Re: Bug#377956: ITP: python-psycopgda2 -- PostgreSQL adapter for Python
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:19:01AM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > I intend to package this module which would be a successor of > python-psycopgda > > * Package name: python-psycopgda2 > Version : 2.0.2 > Upstream Author : Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [..] > Note: If there is already a package (which I failed to detect), please > notify me. In that case, I'd like to avoid duplicating the effort. Wouldn't upstream intend to package it himself? Please contact him to check his plans. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Broken applications: Could we be honest?
On Jul 12, 2006 at 21:52, Art Edwards praised the llamas by saying: > I posted the same initial message on the three sites I thought were > appropriate. My plea for honesty was a measure of frustration with > what should be well-established packages. It turns out that in the newer > distros, the structure of /usr/X11R6 has changed dramatically enough > that it broke a .cshrc file that had worked for five years. > Your fustration clearly hasn't reached a point where you felt it necessary to file a bug report about the issues you've faced. We can not fix problems if we don't know about them. I can not find a single bug report about the issues you've raised and I can only find one bug submitted by yourself. Occasionally we need to make incompatible changes to improve the distribution. The NEWS.Debian for Xorg should detail these changes. I would imagine that this change is significant to warrant a debconf notice during upgrade. I would also hope it is detailed in the Etch release notes, although I'd understand if these haven't been completely written yet. Arguably there should be symlinks in place so that the upgrade doesn't break your .cshrc file. I would suggest filing a bug against the package that contais the file that has moved, explaining that there is a regression. Please file bugs in our BTS as it is the only way maintainers can reliably discover problems in the distribution. A large number of developers do not read any of the lists you've posted to. -- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdrtools
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:58:13PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Some examples and test files are licensed under Mozilla-sample-code. > > Uh, is that actually a license? Yes it is: BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK Version: Mozilla-sample-code 1.0 Copyright (c) 2002 Netscape Communications Corporation and other contributors Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this Mozilla sample software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Contributor(s): END LICENSE BLOCK If you want a full licensing status on the mozilla code base, take a look to http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/xulrunner/current/copyright which I actually need to update, I saw that some files changed to tri-license between 1.8.0.1 and 1.8.0.4... > > The most problematic files are in xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix. > > This directory contains assembler code for xpcom on several platforms. > > While a lot of these files are not of any use for us (irix, vms...) some > > are indeed used: > > xptcinvoke_asm_ppc_linux.s, xptcstubs_asm_ppc_linux.s and > > xptcinvoke_asm_sparc_linux.s are NPL only ; > > xptcinvoke_asm_mips.s is MPL. > > Even if we don't use the irix, vms, etc files, if they're problematic > license-wise, we'd need to strip them out or get the license fixed. The point was that in the worst case scenario, we can't remove the files I listed without removing support for these architectures. The others can be removed without harm. Another thing that is a bit annoying is that the LICENSE file in the upstream tarball is the MPL license text. It'd be better for everyone if they'd make it clear that everything in the tarball, except external libraries such as expat, libpng, etc. are tri-licensed. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#378077: ITP: xsudoku -- A sudoku solver
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Maxime ROBACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: xsudoku Version : 1 Upstream Author : Maxime ROBACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://candide.homeunix.com/xsudoku/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : A sudoku solver An Xlib implemented sudoku solver for bored people to solve sudoku straight away, or simply for people to check the resolution of their favorite newspaper sudoku puzzle... -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.16.2-xeon-server-linux Locale: LANG=fr_FR, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR (charmap=ISO-8859-1) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdrtools
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 12:46:51PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > Joerg clearly stands that: > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may > be called "scripts": > > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called > "scripts". Er, wait. This is complete nonsense: the very definition of a makefile is "compilation script". > Makefiles are programs written in a non-scripting language: > I call this language "make". It is a non-algorithmic language but > a rule based language (like e.g. CDL2).""" The word "script" in computing came from theater, previously meaning "screenplay", listing the things actors have to do, in a particular order. Makefile does exactly that, lists what compiler/linker/etc have to do, in a given order. Thus, a makefile is certainly more a script than for example a Perl module, and if it's not a "compilation script", then I don't know what is. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#377956: ITP: python-psycopgda2 -- PostgreSQL adapter for Python
Hello Hamish, On Thu, 13.07.2006 at 09:03:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouldn't upstream intend to package it himself? Please contact him to > check his plans. ok, I missed, and will check, that, but was deluded into thinking he wouldn't because he is also not the maintainer of the v1 package. Best, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#378093: ITP: tourney-manager -- perl interface to run chess engine tournaments
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Oliver Korff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: tourney-manager Version : 2006-06-15 Upstream Author : Holger Ruckdeschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.hoicher.de/hoichess/tourney_manager/index.html * License : GPL Programming Lang: Perl Description : perl interface to run chess engine tournaments Description: perl interface to run chess engine tournaments Let your chess engines play tournaments against each other. It has an interactive commandline and can start and stop the tournament, show current state and a crosstable. Every game will be displayed in a xboard session and can be observed. All games are stored in portable chess game notation, pgn. .. http://www.hoicher.de/hoichess/tourney_manager/index.html -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-1-686 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]
Bug#378112: ITP: gzrt -- gzip recovery toolkit
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: gzrt Version : 0.4 Upstream Author : Aaron M. Renn * URL : http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/hacking/gzrt/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : gzip recovery toolkit gzrecover will attempt to skip over corrupted data in a gzip archive, thereby allowing the remaining data to be recovered. Please install cpio 2.5 or higher to facilitate recovery from damaged gzipped tarballs. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: cdrtools
Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> Joerg clearly stands that:
>
> 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> be called "scripts":
>
> """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
> as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
> "scripts".
This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
ensure that the build system is covered.
If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
(a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
Ian.
Re: Bug#377956: ITP: python-psycopgda2 -- PostgreSQL adapter for Python
Il giorno gio, 13/07/2006 alle 09.09 +0200, Toni Mueller ha scritto: > > On Thu, 13.07.2006 at 09:03:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wouldn't upstream intend to package it himself? Please contact him > to check his plans. > > ok, I missed, and will check, that, but was deluded into thinking he > wouldn't because he is also not the maintainer of the v1 package. Yes. I didn't have the time to track the Zope policy and I gladly accepted kobold offer to take over psycopg packaging. There is a deb of v2 in the NEW queue but I don't know if he packaged zpsycopda too. Maybe get in touch with him ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). federico -- Federico Di Gregorio http://people.initd.org/fog Debian GNU/Linux Developer[EMAIL PROTECTED] INIT.D Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 99.% still isn't 100% but sometimes suffice. -- Me signature.asc Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
Re: Bug#378112: ITP: gzrt -- gzip recovery toolkit
* Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-13 15:54]: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Package name: gzrt > Version : 0.4 > Upstream Author : Aaron M. Renn > * URL : http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/hacking/gzrt/ > * License : GPL > Programming Lang: C > Description : gzip recovery toolkit > > gzrecover will attempt to skip over corrupted data in a gzip archive, > thereby allowing the remaining data to be recovered. > > Please install cpio 2.5 or higher to facilitate recovery from damaged > gzipped tarballs. No need to mension it in the description, that's what dependencies are for. yours Martin -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System was is denn so schlimm an CTCP ? einfach alles bzw. warum kanns dann jeder client? fehler im system
Re: Broken applications: Could we be honest?
On 7/12/06, Thierry Chatelet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please answer only to the list the mail is originating. Agreed. Cross posting is bad form. On top, I am wondering why we have so many ' tell the truth mail lately. Dan Brown started it! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Broken applications: Could we be honest?
Art Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Excuse me for chiming in, but I think many places simply look > for the best performance and productivity/dollar(euro). We do use the PGI > compiler, > mostly because gnu had not had a f90-f95 compiler, and partly because > of, maybe, a 10% improvement in speed. > > What I find interesting is that both Fedora and Debian have similar > problems for different reasons. Debian has now stable release for > AMD64 because Sarge was released before AMD64 was really ready. This means > that we are all stuck in the beta test-site pool. It would be really nice > if Debian actually packaged up a "stable-like" version of AMD64 at the > same level as Sarge. Fedora has been moving so quickly, that they have > incorporated the same problems into a nominally stable release. The amd64.debian.net is at the same level as sarge if you include the proposed updates. The only difference to official sarge is that the ftp-master hasn't pushed those proposed updates into our sarge yet (for which we all hate him a bit). MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#378112: ITP: gzrt -- gzip recovery toolkit
[Martin Wuertele] > > Please install cpio 2.5 or higher to facilitate recovery from > > damaged gzipped tarballs. > > No need to mension it in the description, that's what dependencies > are for. Presumably he intends to merely Recommend cpio, in which case it's entirely appropriate to explain why in the description. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdrtools
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > Joerg clearly stands that:
> >
> > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> > be called "scripts":
> >
> > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
> > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
> > "scripts".
>
> This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
> compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
> for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
> obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
> ensure that the build system is covered.
>
> If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
> (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand
what non-scripting language is, I googled this:
"""I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $
or whatever in front of variable names, and makes quoting strings an
optional construct, and does string variable substitution inside string
constants unless you force it not to with odd escape characters.
A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical
conventions and parsing syntax."""
Erast
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdrtools
On Jul 13, 2006 at 16:06, Erast Benson praised the llamas by saying: > > I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it > is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation". > > Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand > what non-scripting language is, I googled this: > > """I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $ > or whatever in front of variable names, and makes quoting strings an > optional construct, and does string variable substitution inside string > constants unless you force it not to with odd escape characters. > A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical > conventions and parsing syntax.""" > You run an interpreter[0] which loads the source script files[1] and executes it. The language is a mixture of declarative and iterative programming. It clearly falls in the remit of scripts for compilation. Your paragraph appears to make python a non-scripting language. [0] make(1) [1] Makefile -- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdrtools
On 07/13/06 08:06:19AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > > Joerg clearly stands that:
> > >
> > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> > > be called "scripts":
> > >
> > > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
> > > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
> > > "scripts".
> >
> > This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
> > compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
> > for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
> > obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
> > ensure that the build system is covered.
> >
> > If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
> > (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
>
> I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
> is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
Do you consider debian/rules in all of the Debian packages a makefile or a
script? The fact that I can put '#!/usr/bin/make -f' at the top of a file
and run it as I would any other script would definitely make it appear to
be a script.
> Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand
> what non-scripting language is, I googled this:
>
> """I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $
> or whatever in front of variable names, and makes quoting strings an
> optional construct, and does string variable substitution inside string
> constants unless you force it not to with odd escape characters.
> A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical
> conventions and parsing syntax."""
Well I guess that means Python isn't a scripting language since it fails to
meet at least the 'variable usage requires sigils' criteria.
Jim.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: adduser: what is the difference between --disabled-password and--disabled-login
https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=pages&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fpages.google.com%3A80%2F On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:29:03 -0700 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:33:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 07:22:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > I also think it would be really "cool"(TM) if the system could display > > > > a message "password expired" or "account is locked" if the user > > > > successfully authenticates to the system but is unable to authorize > > > > the user to use the system. This saves the user wondering "did I use > > > > the correct password?", "Did I enter it in correctly?", etc. > > > > This leaks information to attackers about the state of the account. > > > Hence "could": I don't consider the fact that an account is expired or > > locked (or exists, for that matter) to be sensitive information, for > > my uses, and would much prefer to give proper error messages. People > > with different security needs/philosophies use different policies ... > > The trouble with doing this, in PAM-based systems, is that authentication > precedes authorization; so any message that informs the user that the > account is not authorized (i.e., it's expired or locked) also informs the > attacker that authentication succeeded. > > So, it's not just information about the account state that's being leaked; > you're also leaking authentication tokens. > > -- > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdrtools
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:06:19AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > > Joerg clearly stands that:
> > >
> > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> > > be called "scripts":
>
> I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
> is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
>
> Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand
> what non-scripting language is, I googled this:
>
> """I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $
> or whatever in front of variable names, and makes quoting strings an
> optional construct, and does string variable substitution inside string
> constants unless you force it not to with odd escape characters.
> A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical
> conventions and parsing syntax."""
So, scripting language == pretty much just perl?
And, anyways, vars in Makefiles are $(var). And there's no quotes. And
it substitutes vars in strings.
--
Rodrigo Gallardo
GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: cdrtools
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
>> > Joerg clearly stands that:
>> >
>> > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
>> > be called "scripts":
>> >
>> > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
>> > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
>> > "scripts".
>>
>> This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
>> compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
>> for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
>> obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
>> ensure that the build system is covered.
>>
>> If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
>> (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
>
> I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
> is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
This is a minority viewpoint, IMO. We could argue for months about
what a "script" is, but that wouldn't help much. Makefiles are often
referred to as "build scripts", and I don't think many folks would
argue that they are *not* scripts.
Look at the complete definition:
,
| The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
| making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
| code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
| associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
| control compilation and installation of the executable.
`
> Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand
> what non-scripting language is, I googled this:
>
> """I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $
> or whatever in front of variable names, and makes quoting strings an
> optional construct, and does string variable substitution inside string
> constants unless you force it not to with odd escape characters.
> A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical
> conventions and parsing syntax."""
You are going into nitpicking arguments about semantics and
definitions at this point, which is not particularly useful: you are
wasting everyone's time, including your own.
The intent of the GPL requirement is clear: the build system in a
distributed source tree licensed under the GPL must be GPL (or
compatible with the GPL). That is, the mechanism used to build GPL
code is an intrinsic part of a GPL licensed work, and so cannot be
licensed in an incompatible manner.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please sign and encrypt your mail.
pgpbQ2E5Git5C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: cdrtools
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> >> > Joerg clearly stands that:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> >> > be called "scripts":
> >> >
> >> > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
> >> > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
> >> > "scripts".
> >>
> >> This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
> >> compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
> >> for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
> >> obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
> >> ensure that the build system is covered.
> >>
> >> If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
> >> (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
> >
> > I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
> > is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
>
> This is a minority viewpoint, IMO. We could argue for months about
> what a "script" is, but that wouldn't help much. Makefiles are often
> referred to as "build scripts", and I don't think many folks would
> argue that they are *not* scripts.
sure. and many would argue that it is not. I personally don't care much.
Well, it is not really productive, and as I said, I don't want to insist
on (1). So, for me, this topic is closed.
Erast
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdrtools
On Thursday 13 July 2006 18:54, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > >> > Joerg clearly stands that:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles
> > >> > may be called "scripts":
> > >> >
> > >> > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
> > >> > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
> > >> > "scripts".
> > >>
> > >> This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
> > >> compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
> > >> for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
> > >> obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
> > >> ensure that the build system is covered.
> > >>
> > >> If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
> > >> (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
> > >
> > > I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
> > > is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
> >
> > This is a minority viewpoint, IMO. We could argue for months about
> > what a "script" is, but that wouldn't help much. Makefiles are often
> > referred to as "build scripts", and I don't think many folks would
> > argue that they are *not* scripts.
>
> sure. and many would argue that it is not. I personally don't care much.
> Well, it is not really productive, and as I said, I don't want to insist
> on (1). So, for me, this topic is closed.
I'd rather expect some alternatives to cdrtools to be discussed in -devel ML,
because it is pretty insane to rely on a single point of failure like that
one (competition always makes things work better), and license issues
discussion to be moved to -legal or appropriate buglogs into BTS.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: greylisting on debian.org?
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The specific example used was some spam source sitting in the same /27 > netblock in a colo server room, and getting through the graylister because > a proper MTA from the same /27 netblock had already been added to the > "approve it, it does retries" list of the graylister. Ok, now I understand. As I've already said, graylisting on /27 netblocks amounts to inventing new network standards, which I believe should go through the IETF standardization process before we block email from people who don't comply with our newly invented standards. If you don't think the standard could make it through the IETF, doesn't that tell you something? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the planet is gone...
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:51:26 +0200 Wolfgang Lonien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > np - is there a status page somewhere for the Debian boxes, so next > time ppl could look it up themselves? > > I would volunteer to make one, but I'm no DD... We might need a status page for the status page box ... -- Regards, Ed :: http://www.gnunix.net proud python hacker Visual Basic, much like generic beer and America's Funniest Home Videos is an enabling technology for stupid people. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the planet is gone...
ed wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:51:26 +0200 > Wolfgang Lonien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > np - is there a status page somewhere for the Debian boxes, so next > > time ppl could look it up themselves? > > > > I would volunteer to make one, but I'm no DD... > > We might need a status page for the status page box ... http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#378112: ITP: gzrt -- gzip recovery toolkit
On Jul 13, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Presumably he intends to merely Recommend cpio, in which case it's > entirely appropriate to explain why in the description. README.Debian maybe, but not in the description... -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#378157: general: w gives some weird message
Package: general Severity: normal I couldn't figure out what package "w" belongs to, hence general. "w" is reporting some messages on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. 2.4+ kernel w/o ELF notes? -- report this 05:57:38 up 18 min, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.04 USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT root ttyv5-05:46 18:33m 0.00s 0.00s /sbin/getty 384 -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: kfreebsd-i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: GNU/kFreeBSD 5.4-1-486 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#378112: ITP: gzrt -- gzip recovery toolkit
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > On Jul 13, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Presumably he intends to merely Recommend cpio, in which case it's >> entirely appropriate to explain why in the description. > README.Debian maybe, but not in the description... The package description is the appropriate place to document what the recommendations are there for. Contrary to README.Debian, it is shown by apt frontends at the time where a user need to decide whether he can ignore the recommendation (for example, if the recommended packages are uninstallable on his system for some reason). -- Henning Makholm Set your feet free! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#378112: ITP: gzrt -- gzip recovery toolkit
* Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-13 16:48]: > [Martin Wuertele] > > > Please install cpio 2.5 or higher to facilitate recovery from > > > damaged gzipped tarballs. > > > > No need to mension it in the description, that's what dependencies > > are for. > > Presumably he intends to merely Recommend cpio, in which case it's > entirely appropriate to explain why in the description. No need to mension it at all (skipping woody): cpio |2.5-1.3 |stable | source, (...) cpio | 2.6-15 | testing | source, (...) cpio | 2.6-16 | unstable | source, (...) yours Martin -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System weasel: wenn du typo3 auf die asteria gibt, dann lock ich dich eigenhändig aus
Bug#378157: general: w gives some weird message
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 05:59:33AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > I couldn't figure out what package "w" belongs to, hence general. > "w" is reporting some messages on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Where does /etc/alternatives/w point to in your system? -- Rodrigo Gallardo GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#378157: general: w gives some weird message
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 05:59:33AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > I couldn't figure out what package "w" belongs to, hence general. > "w" is reporting some messages on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. cassarossa:~> ls -l /usr/bin/w lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 2005-06-04 11:39 /usr/bin/w -> /etc/alternatives/w cassarossa:~> ls -l /etc/alternatives/w lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 2005-06-04 11:39 /etc/alternatives/w -> /usr/bin/w.procps cassarossa:~> dpkg -S /usr/bin/w.procps procps: /usr/bin/w.procps You might want to do the same check on your own machine. Note that if you give a binary name to reportbug, it will automatically track down the right package for you. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdrtools
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either > (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality. That would seem to be an accurate description of some certain author of some certain rather popular CD-writing tool... -- 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: cdrtools
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:06:19AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > > Joerg clearly stands that:
> > >
> > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> > > be called "scripts":
> > >
> > > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
> > > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
> > > "scripts".
> >
> > This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
> > compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
> > for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
> > obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
> > ensure that the build system is covered.
> >
> > If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
> > (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
>
> I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
> is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
>
> Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand
> what non-scripting language is, I googled this:
>
> """I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $
> or whatever in front of variable names,
$(MAKE)
$(CC)
$<
are all valid make varialbes.
So, check.
> and makes quoting strings an optional construct,
Direct quote from the `make' info file:
objects = main.o foo.o bar.o utils.o
check.
> and does string variable substitution inside string constants unless
> you force it not to with odd escape characters.
I'll leave out the example to keep your and my sanity on par with some
standard we both may want to adhere to. Check, anyway.
> A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical
> conventions and parsing syntax."""
Anyone claiming that make has 'simple, clear-cut lexical conventions'
needs to go see a doctor.
How's it that make isn't a scripting language?
--
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: cdrtools
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Last time I checked (and it was after Gerv's post), the relicensing changes > > were still not applied to the MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH. Things seem to have > > changed, but that needs some checking. I took some random files to check > > and found out files that are not tri-licensed in the trunk, so... *sigh* > > After a slightly closer look, it seems most of the code is actually > tri-licensed, even in the Firefox 2 branch. Strangely enough, while the > vast majority of the code is under MPL/GPL/LGPL, some of it is under > NPL/GPL/LGPL. That doesn't change much for us, but it's still strange. > Still a lot of files don't have a license text at all, including > examples and test source code. > Some examples and test files are licensed under Mozilla-sample-code. > > The most problematic files are in xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix. > This directory contains assembler code for xpcom on several platforms. > While a lot of these files are not of any use for us (irix, vms...) some > are indeed used: > xptcinvoke_asm_ppc_linux.s, xptcstubs_asm_ppc_linux.s and > xptcinvoke_asm_sparc_linux.s are NPL only ; > xptcinvoke_asm_mips.s is MPL. > > I'm going to contact Gerv about that. I got a clarifying answer. The relicensing is indeed done, which means they got permission from all the contributors involved to relicense the relevant things. Some things may not be MPL/GPL/LGPL if they are under compatible licensing terms (such as the Mozilla-sample-code license). Some others, such as the assembler files I was talking about were just missed by the license status checking scripts and can be considered relicensed. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#378167: ITP: sudoku -- console based sudoku
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Nicolas François" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: sudoku Version : 1.0.1 Upstream Author : Michael Kennett * URL : http://www.laurasia.com.au/sudoku/ * License : Public Domain Programming Lang: C Description : console based sudoku This sudoku puzzle generator/solver features: * character based (curses) interface; * cross-platform (Minix, Unix, Windows) with full source code (ANSI C); * generates hints upon request; * classification of board difficulty (very easy, easy, medium, hard or fiendish); * generation of new boards; * easy entry of boards published in newspapers, internet, etc...; * multiple output formats (text,csv,html,postscript). . Homepage: http://www.laurasia.com.au/sudoku/ There are already some other sudoku puzzle packaged in Debian. This one do not requires an X environment. I will need a sponsor to have it uploaded. Kind Regards, -- Nekral
Re: Bug#378112: ITP: gzrt -- gzip recovery toolkit
* Martin Wuertele [Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:24:38 +0200]: > > > > Please install cpio 2.5 or higher to facilitate recovery from > > > > damaged gzipped tarballs. > No need to mension it at all (skipping woody): ^^ Hopefully it == "the version" :) As Henning, I also think briefly mentioning relevant Recommended packages is appropriate for package descriptions. > cpio |2.5-1.3 |stable | source, (...) > cpio | 2.6-15 | testing | source, (...) > cpio | 2.6-16 | unstable | source, (...) Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org — Quieto parao. Usted no está en condiciones de ir a ningún sitio. Dígame dónde está la muchacha y yo iré a por ella. — No sé dónde está. — Le voy a pedir que sea algo más específico. -- Carlos Ruiz Zafón, “La sombra del viento” -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sub : help on glade.
Hi This is sameer working in software devision in MIC Electronics.We are devoloping a project in LINUX with GLADE and using MY-SQL as back-end. 1) I compiled GLADE application using ---> make ---> makeinstall --- > ./filename and i got output for all the programs.
2) Later i have written a program(using C) and got connected to MYSQL database. Here i compiled this program using ---> gcc programname.c -L usr/lib/mysql
Now the problem occured while compiling embeded mysql source in callbacks.c. I need procedure that tells how to compile callbacks.c after adding mysql.h(for me it is giving errors while "make" reference to mysql is not available).
Program: #include #include #include #include #include
#define MYSQL_HOST "localhost" // database server name#define MYSQL_DB "clists" // database name#define MYSQL_USERID "hugolin" // database user id
#define MYSQL_PASSWD "tristan" // userid password#define MYSQL_TABLE "clist" // table name
/* User clicked the "Add List" button. */void button_add_clicked( gpointer data ){ int indx;
/* Something silly to add to the list. 4 rows of 2 columns each */ /* gchar *drink[4][2] = { { "Milk", "3 Oz" }, /* { "Water", "6 l" },
/* { "Carrots", "2" }, /* { "Snakes", "55" } };*/ gchar *drink[2]; /* Here we do the actual adding of the text. It's done once for
* each row. */
MYSQL mysql; MYSQL_RES *result; MYSQL_ROW row;
unsigned int num_fields; int record_count;
char query_str[100];
mysql_init(&mysql);
if (!mysql_connect(&mysql,MYSQL_HOST,MYSQL_USERID,MYSQL_PASSWD)) { printf("Failed to connect to database: Error:%s\n",mysql_error(&mysql)); return; }
if (mysql_select_db(&mysql,MYSQL_DB)) { printf("Failed to select table: Error: %s\n",mysql_error(&mysql)); mysql_close(&mysql); return; }
strcpy(query_str,"SELECT * FROM "); strcat(query_str,MYSQL_TABLE);
mysql_query(&mysql,query_str); result = mysql_use_result(&mysql);
while ((row = mysql_fetch_row(result))) { drink[0]=row[1]; drink[1]=row[2]; gtk_clist_append ((GtkCList *)data, drink); record_count++; }
mysql_close(&mysql);
return;}It will be of great help for me, so please let me know the solution to move forward.
Thank In AdvanceSameer.T
information regarding glade
Hi This is sameer working in software devision in MIC Electronics.We are devoloping a project in LINUX with GLADE and using MY-SQL as back-end. 1) I compiled GLADE application using ---> make ---> makeinstall --- > ./filename and i got output for all the programs.
2) Later i have written a program(using C) and got connected to MYSQL database. Here i compiled this program using ---> gcc programname.c -L usr/lib/mysql
Now the problem occured while compiling embeded mysql source in callbacks.c. I need procedure that tells how to compile callbacks.c after adding mysql.h(for me it is giving errors while "make" reference to mysql is not available).
Program: #include #include #include #include #include
#define MYSQL_HOST "localhost" // database server name#define MYSQL_DB "clists" // database name#define MYSQL_USERID "hugolin" // database user id
#define MYSQL_PASSWD "tristan" // userid password#define MYSQL_TABLE "clist" // table name
/* User clicked the "Add List" button. */void button_add_clicked( gpointer data ){ int indx;
/* Something silly to add to the list. 4 rows of 2 columns each */ /* gchar *drink[4][2] = { { "Milk", "3 Oz" }, /* { "Water", "6 l" },
/* { "Carrots", "2" }, /* { "Snakes", "55" } };*/ gchar *drink[2]; /* Here we do the actual adding of the text. It's done once for
* each row. */
MYSQL mysql; MYSQL_RES *result; MYSQL_ROW row;
unsigned int num_fields; int record_count;
char query_str[100];
mysql_init(&mysql);
if (!mysql_connect(&mysql,MYSQL_HOST,MYSQL_USERID,MYSQL_PASSWD)) { printf("Failed to connect to database: Error:%s\n",mysql_error(&mysql)); return; }
if (mysql_select_db(&mysql,MYSQL_DB)) { printf("Failed to select table: Error: %s\n",mysql_error(&mysql)); mysql_close(&mysql); return; }
strcpy(query_str,"SELECT * FROM "); strcat(query_str,MYSQL_TABLE);
mysql_query(&mysql,query_str); result = mysql_use_result(&mysql);
while ((row = mysql_fetch_row(result))) { drink[0]=row[1]; drink[1]=row[2]; gtk_clist_append ((GtkCList *)data, drink); record_count++; }
mysql_close(&mysql);
return;}It will be of great help for me, so please let me know the solution to move forward.
Thank In AdvanceSameer.T
Work-needing packages report for Jul 14, 2006
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 322 (new: 20) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 81 (new: 1) Total number of packages requested help for: 23 (new: 1) Please refer to http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ for more information. The following packages have been orphaned: apt-dpkg-ref (#377918), orphaned 2 days ago Description: APT, Dpkg Quick Reference sheet Installations reported by Popcon: 518 cl-awk (#377919), orphaned 2 days ago Description: Common Lisp package with the features of AWK and more. Installations reported by Popcon: 21 cl-lexer (#377920), orphaned 2 days ago Description: Lexical-analyzer-generator package for Common Lisp Installations reported by Popcon: 18 cl-parse-number (#377921), orphaned 2 days ago Description: Provides functions to parse any Common Lisp number string Installations reported by Popcon: 15 cl-regex (#377922), orphaned 2 days ago Description: Common Lisp regular expression compiler/matcher Reverse Depends: cl-awk cl-lexer cl-speech-dispatcher Installations reported by Popcon: 36 cl-tclink (#377923), orphaned 2 days ago Description: Common Lisp bindings to the TrustCommerce transaction system Installations reported by Popcon: 2 dtmfdial (#377869), orphaned 2 days ago Description: A DTMF Tone Dialer Installations reported by Popcon: 244 encore (#377620), orphaned 3 days ago Description: core database for lambdamoo Installations reported by Popcon: 7 ghostcore (#377621), orphaned 3 days ago Description: Core database for lambdamoo Installations reported by Popcon: 10 jhcore (#377622), orphaned 3 days ago Description: Jay's House Core, an enhanced core database for lambdamoo Installations reported by Popcon: 8 lambdacore (#377623), orphaned 3 days ago Description: core database for lambdamoo Installations reported by Popcon: 13 lambdamoo (#377624), orphaned 3 days ago Description: a server for an online multiuser virtual world Installations reported by Popcon: 17 lambdamoo-docs (#377625), orphaned 3 days ago Description: LambdaMOO user and programmer manuals Installations reported by Popcon: 16 ld.so.preload-manager (#377867), orphaned 2 days ago Description: A utility to manage the libraries in /etc/ld.so.preload Reverse Depends: snoopy Installations reported by Popcon: 126 libxbox (#377861), orphaned 2 days ago Description: Headers for use with libxbox Reverse Depends: libxbox-dev Installations reported by Popcon: 5 printop (#377924), orphaned 2 days ago Description: Graphical interface to the LPRng print system. Installations reported by Popcon: 156 ratmenu (#377626), orphaned 3 days ago Description: Creates X menus from the shell Installations reported by Popcon: 75 rolldice (#377870), orphaned 2 days ago Description: A virtual dice roller Installations reported by Popcon: 92 sipp (#377925), orphaned 2 days ago Description: development library for sipp Reverse Depends: sipp-dev Installations reported by Popcon: 13 xbox-cromwell (#377862), orphaned 2 days ago Description: Xbox BIOS image Installations reported by Popcon: 2 302 older packages have been omitted from this listing, see http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned for a complete list. The following packages have been given up for adoption: libsnmp-mib-compiler-perl (#377864), offered 2 days ago Description: SNMP::MIB::Compiler is a MIB compiler. Installations reported by Popcon: 40 80 older packages have been omitted from this listing, see http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/rfa_bypackage for a complete list. For the following packages help is requested: [NEW] svn-buildpackage (#377467), requested 4 days ago Description: helper programs to maintain Debian packages with Subversion Installations reported by Popcon: 433 aboot (#315592), requested 385 days ago Description: Alpha bootloader: Looking for co-maintainers Reverse Depends: aboot aboot-cross dfsbuild ltsp-server Installations reported by Popcon: 50 apt-build (#365427), requested 75 days ago Description: Need new developer(s) Installations reported by Popcon: 424 athcool (#278442), requested 625 days ago Description: Enable powersaving mode for Athlon/Duron processors Installations reported by Popcon: 224 cvs (#354176), requested 140 days ago Description: Concurrent Versio
