Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 20:13]:
This is just patently false, as has been pointed out elsewhere.
What
security hole, exactly, is created by orphaning a file?
Well, if some process (maybe within the package) cr
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Humberto Massa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 18:34]:
in my workstation I try out a new package (for scientfic computing, a
game for Lucas, a new development package) at least once each two days,
and a lot of times they come with their libs and their daemons -- and
their
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Humberto Massa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 18:28]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 18:09]:
"We can provide a sensible default for system users' removals that
copes with most situations and leave a door ope
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051026 18:09]:
"We can provide a sensible default for system users' removals that
copes with most situations and leave a door open (through debconf)
to sysadmins that want to fiddle with system users."
I really want to
@ 21/09/2005 02:25 : wrote Matthew Palmer :> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at
01:12:38AM -, Samuel Jean wrote:
> Here it goes. I wondered about a clever way to load my iptables
> ruleset via init.d's script. Surprisingly, I didn't find any with
> Debian. I didn't search that much though.
Have a look
@ 18/09/2005 17:55 : wrote Josselin Mouette :
This is complete overkill. The only thing currently missing in your
scenario is support in apt-get and synaptic for grabbing dependencies
for a single binary package. E.g. "apt-get install foo.deb" or
"synaptic foo.deb".
There was some patch to
> The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
> discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."
This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not
> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
> them?
YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate agains
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
> meaningfull to dis
Actually, I stand partially corrected as of:
> Actually, in Norway, I got a limited right to copy it, a given right
> to modify it, a limited right to distribute it, and a limited right to
> distribute copies.
Down here (Brasil) -- and I suspect in the USofA too -- NO (or, better
saying, extremel
> I might be slow, but can you explain why we need a license for this?
> I do not need to license my books, but I do need to license my
> software. Why should the wiki documents be treated more like software
> than a book?
Yes, you do need a license to the content of your books. Only thing is,
wh
* Hamish Moffatt ::
> I just packaged podracer last week, which is a derivative of
> bashpodder.
> Is there any benefit to having both?
>
> The podracer license is MIT/BSD-style, so if the bashpodder license is
> GPL, something's not quite right!
Does a 14-line bash script (*) contains enough c
** Peter Palfrader ::
> > mysqld_get_param () {
> > /usr/sbin/mysqld --print-defaults |
> > sed -ne "s/^.*--$1=\\([^ ]\\+\\).*\$/\\1/p"
> > }
>
> And harder to read. Making scripts more complex and harder to
> read for some dubious efficiency is not a good idea in my opinion.
I respectfu
** Bastian Blank ::
> You have a linux kernel ready, which allows chroot as normal user?
> Please share it with us.
It's called QEMU :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** Joe Smith ::
> Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
> Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package
> to fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user
> from recompiling on his own system, which thusly
> * Package name: mpfi
> Version : 1.3.3
> Upstream Authors: Nathalie Revol, Fabrice Rouillier (email ommited)
> * URL :
> http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/nathalie.revol/software.html
> * License : LGPL 2.1 or later
> Description : multiple precision floating-poin
> > I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a
> > desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so.
In my experience, sid breaks less than testing when used as a desktop.
OTOH, I avoid doing apt{-get,itude} upgrade... I generally enter the
interactive aptitude screen, press U, an
** Andreas Barth ::
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050804 18:48]:
> > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > * Miles Bader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050804 13:54]:
> > >> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> >> Which is wholy irrelevant, because Debian's mailing
> li
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:15:42 +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > Boot-Up Manager is a graphical tool to allow easy configuration
> > of init services in user and system runlevels, as far as changing
> > Start/Stop services priority.
>
> Consulting the documentation...
> > 1. Activate a de-ac
** Eric Cooper ::
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 09:52:34AM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > So, if we had a new header to indicate that this is the
> > "drop-in" replacement of the old program, it could work, right?
> [...]
> > Which should this new header be?
> > "Substitutes:", "Supersedes:",
** Anthony DeRobertis ::
> Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
>
> > Well said. IMHO, no. DFSG #8 -- witch is part of the SC, IIRC --
> > forbids us to have rights that our users don't have.
>
> No, it doesn't. It says:
>
> The rights attached to the pr
> > What trademarks are you referring to? Already the Debian
> > packages don't use any of the trademarked images and logos?
>
> If we don't use any trademarked images, logos, or phrases, what
> exactly are we talking about here?
As I think this is a very nice question, could Eric or any other
p
> Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't see
anything in the DFSG restricting it to copyrights or excluding trademarks or
patents. So, it is my Humble Opinion that DFSG#8 applies broadly.
--
HTH
> Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to
> in the first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is
> not allowed to call it mozilla-firefox. If we call it
> debian-firefox then downstream is still not allowed (under the
> same conditions) to call it mozilla-firef
> I maintain a package (hdf5) which contains a pure C library and a C++
> interface. However, I'm pretty sure the C++ library isn't used by
> packages depending on it. In this case, is it necessary for
> the library to be renamed?
What about third-party software that is not part of Debian and dep
> With this reasoning, firefox must go to non-free -- because everything
> in main is guaranteed to be freely distributable by anyone, anywhere.
With modifications, inclusive.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** Matthew Garrett ::
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is it? I seemed to recall that the MPL contained a
> > choice-of-venue clause, and that -legal deemed choice-of-venue
> > as non-free, because imposes a burden on the lice
> Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it *as
> long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing to
> accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our users?
If we are willing to accept it for ourselves, then we should accept it for
oursel
** Manoj Srivastava ::
> > (4) It *does* generate an unnecessary difference between Debian and
> > *all* *other* distros, with no reasonable motive at all.
>
> We differ on what we considered reasonable.
But not *one* reasonable motive for differing was cited in this whole thread.
So, r
> Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal.
Sorry John, but this is BS. The text of the GPL#6 says: "You may not impose
*any* further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." This
*does* include trademark restrictions.
But this is a moot point for t
> Yes, it's not nice, it's crap, but it's still entirely
> possible within the
> (pseudo-)legal framewark Debian gives itself.
Isn't Debian point to be less crap? Yeah, I even agree it's possible within
Debian's "laws", but should it be done? I don't think so.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
** Otavio Salvador ::
> >>>>> "humberto" == Humberto Massa Guimaraes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> humberto> IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a
> humberto> plan, such as:
>
> humberto> * testing and unsta
> I didn't say anything about manpages, did I?
Your phrase was directly after Sergey's question of where should he put the
manpages.
Apropos, Sergey, your argument about manpages going in -data is sound, provided
-bin REALLY Depends: on -data.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
** Sebastian Ley ::
> Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 16:20 schrieb Humberto Massa Guimarães:
>
> > > Does calling it "firefox" or "thunderbird" hurt "free software"?
> >
> > At first, no. But it *does* hurt our users. Why? Because they are
&g
Maybe I can shed some light on this
** Manoj Srivastava ::
> > That common is common enough?
>
> Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you
> fashioned your run levels would make sense for, say, me.
> People whoi really want tailored run-levels often have
>
** Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ::
> No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct*
> users from such burden. A lot of people would get greatly confused
> with a different name for Firefox, even if you don't think so.
>
> *Indirect* users such as derived distributions should check the
* Matthew Garrett ::
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under
> > the terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free.
>
> This is, uh, debated.
Is it? I seemed to rec
Sergey Fedoseev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > no architecture dependent data in it (or such data is very
> > > small).
> > >
> > > Maybe you should tell us what program are you going to
> > > package.
> >
> > That would be a good idea.
> I'm not going to package program...yet. There are many packag
* Wiktor Wandachowicz ::
> Hello all Debian folks!
>
> First of all I would like to congratulate all Debian developers
> and maintainers for releasing sarge. Good job! (and a big relief
> for all of you, I guess)
>
> Having a Debian installed on 10 Sun Blade boxes and helping a bit
> on debian-b
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo ::
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote:
> > > There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to
> > > binary package, and architecture independent to data package.
> >
> > I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For
>
* Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ::
> El Martes 14 Junio 2005 16:50, Marco d'Itri escribió:
> > > They don't care about free software. They don't care about
> > > distributors/vendors.
> >
> > This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented > a
> > bit more if you want people to believe you.
* Julien BLACHE ::
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We
> >> drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: "eh, wtf,
> >> Debian hasn't got firefox? mozil
* Towns ::
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to
> > use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this
> > feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
>
> "Our priorities are our users and free software"
>
> Does having the
* Marco ::
> On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We
> > drop
> Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to
> Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian?
Agreed.
>
> > Thei
* Julien BLACHE ::
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and
> >> thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with
> >> the FSF can't work with the MoFo.
> >
> > The downside to this approach is that the Mozilla Founda
* Thijs ::
> On Tue, June 14, 2005 08:00, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to
> > use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this
> > feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
>
> However, in #4, an explicit exception is
> On 6/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Not necessarily. Just as you have "tableout" as an external
> > command (built-in or not) in Monad, you can have a Perl module
> > to print things in a tabular manner, expanding the c
* Olaf ::
> On 6/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Yes, and I withdraw :-) what I said about XML. But *any*
> > serialization / deserialization necessary for this scheme to
> > work would add (unnecessary) overhead. This and the fact t
* Olaf ::
> On 6/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > printf "%-50.50s %d\n", $_, -s $_ for <*.ab>
> >
> > in Perl. The domain is necessary anyway, ie, you have to know
> > Monad to understand the first, you have
* Gabor ::
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:40:10PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>
> > Many shell apps/scripts output data in tables, for example ls
> > -l, ps aux, top, netstat, etc. At the moment, most of these
> > apps use fixed-width columns with a variable-width last-column.
> > This
Matt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:13:16AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > to find their own (sometimes flawed) solution to a very common problem.
>
> Years using Linux: 10.
Idem here
>
> Times I've absolutely needed an X-less boot when an XDM was installed: 0.
Mine: 30 o
Josselin:
> Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> > > You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
> > > will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
> >
> > The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remem
Peter Samuelson wrote:
(...)
HOWEVER
This is a very silly thing to argue about without benchmarks. Those
who care about this - yes, Thomas, I mean you - should get numbers.
Here's how:
(steps 1-6)
You are 100% right and I stand corrected.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Will Newton wrote:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we pleas
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory i
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
and I am
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
With dir_index, yes it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes sense if it's
necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not make sense.
Sure it does. Especially if you want / to be in a Flash disk and /usr to
be somewhere else in the network.
HTH
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
These
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs /
distinction,
then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people thin
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under
copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a wo
Batist Paklons wrote:
This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
Raul Miller wrote:
>On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define "work based on the
>>Program" in terms of "derivative work under copyright law", and
>>then, after this de
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
I have made this transition a lot lately, too, and I would like to offer
some insight about the following process:
2. The standard yes, no, diff, shell approach could probably use
some tweaking. What I mean is that with so many config files being
updated, there should
Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, it tries to define "work based on the Program" in terms
> of "derivative work under copyright law", and then incorrectly
> paraphrases that definition.
It's probably worth noting that "derivative work" and "work based on
the Program" are spelled differently. What's
Andrew Suffield wrote:
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
So, there it goes.
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Paul TBBle Hampson]
This of course assumes the phrase "derived work" is legalese for
"code dependancy" or something. I'm sure the GPL ac
Josh Metzler wrote:
How would you know which subscriber was harvesting e-mail addresses?
Josh
If the need ever comes, you can put a fake and distinct CC: address on
each outgoing mail, that will point to a single subscriber.
I would receive the same mail with CC:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you, with
James William Pye wrote:
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license tha
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Ross Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Games serve a purpose: they entertain the user. What is the purpose of
sdate?
The same. If you are not entertained by sdate, then you do not
need to install it.
That said, the following script is probably just as amusing, and
undoubt
Nico Golde wrote:
I think there is no other way expect to specify this in a
config file. Or it should be documentated that in this case
the user has do dpkg-reconfigure the package.
Regards Nico
Isn't there a way to write a "trigger" to be... hmmm... triggered in
case some specific package (/in
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.04.01.2104 +0200]:
Uh, this looks like a "pull" type of thing in which ever init.d
script starts its dependencies. I don't think this is a good idea.
No, it is not. The dependencies are cached.
Cached? As in q
Matthew Palmer wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:32:30PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:06:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>>
>>>And I believe that the Vancouver proposal, if implemented as intended
>>>up to now, will not only af
Steve Langasek wrote:
>Hi Gunnar,
>
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
>>And I am sure we can find more examples like these - I have not really
>>checked, but I would be surprised if architectures as popular as
>>Sparc, Alpha or ARM wouldn't have an emulator (although p
Sven Luther wrote:
>Still i believe i have made some constructive proposals, and even if my
>first posts may have been a bit too aggressive, for which i apologize,
>or too many, i think it is also a prove of the passion which lies on
>this issue. Something which has the potential to affect many of
David Schmitt wrote:
>1) people realize that $arch won't be REGULAR for etch because the
>people working on a release don't want to handhold it through testing
>and autobuilding is too slow to properly keep up.
Even not considering the problem I see with the Vancouver proposal
regarding Debian iden
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:52:54PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Speaking of which, can anyone here explain to me why does a two-line
security fix on, say, KDE, makes things need to be recompiled for 12
days long? (!!!) One could think that there are
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
With a decent toolset, doing a security package for 10 architectures
should be a nearly-constant amount of work, no matter which base the
number 10 is written in.
Speaking of which, can anyone here explain to me why does a two-line
security fix on, say, KDE, makes things ne
78 matches
Mail list logo
