Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Nathanael Nerode]

> On Feb 09, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header 
> > files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers 
> > are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this 
> > relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an 
> > appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be 
> > there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very 
> > surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Did you ask FSF what they think about this situation?

I raised this issue with the FSF *wy* back when (1998?  2000?), in regards 
to the libstdc++ header documentation (which is doxygenated).  If I remember 
correctly, they said that *yes*, this was a problem, though not a major one, 
and that they would introduce a special license exception dual-licensing the 
Doxygen comments.

To date, this has not been done, and it is still technically illegal to 
generate that portion of the libstdc++ manual unless you're the FSF.

Blech.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Theocracy, fascism, or absolute monarchy -- I don't care which it is, I don't 
like it.


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Jérôme Marant]

Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > > tought about this.
> >
> > The only people it made happy are extremists.  See #207932.
>
> Yes, thanks, that's a great example of how there are people on both sides of
> this issue that are capable of acting like children.
>
> Pass on giving it a second reading, it was nauseating enough to see it come
> through my mailbox the first time.

I'm glad you enjoyed.  It was a great fun.  But, you know, since I'm not
subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way.  There was a choice between
simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as
beer!!!)

Ain't life grand?!!

--
Jérôme Marant


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

Re: How to create Debian Live CD

[Rudi Effe]

Am Mittwoch 08 Februar 2006 09:51 schrieb Chandan M. C.:
> I have installed on my system..
> But I didnt get excat procedure to build a live cd with my own root
> file system ( may the host root file system) ...

hi, 
try livebackup

regards
rudi


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Nathanael Nerode]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> previous wording (not everything is software)
> 
> Uh ?

Wouldn't help, as I noted elsewhere.  "Debian is 100% free software" doesn't 
actually leave any room for non-software in Debian.  The previous 
"interpretation" was something which it simply can't mean in English.

What you want is a GR which changes it to what you want it to say, such as 
"The computer programs in Debian will remain 100% free software".

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE propose such a GR. Then we'd get a real 
count of how many people believe that the DFSG should apply only to programs 
and how many think they should apply to everything in Debian.  We haven't had 
such a count yet because the "DFSG should apply only to programs" people have 
not been willing or able to actually propose a GR which says what they 
*mean*.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Theocracy, fascism, or absolute monarchy -- I don't care which it is, I don't 
like it.


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Jérôme Marant]

Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> > counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> > convinced they have been deceived.
>
> > Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which makes
> > them often win.
>
> Referring to 20% of your fellow developers[1] as a "very loud [extremist]
> minority" is absurd, particularly when only 5% of the remaining "majority"
> could be bothered to vote against.  You may not agree with the decision that
> was taken, but insulting your peers for their views on the question just

Not all pros in this GR are what I call extremists.  I suspect some of them
did not expect the consequences of modifying the SC that way.  After all,
weren't they editorial changes?

Whether or not you don't like the silly game I played with them (yes, I lost
my time playing this stupid indulging game) in the bug report it pointed you
too, doesn't make the bug report less silly w.r.t. DFSG interpretation.
I stand that this interpretation come from fundamentalists.

> makes you look like an ass.  If you really think this vote was stolen from
> the majority, put your money where your mouth is -- find five other

Where the hell did I say it was stolen from the majority?
I just said you cannot draw conclusions about the consent of 1000
developers, out of a 3:1 majority among 200 developers. Period.

I'm not happy with the results, but I've never questions the validity
of the vote.

> developers who agree with you and put up a GR to overturn the Social
> Contract changes.  Encourage your fellow developers to vote -- *regardless*
> of which way they're going to vote -- so we can finally put this question to
> rest.
>
> BTW, votes in Debian *are* public, you know; and
>  clearly shows you
> voted in favor of modifying the Social Contract.  Could you make up your
> mind which vocal minority you intend to be a part of, please?

I thought it was editorial changes, but it looks it was not.

I thought there were some bits of common sense with interpreting DFSG,
so modifying the SC was OK. But it seems _some_ people wants that
"every byte in main shall be covered by a free software license, whatsoever".
I think it is insane, so modifying the SC was not a good idea after all.

> > Dictorship of Minorities shall be opposed.
>
> So shall Running of the Mouth on mailing lists.

Sorry, I don't get it.

--
Jérôme Marant


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

Re: Bug#352073: ITP: gerwin -- CASE tool for edit data model

[Robert Lemmen]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:06:25AM -0200, Fernando Ike de Oliveira wrote:
> * Package name: gerwin

please note that gerwin has been renamed to ferret to avoid legal
problems (erwin trademark).

cu  robert

-- 
Robert Lemmen   http://www.semistable.com 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:31:55AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> > > counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> > > convinced they have been deceived.

> > Referring to 20% of your fellow developers[1] as a "very loud [extremist]
> > minority" is absurd, particularly when only 5% of the remaining "majority"
> > could be bothered to vote against.  You may not agree with the decision that
> > was taken, but insulting your peers for their views on the question just

> Not all pros in this GR are what I call extremists.  I suspect some of them
> did not expect the consequences of modifying the SC that way.  After all,
> weren't they editorial changes?

Ah.  I didn't understand earlier that you meant you felt deceived by the GR
as someone who voted in favor of it.  This is rather surprising to me; I
was taken off guard by the immediate consequences of the GR, but I had no
doubt as to its intended meaning -- i.e., that all bits in the archive
should be treated under the same rules.

> > makes you look like an ass.  If you really think this vote was stolen from
> > the majority, put your money where your mouth is -- find five other

> Where the hell did I say it was stolen from the majority?

Were you being gratuitously crass when you said

 > Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which makes
 > them often win.

in response to 

 >> A 3:1 majority win in 2004-04 makes your claim rather tenuous, unless you
 >> are arguing that such a large part of Debian is composed of extremists,
 >> only.

?  If you meant it sincerely, the only way I can read it is as a statement
that the GR only passed because of a vocal minority.  If this is true, how
does this *not* imply that there is a silent majority that disagrees with
the outcome?

> I just said you cannot draw conclusions about the consent of 1000
> developers, out of a 3:1 majority among 200 developers. Period.

Well, no, by mentioning extremist minorities I think you were doing quite a
bit more than saying we can't draw conclusions; but anyway, your point is
clear now.

> I'm not happy with the results, but I've never questions the validity
> of the vote.

Hmm, fair enough; your comments did seem awfully parallel to those of Marco,
who *does* question the validity of the vote (repeatedly...).

> > BTW, votes in Debian *are* public, you know; and
> >  clearly shows you
> > voted in favor of modifying the Social Contract.  Could you make up your
> > mind which vocal minority you intend to be a part of, please?

> I thought it was editorial changes, but it looks it was not.

> I thought there were some bits of common sense with interpreting DFSG,
> so modifying the SC was OK. But it seems _some_ people wants that
> "every byte in main shall be covered by a free software license, whatsoever".
> I think it is insane, so modifying the SC was not a good idea after all.

Well, as I said, if you don't think this is the correct outcome, it's in
your power to change it.  I think that developers changing their minds about
a particular ballot option *is* a legitimate reason to have a new vote.  I
would rather see a second vote on the same question, than to see developers
feeling that their project has been co-opted by an extremist minority.

I disagree that I'm an extremist and I don't believe that I'm a minority,
but I do respect your right to prove me wrong. :)

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:01AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > > > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > > > tought about this.

> > > The only people it made happy are extremists.  See #207932.

> > Yes, thanks, that's a great example of how there are people on both sides of
> > this issue that are capable of acting like children.

> > Pass on giving it a second reading, it was nauseating enough to see it come
> > through my mailbox the first time.

> I'm glad you enjoyed.  It was a great fun.  But, you know, since I'm not
> subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way.  There was a choice between
> simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as
> beer!!!)

Yeah, um, if you had closed the bug, I would have reopened it immediately.
Unless you persuade the release managers that the GFDL complies with the
DFSG, amend the DFSG so that it *does* comply, or invoke the technical
committee, this is a release-critical issue for etch as listed on
; playing BTS tennis isn't
going to make that go away.   I'm sorry, but whether something is a
release-critical bug is just not your decision to make personally.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Janusz A. Urbanowicz]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> > simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> > complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> > with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to
> > anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.
> 
> I'm in that category too.  Perl has always looked crazy to me.
> Scheme, anyone?

Amen to that, except for the scheme, python in essential is enough for
me, thank you.

a.


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
> 
> This is an old canard.
> 
> It *was* an editorial change: we'd already worked out that it *made no 
> difference*.

There is absolutely no benefit in having this discussion yet again.

Please leave it alone. Whether or not the changes were just editorial 
is just historic now and not something that will ever be agreed on.
Nor is there any particular benefit in trying to agree on it now.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

documentation types

[Hendrik Sattler]

Hi,

I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML and 
provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.

Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev package?
I would prefer PDF:
 * one file only
 * easy to print
 * many viewers available

I would rather not build all three as this is a definite waste of disk space.

Suggestions are welcome...

HS

-- 
Mein GPG-Key ist auf meiner Homepage verfügbar: http://www.hendrik-sattler.de
oder über pgp.net

PingoS - Linux-User helfen Schulen: http://www.pingos.org


pgpmSG4lztnc1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly 
> > fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's 
> > protection, believe it or not.
> 
> Really?  Even if a majority of the developers liked the idea?
> Remember, the 3:1 requirement is there to protect the remaining 25%
> against majorities as high as 74%.

If 51% of developers vote for something that silly, there is not much we
can do to save the project, frankly.  Your attitude that we need hand
holding and protection from ourselves is rather insulting.
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: documentation types

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Freitag, den 10.02.2006, 12:09 +0100 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:

> I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML and 
> provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
> 
> Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev package?

Why don't you move it into -doc packages, which is IMHO more common
practice? You could make a -doc-html, -doc-ps and -doc-pdf, which all
provide -doc and then let the -dev package recommend or suggest the -doc
package. So the user can choose the format he prefers.

Regards, Daniel


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

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Stephen Gran]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
> > that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks
> > too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we
> > can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases;
> > trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.
> 
> I'm in that category too.  Perl has always looked crazy to me.

Your unwillingness or inability to learn something new is no reason to
bloat base unnecessarily.  But we have had this discussion already, and
it was, AFAICR, settled.  Or are you just down to replying randomly to
every email you see?
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: documentation types

[Hendrik Sattler]

Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 12:36 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
> Am Freitag, den 10.02.2006, 12:09 +0100 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
> > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML
> > and provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
> >
> > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev
> > package?
>
> Why don't you move it into -doc packages, which is IMHO more common
> practice? You could make a -doc-html, -doc-ps and -doc-pdf, which all
> provide -doc and then let the -dev package recommend or suggest the -doc
> package. So the user can choose the format he prefers.

For one file?
Another alternative, maybe: include only the .sgml file and
Suggests: docbook-utils

HS


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Roger Leigh]

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
>> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"?  I
>
>> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
>
> Who?  I can't recall any.  Can you provide pointers?

There was a rather heated debate at the time, I recall.

> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
> changes?"

As someone who carefully read and then voted for the changes, I was
rather taken aback by the (unforeseen, by myself and many others)
implications of the changes.  I wouldn't go so far as to call it
"deception", however; the text of the changes was quite clear.  After
considering it carefully, I would still have voted the same way, and
hence I voted to keep the changes in the second vote.

Several folks seem to wish to re-ignite the debate of whether or not
the changes were "editorial" or not.  Whether it was or was not, it's
now over and done with.  This GR is a separate, albeit related, issue.

I'm still not entirely convinced that all documentation needs the same
set of freedoms as programs.  But the intersection of the freedoms we
require of "documentation", and the freedoms we require of "programs"
gives us a very large common set of freedoms, with just one or two
considerations which might be specific to one or the other.  Given the
huge problems of defining what is and is not "documentation" or
"programs", I'm still of the opinion that we should require and uphold
the same set of freedoms of both, which obviously includes the ability
to modify without restrictions on what is modifiable.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.


pgpy63fdHZ39f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

documentation types

[Neil Roeth]

On Feb 10, Hendrik Sattler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML and 
 > provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
 > 
 > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev package?
 > I would prefer PDF:
 >  * one file only
 >  * easy to print
 >  * many viewers available
 > 
 > I would rather not build all three as this is a definite waste of disk space.
 > 
 > Suggestions are welcome...

Could it be a configure option, so that the first time the package is
installed it would ask which subset of the three to install (defaulting to PDF
only), and later, when upgrading the package, it would install the same
subset with no further interaction?

-- 
Neil Roeth


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

GR2004-03 outcome was superceeded by GR2004-04, live with it

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
> >
> > There were exactly 909 developers including active, MIA and inactive ones at
> > the time of the 2004-04 GR, as stated in the vote page.  However only 396
> > developers voted.
> 
> No, you have to look at this. It is the entry point:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003

Why should I care about the outcome of GR 2004-03?   GR 2004-04 completely
superceeded GR 2004-03's outcome.  It had the power to completely overthrow
2004-03's outcome, or to ractify it in different ways.

In face of GR 2004-04 and its outcome (which was not the "default" option),
GR 2004-03 *does* *not* *matter* except as a damn good reminder of the
problems it had, and even that will only matter if we actually learn from
them.

-- 
  "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: documentation types

[Hendrik Sattler]

Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 13:36 schrieb Neil Roeth:
> On Feb 10, Hendrik Sattler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML
>  > and provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
>  >
>  > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev
>  > package? I would prefer PDF:
>  >  * one file only
>  >  * easy to print
>  >  * many viewers available
>  >
>  > I would rather not build all three as this is a definite waste of disk
>  > space.
>  >
>  > Suggestions are welcome...
>
> Could it be a configure option, so that the first time the package is
> installed it would ask which subset of the three to install (defaulting to
> PDF only), and later, when upgrading the package, it would install the same
> subset with no further interaction?

That would surely be possible with debconf but a Depends on docbook-utils and 
all its dependecies would be required.
Would it be acceptable for a package to tell in its README.Debian how to 
create the files? Then, docbook-utils could be a Suggests.

HS


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

Re: bug pages and source packages

[Frank Küster]

Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> * Norbert Preining [Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:57:20 +0100]:
>
>> HI all!
>
> Hi,
>
>> When I go to 
>>  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=info
>> it tells me 
>>  ... to the source package texinfo's bug page ...
>
>> But when I go to
>>  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=texlive-base-bin
>> I don't see te link to the source package.
>
>   Seems like there's a real bug somewhere. This seems to be happening
>   because debbugs' indices have no knowledge of any texlive-* package.
>   CC'ing owner@ to see if they can have a look.

The same is true for www.buildd.net, maybe this helps.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: documentation types

[Ross Burton]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 07:36 -0500, Neil Roeth wrote:
>  > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML 
> and 
>  > provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
>  > 
>  > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev 
> package?
>  > I would prefer PDF:
>  >  * one file only
>  >  * easy to print
>  >  * many viewers available
>  > 
>  > I would rather not build all three as this is a definite waste of disk 
> space.
>  > 
>  > Suggestions are welcome...
> 
> Could it be a configure option, so that the first time the package is
> installed it would ask which subset of the three to install (defaulting to PDF
> only), and later, when upgrading the package, it would install the same
> subset with no further interaction?

Unless each copy of the documentation is 20M, then I'd say install both
HTML and PDF (in a -doc package if they are over say a meg) as anything
else is overcomplicated.  We're just talking about a few megabytes.

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF



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

Re: documentation types

[Roger Leigh]

Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 12:36 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
>> Am Freitag, den 10.02.2006, 12:09 +0100 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
>> > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML
>> > and provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
>> >
>> > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev
>> > package?
>>
>> Why don't you move it into -doc packages, which is IMHO more common
>> practice? You could make a -doc-html, -doc-ps and -doc-pdf, which all
>> provide -doc and then let the -dev package recommend or suggest the -doc
>> package. So the user can choose the format he prefers.
>
> For one file?
> Another alternative, maybe: include only the .sgml file and
> Suggests: docbook-utils

If would be nice if doc-base could handle registration of SGML/XML
documentation, and then generate the docs in the formats of your
choice.

Is the docbook toolchain is yet robust enough to be able to do that?


Regards,
Roger

-- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.


pgp7q1sfJN1no.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: documentation types

[Lars Wirzenius]

pe, 2006-02-10 kello 07:36 -0500, Neil Roeth kirjoitti:
> On Feb 10, Hendrik Sattler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>  > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML 
> and 
>  > provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
>  > 
>  > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev 
> package?
>  > I would prefer PDF:
>  >  * one file only
>  >  * easy to print
>  >  * many viewers available
> 
> Could it be a configure option, so that the first time the package is
> installed it would ask which subset of the three to install (defaulting to PDF
> only), and later, when upgrading the package, it would install the same
> subset with no further interaction?

This has been discussed a long time ago and there is a policy decided.
>From the Policy Manual:

12.4 Preferred documentation formats

The unification of Debian documentation is being carried out via
HTML.

If your package comes with extensive documentation in a markup
format that can be converted to various other formats you should
if possible ship HTML versions in a binary package, in the
directory /usr/share/doc/appropriate-package or its
subdirectories.[76]

Other formats such as PostScript may be provided at the package
maintainer's discretion.

Thus the thing to do is to provide HTML.

It would be nice to be able to ship, say, HTML and SGML, and then have a
quick and easy way to generate other formats (PS/PDF for various paper
sizes, at least) from the SGML, and anyone who creates the tools to do
that will get a lot of goodwill.

-- 
One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. -- O.W.


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

Re: documentation types

[Remi Vanicat]

Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 12:36 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
>> Am Freitag, den 10.02.2006, 12:09 +0100 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
>> > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML
>> > and provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
>> >
>> > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev
>> > package?
>>
>> Why don't you move it into -doc packages, which is IMHO more common
>> practice? You could make a -doc-html, -doc-ps and -doc-pdf, which all
>> provide -doc and then let the -dev package recommend or suggest the -doc
>> package. So the user can choose the format he prefers.
>
> For one file?
> Another alternative, maybe: include only the .sgml file and
> Suggests: docbook-utils

Well, i personally like very much to have all (well a lot of) my
documentation accessible, and searchable by dwww. For this I would want
the html to be already generated, and I'm probably not the only
one. Why not just create a -doc package that contain the tree of them,
or may be only pdf and html (but there will be people to disagree with
me on this).
-- 
Rémi Vanicat


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

Re: documentation types

[Hendrik Sattler]

Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 13:54 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
> This has been discussed a long time ago and there is a policy decided.
>
> >From the Policy Manual:
>
>         12.4 Preferred documentation formats
>        
>         The unification of Debian documentation is being carried out via
>         HTML.
>        
>         If your package comes with extensive documentation in a markup
>         format that can be converted to various other formats you should
>         if possible ship HTML versions in a binary package, in the
>         directory /usr/share/doc/appropriate-package or its
>         subdirectories.[76]
>        
>         Other formats such as PostScript may be provided at the package
>         maintainer's discretion.
>
> Thus the thing to do is to provide HTML.

Thanks, that's what I'll do then.
And I'll also ship the SGML file to make the other crowd (where I am in) 
happy.

HS

Re: Could you help me?

[paddy]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:33:12AM +0700, namth wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I want to build a glibc 2.3.2-95.27 but I don't know what to do Could you 
> tell me to build it?

(resisting the temptation to say "Namth, Build it!")

I'll try ...

http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html, 6.13 and 6.14

essentially, something like

apt-get build dep package
apt-get --build source package

where package is something like glibc_2.3.2-95.27
and assuming that package is in a repo in your /etc/apt/sources.list
and the build deps installable

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Paddy
-- 
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall


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

Re: documentation types

[Gabor Gombas]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:09:40PM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote:

> Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev package?
> I would prefer PDF:
>  * one file only
>  * easy to print
>  * many viewers available
> 
> I would rather not build all three as this is a definite waste of disk space.

Well, if they are big enough that the disk space usage is a concern,
then they should definitely be moved to a separate -doc package.

Otherwise, I'd suggest html, because that's the only useful format for
every-day use ('grep' etc. cannot be used on PS/PDF, or just think about
doing development on a text console).

Gabor

-- 
 -
 MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 -

Re: documentation types

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:09:40PM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML and 
> provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
> 
> Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev package?
> I would prefer PDF:

Please use HTML. Contrary to PS and PDF, HTML files can be usefully
grepped -- and there are many viewers available for HTML, which also
make it easy to print.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > [Christopher Martin]
> >> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
> >> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
> >> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
> >> agree with them.
> >
> > And yet in this very thread we *still* have people whinging about GR
> > 2004-03 being "deceptive".  (Yes, *after* you all had the opportunity
> > in 2004-04 to repeal it, and didn't do so.)  Either astounding or
> > depressing.
> 
> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"?  I
> wonder.  I don't recall anyone saying that.

Jerôme Marant, in this very thread, in a message you replied to (though
he did not do so with the exact phrase above).

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Raul Miller]

On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns  wrote:
> > > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> > > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them.
> > Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue.  It doesn't
> > use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it
> > does use seems more than adequate.
>
> It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
> say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
> interpreted.

That's a strawman argument.

The ballot options are not being ignored.  Manoj is not leaving
them off the ballot.  The 3:1 supermajority issue is only relevant
for options which are not being ignored.

And Manoj is not changing the option.  The option in question
is making a statement about the DFSG.  It says " GNU Free
Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible
 with Debian Free Software Guidelines".  But until the option has been
accepted as a successful GR, the proposal is not something we
as a project have agreed to.

If it passes, then it will be true that this issue isn't a 3:1 supermajority
issue, but if it does not pass then this will not be true.

If it was true for us, without us having to vote on it, the this wouldn't
be an issue

> I think it's a mistake for Manoj to have taken on that role in this case,
> but it's his choice.

And that seems to be the right choice.

I certainly would not want the secretary acting as if controversial
proposals were a true of the project goals before they had been
voted on.

> As far as the outcome's concerned, though, I don't
> think it matters either way -- I think Anton's amendment has received
> more than enough discussion that it ought to be voted above "Further
> Discussion", and I think it's far better for us to decide what we want
> to do based on what we want and what we think, rather than attacking
> each other.

I agree that voting on this issue is the best way to resolve it, and that
attacking each other is not a good way of resolving anything.

--
Raul

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Raul Miller]

On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the
> 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant.

All debian developers are required to understand and apply the
DFSG -- the DFSG is critical to Debian.

You don't need special powers to understand and apply the DFSG.

Package maintainers are supposed to make judgements about the
DFSG in the context of their packages.  The same goes for the
Secretary in the context of preparing the ballot.

> You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the
> Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone
> else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the
> constitutional duty of placing 3:1 supermajorities on amendments, etc.
> That's backwards. Essentially you'd be asserting that any delegate has _any
> power_ he or she deems necessary to fulfill his or her view of their own
> constitutional duties, unless explicitly forbidden, item by item, by the
> constitution.

That's not my argument.

And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option
as accepted when preparing the ballot.  Treating controversial
general resolution proposals as if they'd already won the vote before
the vote begins would be the very abuse of power you're alluding to.

>  Because that's the only way I can see for getting from "the
> constitution mentions that some votes should require 3:1 supermajorities"
> to "therefore the Secretary must be the constitutionally ordained arbiter
> of DFSG correctness for all votes." And this despite other constitutional
> verbiage that suggests that developers have that power. Huh.

The Secretary is a developer.

> > > Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or
> > > elections, have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw
> > > nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents
> > > describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free
> > > software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software
> > > licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include
> > > position statements about issues of the day." The GFDL sounds like an
> > > "issue of the day" to me.
> >
> > Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the
> > developers follow when doing these things.
> >
> > And we're following those procedures.
> >
> > So where's the problem?
>
> The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary
> overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with
> that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my
> complaint.

I've yet to see any description of your complaint that doesn't require
me to accept that Anton's proposal is universally accepted by the
project.

But if I accept that Anton's proposal is universally accepted by
the project, then the "barrier" you're talking about does not exist.

So I'm faced with a contradiction: how can the Secretary be mis-using
his power if this "mis-use" of power can only be a mis-use if it is
not a mis-use?

--
Raul

rules: unpatch as dependency (was Bug#351301)

[Jörg Sommer]

Hello Rene, hello debian-devel,

Rene Engelhard schrieb am Sat 04. Feb, 10:23 (+0100):
> Jörg Sommer wrote:
> >  # prep-deb-files from module-assistant creates the neccessary debian/ 
> > files 
> > -kdist_config: prep-deb-files
> > +kdist_config: prep-deb-files patch-stamp
> 
> Not needed. The patches are in -source already pre-applied.
> 
> > +   -$(MAKE) -f debian/rules unpatch
> 
> or a dependency on unpatch.

A good point. I've a package with a library that does not support
libtool. Because libtool saves files to special places it needs to be
called for cleanup, too.

If I set unpatch as dependency for the clean target all patches get
removed before I can call make clean. Thus I have no way to patch the
clean target of upstream makefiles. The idea I had was to call the
unpatch target after I've run make clean. Do you have a better idea?

Regards, Jörg.
-- 
Eine Blume geht über eine Wiese, sieht einen schönen Menschen und reißt
ihm den Kopf ab.


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

Bug#352252: ITP: sdljump -- an improved clone of xjump featuring multi-player mode

[Bas Wijnen]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: sdljump
  Version : 0.91-1
  Upstream Author : Juan Pedro Bol\('ivar Puente <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sdljump.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
  Description : an improved clone of xjump featuring multi-player mode

 The goal in this game is to jump to the next floor so you don't fall
 down.  As you go higher in the Falling Tower the floors will fall
 faster.  Try to survive longer than anyone, or, in single player mode,
 as long as you can.
 .
 This game provides all the features of xjump, plus some more:
  * Multiplayer mode (up to four players, not networked)
  * Smooth graphics possible (but xjump style as well)
 .
 Home page: http://sdljump.sourceforge.net

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)


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

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
>> > that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks
>> > too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we
>> > can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases;
>> > trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.
>> 
>> I'm in that category too.  Perl has always looked crazy to me.
>
> Your unwillingness or inability to learn something new is no reason to
> bloat base unnecessarily.  But we have had this discussion already, and
> it was, AFAICR, settled.  Or are you just down to replying randomly to
> every email you see?

Um, are you aware of the context?  I'm not in favor of putting python
in base, and I'm quite content to leave perl as the one supported
high-level interpreter.


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the 
>> > silly 
>> > fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's 
>> > protection, believe it or not.
>> 
>> Really?  Even if a majority of the developers liked the idea?
>> Remember, the 3:1 requirement is there to protect the remaining 25%
>> against majorities as high as 74%.
>
> If 51% of developers vote for something that silly, there is not much we
> can do to save the project, frankly.  Your attitude that we need hand
> holding and protection from ourselves is rather insulting.

This is not *my* attitude; it is the attitude of those who wanted a
3:1 supermajority for changes to the Foundation Documents.  What did
they mean by this, if not that a mere majority could not be trusted
with such things?

I was, in fact, *against* that change, though I didn't feel strongly
about it, and did not vote.  It is now the rule.  I assume that those
who put it forward thought a mere majority could not be trusted with
such things.  For the record, the proposer and seconders of that GR
(2003-03):

Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neil Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thomas


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Adam McKenna]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:34PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Several folks seem to wish to re-ignite the debate of whether or not
> the changes were "editorial" or not.  Whether it was or was not, it's
> now over and done with.  This GR is a separate, albeit related, issue.

The changes could only have been referred to as 'editorial' if wide consensus
and understanding had already been reached about their effects.

I think it's fair to say that this was not the case at the time.

--Adam
-- 
Adam McKenna  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: timezone data packaged separately and in volatile?

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 07:42:25PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:30:01 +1100,
> Anand Kumria wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:42:31PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

>>> I just realised that the timezone data in glibc is taken from an
>>> upstream database (namely ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/). This data
>>> sometimes changes, more rapidly than our release cycle (and than
>>> any release cycle we can reasonable have).

>> But that doesn't mean that we can issue an update to a stable package.

>> Currently they are mainly done for security purposes -- but stable
>> updates should not be confined to only that.  They should be done
>> to keep the system functional.

> Note that I was planning to separate timezone package from glibc
> package (but I forgot it).  It'll be available by the next release,
> etch.

Excellent! Thank you. Do you mean in a separate source package or in a
binary package generated by glibc?

-- 
Lionel


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:

Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I *will* immediately propose a GR to 
amend the Social Contract to explicitly allow unmodifiable license texts in 
Debian, since it technically doesn't, but everyone agrees that it should.  
I'd welcome someone else beating me to it.


 

Well... as far as I understand it, you can always modify legal text 
since it's not copyrighted. You obviously would have to change the name, 
and it wouldn't apply to the program, but you could create the "Foo 
License" that's based on the GPL and distribute your own software for you.


I could be wrong of course.

Benjamin


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

Bug#352280: ITP: ksmoothdock -- A cool desktop panel (like KDE's kicker) for KDE with smooth zooming

[Philippe COVAL]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philippe COVAL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: ksmoothdock
  Version : 3.6.1
  Upstream Author : Name 
* URL : http://ksmoothdock.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
  Description : A cool desktop panel (like KDE's kicker) for KDE with 
smooth zooming

Its aim is to provide a cool alternative/complement to kicker. 
As it is intended for KDE/Linux, its behaviour will be like that of kicker.

I made a quick and dirty package, but I'll submit another one ASAP

Follow my work at http://rzr.online.fr/q/KDE

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 
'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15.1-k7-amiloa
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:25:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
> > say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
> > interpreted.
> That's a strawman argument.
> The ballot options are not being ignored.  

I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
in a sense, by continuing to leave bugs like #199810 unfixed.

> I certainly would not want the secretary acting as if controversial
> proposals were a true of the project goals before they had been
> voted on.

Instead, he's acting as though they're false before they've been voted
on -- personally, I don't think that's any better. A controversial false
statement is just the inverse of a controversial true statement, afterall.

Anyway, I think I've said my piece.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Glenn Maynard]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I *will* immediately propose a GR to 
> amend the Social Contract to explicitly allow unmodifiable license texts in 
> Debian, since it technically doesn't, but everyone agrees that it should.  
> I'd welcome someone else beating me to it.

Then people will start saying things like "the GFDL is free, if the invariant
sections happen to be license texts!"

This really just isn't a problem that needs fixing.  Once in a while, you get
confused or desperate people on d-legal trying to argue "we allow license
texts to be unmodifiable, so this invariant ode to my cat should be allowed,
too!", but you can't stop those stupid arguments by changing the DFSG.  You
just end up replacing one dumb argument with another, equally dumb argument,
and complicate the guidelines in the process.

For example, GR2004-003 tried to close the old "documentation isn't software"
argument, by saying the DFSG applies to all of Debian.  What happened next?
Now we've had people claiming that, since the DFSG still uses the word "program"
in several places, those particular clauses don't apply to documentation.
People have actually argued that documentation doesn't need to have source,
since DFSG#2 says "the program"!  That argument, of course, implies that 
that parts or all of DFSG#1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 also don't apply to
documentation.  It's as if GR2004-003 never happened.

Don't try to prevent dumb arguments by changing foundation documents.  Stick
to the ones that actually have merit.  There's just no merit underlying the
"license texts are unmodifiable, so ..." arguments, and I don't see the need
to complicate the guidelines by formalizing an exception for them.


(As an aside, the only reasonable interpretation of the SC is that it
implicitly allows, at minimum, unmodifiable license terms[1].  Otherwise,
the only software that could be allowed in main and still be redistributable
would be public domain, and the existance of the DFSG shows that's not the
case.)


[1] As an extra-aside, see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg02344.html for an observation
about the difference between "license texts" and "license terms", and how one
really could apply the DFSG to texts, but not terms, and end up with something
reasonable.  Not really a worthy fight, of course, but if you want to
formalize an exception, then I think knowing the difference is important.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:

> Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
> enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
> contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications
> that we're not that honourable and need to have the secretary's
> adult supervision. I don't see much point to all the grumbling about
> the secretary's supervision either though -- if we're acting like
> adult's anyway, that's hardly a problem, is it?


I find it strange you couch this in terms of honour and
 supervision. I do not understand how this can be; and I certainly do
 not hold this view, since I do not even understand it.

I view this a ballot correctness issue. The ballot should be
 one that does not lead to contradictory  situations,or else, in my
 opinion, the ballot is buggy.

manoj
-- 
Killing turkeys causes winter.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: documentation types

[Neil Roeth]

On Feb 10, Hendrik Sattler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 > Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 13:36 schrieb Neil Roeth:
 > > On Feb 10, Hendrik Sattler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 > >  > Hi,
 > >  >
 > >  > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML
 > >  > and provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML.
 > >  >
 > >  > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev
 > >  > package? I would prefer PDF:
 > >  >  * one file only
 > >  >  * easy to print
 > >  >  * many viewers available
 > >  >
 > >  > I would rather not build all three as this is a definite waste of disk
 > >  > space.
 > >  >
 > >  > Suggestions are welcome...
 > >
 > > Could it be a configure option, so that the first time the package is
 > > installed it would ask which subset of the three to install (defaulting to
 > > PDF only), and later, when upgrading the package, it would install the same
 > > subset with no further interaction?
 > 
 > That would surely be possible with debconf but a Depends on docbook-utils 
 > and 
 > all its dependecies would be required.
 > Would it be acceptable for a package to tell in its README.Debian how to 
 > create the files? Then, docbook-utils could be a Suggests.

I was thinking that all three formats would be pregenerated and in the binary
package, and only the one(s) desired would be installed.  So, no need to
Depend on docbook-utils.  But, policy says HTML is preferred, so I guess this
is moot.

-- 
Neil Roeth


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> > Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
> > enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
> > contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications
> > that we're not that honourable and need to have the secretary's
> > adult supervision. I don't see much point to all the grumbling about
> > the secretary's supervision either though -- if we're acting like
> > adult's anyway, that's hardly a problem, is it?
> I find it strange you couch this in terms of honour and
>  supervision. I do not understand how this can be; and I certainly do
>  not hold this view, since I do not even understand it.
> 
> I view this a ballot correctness issue. The ballot should be
>  one that does not lead to contradictory  situations,or else, in my
>  opinion, the ballot is buggy.

That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.

Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
write any code for it.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.

Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't
include supervisory elements.

However, Debian is different, giving to the Secretary a variety of
supervisory tasks, similar to those a chairmain has in chairing a
meeting.  Indeed, our Constitution gives to the Secretary the task of
interpreting the Constitution in cases of doubt.

Thomas


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:

> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory
> one.

The secretary is responsible for running the vote, and also
 has the final decision for the form of the ballot. It would be remiss
 of me to let a ballot go by which i consider incorrect.

> Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as
> possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any
> human intervention.  I've thought about that before, but I don't
> have the inclination to write any code for it.

You know how to change the constitution. Currently, the
 secretaries role is far from being a rubber stamp.

manoj
-- 
To program is to be.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns  writes:
> > That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> > enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.
> Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't
> include supervisory elements.
> However, Debian is different, giving to the Secretary a variety of
> supervisory tasks, 

That's not true; the secretary's position in Debian is primarily
administrative -- namely "to take votes amongst the Developers" and
"determine the number and identity of Developers". 

The two additional duties are exceptional: to stand in for the DPL when
he's absent (with the tech ctte chair), and to adjudicate disputes about
the constitution. Neither is supervisory in any case -- the difference
being that supervision is an ongoing task, unlike both standing in while
a new DPL is chosen, or adjudicating a dispute that's arisen.

That doesn't mean taking on a supervisory role is bad or improper, though,
just that it's not an unavoidable consequence of being Debian secretary.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#352303: ITP: gsynaptics -- configuration tool for Synaptics touchpad driver of X

[Osamu Aoki]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  Package name: gsynaptics
  Version : 0.9.5
  Upstream Author : Hiroyuki Ikezoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
Takuro Ashie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,  
Ikuya Awashiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  URL : https://sourceforge.jp/projects/gsynaptics/
  License : GPL
  Description : configuration tool for Synaptics touchpad driver of X

 GSynaptics is a configuration tool for Synaptics touchpad driver
 of X server. Before you use this package, please read
 /usr/share/doc/gsynaptics/README and configure X server properly.

--
  If you are using gnome, this should give you nice alternative to
  qsynaptics :-)
 
  As a matter of fact, it has been locally packaged based on the 
  packaging by Ikuya for Ubunts.  Minor dependency fix was neded
  to build on Debian.  I also changed build script to use 
  autotoools-dev.

  If Ikuya wants to maintain this on Debian, I will be happy to sponsor.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


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

Re: Bug#352303: ITP: gsynaptics -- configuration tool for Synaptics touchpad driver of X

[Lars Wirzenius]

la, 2006-02-11 kello 13:30 +0900, Osamu Aoki kirjoitti:
>  GSynaptics is a configuration tool for Synaptics touchpad driver
>  of X server. Before you use this package, please read
>  /usr/share/doc/gsynaptics/README and configure X server properly.

"Properly" is a bad word to use in this context, since the configuration
in question seems to result in a potential security problem. From the
xfree86-driver-synaptics README.Debian file:

   If you want to be able to change driver parameters without
   restarting the X server, enable the "SHMConfig" option in the X
   configuration file. You can then use the "synclient" program to
   query and modify driver parameters on the fly.
   SECURITY NOTE! This is not secure if you are in an untrusted
   multiuser environment. All local users can change the parameters at 
   any time.

I think it would be fair to add a similar note to the description of the
gsynaptics package.

Note that I'm not saying that this is a serious problem with the
package: in many situations it does not matter if the touchpad settings
can be changed by any local user. For example, on a laptop with only a
single user account, or with many accounts but no way to log in via a
network. These can be an acceptable risk for the ease of configuration.

It is, however, important to notify the person installing the package
about the issue.

-- 
Even a bad picture is worth 500 words. --Droidy


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