Re: arm64 Debian/Ubuntu port image available

Nice work, Wookey! If experience cross-building for armhf is any guide, all you need for NSS is a host build of shlibsign; see https://github.com/mkedwards/crosstool-ng/blob/master/patches/nss/3.12.10/0001-Modify-shlibsign-wrapper-for-cross-compilation.patch. There's also scriptage in that repo f

Re: Bruce Perens hosts party at OSCON Wednesday night

On 8/2/05, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unsolicited Commercial Email. Please pay the standard $2000 fee for > advertisments on Debian mailing lists. Adam, I'm kind of curious what you mean by that. What, if any, actual or proposed statutory standard for UCE did you have in mind when y

Re: OT: debian mentors & ubuntu

On 7/19/05, Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:21 +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > > Heyho, > > why is mentors.debian.net powered by Ubuntu? > > http://mentors.debian.net/ > About this repository > Welcome to the debian-mentors public software repository.

Re: libcurl3-dev: A development package linked again gnutls needed

On 7/17/05, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Upstream developers should get a clue and either properly license their > software, stop using libcurl or adding gnutls support to it. Upstream developers (and a lot of other people) should stop believing the FSF's FUD about how it's not legal

Re: unreproducable bugs

On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [cranky but funny stuff] If there ever is a blackball commitee, Manoj of all people belongs on it. :-) Cheers, - Michael

Re: unreproducable bugs

On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (As a practicing SubGenius, I like to think of the "ornery, cussing > Debian", up there with the Two-Fisted Jesus, and the Butting > Buddha. Others may have other views) As a practicing Episcopatheist, I like to murmur, "There is no God, and deb

Re: unreproducable bugs

On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am having a hard time reading this as anything but a non sequitur. > > Umm; it follows more from Manoj's comment than yours. Ah. OK. > > Personally, I prefer for a solution to be demonstrated to work, both > > socially and technically, be

Re: unreproducable bugs

On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> What's with the recent push to get every little things written

Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal

On 7/15/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:30:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > An alternate solution is to have a database for that kind of thing, > > but I forsee that it requires effort to maintain and keep up-to-date. > > Like the database I just que

Re: unreproducable bugs

On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's with the recent push to get every little things written > down into policy, so the developer no longer is required to have an > ability to think, or exercise any judgement whatsoever? Welcome to the software indus

Re: skills of developers

On 7/14/05, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In sum. Maybe it's time to create additional positions in Debian project? > Maybe something like Packager (with knowledge about Bash and Debian > Policy), Translator (with knowledge about some particular language and > English), Help

Re: Bug#301527: ITP: mazeofgalious -- The Maze of Galious

Added debian-legal; please drop debian-devel on follow-ups. On 7/9/05, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is still using a copyrighted/trademarked (don't know which) name > > There is no such thing as a copyrighted name. The name does appear to have > been a trademark at one time, but

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On 7/3/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: > > &g

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: > > These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a > > new root cert, that's cool - they are taking responsibility for the > > security of those users, a

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On 6/27/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > "Presumably" isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they > > would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone, > > based on the "quality" criter

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/20/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In any case, Ubuntu packages aren't Debian packages any more than > > Mandrake packages are Red Hat packages. > > If Ubuntu sees itself to D

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 01:41:47AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > The examples that come to mind immediately are those with substantial > > components in both native code and an interpreted or bytecode > > l

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

On 6/19/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Michael K. Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I wouldn't say "accept" it, I would say "acknowledge" the safety zone > > offered unilaterally by the Mozilla Foundation, and as a courtesy to

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of 596 "lib" packages in woody (loosely identified), 325 are still > present in sarge. That's after three years of more or less constant > development. Where did you come up with this absurd idea that all binary > packages "of any great comp

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/18/05, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Practically speaking, the differences in compatibility between Ubuntu and > > Debian is of as much concern as those between Debian stable and Debian > > unstable. New interfaces are added in unstable constantly, and softw

Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems

On 6/18/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're skipping the crucial point here. Under the publicly available > licenses/policies, we *cannot* call it Firefox. The MoFo is offering > us an agreement that allows us to use the mark. I think agreeing to > this is against the spirit of DFS

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/18/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm more worried about the future; and I still haven't seen anyone > address my initial question, which is why Ubuntu is tracking sid on core > things like libc in the first place. The value you add is around > the edges with stuff like X.org and

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

On 6/17/05, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users. > > And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not > > put us in a privileged position with resp

Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material

On 6/17/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you'll find that porn is the majority industry on the internet. The Internet is, to zeroth order, useful only for the same four things that interactive TV is well suited for: video games, gambling, pornography, and pornographic gambl

Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks

On 6/17/05, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > > Alexander Sack writes: > > > >>In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product > >>name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it > >>is used in the help menu, the ab

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/17/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Speaking as someone with no Ubuntu affiliation (and IANADD either), I > > think that statement is based on a somewhat shallow analysis of how > > gli

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/16/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 04:03:32PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > On the Ubuntu side, divergences from the last Debian glibc drop that > > was merged into hoary (2.3.2.ds1-20) include subtle but important > &

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/16/05, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Python is basic for Ubuntu. Given the long freeze of sarge, Debian had > to support 2.1 (jython), 2.2 (for zope 2.6) and 2.3 for sarge. I'm > happy we did have a possibility to ship 2.4.1 with sarge. Maybe not > with the best packaging, but it

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't > ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds > incompatibilities. Speaking as someone with no Ubuntu affiliation (and IANADD either), I think that statement is b

Re: Debian concordance

On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:54:08PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > > Daniel Stone wrote: > > > libc6 added interfaces between 2.3.2 and 2.3.5 and made several other > > > major changes, so all packages built with .5 depend on .5 or above, > > > in c

Re: Ports helping in World Domination? (was: Re: Canonical and Debian)

On 6/6/05, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Eh, to achieve Total World Domination, we need to support every > > architecture out of there. Looks like a step in the wrong direction ;) > > Well, frankly speaking, Julien, last time I che

Re: Canonical and Debian

On 6/5/05, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * "Michael K. Edwards" > > | So either Debian collectively is > | willing to labor to maintain a high standard of portability and > | stability, or we need to focus on a few arches and ignore > | bugs-in-pr

Re: Canonical and Debian

On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can either step up and make sure the > architectures you care about are in good shape for etch, or you can be a > whiny brat expecting everything to be handed to you on a silver platter and > accusing people of being members of a Canonical-

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

On 5/31/05, Stephen Birch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay - you have my attention. If you are right etch will be as > beautiful as Hoary within a few weeks of the sarge release. I think it's been so long since Debian started having pre-sarge freeze-spasms that we've all forgotten what it's like

Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?

On 5/31/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, when Ubuntu makes improvements to packages how do those > > improvements flow back to Debian? > > They generally don't. Ubuntu considers it more effective to spend > their time on PR to make people think they are giving stuff back, t

Re:

On 5/20/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sorry about that; I skipped a step or two. Your "unilateral grant of > > permission" is not in fact a recognized mechanism u

Re:

On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > At this point, there seem to be quite a > > few people who agree that the FSF's stance ("copyright-based license") >

Re:

On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip arguments that might have been worthy of rebuttal on debian-legal five months ago] I'm not trying to be snotty about this, but if you want to engage in the debate about the proper legal framework in which to understand the GPL, I thi

Re:

On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > An action for copyright > > infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for > > instance, will look at the GPL

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip Raul's honest and polite response] > I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been > making. In other words, I see you asserting that things which are > sometimes true must always be true. > > In the case of the "cont

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

nless they've retained > > > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely > > > an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than > > > professional advice). > > On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The FAQ i

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely > > believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in > > the

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in > section 6: > > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Samuelson wrote: [snip] > > Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the > > Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable > > for any serious deployment. Note, however, that "but it

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

On 5/18/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who > believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license > to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably > this is grounded on th

Re: Debian as living system

On 5/18/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:41:34PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > On 5/18/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yeah, well. But he's still right. This once. > > > > Is the

Re: Debian as living system

On 5/18/05, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure. And this list subscribers deserve some apologies for myself > being annoyed enough to be impolite to them and write ununderstandable > prose hereeven if obviously on purpose. Well, I enjoyed it immensely, despite my execrable Fre

Re: Debian as living system

On 5/18/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, well. But he's still right. This once. Is there some reason why "eat a dictionary" had to be copied to all of debian-devel in order to inform "bluefuture" of his linguistic difficulties? (I ask this knowing full well that my own pot h

Re: Debian as living system

On 5/18/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really don't care. If somebody can't be bothered to write a mail in > comprehensible English, they shouldn't expect anybody else to bother > to read it. Most won't even bother to say why they didn't bother to > read it. He's lucky that I di

Re: GPL and linking

Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen. On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm disputing an argument which seems to require a number of such fine points. > It is difficult for me to raise such disputes without mentioning the the > points > themselves. > > Howeve

Re: GPL and linking

On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way. No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in terms of the law that is actually applicable, not as if the court were obliged to construe the GPL so that every wor

Re: GPL and linking

On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [an argument, much of which would make sense in a parallel universe where the GPL is on the law books as 17 USC 666] I am not a lawyer (or a fortiori a judge), so all that I can do to explain why this isn't valid legal reasoning is to point you at

Re: GPL and linking

I haven't replied in detail to Batist yet because I am still digesting the hash that Babelfish makes out of his Dutch article. And I don't entirely agree that the GPL is horribly drafted, by comparison with the kind of dog's breakfast that is the typical license contract. In the past, I have trie

Re: GPL and linking

On 5/7/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in > Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.] It's really cool to have an actual lawyer weigh in, even if TINLAIAJ. :-) > On 07/05/05

Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()

> I don't, except insofar as C - "the Program" attempts to paraphrase E > - "the Program" (= D). Oh for Pete's sake, (E - "the Program") (= D). What a great place for a word wrap. - Michael

Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()

On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I believe you're objecting to the "that is to say" phrase, which restates

Re: GPL and linking

On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You may not be qualified (as I am not) to offer legal advice. But > > you're certainly qualified to have an opinion. > > Sure. But i

Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()

On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to any > > such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" mean

Re: GPL and linking

On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All of this discussion of legal minutia misses (and perhaps supports) > what, to my mind, is the most compelling argument for accepting the > FSF's position on the subject. The fact is that the question does > depend on a lot of legal minutia

Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()

On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long > > paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this. > > Who is sorry? How sorry

GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()

On 5/4/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [This part of the thread belongs on -legal] Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this. But that's where this discussion is actually happening now, and I'm afraid I c

Packaging audit trail mechanism (was: Ubuntu and its "appropriation" of Debian maintainers)

On 5/2/05, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the same (to > retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary package maintainer > during the build (to reflect that it is a different build, and also display > a more appropr

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:14:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > >... > > The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't > > have had to are, in no discernable order: > > > > 1) processing new

Re: How to show $arch releaseability

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:07:32 +0100, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That sounds more like a case of too-loose build-dependencies to me > rather than architecture specific problems. This can also hit i386, the > fact that it hit ARM this time is sheer coincidence. Should the uim maintain

Re: How to show $arch releaseability (was: Re: How to define a release architecture)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders, > working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keeping up > right now. Precisely. And four is already pushing the point of di

Re: How to show $arch releaseability (was: Re: How to define a release architecture)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:58:33 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eh, not particularly. This inspection can be done on any machine, and > there's no reason not to just use the fastest one available to you (whether > that's by CPU, or network); what's needed here is to first identify

Re: How to show $arch releaseability (was: Re: How to define a release architecture)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches offload > work onto the release team is > > "3) chasing down, or just waiting on (which means, taking time to poll the > package's status to f

Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:02:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Uh. Most porting bugs that require attention fall in one of the > following areas: > * Toolchain problems (Internal Compiler Errors, mostly) > * Mistakes made by the packager. Quite easy to fix, usually. > * Inc

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat short-term perspective. Just because a full Debian doesn't usually fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's, and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are probably the best embedded

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat short-term perspective. Just because a full Debian doesn't usually fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's, and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are probably the best embedded

Re: rudeness in general

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:09:18 +0100, Helmut Wollmersdorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > My few attempts to step into debian as a contributor ended after some > hours of senseless discussions or waste of time against unnecessary > barriers. Compared against average OSS, or OSS where I contribu

Re: If *-module depends on *-utils, should *-source recommend it?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:15:01 -0500, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:23PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > I think I'm of the "it's a low-level tool, you can shoot yourself in > > the foot if you insist on it"

Re: If *-module depends on *-utils, should *-source recommend it?

What would be the impact on (c)debootstrap of changing the operation of dpkg? I haven't looked at the exact sequence in a while, but IIRC those partially-installed states have valid uses in a debootstrap run. For instance, an unconfigured package may not be ready for normal use, but may get some

Re: Why does Debian distributed firmware not need to be Depends: upon? [was Re: LCC and blobs]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:51:07 -0500, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again, by this logic, all software in contrib due to non-free library > dependencies should go in main; after all, they're "useful" for developing > and testing free reimplementations of those libraries. This is just an

Re: Why does Debian distributed firmware not need to be Depends: upon? [was Re: LCC and blobs]

[whoops, hit "Send" instead of "Save Draft"] > I think the best way to be honest about that is to exclude non-free > firmware images from the kernel binary and modules themselves but to > permit loading them from the initrd or the root filesystem. Initrd > images in main shouldn't contain non-fre

Re: Why does Debian distributed firmware not need to be Depends: upon? [was Re: LCC and blobs]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:01:52 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is not enough to say that you *could* create free firmware files. As a > user of xpdf, I can unequivocally say that there are pdfs that I have full > rights to, because *I created them*. I cannot say that about firm

Re: GPL and LGPL issues for LCC, or lack thereof

I'll try to address the Specht case and summarize, and we can call this an end to the discussion if that's what you want. Bruce> You can read a case on the nature of consent such as Specht v. Netscape, Bruce> which might convince you that we don't necessarily get sufficient consent on Bruce> the

Re: GPL and LGPL issues for LCC, or lack thereof

On re-reading the sequence of events, it looks like I was the one who switched the context of the hypothetical "reproducible build tools" obligation from GPL to LGPL. Bruce, my apologies for implying that you were the one who switched contexts. So we seem to agree that the support for this requir

Re: GPL and LGPL issues for LCC, or lack thereof

Hopefully this continues to be interesting to debian-devel readers. Perhaps replies should go to debian-legal; GMail doesn't seem to let me set Followup-To, but feel free to do so if you think best. I have copied Eben Moglen (General Counsel to the FSF) at Bruce's suggestion. Mr. Moglen, I am no

Re: GPL and LGPL issues for LCC, or lack thereof

This probably belongs on debian-legal, but let's go one more round on debian-devel given the scope of the LCC's potential impact on Debian. (Personally, I'm more interested in the question of whether agreeing to consecrate particular binaries contravenes a distro's commitment to the Four Freedoms

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:25:38 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Well, frankly, I don't care what [ISVs] think is 'viable'. I do care. Apparently some ISVs think a "common binary core" is viable. I think they might change their minds if the argument against "golden binarie

Re: Linux Core Consortium

me> binutils and modutils both depend on it. Bruce> On flex? No. At least not in unstable. sorry, I meant to write Build-Depend. me> Or is the LCC proposing to standardize on a set of binaries without me> specifying the toolchain that's used to reproduce them? Bruce> Linking and calling convent

Re: Linux Core Consortium

Bruce> Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what Bruce> version of libc, etc., it'll make more sense. Flex isn't in the problem space if we're talking core ABIs. But it certainly is if we're talking core implementations, as binutils and modutils both depend on it. Or is

Re: Linux Core Consortium

Whoops, I guess that's what I get for trying to be concise for once. I'll try again. Bruce> Well, please don't tell this [i. e., "outsourcing your core is a bad idea"] Bruce> to all of the people who we are attempting to get to use Linux Bruce> as the core of their products. me> "core" (software

Re: Linux Core Consortium

> Bruce > Well, please don't tell this to all of the people who we are attempting > to get to use Linux as the core of their products. "core" (software architecture) != "core" (customer value). > Also, please make sure to tell the upstream maintainers that we aren't > going to use their code any

Re: Linux Core Consortium

> > me > Ian Murdock (quotes out of order) > > If the LSB only attempts to certify things that haven't forked, then > > it's a no-op. Well, that's not quite fair; I have found it useful to > > bootstrap a porting effort using lsb-rpm. But for it to be a software > > operating environment and not

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:20:00 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > libfoo 1.7 fixes a non-security bug in v1.6. "bar" segfaults when > running libfoo 1.6. But libfoo 1.6 is in Sarge, and the bug won't > be fixed because it's not a security bug. Having a formal GNU/Linux Distro Test Ki

Re: Linux Core Consortium

If ISVs want "exactly the same", they are free to install a chroot environment containing the binaries they certify against and to supply a kernel that they expect their customers to use. That's the approach I've had to take when bundling third-party binaries built by people who were under the ill

Re: Linux Core Consortium

Name changes are a superficial design flaw that obscures the fundamental design flaw in this proposal -- sharing binaries between Linux distributions is a bad idea to begin with. Fixing ABI forks, and articulating best known practices about managing ABI evolution going forward, that's a good idea.

Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org

> Steve Langasek > It is not correct. At the time testing freezes for sarge, there are likely > to be many packages in unstable which either have no version in testing, or > have older versions in testing. The list of such packages is always visible > at

Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:04:41 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As soon as testing is strictly equal to unstable regarding package > versions, testing is roughly ready for release. I think this observation is acute -- as applied to the _current_ "testing" mechanism. Personally, I v

Re: Building Debian Completely From Source

On Friday 05 December 2003 08:03 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > > In other words, at no time would a .deb be downloaded. All .debs would > > be built locally and installed locally. I did on-target-system builds of personal backports for quite a

RE: development environment question

> You hit the nail on the head!! What we really need is a serious well > experienced network/security admin/engineer who can help architect the > system. You could probably find some candidates from within the Debian community. Perhaps a DD could comment on which mailing list would be appropriate