Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:28:15AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:41:10PM +0100, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > > > Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom, > > > there's no matter discussing that. > > I don't see how making more packages availabl

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:50:05AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:15, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Or do you have to be root for getpwnam() to work on NIS accounts? > > In certain NIS configurations you can only access the hashed password > > if your qu

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

Scripsit Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Maybe we should have a debconf option for whether the program in question is > to be SETUID root or SETGID shadow? Then the minority of people who use NIS > can have full functionality, while the majority of people who don't use NIS > can have bette

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:04:04PM +0100, Rico -mc- Gloeckner wrote: > Saying that "another ftpmaster might think different" is proof enough > of a doubt; it would be better to say: "your package has to wait, i will > clear up with the group of ftpmasters wether this package is acceptable > for

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:15, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or do you have to be root for getpwnam() to work on NIS accounts? > > In certain NIS configurations you can only access the hashed password > if your query to the NIS server comes from a privileged port <=1024, > i.e. afaict

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

> Overly terse answers (and your previous dismissals of questions as > "trivial" despite attempts to explain why they are non-trivial) do not > reassure anyone that you are capable of packaging a critical system > component, especially in an ambitiously different way. I'm reassured.

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:43:58AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:59, Andreas Metzler wrote: >>> Also I believe that Lee's statement regarding NIS is incorrect, >>> unix_chkpwd only does /etc/shadow. >> testing. >> You are wrong, unix_chkpwd does NIS (at least in the sze

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Scripsit Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anyway, on the given topic, are "reverse-suggests" possible? Quoth debian-policy, section 7.2: |Enhances | This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite | direction. It is used to declare that a package can enhance the | fu

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:53:39PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:35:53AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > > I've been splitting out ODBC support locally since the very beginning, > > but everytime I mooted it, Wichert Akkerman (amongst others, but he was > > at the time gat

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:24:32PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Paul Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Cistron begat FreeRADIUS. FreeRADIUS is certainly actively maintained > >upstream. xtRADIUS is also begat of Cistron. I'd assumed that Cistron > >i

Re: apt-get problems

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Russell Coker wrote: > Below are the errors I am getting from apt-get on some machines running recent > unstable. Is this a known bug or have I screwed up something? > > I've tried downgrading libc6 and a few other things but to no avail. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get upda

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:59, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > Also I believe that Lee's statement regarding NIS is incorrect, > > unix_chkpwd only does /etc/shadow. > > testing. > > You are wrong, unix_chkpwd does NIS (at least in the szenario I just > tested). After changing unix_chkpwd from 4755 root

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Robert Millan wrote: > > Just thought I should give you a better reply. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:24:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Robert Millan wrote: > > > > >There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels. > > > > Robert, your (frankl

Re: sarge release

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:26:57PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > I apologise if this is covered elsewhere, I am currently totally > swamped and can't afford too much time for Debian. > > I am going to be away from my machine(s) starting 22 Nov until the > middle of December. I currently have 1 R

apt-get problems

Below are the errors I am getting from apt-get on some machines running recent unstable. Is this a known bug or have I screwed up something? I've tried downgrading libc6 and a few other things but to no avail. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get update Get:1 http://ftp.monash.edu.au unstable/main Pack

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:02:55PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > A liar? You have a very slant view on life. > > It's much better to say "you are mistaken" or "you are misinformed" then to > call someone a liar. Because you have said it this way, it looks badly on > you, no matter what the other pe

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:49:49PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > > > Yes. > > Could you elaborate? The obvious interpretation of your "Yes" is that > you do not understand a large part of your target audience (new users > who do not customize their kernels). By and large, that set of users > d

Re: sarge release

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I apologise if this is covered elsewhere, I am currently totally > swamped and can't afford too much time for Debian. > > I am going to be away from my machine(s) starting 22 Nov until the > middle of December. I currently have 1 RC bug and several oth

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

Just thought I should give you a better reply. On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:24:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: > > >There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels. > > Robert, your (frankly autistic) worldview worries me. What do you > believe w

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:24:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Robert Millan wrote: >> >> >There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels. >> >> Robert, your (frankly autistic) worldview worries me. What do you >> believe

Re: sarge release

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 21:26, martin f krafft wrote: > I am going to be away from my machine(s) starting 22 Nov until the > middle of December. I currently have 1 RC bug and several other bugs > against my packages. If sarge's release will happen in 2003, I will > bite the bullet and fix these bugs

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: >> > * Package name: linux-experimental >> >> I really don't care either way, but would you consider using >> kernel-linux-whatever instead? Just for consistency's sake. As >>

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > Did you consider ease of finding alternative packages through the normal > UI like dselect and aptitude? I, for one, appreciate similar things to > exist next to each other. Well no (I use apt-get), but I think I can assume that (I

Bug#220468: RFA: sourceforge -- Integrated development project framework

Package: wnpp Severity: normal I would like to deprecate sourceforge in favour of gforge. I believe gforge is ready to enter sarge (and it should have done so long ago were it not for problems in quite a lot of software depended upon). Gforge is an evolution of the free code that is sourceforge,

Re: POSIX capabilities patch

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:35:05AM -0700, Hans Fugal wrote: > So yes, it is broken on purpose (because the real solution is not in > place). No, it doesn't make capabilities useless, it just makes it > impossible to use CAP_SETPCAP. And if i enable SETPCAP for init, will init drop that capability?

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:24:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: > > >There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels. > > Robert, your (frankly autistic) worldview worries me. What do you > believe would be in a freebsd-kernel or netbsd-kernel pack

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

Hi Robert, On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:23:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > > * Package name: linux-experimental > > > > I really don't care either way, but would you consider using > > kernel-linux-whatever instead?

sarge release

I apologise if this is covered elsewhere, I am currently totally swamped and can't afford too much time for Debian. I am going to be away from my machine(s) starting 22 Nov until the middle of December. I currently have 1 RC bug and several other bugs against my packages. If sarge's release will h

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:28:20PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that > > a package in mail suggests packages in non-free, which ARE NOT PART OF > > DEBIAN? > > Pa

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version > has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package. Patented software isn't really non-free. Search the list archives.

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being >a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling >out of this mailing-list, I do not give a toss about it and I think >that noone else does. A liar? You hav

Re: Closing. (Was: Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:23:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > I > for one _would_ appreciate having a debian-standard linux package. kernel-source-*, kernel-image-*, kernel-headers-* -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `'

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:29:07AM +, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > We have procedures in place to handle all this, perhaps it's time you > learnt to use those, instead of whining about things which aren't even > the case. No way, man. We simply have to have people repeat the same fodder on debi

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

Robert Millan wrote: >There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels. Robert, your (frankly autistic) worldview worries me. What do you believe would be in a freebsd-kernel or netbsd-kernel package? What do you believe would be in a linux-kernel package? When someone say

Re: Bug#215103: ITP: gmasqdialer -- gtk/gnome client for masqdialer server

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 21:04, Joe Drew wrote: > > Description : gtk/gnome client for masqdialer server > How about "client for masqdialer"? The problem with calling it just that is there are many more clients for masqdialer than just this one, like the qt/kde client, the cli client, the java

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:35:53AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:23:24PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:00:40AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > > > PostgreSQL requires license changes, and I've not had much luck buiding > > > impetus for this, no

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:37:58PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > 4) Patch apt-listchanges so that id doesn't mail about suggestions >on packages that are not available. apt-listchanges neither knows nor cares about suggests or recommends. -- - mdz

Re: Bug#220289: general: make a new section: gis, for Geographic Information System packages

Hi! Simon Richter schrieb: > How about "science/geography"? Establishing subsections? Or as a section name? Either way, we should use "science/math", "science/pysics", "science/biology", "science/whatever..." as well then. I think geography&co neatly fits into the current science section. Ciao,

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield schrieb: > good question. How do we deal with this situation for other source > projects that contain things like encryption that are outlawed in > countries X, Y, and Z but OK in the US? Establish non-non-US? ;o) Ciao, Eike

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > * Package name: linux-experimental > > I really don't care either way, but would you consider using > kernel-linux-whatever instead? I considered it, but it's redundant and unnecessary. I'll stick with the name choose

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy schrieb: > As far I know, there are still no patent for software in Europe, > whatever an European institution know to fail to comply to European > rules may do. Neither GIF nor LZW is software, though. The patent is about the LZW compression algorithm. Ciao, Eike

Re: Security liabilities (Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future)

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:44:01PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > This is exactly the kind of situation I don't want going forward...there is > so much neglected software in Debian that bugs like these sometimes go > unnoticed, or even if they are noticed, the maintainer doesn't care enough > abou

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > * Package name: linux-experimental > > I really don't care either way, but would you consider using > kernel-linux-whatever instead? Just for consistency's sake. As > someone else said, eventually there will be a ke

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that > a package in mail suggests packages in non-free, which ARE NOT PART OF > DEBIAN? Packages are free to suggest whatever the maintainer wishes; I wouldn't even con

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:27:10 +0100, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : >> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote: >>> > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >>> > >>> > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -pol

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:23:09PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > It does adduser freerad shadow on first installation, but not after that > > (on the advice of Steve Langasek) to allow the local authentication code > > to work, and to give the admin the freedom to disable this fo

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:10:02PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract. > (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...) I have a creepy feeling that you are not wearing a user hat but rather a hat of an organisation with a specific a

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

> * Package name: linux-experimental I really don't care either way, but would you consider using kernel-linux-whatever instead? Just for consistency's sake. As someone else said, eventually there will be a kernel-freebsd or kernel-netbsd, and having an uniform scheme to call these thin

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 03:36:40PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:47, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [...] > unix_chkpwd is a reasonable solution to this. >>> One possible solution to this is to have a special GID for >>> non-root programs which are allowed to check passwords. I woul

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:41:10PM +0100, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > > Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom, > > there's no matter discussing that. > I don't see how making more packages available to our users is > "lowering the quality of Debian in matter of fre

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Eike Sauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Ben Gertzfield schrieb: >> As I mentioned in a response to the bug report, this is mostly a >> nonissue, since the LZW patent has expired in the US and I've merged >> the -nonfree package back into the main package in the unstable Debian >> distribution.

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:19:02AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:07:27AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña > wrote: > > > Maybe I'm mistaken, but the rpm spec file seems to use a 'radiusd' user > > whileas the Debian rules package does not. I would be more confident

Re: Bug#219942: ITP: zope-textindexng2 -- Fulltext index for Zope

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Igor Stroh wrote: > How about mentioning ZCatalog in some way? Any suggestions to enhance my latest version: This is the new full text index for Zope objects and is the most feature-complete solution for full text indexing under Zope. . TextIndexNG will live happily as p

Re: Bug#219959: ITP: mozilla-locale-eu -- Mozilla Basque Language Package

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:59:45PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote: > The mozilla-locale* packages need some uniformity to their short (and > maybe long, I haven't looked) descriptions. > > ("Mozilla $LANG Language Package", "Mozilla $LANG language add-on", > "Mozilla $LANG language/region pack" are all exa

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 12, 2003, at 7:38 AM, Eike Sauer wrote: As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid in Europe and Japan until mid 2004. Shouldn't this matter for an international project? This is true, I believe. Whether or not the main GIMP source (distributed in main) is even allowed in Europe and Ja

Re: Bug#220289: general: make a new section: gis, for Geographic Information System packages

Hi, > > Debian needs a new Packages section, named gis, or perhaps geography or > > cartography, to prevent the mapping related packages from being > > scattered in sections graphics and science, and misc, etc.? as at present. > I'd consider this section much too special. > Why not sort out which

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield schrieb: > As I mentioned in a response to the bug report, this is mostly a > nonissue, since the LZW patent has expired in the US and I've merged > the -nonfree package back into the main package in the unstable Debian > distribution. As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid

Re: Bug#220363: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Nov 11, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote: > >> Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> gimp1.2-nonfree > > Discussion aside, this is a nonissue, since the gimp1.2-nonfree > package is gone in unstable. > > I would very

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 12, 2003, at 1:27 AM, Mathieu Roy wrote: So you confirm what I thought (yes, I checked this page before): - the support for GIF creation inside the main gimp package, in main, has been removed in favor of a package in non-free, that provide the same functionality (plus patented

Re: POSIX capabilities patch

* Francesco P. Lovergine [Wed, 12 Nov 2003 at 14:48 +0100] > It has implication for libcap* packages too, doesn't it? From libcap2's README.Debian: This library should be used in conjunction with the kernel patches from http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/security/linux-privs/kernel-2

Re: Bug#220363: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 11, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote: Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install gimp1.2-nonfree Discussion aside, this is a nonissue, since the gimp1.2-nonfree package is gone in unstable. I would very much like to close this bug. Does this solve this issue to you

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

* Mathieu Roy wrote: > Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : [...] >> Note, no mention of "Suggests". > > No mention is not necessarily approval. It may be just something > forgot. That's why Tollef suggests to discuss this on -policy. -- - nobse

Re: Common SSL CA Certificate Directory

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:17:38PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > Does Debian by Policy have a standard directory to store Certificate > Authority certificates? I've run into the need to incorporate a > certificate into a number of services on my system: web browsers, email > clients, email servers,

Re: POSIX capabilities patch

* Francesco P. Lovergine [Wed, 12 Nov 2003 at 14:48 +0100] > It has implication for libcap* packages too, doesn't it? I would assume so. -- Hans Fugal | De gustibus non disputandum est. http://hans.fugal.net/ | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg http://gdmxml.fugal.net/ |

Re: POSIX capabilities patch

* Daniel Jacobowitz [Tue, 11 Nov 2003 at 22:18 -0500] > I would want considerably more information on the security implications > of allowing CAP_SETPCAP than either of those documents provides, if I > were you. > > The POSIX capability code is notoriously subtle and prone to anger. Which is why

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:31:17PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:36:27PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see: > > He no longer works for transmeta. Should be changed? s/transmeta.com/osdl.org/ > > J >

Re: POSIX capabilities patch

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:11:47PM -0700, Hans Fugal wrote: > In order to get realtime capabilities, jackd can be run with a suid > wrapper (jackstart), instead of being run as root, if the following > patch is applied to the kernel: > It has implication for libcap* packages too, doesn't it? -

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:31:17PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:36:27PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see: > > He no longer works for transmeta. Should be changed? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is ok now. -- Fr

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Cistron begat FreeRADIUS. FreeRADIUS is certainly actively maintained >upstream. xtRADIUS is also begat of Cistron. I'd assumed that Cistron >is dead upstream too, and xtRADIUS active. Cistron radius is not dead. It's just i

Re: Closing. (Was: Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:31, Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:37:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > > > * Package name: linux > > Version : 2.4.22 > > Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see: >

Re: status of Progeny projects

Peter Zoeller schrieb: > I have been long time user of linux and I find the greatest weakness to > be the ability to easily install applications which seems to be the > intent of this group. I allways found it less easy to - go to mozilla website - find the appropriate binary - download it - r

Re: Security liabilities (Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future)

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:44:01PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:18:38AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:30:50PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > CAN-2001-1376 and CAN-2001-1377 made the rounds last Spring, with > > > advisories > > > from Re

Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:36:27PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see: He no longer works for transmeta. Should be changed? J -- Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350

Re: Closing. (Was: Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)

On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 00:23, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:31, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:37:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > > Package: wnpp > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > * Package name: linux > > > Version : 2.4.22 > > > Ups

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:29:04PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > Either satisfies the first part of my question, but at least your second > option doesn't satisfy the second part of my question. I'll repeat: > > "without leaving old System.map junk around for eternity" > > When would you clea

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:07:27AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:02:49PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:52:00AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > The packages at will be sponsored into > >

Re: ITP: 1-mb-random-data -- one megabyte of pseudo-random data

[ CCing debian-hurd ] Hi Joey, On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:08:55AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name: 1-mb-random-data > Version : 1 > Upstream Author : entropy > * URL : /dev/urandom > * License : ? (may violate v

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:14:02PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote: > Robert Millan schrieb: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote: > >> Robert Millan schrieb: > >> > I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for > >> > this trivial bug. > [...] > > I didn't w

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:48:26PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:40:11PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: > > There are already several forks of the Linux kernel in Debian anyway. > > Robert wishes to attempt to unify them, does that not grant him use of the > > name 'linu

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:02:14PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:47:14PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > However, > > for the matter of finding out wether there will be much people in that > > userbase, there's the Popularity Contest. > > Some people just never learn.

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 03:37:29PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:11, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > That would need a reimplementation of some (all?) of the servers. Wouldn't > > it? Old ones (cistron, livingston) call getpwnam()|getspnam() to retrieve > > the user

Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: linux-experimental Version : 2.4.22 Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/CREDITS * URL : http://www.kernel.org/ * License

Version Updating Question

Hi! It will not be necessary to name it 1.0really, but as many others do: 1.0final... What about that one? Rolly

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov/12, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > As you're not a member of the Debian project, you don't get any say > > in what's to be accepted or not > Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract. > (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...) Note that "Users" goes befo

Closing. (Was: Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:37:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name: linux > Version : 2.4.22 > Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others, see: > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/CRED

Re: ITP: 1-mb-random-data -- one megabyte of pseudo-random data

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:17:57AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: | Please, please, no! /dev/urandom does not reliably deliver | pseudo-random data. There is a chance that fresh entropy will arrive | in the middle of the computation and mess up with the pseudoness. No, I already covered that in

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Anthony Towns a tapoté : > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: >> reopen 220363 >> thanks > > Please do not abuse the BTS. If you want to discuss it, feel free to do > so, but this is not a bug in the gimp package. If you consider that not being a bug, please never claim

Re: Bug#219942: ITP: zope-textindexng2 -- Fulltext index for Zope

On Mi, 2003-11-12 at 07:44, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Joe Drew wrote: > > > This is the new fulltext index for Zope and is the most feature-complete > > > solution for fulltext indexing under Zope. > > > > > > Supported Formats: HTML, PDF, Postscript, WinWord, PowerPoint, OpenO

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:54:29AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > It is also possible to create GIFs using a patent-free run > length encoding but this doesn't achieve the compression that > one normally expects in a GIF. > >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > reopen 220363 > thanks Please do not abuse the BTS. If you want to discuss it, feel free to do so, but this is not a bug in the gimp package. > Are you kidding? > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that

Re: ITP: 1-mb-random-data -- one megabyte of pseudo-random data

Scripsit Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Description : one megabyte of pseudo-random data > I intend to dd if=3D/dev/urandom of=3Ddebian/tmp/usr/lib/1-mb-random-data Please, please, no! /dev/urandom does not reliably deliver pseudo-random data. There is a chance that fresh entropy will arr

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > If not, why incitating people to get non-free stuff while you just > can provide a Gimp that can save GIF without LZW? Because no such non-LZW plugin exists for the GIMP. [And since people may wonder why they can't save GIFs, it is appropriate for the pack

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Le mer 12/11/2003 à 10:31, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > If you have anything on topic to do, you are welcome to reply to this > mail. The whole thread is off-topic on this list. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PRO

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If not, why incitating people to get non-free stuff while you just can > provide a Gimp that can save GIF without LZW? If it isnt already there - write a patch for it if you want that. -- bye Joerg A.D. 1492: Christopher Columbus arrives in what he beli

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or >> > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", >> > "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main >> > package), ..." >> >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : >> * Mathieu Roy >> | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> | gimp1.2-nonfree >> Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> If you disagree with this, please discuss it

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > >> 2) Why the gimp cannot any longer save gif files without installing >> non-free software? > > The software itself is free, but the algorithm necessary to save GIF > files (LZW) is patent encumbered in certain parts of the planet, and > the patent i

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:27, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main > > > > "...the packages in main > > > > * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or > > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> * Mathieu Roy >> >> | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> | gimp1.2-nonfree >> >> Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> >> If you dis

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote: >> > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> > >> > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a >> > technical discussion. >> >> 1) Do you have a pointer that g

  1   2   >