David Nusinow wrote:
> As far as I understand it, this is simply grandfathered in. I'm not that up
> on the FHS details though, so I may be wrong. Remember also that this isn't
> X11R6 any more, but X11R7.
Ok, /usr/X11R7 would probably violate either the spirit or the letter of the
FHS (probably n
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:48:24AM -0500, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Right. The everything that you'd expect to go in to /usr/bin and /usr/lib
> will install there, at least as far as Xorg goes. An example of that is
> that the new xterm package installs to /usr/bin rather than /us
Maurits van Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - /srv/debian
>
> According to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard the /src dir is for
> Data for services provided by this system, which seems to fit the
> bill.
/srv is a good place for local data which does not fit into any other
hierarchy, so
[David Nusinow]
> As far as I understand it, this is simply grandfathered in. I'm not
> that up on the FHS details though, so I may be wrong. Remember also
> that this isn't X11R6 any more, but X11R7.
Branden toyed with the idea of setting ProjectRoot to /usr when
packaging XFree86 4.0. I was so
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:15:23AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
>> David Nusinow wrote:
>>> Currently, it fakes FHS compliancy by creating various symlinks
>>> (/usr/include/X11, /usr/bin/X11, /usr/lib/X11) to the appropriate
>>> directories in /usr/X11R6. Fo
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:15:23AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> >One of the changes happening for Xorg 7.0 is that it will finally become
> > FHS compliant.
>
> FWIW, the FHS 2.1 specifies /usr/X11R6 in section 4.1. I can't see
> anything FHS-incompliant about the current s
David Nusinow wrote:
>One of the changes happening for Xorg 7.0 is that it will finally become
> FHS compliant.
FWIW, the FHS 2.1 specifies /usr/X11R6 in section 4.1. I can't see
anything FHS-incompliant about the current setup.
> Currently, it fakes FHS compliancy by creating various
> symli
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:16:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian
> does with regard to python-minimal. The only reason I am participating in
> this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and
>
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:53:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
One answer to this would be to l
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 05:33:42PM -0700, Joseph Smidt wrote:
> On Friday morning I looked at the RC report and there was about 1300 bugs
> total with 550 that will affect the next release. Now there is 1090 total
> and falling, possibly will go down to about 1000 as the weekend finally
> ends. S
Hi all,
One of the changes happening for Xorg 7.0 is that it will finally become
FHS compliant. Currently, it fakes FHS compliancy by creating various
symlinks (/usr/include/X11, /usr/bin/X11, /usr/lib/X11) to the appropriate
directories in /usr/X11R6. For 7.0, we need to make those symlinks bec
Ok, i'm not subscribed here so please cc me any responses directly.
Before I propose my suggestion I want to outline my issues with how meta
pkgs are done currently.
Meta pkgs by my own definition here are pkgs which have no payload of
their own, but have their "Depends" field loaded with var
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Stan Vasilyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: qfaxreader
Version : 0.3
Upstream Author : Serghei Amelian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://qfaxreader.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Description : A versatile mu
> Do a
>
> find /usr/share/doc -name copyright -exec grep -l "YOUR NAME" {} \;
>
> to find those packages on your system. (This might cause a few false
> positives, figlet for example is not affected :)
Hmm, I suspect this will find a very large number of false positives
since "YOUR NAME" sh
On Friday morning I looked at the RC report and there was about 1300
bugs total with 550 that will affect the next release. Now there
is 1090 total and falling, possibly will go down to about 1000 as the
weekend finally ends. Similarly there is currently 387 that will
affect the next release with
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:53:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:58 +0100, David N Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>> 1. debian-legal is wro
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:29:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> There is a "xcftopnm" binary in gimp-perl, but it is very slow,
> starting the Gimp engine to do the work. "Convert" from imagemagick
> supposedly also understands XCF files, but not the ones I work with,
> and it would probably be
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If you do not see closed source software as incontrovertibly
> non-free, I have no desire to discuss this issue with you.
You are exaggerating my point into ridicule.
> Under some (extreme) viewpoints, there are no facts
> (you, sir,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: xcftools
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://henning.makholm.net/software
* License : GPLv2
Description : command-lin
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:50:32 +0100, Daniel Knabl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>but first of all i would need some help on the control-file, the
>rules-file and on "how to resolve dependencies" of my package.
You have already been pointed towards debian-mentors multiple times.
Greetings
Marc
--
--
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006, Simon Richter wrote:
> And GNOME would by default be configured to launch gnome-www-browser,
> thus solving the problem for GNOME users who do not set any other
> browser in gnomecc. The question for me would be whether this affects
> people who use neither GNOME
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
> >> that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
> >> NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintainer field unchanged.
> >
> >
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:57:22AM +0900, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When you say that normal operation is getting slower, do you mean just
> > the load time or its overall performance? The time required to load
> > in all th
Daniel Knabl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> but first of all i would need some help on the control-file, the
> rules-file and on "how to resolve dependencies" of my package.
There is no Hotline for desperate wannabe-DDs. Read the documentation as
everybody else and ask concrete questions when they
[David Weinehall]
> Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> they share the same source.
The same can be said about Debian architectures, when the autobuilder
build the packages at different ti
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
>> whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
>> resolution, or whether t
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>> thus should be included in main.
>
>
> Looking over the arguments for and against it in -legal,
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed
> works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of
> fact.
Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:18:18PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> I've got an NMU prepared and sitting in the XSF svn repo[0]. Almost all the
> work was done by Daniel Stone, so I mainly had to add the appropriate bug
> closers in the changelog.
>
> This NMU will depend on a new version of libdrm.
On Sunday 22 January 2006 11:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
> >> whether issue 1 can, a
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:58:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> > Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says
> > invariant
> > sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been
> > used. Yay ?!
>
> I suspect that m
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:36:05 -0300, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 1/21/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
>> whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
>> resolution, or wheth
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>thus should be included in main.
Looking over the arguments for and against it in -legal, I am
trying to ascertain if this stan
Hi there,
as i use this piece of software already on my own host, i would like to
provide it to any other users.
for the first steps i have created a directory "vexim-2.2.rc1". it
includes all of the used files (most are *.php files). next i did
"dh_make" on it.
as i think it is a single binary i
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:48:05 +0100 (CET), Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer body
>> can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
>> seen as fa
Hi,
If we were to deal with all these issues on one ballot, it
would have to take the form somewhat like this:
A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is
wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision,
and issue the following statement
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:58 +0100, David N Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
>>> 1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>>> thus should be inclu
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
2006/1/22, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict set of
rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are subject to
interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what distinguishes them
f
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says
> invariant
> sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been
> used. Yay ?!
I suspect that many of those cases might just be an accidental ommission
in the copyright file...
O
Hi,
no, this is not really about the GFDL issue currently discussed, but about
using the unmodified GFDL template in debian/copyright. Besides not being
able to tell who has the copyright, it makes it also impossible to tell if
there are invariant sections and/or cover texts.
Lots of packages
2006/1/22, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict set of
> rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are subject to
> interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what distinguishes them
> from rules. Therefore, I think
On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer
> body can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
> seen as fact (so no GR stating PI=exacly 3.14 or 22/7).
Could you please explain how you arrive at th
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 02:26:57AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
[snip]
> In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer
> to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package
> when it gets resynched.
>
> Now, before I confuse myself with word games and cont
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:53 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> > propagated unmodified into
44 matches
Mail list logo
