On 06/01/2011 07:25 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
so in _that_ regard, the question becomes: "are the efforts of the
free software community better off being spent elsewhere"? and "what
benefit is there *TO THE FREE SOFTWARE COMMUNITY* of doing LSB for
ARM"? forget the proprietary j
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jeff Licquia
* Package name: python-pip
Version : 0.3.1
Upstream Author : Ian Bicking
* URL : http://pip.openplans.org/
* License : MIT/X
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Alternative Python package
Vincent Danjean wrote:
For me, papi is a library with its tools to access hardware performance
counters. It used a lot on some plateform (NUMA, ...) to analyze the
performance of HPC programs.
Google with "papi" give this link in first :
http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/
This software is not packaged
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: papi
Version : 1.0 beta
Upstream Author : Norm Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/openprinting
* License : Mostly CDDL (some LG
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: virtualenv
Version : 0.8.1
Upstream Author : Ian Bicking
* URL : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/virtualenv/
* License : MIT-style
Programming Lang: Python
Descr
On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 21:14, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> Hi! (it's my first post here)
>
> You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
>
> Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.
>
> Time to throw some gas
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:43, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Witness the response to Jeroen.
I don't think we can draw any conclusion from the response to Jeroen
other than "a lot of us think rudeness is a bad thing". (Including even
Jeroen himself, per his apology a few flames back in that thread.)
-
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries,
> then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to
> even know who to approach. (The debian-doc package is conspicuously
> lacking of the relevant c
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 14:00, Gerhard Muntingh wrote:
> whaah! No compiled debconfscripts on my machine. While it
> would be nice to have python bindings, I'd really like to
> hack all sorts of scripts when I need to.
Byte-compiling Python modules isn't the same as compiling C code; it's
an optimi
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly
> > phrased; [...]
>
> Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understa
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 08:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be
> > software "for the purposes of the DFSG". But does it make sense?
>
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 01:08, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Replies to -legal if you must make them. This list is for development
> issues, not boring license pedantry.
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinso
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 00:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > DFSG stand for &q
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:21, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
> > > documentation?
> >
> > Revisionist history, for one. I'm s
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 19:03, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> >I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
> >modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
> >referred to. Flame away.
> >
> >http://peo
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
> Why isn't it enough to worry about the license?
Because software isn't documentation?
Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to
maintain if we co
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
> > some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem
> > see
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Jeff, you might want to read:
Noted.
> People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
> subscribe to -legal.
And I have (though only recently).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:51, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
>
> When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
> that one de
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> > option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
> > DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
>
> Why? What freedoms are important for software th
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:43, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
>
> Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> in Debian.
Documentation isn't software. Neithe
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
>
> Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packa
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 23:54, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> > would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> > that
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:49, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
> > clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
> > doesn
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:40, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> This should have been dealt with sooner. But the past three times the FDL
> has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached. The only thing
> we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent
> any consensus.
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:08, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> >
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free by our
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 13:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > A large mirror in Australia does provide an rsync server to access debian
> > packages. When redhat 7.0 came out so many people tried to rsync it at the
> > same time, the machine promptly fell over.
> >
> What amazes me is that nobody is able or
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 19:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > >
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 03:13, Otto Wyss wrote:
> Please show use any figures first before you assert this.
>
> I know rsync imposes some load for the computing of the md5sum but
> sendind only the difference outweighs it repeatedly.
It's my understanding that rsync imposes a large computational b
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 13:38, Rob Bradford wrote:
> Ooh nice, maybe you could integrate with apt-spy or something to find
> the fastest for the user?
I don't see why not, though I'd be more inclined to add pin support
first. I had a crazy idea of doing directed graphs for country support,
so you c
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Aptconf will allow users to configure sources.list via debconf. It
will also contain a configlet for setting up sources.list via the
GNOME Control Center, in druids, and potentially other settings.
The architecture will treat the existing sources.list as the cano
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:49:12PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Of course it is broken. It is _not_ supported on sparc, other than to
> make it available to users. _I_ do not want anything built on sparc that
> doesn't use the default compiler (except in cases such as libc6-sparc64
> where we obviou
CUPS 1.1.2 packages have been installed into woody.
I know, I know: if you wanted package updates, you'd subscribe to
debian-changes. But, I've received several requests via private
E-mail as well as in the BTS, so I thought a more general announcement
was warranted, since it seems to be in some
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 01:17:56AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> > However, I'ld like to see a standard meta-info files about
> > the package, which had informations necessary to create a packages, like
> > compilation commands, files (including inf
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:34:54PM +0100, Matthias Berse wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 03:16:56PM +0100, Martin Waitz wrote:
> > compile devicd3dfx-source and you are done :)
> Am I the only one where make-kpkg modules-image fails on devicd3dfx? I
> have to do it manually! But maybe that's relat
I intend to package EPM, the Easy Software Products Package Manager.
(Actually, I've already packaged it, so this is more an "intent to
upload to woody".)
License: GPL.
Package: epm
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: devel
Installed-Size: 110
Maintaine
37 matches
Mail list logo
