
> And Gauss was born 1777, and he really surprised his teacher by then,
> presenting the solution that fast ;)
> 
> BTW: I just checked: gauss added 1+100, 2+99 etc. and got directly to
> the calculation 101*50 ;)
> 
The astonishing thing is he did this when he was about 6 years old. Credit
should be given to the teacher for immediately recognizing something special
about the `peasant' boy in his class.

-walter


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

Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0

[Donald J Bindner]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Phillips) writes:
> Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> 
> > As SUSv2 mandates that new nice return value is correct,
> > please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or @GLIBC_2.2.6 as it is in CVS
> > only) for new nice() interface, so old applications will not
> > break.
> 
> Let's replace movl %eax,%ebx with xorl %ebx,%ebx ;-) Apply
> ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-1455-update12.tar.gz.
> It fixes issue for VMware 3.0 and for some 3.1 betas. If you
> are using VMware 2.0 and you suffer from this problem - sorry. 
> 
> It also fixes crash when you start vmnet-bridge with eth0
> interface loaded, but down, and you'll not 'up' interface
> before eth0 interface disappears (by rmmod -a, for example) by
> fixing problem and not symptoms (like previous fix did).

Let me see if I understand this.  I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and
this morning I discovered that it dies with:

  VMware Workstation PANIC:
  AIO:  NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081

This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was
running fine last week.  Is this the same issue, and does that
leave me in the "sorry" category?

(I would like to believe not, since my VMWare sessions are
suspended, and to upgrade them to 3.x I would need to have them
running in 2.0 to turn them off properly).

Don

-- 
Don Bindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

论新网络经济时代

[ff88]

debian-devel:您好!
   
互联网从无到有，在短短的几年时间里迅速发展壮大，各大网站也由开始的大把大把烧钱，到现在逐步走向
成熟，一夜之间，我们发现，现在网上有用的免费资源已经少的可怜了。各大门户网站纷纷推出了收费服务，
收费电子邮件，收费主页空间，收费注册搜索引擎，其实这也无可厚非，网站要生存，就要有盈利，但我们网
民该怎么办呢？面对昂贵的上网费用已经是捉襟见肘了，再想去享受那些优质（收费）服务就更难了，因此，
我们普通网民也要学会在网上来养活自己，传统的网络广告商也不会再轻易的给你发来支票了。现在，国外最
火的网上赚钱模式MLM（多层次信息网络营销MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING 
）已经登陆中国，给广大网民又提供了一
条赚钱的崭新之路，如果你想成功，那就应该勇敢的去接受新事物。
   
具体信息请大家登陆网站：http://www.linkto.tk/.并欢迎大家到我们的论坛来发言！！！;
   
   
如果您觉得这封邮件有些参考价值，请转发给你的朋友，如果引起了您的反感，我们致以诚挚的歉意！！

致
礼!
  　　 
  　　 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  　　 2002-04-09


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

Re: Request for NMU: sidplay-base

[Will Newton]

On Saturday 06 Apr 2002 7:35 pm, Will Newton wrote:
> Quite simple fixes:
>
> - Fixes build on hppa and quite possibly others.
> - Bump version number to replace older packages correctly. (RC bug)
> - Fix a minor bug in the description.
>
> Packages and diff are here:
>
> http://www.misconception.org.uk/will/debian/

I've had no reply so far. Is anyone willing to NMU this? The fixes are all 
straightforward.


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

Why was libpam-pgsql removed from the woody lineup?

[David D.W. Downey]

Just wondering why libpam-pgsql was removed from the woody lineup. As of
libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3, libpam-pgsql has been built against libpgsql2, not
libpgsql2.1.

Also, CJ Watson erroneously filed a bug against that version simply
because it depended on libpgsql. He erroneously assumed that that meant
it must be dependant on libpgsql2.1


As the following output shows, 0.5.2-3 depends on 2.7.2. Since
libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3 was a fix for the libpgsql2.1 problem, why has this
not been pushed into woody for the current release? There are no RC bugs
against it and there is only a single "Important" bug filed against
it. (#138602: libpam-pgsql: error in manual)

There is also one Normal bug filed against it, for better password
handling with minimal impact on it's overall function.

Could someone please explain to me why 0.5.2-3 will not be available for
the woody release since it was a fix for the 0.5.2-2 version which was
yanked from woody due to it's dependancy on libpgsql2.1 which
libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3 fixes?


(SCREEN OUTPUT)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache showpkg libpam-pgsql
Package: libpam-pgsql
Versions:
0.5.2-3(/var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_unstable_non-US_main_binary-i386_Packages)

Reverse Depends:
  libnss-pgsql1,libpam-pgsql
  Dependencies:
  0.5.2-3 - libc6 (2 2.2.4-4) libmhash2 (0 (null)) libpam0g (2 0.72-1) 
libpgsql2 (2 7.2)
  Provides: 
  0.5.2-3 -
  Reverse Provides:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$

(END SCREEN OUTPUT)


David D.W. Downey
libpam-pgsql Maintainer


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

Re: Scripts in /etc/init.d Question and Comment.

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:35:57PM -0400, JPS wrote:
> There is something that has always bothered me about the scripts in
> `/etc/init.d'. Every once in a while I attempt to execute one of these
> scripts while logged in as a non-root user. For example, I might type
> `/etc/init.d/foobar restart' while having the privileges of user `jps'
> (uid=1000). Normally, as the administrator, I would preface the
> previous text with the `sudo' command. Sometimes I forget, and as a
> result, I get all kinds of bogus garbage printed to my error channel;
> and it takes me a confused moment to figure out what went wrong. Try
> it with your favorite init.d script today! I have a simple suggested
> solution that might help alleviate this awkwardness (without obliging
> me to raise my awareness!). How about prefacing the scripts in
> `/etc/init.d' with something along the lines of:
> 
>   if [ ! $EUID == 0 ]; then
>   echo "Sorry, this script must run with root privileges."
>   if
> 
> I am not sure why the script writers do not include something like
> this in all of the init.d scripts. Unless I am overlooking something
> obvious, maybe we can include this type of thing in debian policy?

I don't think this is the right thing, because almost all init scripts
can be run by a non-root user in the Hurd. Also the check isn't good
enough for SE Linux. Maybe you could do chmod o-x for the all the init
scripts or other things, but IMHO those things should not go into
Debian.

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]


pgpwKlWGRNBLA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>   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?

Well, if you insist ;-)

Actually, on more reflection, (asside from whether or not the GNU Free
Documentation License is "Free") the whole purpose of the common license
area was to reduce the file space consumed by multiple copies of the same
license. Thus if two packages use the license it is cost effective to
place a copy into the common area.

With respect to the "freeness" of this license. It would be a real shame
for Debian to declare this a non-free license, as much of the GNU
documentation currently making the move to this license would have to go
into non-free...

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: GNU FDL

[David Starner]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Documentation isn't software.  Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.  

When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
that one definition of software is "programs plus documentation though
this does not correspond with common usage." In any sense interesting to
me (and hopefully Debian), icons and the other miscellany that make up a
working program are part of that program, and need to be modifiable with
it.

> In the
> meantime, we hold to the spirit, not the letter, of the DFSG, and
> acknowledge that things are not quite as clear as they should be for
> now.

How can you claim that the DFSG, in spirit or letter, encourages
non-modifiable material of any sort? Even patch clauses are labeled
a compromise by the DFSG.

-- 
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: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)

[David Starner]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Revisionist history, for one.  I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
> GCC, for example.

How does the GFDL stop that? I can add a section to the GCC
documentation claiming that I wrote GCC (and emacs, too) and there's
nothing in the license that stops me. The GFDL does stop me from
changing the texinfo file without noting my changes (i.e. I can't put
words in people's mouths); not that people prone to do such things
really care about licenses . . .
 
> Or are we just interested in having control in how the
> system works?

What non-technical material appears when a document comes up is
certainly part of how the system works. You can't change a manual with
invariant sections into a manpage or a helpscreen without carrying all
the invariant sections along; clumsy in the first case and possibly
impossible in the second. I use Linux in part to get away from every
decent cheap program in Windows having ads; if Caldera funds some new
manpages, and every manpage new starts with

"Caldera - the system of the future. Upgrade your system to Caldera and
it will be 35% faster than your older distribution. More packages than
blah blah blah ..."

then that's a serious annoyance, that I'm going to want to remove or at
least move. If the license doesn't let me, then then I don't really have
control of how my system works.
 
-- 
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: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >   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.
> 
> As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
> 
> Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
> 
> In a nutshell:
> 
> 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if
> there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections.  Note that your
> license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover
> Texts and Invariant Sections.
> 
> 2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially
> DFSG-free when none of the "license options" are exercised.

So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
that can be used, and will be considered non-free.

I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
inforced by the author...

The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Selective
editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist.

If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the -legal mailing
list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such nonsense.

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

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> > from taking such a misguided course of action.  I think the FSF is making
> > a big mistake with the GFDL.
> 
> I'm curious about your reasoning.  Have you posted it already?  If not,
> maybe it would be good to hear once woody is out.

Jeff, you might want to read:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00071.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00073.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00079.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00081.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00082.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00099.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00112.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00137.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00195.html

People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
subscribe to -legal.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   | Music is the brandy of the damned.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpea6PUN8qBu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> > Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
> > software, for the purposes of the DFSG.
[...]
> In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
> some things packaged for Debian might not be software.  His problem
> seemed to be with corner cases, and wanting a good definition of
> "software".

I feel you are misrepresenting my position.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html

"The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But
Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software,
Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination
But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have."

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  "I came, I saw, she conquered."
Debian GNU/Linux   |  The original Latin seems to have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  been garbled.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Robert Heinlein


pgpjr49WCG9hF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[광고] debian-devel님 가구구경 해보세요.

[새거닷컴]

Title: Untitled Document





 
  

  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  

  
  저희 새거닷컴의 홍보 메일을 다시 수신하지 않으시길 바라신다면 수신거부를 
  클릭해 주세요.

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

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free
> license, then we will need to redefine "free" or watch our project
> splinter into uselessness.

The GNU FDL is a license, period.  It can applied in a manner consistent
with the DFSG.  It can also be applied in ways inconsistent with the
DFSG.

Please see:




Discussion of software vs. documentation, the precise meaning of DFSG 3,
and the GNU FDL in particular dominated the traffic on debian-legal for
two solid months.

The reason that there is no consensus was pretty nicely summed up by
Mark Rafn:



He said:

Just so I can follow the teams, is there anyone who doesn't feel
their position falls more-or-less into one of the following?

1) Documents aren't software, so it's ok to include non-free
documents in Debian.

2) Documents with some amount of invariant non-license text can
still be considered free.

3) Documents with non-license invariant text are non-free, and
don't belong in Debian.

4) Generally, we shouldn't include documents with invariant text
because they're not free, but we should make occasional
exceptions.

BTW, I have no clue how to resolve such a basic policy dispute.
I have a personal opinion, but I really expect that there won't
be many people moving between the above camps.

The present discussion should really be taking place on debian-legal.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux   |  police, Daddy?"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  emacs."


pgp3N88KAy4H4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#140349: ITP: cvs-conf -- Manage your configuration files via CVS

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* martin f krafft 

| > See #10448 and #15516 (and my comments to them).
| 
| we're talking about the PreservePermissions configuration option,
| which is something different. i should have been more clear.

Uhm, that is actually just not enabled.  I might enable it post-woody.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.


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

Re: New Packages (i18n version of APT)

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Michael Piefel wrote:

> clear to someone who takes the easy path like me. It would also help if
> I could see your current source; the CVS archive on cvs.debian.org does
> not seem to be current.

It is current.

Jason


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

Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0

[Bao C. Ha]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:

Hi Donald,

> 
> Let me see if I understand this.  I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and
> this morning I discovered that it dies with:
> 
>   VMware Workstation PANIC:
>   AIO:  NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081
> 
> This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was
> running fine last week.  Is this the same issue, and does that
> leave me in the "sorry" category?

It is the same issue.

You will need to get the latest patch from Petr,

ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-any-update14.tar.gz

It fixes the problem.

Regards.
Bao

-- 
Bao C. Havoice: (310) 922-0137
8D66 6672 7A9B 6879 85CD  42E0 9F6C 7908 ED95 6B38
Primary Perpetrator of "Slackware Linux Unleashed"


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

Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0

[Stephen Stafford]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Phillips) writes:
> > Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > 
> > > As SUSv2 mandates that new nice return value is correct,
> > > please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or @GLIBC_2.2.6 as it is in CVS
> > > only) for new nice() interface, so old applications will not
> > > break.
> > 
> > Let's replace movl %eax,%ebx with xorl %ebx,%ebx ;-) Apply
> > ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-1455-update12.tar.gz.
> > It fixes issue for VMware 3.0 and for some 3.1 betas. If you
> > are using VMware 2.0 and you suffer from this problem - sorry. 
> > 
> > It also fixes crash when you start vmnet-bridge with eth0
> > interface loaded, but down, and you'll not 'up' interface
> > before eth0 interface disappears (by rmmod -a, for example) by
> > fixing problem and not symptoms (like previous fix did).
> 
> Let me see if I understand this.  I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and
> this morning I discovered that it dies with:
> 
>   VMware Workstation PANIC:
>   AIO:  NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081
> 
> This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was
> running fine last week.  Is this the same issue, and does that
> leave me in the "sorry" category?
> 
> (I would like to believe not, since my VMWare sessions are
> suspended, and to upgrade them to 3.x I would need to have them
> running in 2.0 to turn them off properly).
> 

I think it does leave you in the "sorry" category, yes.  I had a similar
problem (running 2.0.x) and have had to downgrade libc6 packages to work
around it.  When I have time I will build a chroot for vmware to run in and
do it that way.  Unfortunately right now I just don't have the cash to
upgrade.

Cheers,

Stephen


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

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

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 08:34:45AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 03:17:02PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > Yes, of course. It only says a newer version is in sid, and that it will
> > be considered tomorrow.
> 
> It also says:
> 
> Depends: galeon mozilla
> 
> galeon 1.2.0-2 depends on mozilla-browser (>= 2:0.9.9), which isn't in
> testing because:
> 
> mozilla (2:0.9.8-2 to 2:0.9.9-4)
> Maintainer: Takuo KITAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3 days old (needed 2 days)
> out of date on hppa: libnspr-dev, libnspr4, libnss-dev, libnss3, mozilla, 
> mozilla-browser, mozilla-chatzilla, mozilla-dev, mozilla-dom-inspector, 
> mozilla-js-debugger, mozilla-mailnews, mozilla-psm, mozilla-xmlterm (from 
> 2:0.9.9-3)
> out of date on m68k: libnspr-dev, libnspr4, libnss-dev, libnss3, mozilla, 
> mozilla-browser, mozilla-chatzilla, mozilla-dev, mozilla-dom-inspector, 
> mozilla-js-debugger, mozilla-mailnews, mozilla-psm, mozilla-xmlterm (from 
> 2:0.9.9-3)
> out of date on sparc: libnspr-dev, libnspr4, libnss-dev, libnss3, 
> mozilla, mozilla-browser, mozilla-chatzilla, mozilla-dev, 
> mozilla-dom-inspector, mozilla-js-debugger, mozilla-mailnews, mozilla-psm, 
> mozilla-xmlterm (from 2:0.9.9-3)
> mozilla (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, m68k, powerpc, s390, sparc) is 
> buggy! (1 > 0)
> Not considered

It is now up to date on m68k, and only waiting on hppa and sparc:

   mozilla |  2:0.9.9-3 |  unstable | hppa, sparc

and of course the RC bugs.

> In other words, it's currently mostly mozilla that's broken, not galeon.
> I guess that if mozilla is fixed then galeon may be able to get in during
> the few days' window aj referred to.

And if not...I can only imagine the bad press.  Personally, I would rather
have mozilla (and galeon) on 6 out of 11 architectures than no mozilla at
all, and would consider it an achievement to have that many, given the
complexity of mozilla.

But it seems to be too late for that kind of thing.

-- 
 - mdz


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

Re: Why was libpam-pgsql removed from the woody lineup?

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:40:04AM -0700, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> Just wondering why libpam-pgsql was removed from the woody lineup.

It has not. Check madison's output on pandora.

> As of libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3, libpam-pgsql has been built against
> libpgsql2, not libpgsql2.1.
> 
> Also, CJ Watson erroneously filed a bug against that version simply
> because it depended on libpgsql. He erroneously assumed that that
> meant it must be dependant on libpgsql2.1

No, when I filed those bugs I did check the version of libpgsql2.1
involved and I probably hadn't yet seen your new version (I checked the
archive, although not incoming).

(Actually, I don't remember filing any bug against libpam-pgsql. But if
you say so I suppose it must be true, I go through quite a lot of bugs.)

> As the following output shows, 0.5.2-3 depends on 2.7.2. Since
> libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3 was a fix for the libpgsql2.1 problem, why has this
> not been pushed into woody for the current release? There are no RC bugs
> against it and there is only a single "Important" bug filed against
> it. (#138602: libpam-pgsql: error in manual)

See the thread about postgresql. None of the new versions of
libpgsql-dependent packages can go into woody until all (or almost all)
of them are fixed.

Check update_output.txt. It has much more information about this kind of
thing than update_excuses.html.

> Could someone please explain to me why 0.5.2-3 will not be available for
> the woody release since it was a fix for the 0.5.2-2 version which was
> yanked from woody

I don't know what you're reading, but it's not the same thing as me ...

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0

[Harald Dunkel]

May you should consider VMware's current beta of 3.1?
Good luck
Harri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0

[Alan Shutko]

Donald J Bindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   VMware Workstation PANIC:
>   AIO:  NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081

> This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was
> running fine last week.  Is this the same issue, and does that
> leave me in the "sorry" category?

Yes, you're screwed.  If you have useful info in those saved sessions,
downgrade libc and unsuspend... or just remove the std file and
fsck/scandisk/whatever when/if you upgrade to 3.x.

-- 
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
If wishes were horses, then beggars would be thieves.


-- 
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

[Thomas Hood]

Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they
> contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered
> non-free.

Your objection is true of the OPL, but RMS argues
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00017.html
that that is not true of the GFDL because "The GFDL
says that invariant sections must cover only topics of how
the work relates to the authors or publishers."

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF
> some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this
> language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as
> none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author...

These cases are not the same.  A license with unexercised
options is very different from a license with proprietary
clauses (which don't happen to be enforced).

Again, though: Even if the GFDL options are exercised the result
is not a non-free license, but a license reasonably similar to
other free licenses already endorsed Debian.

Although the GFDL differs from the GPL in the way it imposes
liberty-enhancing restrictions, the restrictions seem to me
to be neither excessive nor unclear nor especially vulnerable
to misuse.

> If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the
> -legal mailing list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such
> nonsense.

Let this be a recommendation to others to read the debate
that already took place on debian-devel.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg6.html

--
Thomas Hood





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

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

[Craig Dickson]

begin  Dale Scheetz  quotation:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> > As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
> > 
> > Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
> > 
> > In a nutshell:
> > 
> > 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if
> > there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections.  Note that your
> > license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover
> > Texts and Invariant Sections.
> > 
> > 2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially
> > DFSG-free when none of the "license options" are exercised.
> 
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
> that can be used, and will be considered non-free.

No. Specific optional aspects of the licenses, which are required by the
licenses themselves to be declared in the license notice contained in
the covered document, are non-free. The licenses can be used to make
documents DFSG-free, and I believe DFSG/OPL documents are essentially
DFSG-free by default, since the conflicts arise only when these options
are explicitly invoked by the copyright holder in the license notice.

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...

Let's try this again, as you seem to have misunderstood what Branden
wrote.

If a document is covered by GFDL and contains no Cover Texts or
Invariant Sections, then that document is, according to Branden,
uncontroversially DFSG-free. (I say "according to Branden" because I
don't read debian-legal either, nor have I taken the time to check the
archives.)

If a document is covered by OPL, and the license notice does not declare
any non-DFSG-free options, then that document is, according to Branden,
uncontroversially DFSG-free.

This has nothing to do with "enforcing" license terms after the fact, so
your claim that "any proprietary license becomes free ... [if] not
[e]nforced by the author" is a complete non sequitur. It has, instead,
to do with how the license is applied to the document in the first
place. If a GFDL document has Cover Texts or Invariant Sections, those
sections must be explicitly identified by the copyright holder in the
document's license notice (I believe this is a requirement of the GFDL
itself). If no such sections are identified, then the document is fully
modifiable, and therefore DFSG-free.

Why you find this hard to understand is a bit of a mystery to me.

Craig


pgpI1NENdpLGL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
> that can be used, and will be considered non-free.

It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses.

The simple fact is, a work licensed under version 1.1 of the GNU FDL
with no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections is clearly and plainly
DFSG-free.

A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
"Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.

You can call the GNU FDL "free" or "non-free" due to either or both of
the above.  Which you decide is far less important to Debian than how
the GNU FDL is actually applied to works in real life.

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...

I find it ... surprising that you're unfamiliar with the issues
surrounding the Artistic License and its "reasonable" copying fee.

Actually, since you usually opine on issues before educating yourself on
them, I'm not surprised.  :)

> The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't.

Under that logic, the GNU GPL is non-free because it is not a modifiable
document.

Debian, however, takes a pragmatic approach to license documents; we
care about licenses only insofar as they apply to actual software that
we package.  We also care about licenses as they are enforced by the
copyright holder, not about how they could have been exercised by the
copyright holder.

That said, Debian does occasionally serve to act in an advisory capacity
to people seeking to adopt license terms that express their desires
clearly.

> Selective editing creates a new license that may or may not actually
> exist.

*shrug*  Then your beef is with the people who author such licenses.
The GNU FDL and OPL both have optional parts that the copyright holder
can elect not to exercise.

For that matter, the GNU GPL does too.  You can always add a rider to
the license, for instance by permitting your work to link against an old
version of the Qt library.

> If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the -legal mailing
> list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such nonsense.

If this is the kind of "logic" you're going to try to bring to -legal,
perhaps the list is better off without your participation.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux   |above, but it is too long to fit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpazrOtgynxb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)

[Ola Lundqvist]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a 
> >DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
> 
> I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
> modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
> referred to.   Flame away.
> 
> http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html

Well written. Thanks.

One issue though:
The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. 
  --^^^

Shouldn't it say must?

Regards,

// Ola


> -- 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
>  
>  This port may thing it's fortified, butt I seem to be mounting a
>  pretty good assault
> -- #sodfest97
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
 - Ola Lundqvist ---
/  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11   \
|  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 584 36 LINKÖPING |
|  +46 (0)13-17 69 83  +46 (0)70-332 1551   |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36  4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
 ---


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

Re: GNU FDL

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:51, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Documentation isn't software.  Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.  
> 
> When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
> that one definition of software is "programs plus documentation though
> this does not correspond with common usage." In any sense interesting to
> me (and hopefully Debian), icons and the other miscellany that make up a
> working program are part of that program, and need to be modifiable with
> it.

So is the Bible "software"?  We ship it in a package, after all.

What about this email?  It's being processed by software (your mailer);
does that make it software?  What if it's HTML email and contains
JavaScript?  Is it software then?  Does it become software because it
was sent by debconf, meaning that the mail's content is embedded in a
package?

Is a config file "software" if it's executable?  If it's a conffile?  If
it's a file created and maintained by a postinst?  If it's a file
created by base-config?

Is an icon software if removing it breaks the program?  What if removing
it doesn't break the program?

As foldoc itself says, "this does not correspond with common usage". 
Part of the reason, I think, is that the foldoc definition isn't really
a definition; it's a statement of best practices trying to pretend it's
a definition.  As a statement of best practices, it's very good, but as
a definition, it sucks.

> > In the
> > meantime, we hold to the spirit, not the letter, of the DFSG, and
> > acknowledge that things are not quite as clear as they should be for
> > now.
> 
> How can you claim that the DFSG, in spirit or letter, encourages
> non-modifiable material of any sort? Even patch clauses are labeled
> a compromise by the DFSG.

Copyright notices and attribution are allowed to be non-modifiable; by
implication, so are software licenses.  

We have history dating back to 1994 (predating the DFSG itself), if
others' posts can be believed, that contain non-modifiable
documentation, and this was not considered a violation of the DFSG
then.  (Most likely, it just wasn't considered at all.)

Finally, we have a statement from a primary author of the DFSG that
states that the GFDL does not violate the spirit of the DFSG.

That strikes me as a decent amount of evidence that the limitations on
software stated by the DFSG weren't intended to cover non-software
things.


-- 
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

[Alan Shutko]

Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...
>
> The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Selective
> editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist.

No, that's not the case.  Any options are chosen by the author at the
time of licensing the work.  It's not a matter of enforcement, it's a
matter of choosing what variant of the license to use on a specific
piece of documentation.

This may mean that piece of documentation using the FDL with certain
options may not be free, and that a piece of documentation using the
FDL with different options may be free.  Think of the FDL as a
meta-license, and specific instances as used in packages as the real
license.

-- 
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
Art is the tree of life.  Science is the tree of death.


-- 
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)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Jeff, you might want to read:

Noted.

> People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
> subscribe to -legal.

And I have (though only recently).


-- 
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)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
> > some things packaged for Debian might not be software.  His problem
> > seemed to be with corner cases, and wanting a good definition of
> > "software".
> 
> I feel you are misrepresenting my position.

My apologies.


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