Re: use of "invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || exit $?" in prerm scripts

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 23 May 2006, Michael Prokop wrote:
> way of life, I'd just like to make sure that removing packages
> always works.

If you are going to ignore a failing initscript in order to remove a
package, and that leaves a daemon running, then expect to get a very nasty
bug report...

-- 
  "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: use of "invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || exit $?" in prerm scripts

[Michael Prokop]

* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20060523 21:59]:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > way of life, I'd just like to make sure that removing packages
> > always works.

> If you are going to ignore a failing initscript in order to remove a
> package, and that leaves a daemon running, then expect to get a very nasty
> bug report...

Yes, for sure. But IMO it's the initscript which should make sure
that the daemon is stopped when running the stop-rule.

regards,
-mika-


pgph0UX3EtppX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: use of "invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || exit $?" in prerm scripts

[Bernd Schubert]

Michael Prokop wrote:

> But /etc/init.d/$PACKAGE is executed only, if "[ -x "`which
> invoke-rc.d 2>/dev/null`" ]" fails. And I still don't see what's the

Ah, I entirely misunderstood your intention. I thought you want to get rid
of this if condition and execute the commands one after the other. Sorry
for the noise.

Cheers,
Bernd


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

Re: use of "invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || exit $?" in prerm scripts

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 23 May 2006, Michael Prokop wrote:
> Yes, for sure. But IMO it's the initscript which should make sure
> that the daemon is stopped when running the stop-rule.

Most try, to the point of doing a kill -9 if the daemon doesn't go away
easily.  But if it doesn't die even with a kill -9 (say, kernel bug,
filesystem hang, or someone doing kill -STOP), or if the service *isn't* a
daemon and cannot for some reason be shut down...

-- 
  "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]

opportunity of a lifetime

[lucky]

Hello My Name is Gerard McGovern
I have seen your 
webpagehttp://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2006/01/msg00312.html  and I 
understand that you have been involved with MLM are you still 
involved10/03/1999 

I see that you still have1601 web pages linked to yours
were those people in your network

Are you still looking to increase your income?

I may have a solid opportunity for you to look at

Is this the best number to reach you+1 441223723614, Fax: +1 441223723601

Simply reply with the best time for me to give you a call and recieve

3 free chance to win £1000stg with a chance to win £5000stg

I am looking for an experienced partner


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

opportunity of a lifetime

[lucky]

Hello My Name is Gerard McGovern
I have seen your 
webpagehttp://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2006/debian-wnpp-200601/threads.html 
 and I understand that you have been involved with MLM are you still 
involved10/03/1999 

I see that you still have1601 web pages linked to yours
were those people in your network

Are you still looking to increase your income?

I may have a solid opportunity for you to look at

Is this the best number to reach you+1 441223723614, Fax: +1 441223723601

Simply reply with the best time for me to give you a call and recieve

3 free chance to win £1000stg with a chance to win £5000stg

I am looking for an experienced partner


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:13:47 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote:

> Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Thie simplest solution in this case would be if Sun simply attached
> > the FAQ as an addendum to the licence rather than stating it's not
> > legally binding.
> 
> Yeah.  Not disagreeing there.

Mmmh, we would end up with a contradictory license if Sun did this,
because the FAQ seems to be inconsistent with the current license.

Hence, no, I don't think attaching the FAQ to the license would be a
good solution.
The license itself should be rephrased in order to actually say what Sun
meant.

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpLlvKBm8keC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

NEW queue backlog (was: Re: Sun Java available from non-free)

[Michael Banck]

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:39:36AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Debconf is over now, so I fully expect the NEW queue to be handled again
> as good as it used to be in a few weeks. Which would hopefully mean that
> emile, a package that I uploaded and which is stuck in NEW as well, will
> be accepted into the archive.

Both Jörg and Jeroen (who are usually doing the NEW processing AFAIK)
are travelling in Mexico for another two weeks I believe.  Maybe one of
the regular ftp-masters steps in and does some processing for the more
important stuff in the meanwhile, though.


Michael

-- 
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Michael Banck]

Hi,

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:27:10AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:58:18PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Oh, and the impression that pushing non-free packages in after several
> > > hours has a high priority, while (license-wise) simple packages linger
> > > for weeks in NEW was probably a bonus[1].
> > 
> > I have to agree this sucks but if you have the schedule in mind it's easy
> > to understand:
> > - NEW is done by Joerg usually, he's organizing debconf so there's a
> >   backlog due to that
> 
> So why is Java su much more important than all other packages in NEW?
> Keep in mind that this is the only package that was processed by someone
> not equal Joerg. If this was just done for PR, fine, but please tell us.

As stated before, this was a coordinated release together with Sun and
Ubuntu.  People from all parties worked together on this, and decided to
use both Debconf[1] and JavaOne to announce this, which obviously put
some time and manpower constraints to the license review, NEW
processing, ITPing, etc.

I think this was somewhat similar to the embargoed security releases our
security team handles for us.  Sure we could just have disclosed the
license to -legal beforehand, but then Sun probably would never talk to
us about doing things like this one again and just tend to OpenSUSE or
some other community distributino next time to collaborate with when
they might open source Java.


Michael

-- 
[1] Once the Debconf videos are available, watching the last couple of
minutes of the `Ubuntu Annual Report' talk will prove interesting.


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Bill Allombert]

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the
> upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't...

The Debian developer reference states in section 5.1. "New packages"
the process to add new packages to Debian:

 Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
 you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, `Bug reporting')
 against the pseudo-package `wnpp' describing your plan to create a new
 package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a description of the
 package, the license of the prospective package, and the current URL
 where it can be downloaded from.

Note the words "the license of the prospective package".

Such process was overlooked here.  Sure, this might not be an
"obligation" but overlooking well-respected processes for that reason
alone is not a very efficient way to work. Being technically allowed to
do something do not make it right and do not absolve you from
criticisms.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


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

Re: Bug#368551: ITP: xml-security-c -- C++ library for XML Digital Signatures

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 23 May 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd really rather stick with the upstream name, particularly since this is

Why not ask upstream WHY they are misnaming the library? libxml-security-c++
is a perfectly ok and valid name...

-- 
  "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: Sun Java available from non-free

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:54:13PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the
> > upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't...

> The Debian developer reference states in section 5.1. "New packages"
> the process to add new packages to Debian:

>  Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
>  you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, `Bug reporting')
>  against the pseudo-package `wnpp' describing your plan to create a new
>  package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a description of the
>  package, the license of the prospective package, and the current URL
>  where it can be downloaded from.

> Note the words "the license of the prospective package".

> Such process was overlooked here.  Sure, this might not be an
> "obligation" but overlooking well-respected processes for that reason
> alone is not a very efficient way to work. Being technically allowed to
> do something do not make it right and do not absolve you from
> criticisms.

Sorry, but being listed in the dev ref does not make something a
"well-respected process".  I appreciate the work that the devref editors put
into trying to keep that document current on best-practices, but edits to
the devref don't enjoy nearly the level of scrutiny that policy does, and I
have no expectation that the devref is free of editor bias (or even just
plain errors).

That's a chicken-and-egg problem, of course; since deviating from
recommendations of the devref is not grounds for a bug, there's less
pressure to ensure the recommendations it contains are good ones.  I refer
to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've read the devref since I
went through the NM queue.

So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know
that my own ongoing notion of "best practices" comes from stuff I learned
long ago plus new ideas discussed on this mailing list, not from the devref.

-- 
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: Bug#368551: ITP: xml-security-c -- C++ library for XML Digital Signatures

[Russ Allbery]

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I'd really rather stick with the upstream name,

> Why not ask upstream WHY they are misnaming the library? 
> libxml-security-c++ is a perfectly ok and valid name...

I'll ask, but again, this is a library package, so the binary package name
is going to match the name of the library on disk.  So really we're only
arguing about the name of the source package.

My guess is that upstream isn't going to be particularly thrilled with the
idea of changing the SONAME and name of the library on disk for aesthetic
reasons, given the backward compatibility issues.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is
> > three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to
> > examine the license in public), and both James and Jeroen had extensive
> > contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay.
> You won't expect Sun to say they are not, would you? :-)

The questions asked weren't "Is this okay for non-free?" it's "Did you
mean  or  when you wrote ?". The answers to those latter
questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring
it just wastes everyone's time.

> > most important, is that should any of these problems actually happen,
> > we can fairly simply just drop Sun Java from non-free if we can't come
> > to a better conclusion.
> Do you mean we can drop it if problems arise? Or do you mean we can drop
> it if we cannot conlcude it's okay to distribute it?
> I doubt you mean the first case, as it would be too late then. 

No, that's not the case -- if we are informed that there is a problem with
what we're distributing, we can drop it 90 days after we're so informed,
and not have any problems.

> Right, but again, why bringing the package with a bad license into the
> archive first?

Because non-free is for "bad" licenses in the sense that they don't meet
the DFSG, and because the Sun license is not "bad" in the sense that it
causes any problems that we cannot deal with.

> DPL, I wonder Why the Sun-Java package is not handled the same as any
> other package. What makes it so special that it deserves special
> treatment?

Java is one of the most important packages for which we don't have an
effective non-free replacement at present. The only one that I can think
of that would be more important would be flash.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Russ Allbery]

Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 16:52, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

>> I don't think the chance of "nutcase sueing Sun for Bad Applet" is any
>> more relevant or likely than the chance of "nutcase sueing Debian for
>> bad browser". I really don't see how it makes the license problematic.

> And that is why, in legal matters, Debian needs the combined expertise
> of the volunteer lawyers on debian-legal, rather than the "legal
> opinion" of a programmer.

There are volunteer lawyers on debian-legal who are actually issuing legal
opinions?

My understanding was that if Debian needed a legal opinion, we needed to
go to the SPI counsel.  Volunteering legal opinions on a public mailing
list sounds like a very risky endeavor for a lawyer, and I'm very
surprised that there are lawyers doing so.  Could you point to some of
their posts?

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[MJ Ray]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] I refer
> to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've read the devref since I
> went through the NM queue. [...]

Then, as you know, Policy contains the instruction:
  'When in doubt about a copyright, send mail to debian-legal@lists.debian.org'
and Anthony Towns already mentioned:
  'both James and Jeroen had extensive contact with Sun to ensure that
   the tricky clauses were actually okay'
so surely there was some doubt? Then lack of mail to debian-legal looks
like a policy-related bug, as if sun-java5 wasn't problematic enough.

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


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

Re: NEW queue backlog

[Thomas Viehmann]

Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:39:36AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> Debconf is over now, so I fully expect the NEW queue to be handled again
>> as good as it used to be in a few weeks. Which would hopefully mean that
>> emile, a package that I uploaded and which is stuck in NEW as well, will
>> be accepted into the archive.
> 
> Both Jörg and Jeroen (who are usually doing the NEW processing AFAIK)
> are travelling in Mexico for another two weeks I believe.  Maybe one of
> the regular ftp-masters steps in and does some processing for the more
> important stuff in the meanwhile, though.
> 
> 
> Michael
> 


-- 
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/


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

Re: libdb transition policy?

[Florian Weimer]

* Andreas Barth:

> Why that? It would only affect packages that (correctly or wrongly) also
> depend on libdb4.2. (And libdb4.2 unfortunatly doesn't have versioning,
> otherwise, it wouldn't be any issue; lidb4.3 and libdb4.4 are better in
> that regard.)

Berkeley DB 4.2 was compiled such that every exported symbol ends with
"_4002".  Have a look at:

  $ readelf -sW /usr/lib/libdb-4.2.so  | grep -v _4002

This means that even though it does not use symbol versioning, it can
coexist with other versions in the same process image.

However, contrary to what the NM templates suggest, symbol versioning
is not a cure-all for all ABI incompatibilities.  If libetpan returns
a DB_ENV * in its API, you need to port[1] all its dependencies to the
new Berkeley DB version.

[1] A simple recompilation may not be enough because a new Berkeley DB
version usually changes the API in slight ways.


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

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

[Guillem Jover]

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:44:50 -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
> FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
> their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
> communities will only grow over time. It is not like they will
> disappear, that means Debian must adjust to the new fact of life: "we
> have more than one major OS totally open-sourced at its core".

There's no such thing as a non-glibc FreeBSD port for Debian for years
now. The only one maintained and in good shape is GNU/kFreeBSD (based
on glibc).

regards,
guillem


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

Re: libdb transition policy?

[Nikita V. Youshchenko]

> * Andreas Barth:
> > Why that? It would only affect packages that (correctly or wrongly)
> > also depend on libdb4.2. (And libdb4.2 unfortunatly doesn't have
> > versioning, otherwise, it wouldn't be any issue; lidb4.3 and libdb4.4
> > are better in that regard.)
>
> Berkeley DB 4.2 was compiled such that every exported symbol ends with
> "_4002".  Have a look at:
>
>   $ readelf -sW /usr/lib/libdb-4.2.so  | grep -v _4002
>
> This means that even though it does not use symbol versioning, it can
> coexist with other versions in the same process image.
>
> However, contrary to what the NM templates suggest, symbol versioning
> is not a cure-all for all ABI incompatibilities.  If libetpan returns
> a DB_ENV * in its API, you need to port[1] all its dependencies to the
> new Berkeley DB version.

No, libetpan uses libdb only internally, and does not export it.

So I guess the question is to people who maintain etpan-ng and 
sylpheed-claws-gtk2 - is it safe for your packages if I will upload new 
version of libetpan (without soname change or package name change) that 
will link against libdb4.4?

Nikita


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

Re: Packages violating policy 8.2

[Ganesan Rajagopal]

> "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I am not sure the sections need clarification, inasmuch as
>  they do not really apply to setools. I might clarify that 8.2 is
>  meant for packages that provide shared libraries for general use by
>  other package developers, and it implies a certain level of assurance
>  that the rug shall not be yanked out from under the aforementioned
>  developers feet.

Manoj, 

I have a package (ipsec-tools) which has a similar situation to setools and
already has a bug filed for it (See #314981). I considered moving the
concerned shared libraries into the plugin directory because these "shared
libraries" were only for the ipsec-tools binaries and not for general
use. That would need lots of unnecessary changes to the makefiles, probably
fiddling with the dreaded RPATH etc.  So, I think a clarification will be
nice.

Ganesan

-- 
Ganesan Rajagopal


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

Re: UBTA - Wall Street Journal Agree - Ref. s1957

[Lance Archer]

Dalton, 

P2P Sports Betting Software May Change Casino Sports Betting

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA - UBA Technology Inc. (UBTA), has entered 
into initial negotiations to install its proprietary betting exchange 
software in traditional land-based casinos.

Read the whole story: http://br.geocities.com/volkswagen18620/

Lance Archer, Acct. Rep. xn4586309



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

Re: Packages violating policy 8.2

[Thomas Girard]

Selon Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Debian policy says:
>
> | 8.2 Run-time support programs
> |
> | If your package has some run-time support programs which use the
> | shared library you must not put them in the shared library
> | package. If you do that then you won't be able to install several
> | versions of the shared library without getting filename clashes.
> |
> | Instead, either create another package for the runtime binaries
> | (this package might typically be named libraryname-runtime; note the
> | absence of the soversion in the package name), or if the development
> | package is small, include them in there.

[...]

> several packages violate 8.2:

[...]

> libciao0.4.7c2a   Debian ACE+TAO maintainers
> libtao-orbsvcs1.4.7c2aDebian ACE+TAO maintainers

I have started working on this issue[1], a major package split is planned
for both TAO and CIAO.

Thanks,

Thomas

[1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-ace/branches/pkg-split


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

Re: use of "invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || exit $?" in prerm scripts

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:21:53AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> There is nothing preferable about it.  Stop targets *are* to exit with
> status 0 if the service is already stopped.
> 
> The fact that Debian policy still has this as a "should" clause is just
> cruft that needs to be addressed.  There are absolutely no acceptable
> exceptions to either this rule (stopping a stopped service is okay) nor to
> its counterpart (starting an already started service is okay), as far as I
> know.
> 

Absolutely ack.

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine


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

Re: not running depmod at boot time

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Marco d'Itri [Tue, May 23 2006, 08:52:10PM]:
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?

What about using depmod -a instead, how much would it cost? AFAICS it
only needs to walk trough the directories and stat the files without
reading them.

Eduard.


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

Re: not running depmod at boot time

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 20:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?

Please go ahead. Anything relying on it is buggy anyway.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Curso da HP12c gratis

[Roberto_Santana]

BDY.RTF
Description: RTF file

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 12:10:43AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Sure we could just have disclosed the license to -legal beforehand, 
> but then Sun probably would never talk to us about doing things like 
> this one again and just tend to OpenSUSE or some other community 
> distributino next time to collaborate with when they might open source 
> Java.

Sun's non-free software is *that* important to Debian?


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

Bug#368724: ITP: umview -- A partial user space virtual machine monitor

[Guido Trotter]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: umview
  Version : 0.3
  Upstream Author : View-OS team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/view-os
* License : GPL
  Description : A user space partial virtual machine monitor

Umview implements in user space the "View-OS: A process with a View"
concept, which grants an unprivileged user space process with the
possibility to personalize its filesystem and network interfaces.
.
It is implemented as a daemon which traces a child process, making it
see a different view of the world.


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Stephen Frost]

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> > > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is
> > > three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to
> > > examine the license in public), and both James and Jeroen had extensive
> > > contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay.

Some of this might have been avoided had one or two of the debian-legal
regulars been asked to look into it.  Changing the license beforehand
certainly would have been better than ending up in this situation.

> > You won't expect Sun to say they are not, would you? :-)
> 
> The questions asked weren't "Is this okay for non-free?" it's "Did you
> mean  or  when you wrote ?". The answers to those latter
> questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring
> it just wastes everyone's time.

Unfortunately, neither the FAQ nor emails from Sun are actually legally
binding so while this is a nice exercise to help identify places where
Sun should change the license to make it more clear it doesn't actually
improve the license by itself.  I'd like to think that this would have
been pointed out by most any debian-legal regular who might have
reviewed it.

Thanks,

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Jordan Abel]

On 5/22/06, Anthony Towns  wrote:

The questions asked weren't "Is this okay for non-free?" it's "Did you
mean  or  when you wrote ?". The answers to those latter
questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring
it just wastes everyone's time.


If the FAQ weren't so obviously full of lies, maybe it wouldn't be ignored.

That said, (IANAL) the people who have said on this thread that the
estoppel thing doesn't apply outside the US or whatever seem to be
ignoring the choice of law clause.

Bug#368748: ITP: network-manager-openvpn -- OpenVPN network-manager plugin

[Michael Biebl]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: network-manager-openvpn
  Version : 0.7
  Upstream Author : Tim Niemueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.gnome.org/projects/NetworkManager/
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : OpenVPN network-manager plugin

With this plugin, NetworkManager is able to manage OpenVPN connections.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (300, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


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

Re: not running depmod at boot time

[Reid Priedhorsky]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:00:34 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:

> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
> script?

What would happen to people who don't use the Debian kernel packages? In
my ideal world, there would still be the option of running depmod at boot;
at the very least, I'd like to see a NEWS item explaining what to do if
you don't use the Debian kernel packages.

Reid


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Andreas Barth]

* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]:
> So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know
> that my own ongoing notion of "best practices" comes from stuff I learned
> long ago plus new ideas discussed on this mailing list, not from the devref.

Well, wouldn't it be a good idea to make just sync the dev ref with what
you consider as best practice? (And, BTW, I make much effort to only
update the dev ref with correct information.)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


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

Re: drupal orphaned?

[Erik Steffl]

Christoph Berg wrote:

Re: Erik Steffl 2006-05-21 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  is drupal debian package effectively  orphaned? It is already two 
major upgrades (more than a year) behind upstream (and upstream 
recommends to upgrade from one version to next so the upgrades to 
current might get complicated).


No, please have a look at http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/drupal.html.


  what exactly I would be looking for? I know that drupal has a formal 
maintainer. However no work has been done on drupal for a long time and 
it's already two versions behind upstream (more than a year behind). So 
it seems like it's de facto orphaned - I was just asking whether anybody 
knows more (there's not much response from maintainer, see bugs for 
drupal package, specifically the ones that ask for new versions - 
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=307821 and 
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=365709).


  ?

erik


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 24 May 2006, MJ Ray outgrape:

> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [...] I refer to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've
>> read the devref since I went through the NM queue. [...]
>
> Then, as you know, Policy contains the instruction: 'When in doubt
> about a copyright, send mail to debian-legal@lists.debian.org' and

The recourse to -leagal is only when in doubt.

> Anthony Towns already mentioned: 'both James and Jeroen had
> extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were
> actually okay' so surely there was some doubt?

There was perhaps no doubt after clarification and discussions
 with sun? In that case, there wou,d be no need to waste time and
 energy dealing with -legal.

> Then lack of mail to debian-legal looks like a policy-related bug,
> as if sun-java5 wasn't problematic enough.

I think the issue is you not parsing policy correctly.  Please
 ask if you need clarification, rather than just jumping to
 conclusions about other peoples state of mid.

manoj
-- 
Many hands make light work. John Heywood
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: Sun Java available from non-free

[Mike Bird]

On Wednesday 24 May 2006 22:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 24 May 2006, MJ Ray outgrape:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Anthony Towns already mentioned: 'both James and Jeroen had
> > extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were
> > actually okay' so surely there was some doubt?
>
> There was perhaps no doubt after clarification and discussions
>  with sun? In that case, there wou,d be no need to waste time and
>  energy dealing with -legal.

Would the Secretary then please post the legally binding document
signed by Sun which clarifies and/or amends Sun's license.

--Mike Bird


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

Re: drupal orphaned?

[Martin Samuelsson]

Erik Steffl @ 2006-05-24 (Wednesday), 09:28 (-0700)
> Christoph Berg wrote:
> >No, please have a look at http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/drupal.html.
> 
>   what exactly I would be looking for? I know that drupal has a formal
>   maintainer. However no work has been done on drupal for a long time
>   and it's already two versions behind upstream (more than a year
>   behind). So it seems like it's de facto orphaned - 

The web link above states that the latest maintainer upload was made
2006-04-18. That's roughly a month ago, which isn't really "a long
time" ago. The web page in question also lists several other uploads.

> I was just asking whether anybody knows more (there's not much
> response from maintainer, see bugs for drupal package, specifically
> the ones that ask for new versions -

In #307821 the maintainer answers all factual questions asked, and
invites people to help with the packaging.

Maybe you should start with helping the maintainer instead of trying to
remove him from his position. Regardless of who's the maintainer,
someone needs to do the work.
--
/Martin


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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

[Martin Zobel-Helas]

Hi AJ,

On Monday, 22 May 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Right, but again, why bringing the package with a bad license into the
> > archive first?
> 
> Because non-free is for "bad" licenses in the sense that they don't meet
> the DFSG, and because the Sun license is not "bad" in the sense that it
> causes any problems that we cannot deal with.

"Bad" as in "undistributable"?

Martin


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

Re: The necessity of running depmod at boot time

[Clifford Beshers]

Joey Hess wrote:

  Marco d'Itri wrote:
  
  
If we can agree that it's not needed anymore (i.e. mandate by policy
that packages need to run depmod on their own) then I will be happy to
remove it from the m-i-t init script.

  
  
A while back Debian would only run depmod on boot if it had not been run
before since the last kernel upgrade. Could you refresh my memory about
why that optimisation was dropped?
  

I don't believe that it was.  Looking at the code in sid, I see a call
to 'depmod --quick'.  That is supposed to compare timestamps on files
to determine if depmod needs to be run in full.  Presumably then, you
should get at most one boot that runs depmod after a kernel change, but
it sounds like Margarita is seeing a full run of depmod every time.

We saw that in Linspire at one point, but I had thought it was
something we had introduced, not inherited.  There were two entities
that were making sure things were up-to-date, and the second one was
modifying files on every boot after depmod had gone around and
regenerated everything, creating a vicious circle.

If that is happening, then you may find that the 'depmod --quick' is
fine once that is fixed.