Popular software for download. License. Adobe, Microsoft, MacroMedia. For PC and Macintosh

[EpitomEs]

www.c1g8f1wig5cbvfc.knpivotec.com


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

Popular software for download. License. Adobe, Microsoft, MacroMedia. For PC and Macintosh

[Encharging]

www.1q5fmq37nu102m1.mhdla.com


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

Re: lintian & linda (was: Automatic testing of Debian packages)

[Stephen Birch]

Josselin Mouette([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-04-12 09:20:
> Why? When you don't know Perl, and you feel like improving a software in
> Perl is like eating oysters with skiing gloves,

LOL

> rewriting the software in Python so that you can work on it seems
> like the best solution.

An even better solution is to rewrite it in ruby so it doesn't have to
converted from python to ruby at a later date :-)

S.


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

Re: Bug#302309: ITP: bcron -- Bruce's cron system

[Gerrit Pape]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:50:16PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 10-Apr-05, 10:55 (CDT), Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > what about the "@reboot" extension? I think that's a really neat feature.
> >
> > /etc/rdS.d
> >
> > I know, that's not accessible to users, only the admin. OTOH, I can't
> > think of any really good reason that user needs to do something
> > *automatically* on reboot.

> automatically starting a screen session at startup?

While I think that user specific services are useful, I don't think cron
is the right place for that.  The init system should support user-owned
services and an interface for the user to manage them.  I personally use
the runit programs for that, see also

 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/10/msg01449.html

Regards, Gerrit.


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

Re: Bug#304401: ITP: libstatgrab -- library providing interface to system statistics

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:54:54PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
> Webpage: http://www.i-scream.org/libstatgrab/
> not www.example.org :-)

Blah overlooked it ;) 

> It would be great, if you package pystatgrab
> (http://www.i-scream.org/pystatgrab/) as well.

I'm packaging libstatgrab only because pystatgrab needs it ;)

regards
fEnIo

-- 
  ,''`.  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo
 : :' :   32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland
 `. `'   phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user
   `-  http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#304570: ITP: codeblocks -- Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built

[Hilko Bengen]

Francois-Denis Gonthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built specifically to meet the most
> demanding needs of its users. It has been designed, right from the
> start, to be extensible and configurable... Code::Blocks is built
> around a plugin framework that allows it to be extended through the
> use of external libraries (plugins). Actually, much of Code::Blocks
> functionality already available, is provided by plugins. 
> Code::Blocks even includes a plugin creation wizard to help you
> create your own plugins easily!

Geez, you have just descibed Emacs. Or have you? ;-)

Please try to tell the user what the program does and perhaps at what
kinds of users it is targeted. An "everything is possible" approach
will not lead the user to decide whether or not he should give the
tool a try.

Cheers,
-Hilko


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

Re: Bug#304570: ITP: codeblocks -- Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built

[Kevin B. McCarty]

Francois-Denis Gonthier wrote:

> * Package name: codeblocks
>   Version : x.y.z
  ^
>   Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  ^^^
> * URL : http://www.example.org/
  ^^^
> * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
  ^

I think you forgot some stuff.

>   Description : Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built.
> 
> Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built specifically to meet the most
> demanding needs of its users. It has been designed, right from the
> start, to be extensible and configurable... Code::Blocks is built around
> a plugin framework that allows it to be extended through the use of
> external libraries (plugins). Actually, much of Code::Blocks
> functionality already available, is provided by plugins. Code::Blocks
> even includes a plugin creation wizard to help you create your own
> plugins easily!

It would be very helpful to know what sort of interface this IDE has --
GTK, Qt, ncurses, ...?  Also what sort of capabilities it has (built-in
debugger?  skeleton code generation?  integration with autotools?  etc.)
 I'm afraid the above isn't nearly enough information to decide if it
would be a useful tool for me.

regards,

-- 
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University
GPG public key ID: 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544


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

Bug#304652: ITP: libobby -- Network text editing library

[Philipp Kern]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philipp Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: libobby
  Version : 0.1.0 (currently 0.0.20050410)
  Upstream Author : 0x539 dev group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://darcs.0x539.de/libobby/
* License : GPL
  Description : Network text editing library

libobby is a library which provides synced document buffers. It supports
multiple documents in one session. Thus it serves as the basis of a free
collaborative editor. It is portable to both Windows and Unix-like
platforms.

An own website for this project is not yet available. The repository is
browsable on .

This library depends on net6, for which an ITP is filed as #303811, and
is a direct dependency of gobby, a package which will be submitted as
another ITP bugreport within the next few weeks.


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

Bug#304654: ITP: emilda-print -- Client-side print application for Emilda

[Mattias Nordstrom]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mattias Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: emilda-print
  Version : 0.0.20050414
  Upstream Author : Mattias Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.emilda.org/
* License : GPL
  Description : Client-side print application for Emilda

  emilda-print is a standalone client-side application that handles the
  EPD data Emilda sends for label and receipt printouts.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)


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

Re: Temporal Release Strategy

[Otavio Salvador]

> "wesley" == Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

wesley> On Wednesday 13 April 2005 08:12, Patrick A. Ouellette
wesley> wrote:
>> PROPOSAL FOR DISCUSSION:
>> 
>> I suggest we can eliminate the traditional concept of a
>> "release" with the addition of another step in the progression
>> from unstable to stable.  Additionally, all promotion of
>> packages from one step to the next will be automated according
>> to strict rules.
>> 
>> The progression I see is:
>> 
>> unstable -> testing -> candidate -> stable

wesley> I like the spirit of this idea, although I'm sure the
wesley> details need a lot of working over. (This could, but
wesley> wouldn't need to *replace* releases--it could simply
wesley> augment the release creation process.)

wesley> I'm interested to hear other's ideas on why this is/is not
wesley> a good idea, and what technical/logistical hurdles would
wesley> prevent this from being done.

Maybe a better approuch could be a more restrict testing rules and
then remove the need of one temporary distribution (candidate, in
this case).

I think if we have a testing more close then now we can have it in
releasable state faster and then allow releases more frequently
but I can be wrong.

-- 
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
-
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."


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

Provide a DocBook/XML version

[W. Borgert]

Package: vera
Version: 1.12-1

Please provide a dbk version of vera, as this can be used
by document authors (automatic inclusion of used glossary
entries is supported by docbook-xsl!).  [Note: Maybe it's
easier to use dbk as source format and generate info than
the other way around.]

Btw.: You should ask upstream, whether he likes to change
the GFDL of vera into GPL (or to dual license it).

Example for DocBook glossary from
http://www.faqs.org/docs/docbook/html/glossary.html:

http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.1.2/docbookx.dtd";>
Example Glossary

This is not a real glossary, it's just an example.




E

Extensible Markup Language
  XML

  Some reasonable definition here.
  SGML







S

SGML



Standard Generalized
  Markup LanguageSGML
  ISO 8879:1986

  Some reasonable definition here.
  XML







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

All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Adrian Bunk]

The following might sound absurd, but it seems to follow directly from 
Debian's current interpretation of the DFSG:

  All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free.


Proof:

You are only allowed to distribute verbatim copies of the GPL license 
text.

In Debian, documents are considered software and are therefore subject 
to the DFSG.

Debian does not plan any exceptions from the DFSG for RFCs, license 
texts or any other documentation.

Debian will therefore have to move all GPL license texts to non-free.

Section 1 of the GPL requires Debian to give every recipient of a GPL'ed 
work a copy of the GPL.

Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.

Q.E.D.


Is this a correct interpretation of what will happen after the release 
of sarge or is there any mistake in my proof?


cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


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

Bug#304709: ITP: libafs-perl -- Perl interface to the AFS distributed filesystem

[Russ Allbery]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: libafs-perl
  Version : 2.2.3
  Upstream Author : Norbert Gruener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/kwiki/nog/afsperl/
* License : GPL or Artistic (Artistic in practice, see below)
  Description : Perl interface to the AFS distributed filesystem

AFS is a distributed filesystem allowing cross-platform sharing of
files among multiple computers.  Facilities are provided for access
control, authentication, backup and administrative management.

This package provides Perl bindings to the AFS APIs, including support
for doing in Perl nearly all of the operations possible with the AFS
client programs.

Note that the licensing on this package is a bit subtle, although it
shouldn't be a serious problem.  The module is licensed under the
standard Perl terms of the user's choice of GPL or Artistic, but
OpenAFS is licensed under the IBM Public License, which is DFSG-free
but incompatible with the GPL.  Therefore, the Artistic license is the
license one has to consider when looking at the combined work.

Also, the upstream source includes a copyright notice and license from
Stanford University for the original version of the module.  This is our
old license agreement, which is not clearly DFSG-free (it doesn't clearly
grant the right to distribute modifications).  However, Stanford
University has since relicensed the original code under the DFSG-free MIT
license that's compatible with most everything.  I've told the upstream
author about this, and this will also be clearly noted in the copyright
file of the package.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)


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

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 14 avril 2005 à 23:47 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> The following might sound absurd, but it seems to follow directly from 
> Debian's current interpretation of the DFSG:
> 
>   All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free.
> 
> 
> Proof:
> 
> You are only allowed to distribute verbatim copies of the GPL license 
> text.

Blah, blah, blah.

> Is this a correct interpretation of what will happen after the release 
> of sarge or is there any mistake in my proof?

Please search the list archives for previous occurrences of this dumb
reasoning.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


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

Re: Temporal Release Strategy

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 10:12:31AM -0400, Patrick A. Ouellette wrote:
>...
> The progression I see is:
> 
> unstable -> testing -> candidate -> stable
> 
> The existing rules for promotion from unstable to testing continue to be
> used.
> 
> Promotion from testing to candidate requires meeting the same rules as
> promotion from unstable to testing with the following exceptions:
> packages must be in testing for at least 3 months, and have no release
> critical bugs.
>...

One big problem testing has are transitions. This includes library 
transitions, but also other transitions like e.g. an ocaml transition 
affecting several dozen packages currently waiting to enter testing.

Many transitions require a serious amount of manual coordination since 
all packages have to be ready to go into testing _at the same time_.

Please explain how you think any bigger transition can ever enter your 
"candidate" if you add to the testing criteria a "3 months" criteria all 
affected packages have to fulfill at the same time?

> Pat

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


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

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Don Armstrong]

[As this is not a technical discussion by any means, -devel is not the
appropriate mailing list. MFT: set to -legal. -project may also be
appropriate.]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The following might sound absurd, but it seems to follow directly from 
> Debian's current interpretation of the DFSG:
> 
>   All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free.

There has always, and continues to be, an implicit exception for
license texts in their capacity as a license, and *ONLY* in their
capacity as a license.

This particular issue has been dealt with before, in numerous
discussions over this issue.

Since it is rather trivial to distinguish between a random document
and a document that is acting as a copyright statement or a valid
license referenced by a copyright, if necessary, we can propose a GR
to make this explicit.

However, considering the fact that few people would actually argue
against such a thing, I fail to see the point. [In fact, I submit that
you aren't actually arguing against the inclusion of licensing texts
either, but retreading this argument merely to argue against the idea
that documentation requires the same set of freedoms that programs
do.]

{I'm too lazy to dig up the references to this right now, esp. since
people.debian.org/~terpstra is broken, but search -vote around the
time that the SC modification GR was being debated, specifically for
my conversations with Anthony Towns.}


Don Armstrong

-- 
It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what
makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is
smoking.
 -- Andrew Suffield in [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#304714: ITP: xymtex -- LaTeX classes for producing molecular structural formulas

[Kevin B. McCarty]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: xymtex
  Version : 4.02
  Upstream Author : Shinsaku Fujita 
* URL : http://imt.chem.kit.ac.jp/fujita/fujitas3/xymtex/indexe.html
* License : TeX-style (modified files must have names changed)
  Description : LaTeX macros for typesetting molecular structural formulas

 XyMTeX (pronounced "Khym-Tek") is a powerful set of LaTeX classes that can
 be used to produce beautiful structural formulas of organic molecules for
 chemistry-related documents.  Usage is straightforward in simple cases;
 for instance, the XyMTeX directive \cyclohexanev{2B==OH;3A==OH} will
 illustrate a molecule of trans-1,2-cyclohexanediol with one hydroxy group
 coming out of the plane of the page and the other going into it.  In more
 advanced cases, structural formulas may be built up by combining several
 pieces in LaTeX's picture environment.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-powerpc
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

-- 
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University
GPG public key ID: 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544


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

New maintainer for rdesktop

[Tomas Fasth]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello

My name is Tomas Fasth and I'm a Debian Developer. I just recently
made a Non Maintainer Upload of rdesktop version 1.4.0. This was
done with the explicit consent from Sam Johnston, the current
maintainer.

Sam indicated in a letter to me that he had little time, if any, to
maintain the rdesktop package. Since I have personal interest in
this package, and time to maintain it, I made an offer to take over
the maintainership, and he accepted.

If anyone on this list disagree, please respond.

Regards,
- --
Tomas Fasth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG 0x9FE8D504
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCXveYwYdzVZ/o1QQRAisNAKCQhAZAQUrDZbO6uDgG4ZA78pZwQACcCZB1
yeBYHz88o0gBb+eXJy6xF4I=
=EodP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Matthew Garrett]

Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is this a correct interpretation of what will happen after the release 
> of sarge or is there any mistake in my proof?

No. In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached
to a piece of software. But I suspect you know this already.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: Bug#304570: ITP: codeblocks -- Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built

[Brian May]

> "Kevin" == Kevin B McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Kevin> Francois-Denis Gonthier wrote:
>> * Package name : codeblocks Version : x.y.z
Kevin>   ^
>> Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin>   ^^^
>> * URL : http://www.example.org/
Kevin>   ^^^
>> * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Kevin>   ^

Kevin> I think you forgot some stuff.

Don't be silly. I think example.com is the new sourceforge... I think
they have a requirement that you license your software under multiple
DFSG compliant licenses. "somebody" seems very busy writing all this
software.

There seems to be a lot of free software based there. Just look at the
ITPs here.

Unfortunately the website doesn't seem to be working right now.
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[John Hasler]

Matthew Garrett writes:
> In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
> piece of software.

That has nothing to do with creating a derivative of a license for use
elsewhere.
-- 
John Hasler


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

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[sean finney]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.

there's nothing that prevents us from re-distributing modified copies
of the GPL, we just can't do so and claim that they are the GPL.  even
if you did want to nitpick that (why?), such a restriction is acceptable
according to the DFSG.  for example, many authors choose to license
their software under a 'modified GPL' or 'GPL-with-some-exceptions'.


sean

-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Don Armstrong]

[MFT: set to -legal again, since once more, this really has nothing to
do with -devel.]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, John Hasler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
> > In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
> > piece of software.
> 
> That has nothing to do with creating a derivative of a license for
> use elsewhere.

Sure, but then we would be distributing the license as a work in its
own right, which is not (in general) what we are doing.

To amplify this point, any licenses present in Debian that are not
directly referenced by the copyright statement of a work distributed
in Debian should be DFSG Free. [I'd argue additionally that these
random licenses have no business being distributed in Debian at all,
even if they were DFSG Free, but that's a separate matter.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going
If in their place we find a thing more precious growing
A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting
A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing
 -- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ 
 [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_]

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#304728: ITP: webauth -- Cookie-based web authentication using Kerberos

[Russ Allbery]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: webauth
  Version : 3.2.4
  Upstream Author : WebAuth Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://webauthv3.stanford.edu/
* License : MIT/X
  Description : cookie-based web authentication using Kerberos

WebAuth is a cookie-based web authentication system built on top of
Kerberos.  It relies on a central authentication server that handles all
user authentication for a domain and creates user authentication
credentials for any web server that needs strong authentication.

This package differs from mod_auth_kerb in that it will work with any
browser, not just those supporting SPNEGO, without sending the user's
password to each web site to which they wish to authenticate.  It
supports a form of single sign-on in that a user only has to autheticate
once to the central authentication server and then can visit any web
site within that authentication domain without needing to reauthenticate.

This package comes in two sections, an Apache module and supporting library
for all of the servers that want to authenticate users and an Apache module
and supporting scripts for the central authentication server.  It also has
Perl bindings for its library, which are used by the authentication server
user front-end.  As a result, the current plan is to break it out into nine
packages:

  libapache2-webauthApache module for client web servers
  libapache2-webkdc Apache module for central authentication server
  libwebauth3-perl  Perl bindings for the WebAuth libraries
  libwebauth1   Supporting WebAuth shared library
  libwebauth1-dev   Development files for WebAuth shared library
  libwebkdc-perlPerl modules for central authentication server
  webauth-tests Test suite for client web server
  webauth-utils Command-line utils for WebAuth key management
  webauth-weblogin  User front-end to central authentication server

Note that libapache2-webkdc depends on the S/Ident libraries for full
functionality.  An ITP for S/Ident will be filed in a moment.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)


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

Bug#304731: ITP: sident -- ident protocol varient with strong SASL authentication

[Russ Allbery]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: sident
  Version : 3.3
  Upstream Author : Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/sident/
* License : BSD (the CMU varient thereof)
  Description : ident protocol varient with strong SASL authentication

S/Ident is a modified version of the standard ident protocol that adds
SASL-based authentication.  Currently, only Kerberos v4 and Kerberos v5
GSS-API authentication are supported.  The package provides both a
responder daemon that runs on client systems like a regular ident daemon
but finds the user's ticket cache and replies with a SASL authentication
and a library that can be used to do an S/Ident callback using an
appropriate srvtab or keytab.

This package provides both a client daemon and a server library with
Perl bindings, so the plan is to generate four binary packages:

  sidentd   Client responder daemon (run from inetd)
  libsident0Shared library for server queries
  libsident0-devDevelopment files for the server query library
  libnet-sident-perlPerl bindings for the shared library

libsident0 is a prerequisite for the webauth package (ITP #304728) to
support S/Ident callbacks, an optional feature of the package that's
configurable at runtime.  This package has been in widespread use at
Stanford since 1996 and is generally usable by any Kerberos site, although
I expect it would mostly be used in combination with WebAuth.  I'm also
the current upstream maintainer, although not the original author.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)


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

libsilc package policy violations (bug #273871)

[Robert McQueen]

Tamas SZERB wrote:
> once upon a time, I closed this bug. then the submitter reopened it,
> so currently I don't give it a f*ck. Our opinion are different, so if
> you feel any ambition to get the both sides together, feel free to
> volunteer. :)

This package's violation of Debian policy on the packaging of shared
library packages is a fact, not an opinion. You have given no sound
reasons why this package is not correctly versioned, or given any
indication that you understand the issues at hand, such as how it is
expected to retain compatibility with existing packages when the API or
ABI undergoes changes (indeed, as it has just done upstream).

In your favour, you have correctly not closed this bug because it is not
fixed. Unfortunately this release critical bug is preventing the
propogation of any SILC-based software into testing, and hence Debian's
iminent sarge release. This is not a good situation for our users, and I
would like to be able to enable Gaim's SILC plugin. Hence I suggest one
of the following courses of action:

a) you correct the package issues yourself in the ways we have outlined
in the bug; or

b) you admit to not understanding the issues involved in packaging a
shared library, and orphan or put this package up for adoption forthwith; or

c) you do nothing (or close this bug without fixing it, whereupon I will
reopen it) and I refer a this bug to the technical committee for them to
ruminate upon over the course of several months, essentially
guaranteeing that no SILC-based software will be released with sarge

I'm sorry to issue an ultimatum like this, but you have clearly
indicated you are not willing to fix the package - indeed, far worse,
you have stated that you don't care that it's broken - and everyone I
have sought advice from on this issue agrees that you are in the wrong here.

Regards,
Rob



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

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Glenn Maynard]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:08:18PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.
> 
> there's nothing that prevents us from re-distributing modified copies
> of the GPL, we just can't do so and claim that they are the GPL.  even
> if you did want to nitpick that (why?), such a restriction is acceptable
> according to the DFSG.  for example, many authors choose to license
> their software under a 'modified GPL' or 'GPL-with-some-exceptions'.

Er, no.  The GPL can only be modified if the preamble is removed, which
means the preamble is an invariant section.  The *only* reason the
text of the GPL is allowed in main is because including license texts
is a fundamental, unavoidable requirement of distributing software at
all, unless one limits oneself to public domain works.

Adrian, you're deliberately wasting the project's time with a very old,
eternity-since-debunked "argument".  That's known as "trolling".  Unless
you have something of value to say, go away.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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