On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:44:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> One reason for the DFSG's modifiability and source requirements is to
> preserve our ability to fix things. I see no reason why we shouldn't
> insist on that for firmware just as we do for openoffice.org.
You don't have that f
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And nothing there explains why firmware should have less freedom,
> > except for the claim that without this we won't be able to distribute
> > the drivers (and you say how important those drivers are).
>
> Maybe. But why won't you refute the argumen
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:37:57AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> > Anyway, you can find a very old and partial selection of my arguments
> > at http://blog.bofh.it/id_33 .
>
> Nothing there explains what the reduced level of freedom would be:
> what
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frankly I can't spot the flaw in this approach. In general we want to
> distribute all useful bitstreams (programs, documentation and firmware)
> in Debian. However we are forced to disqualify the ones that don't have
> adequate freedoms. It's a subtra
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:25:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
> > > backwards from "we want this stuff to
la, 2005-03-26 kello 21:35 -0700, Jeremy Nickurak kirjoitti:
> On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 12:53 +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> > Description : Music file player
> > This is a port of the Open Cubic Player to Linux.
> > .
>
> It would be nice if the description had some definition of what the
> s
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 12:53 +0100, GÃrkan SengÃn wrote:
> Description : Music file player
> This is a port of the Open Cubic Player to Linux.
> .
It would be nice if the description had some definition of what the
software does. Video player? Audio player? Without any previous exposure
to
Thomas Hood wrote:
> Should Debian initscripts use lsb init-functions?
Where can we find these functions?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: William Vera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: png2html
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : Geoff Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.engr.mun.ca/~holden/png2html.html
* License : (GPL)
Description : transfo
Adeodato Simà wrote:
> # test -r /proc/1/root || echo "Inside a chroot"
What if an postinst script at some point drops privs to a non-root user and
grsec is preventing it from reading any process' info other than its own user's?
Also, as pointed out earlier this wouldn't work on HURD.
signatu
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: bbclone
Version : 0.4.6
Upstream Author : BBClone Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bbclone.de/
* License : GPL
Description : A PHP based Web Counter on
Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Why #DEBHELPER# substitution isn't implemented for config file?
Because I had not seen a need for it yet.
> How can I handle this?
File a wishlist bug report. It's not particularly hard to write the
necessary patches, although not trivial enough for me to do before
re
===
We interrupt your regularly scheduled flamewar to bring you this
hemi-important announcement.
===
I just uploaded aptitude 0.2.15.9 to Incoming. Most of
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:02:51AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > Changes:
> > lsb (2.0-6) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> >* Create lsb package in binary-indep step. (Closes: #297788)
> >* Merge /lib/lsb/init-functions from Ubuntu.
> >* Split /lib/lsb/init-functions into arch-all lsb-
On Mar 27, David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have main for those things which are DFSG-free and non-free for
> the things redistributable but not-DFSG-free and there are people who rely on
> this distinction.
So we must have been screwing them really bad until now...
Where are their
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libgtk-mozembed-ruby
Version : 0.3.1
Upstream Author : Mirko Maischberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL
Descripti
On Saturday 26 March 2005 20:25, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:59:49PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > >> Do you have any arguments for this that do *not*
> > Thanks :) hehe, it wasn't different to me:
> > but it can't only play modules, but also mp3 and ogg.
> > and the file selector is very handy (type in the path you want,
> > letters only (and / as well as dot).
> >
> > Stian will work on rewriting the assembly parts to c so it gets
> > easier
On Saturday 26 March 2005 03:04 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> As for the other games you mentioned: I don't know about PacMan, that one
> might be on the public domain for all I know. Same for bomberman. Pingus
> only copies the concept, so it would be in about as much trouble as Manes
Hi Henrique
> This game cannot be packaged, it infringes a lot of Konami copyright. You
> must remember that the game *design* itself is copyrighted, as well as the
> name, the characters, the graphics, etc.
What about Bomberman? Pacman? Pingus? Supertux? No I will not remove it
because of the r
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:54:03 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> > This is a port of the Open Cubic Player to Linux.
>
> Jeez, I have felt a damn huge wave of nostalgia just now. Time to get my
> Mindcandy DVD out of the shel
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> > This game cannot be packaged, it infringes a lot of Konami copyright. You
> > must remember that the game *design* itself is copyrighted, as well as the
> > name, the characters, the graphics, etc.
>
> What about Bomberman? Pacman? Pingus? Supertux? N
On Friday 25 March 2005 02:51 pm, Adam McKenna wrote:
> No matter how you feel about the term "editorial changes", it seems to me
> that if these changes were really so bad, and the majority of the project
> is now against them, they should be easy enough to roll back.
>
> All we need is another GR
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:59:49PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >> Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
> >> backwards from "we want this stuff to be
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You made many arguments, but that doesn't mean they answered the two
> specific questions: what freedoms, exactly, and why reduced ones for
> this particular class of software?
Since I answered both questions I think it's obvious that we
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only one who was aware that the outcome would change the release
> manager's position wrt. freedom bugs in sarge seems to have been the
> release manager himself. But that does not change the fact that it was
> common knowledge that the amendment w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You kept saying nothing more than "we don't care about modifying them
> > because nobody will ever want to", which is, well, simply false.
> Yet another strawman. What is false is your desc
Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050326 00:55]:
>> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
>> > And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
>> > been discussed is that most people were not aware of the scope of the
>> >
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
>> backwards from "we want this stuff to be in main, freedoms or not"?
> Well, I would start with "we want this stuff
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You kept saying nothing more than "we don't care about modifying them
> because nobody will ever want to", which is, well, simply false.
Yet another strawman. What is false is your description of my arguments,
which were much more complex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, while there was lots of discussion, there wasn't actually a
> > proposal explaining what the reduced level of freedom would be and why
> > firmware needs less freedom.
> Anyway, y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, while there was lots of discussion, there wasn't actually a
> > proposal explaining what the reduced level of freedom would be and why
> > firmware needs less freedom.
> I explain
On Mar 26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
No, but nearly all packages support both conventions.
> I'm asking because of obstruction (from upstream) regarding the
> application
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, while there was lots of discussion, there wasn't actually a
> proposal explaining what the reduced level of freedom would be and why
> firmware needs less freedom.
I explained this multiple times and I believe that I was not the
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 11:17 +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> * Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 22:25]:
>
> > > AFAIK we don't have a good "What you can do to help us" documentation
> > > (please correct me, if I am wrong).
> > How about http://www.debian.org/devel/join/ ?
> > Which is linke
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> * Package name: mazeofgalious
This game cannot be packaged, it infringes a lot of Konami copyright. You
must remember that the game *design* itself is copyrighted, as well as the
name, the characters, the graphics, etc.
That said, it is almost (alm
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 07:28:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:21:39 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul
> Hampson) wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:36:52PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:47:22 +0100, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >* M
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: mazeofgalious
Version : 0.62
Upstream Authors: Santi Ontanon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.braingames.getput.com/mog/
* License : Not defined yet (will try to work this out with upstream)
Description
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Additionally, other kernels (such as the FreeBSD kernel) that do have
> a /proc do not have it functionally overloaded like the Linux one.
That's an excellent point. While it's likely that a /proc filesystem
will be written for the Hurd, it's very un
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
> > > non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:54:03 -0300
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> > > This is a port of the Open Cubic Player to Linux.
> >
> > Jeez, I have felt a damn huge wave of nostalgia
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> This is a port of the Open Cubic Player to Linux.
Jeez, I have felt a damn huge wave of nostalgia just now. Time to get my
Mindcandy DVD out of the shelf and watch side B again!
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
Dear developers,
I'm writing a debhelper script for zope packaging and I need to
add very similar config script to the packages created with it.
Actually, I'm using a common package (zope-common) with common
templates which I'm using with db_register and db_subst, and a
debhelper package (dh-zop
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name : tinyerp
* Version: 2.0
* Upstream Author : Fabien Pinckaers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL: http://tinyerp.org
* Licence: GPL
* Description:
Tiny ERP is a Enterprise Resource Planning and Customer Relationship
Management software for small to medium bu
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: opencubicplayer
Version : 0.20040830
Upstream Authors: Stian Sebastian Skjelstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Niklas Beisert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Original)
* URL : http://labs.nixia.no/ocp.php
Dear Debian developers,
The tools multi-apt-get-* and multi-dpkg-* can be seen as extensions of
the corresponding Debian tools to this kind of cluster arquitecture. It
has enabled a small management team to maintain large sets of terminals
here in our Institute and other nearby institutions.
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050326 08:18]:
> > > And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
> > > been discussed is that most people were not aware of the scope of the
> > > "editorial" changes, so there was no reason to discuss anything.
>
> > You can keep repe
Well, just reporting that this whole instructive interchange resulted in
my using in the remote-boot nodes of our clusters the policy-rc.d script
#!/bin/bash
test -x /sbin/runlevel || exit 101
if [ "`/sbin/runlevel`" == "unknown" ] ; then
exit 101
fi
exit 0
It solved the problem with rwhod in
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
Do it if you can. It is not mandated anywhere, but it is clearly a very good
idea. We should even make it a *may* in policy to stress this, I su
Le vendredi 25 mars 2005 à 22:08 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
> Hello *,
>
> curently I am coding a tool which run from cron (as root) periodicly
> and if a $USER is loged into X it shows Messages.
>
> My Problem is, HOW to find the $USER who is connected to a $DISPLAY.
>
> If I start two x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
I'm asking because of obstruction (from upstream) regarding the
application of a simple patch to allow yaboot to support it:
http://bugs.debi
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
> > non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what
> > isn't for all types of packa
On Mar 26, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should Debian initscripts use lsb init-functions?
Post-sarge I'm probably going to try with my packages.
> It would probably be best if this were decided at the project level.
Yes, but it looks hard. Also, policy should reflect packaging practic
Does anyone use the libasound2-plugins package? If so, how?
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Changes:
> lsb (2.0-6) unstable; urgency=low
> .
>* Create lsb package in binary-indep step. (Closes: #297788)
>* Merge /lib/lsb/init-functions from Ubuntu.
>* Split /lib/lsb/init-functions into arch-all lsb-base package; this
> functionality is thus available for use by othe
Benjamin,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:12:45AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Why not freeze the archive at a given time and make a release for all
> architectures ready until then. As this code is frozen, the porters can
> continue to work on the frozen codebase where only patches are allowed
> w
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This adds up to a lot of effort for a dead-end architecture. Do you believe
> > that such ports are going to command enough interest to be able to keep up
> > with
57 matches
Mail list logo
