On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > This GPL argument if taken to it's logical conclusion would
> > prevent all GPL'ed code from running on any non-GPL'ed OS, as the
> > applications have to link with the platform libraries, and are
> > resultantly dependant on the non-GPL
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:42:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with
> 2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine
> with 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).
A little tiny line
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely a lot of
> work, since there are a lot of new drivers.
It works like a charm with 2.1.x kernels. (Kudos to Manoj!)
Ma
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:09:56PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:42:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
>
> > I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with
> > 2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine
>
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:28:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >various compilation of programs.
>
> I thought that was part of the idea of the glibc 2 header stuff..
Yes and no. There are some programs that depend on actual kernel headers.
I agree with Joey, kernel 2.2 should not go
> "Ole" == Ole J Tetlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ole> Is there an easy way to have both libgtk-dev and
Ole> libgtk1.1-dev available? I have trouble with yagirc and
Ole> libgtk1.1. It compiles but I get a sigsegv when I try to run
Ole> it. I was hoping that linking with libgt
On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
: Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > Package: dpkg-dev
: > Version: 1.4.0.30
: >
: > $ dpkg-shlibdeps src/fortify; cat debian/substvars
: > shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)
: >
: > $ fakeroot dpkg-shlibdeps src/fortify;
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:59:37AM +0200, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> and enduser support, not for discussing home-brewed licensing problems of
> niche distributions.
Enough said, I think.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Latest Debian packages at
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:58:58PM -0500, Jeff Noxon wrote:
>
> I'd prefer a new logo as well (with no offense intended toward the kind
> person who created the current one!)
>
> But I can't draw, so I guess I should shut up. :-)
I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
We should r
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 05:16:37PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> Ben> Just wondering, Dale, but why didn't you announce this to the
> Ben> Debian lists as well as the c.o.linux.announce?
>
> Because this is a commercial, and there is a $1000 charge to advertise
> on debian lists (to discourage spa
reassign 27663 linuxconf
thanks
Runo Førrisdahl wrote:
> Farris: ~/install# dpkg -i linuxconf_1.10r34-1_i386.deb
> (Reading database ... 62852 files and directories currently installed.)
> Unpacking linuxconf (from linuxconf_1.10r34-1_i386.deb) ...
> dpkg: error processing linuxconf_1.10r34-1_i38
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 27663 linuxconf
Bug#27663: project: installing linuxconf on my maschine running Debian slink
Bug reassigned from package `project' to `linuxconf'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(admi
Hello,
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
debian-porting
alternative names:
debian-ports
debian-porter
debian-porters
or sim.
Purpose of the list would be problems with porting to new architectures,
either package specific
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Purpose of the list would be problems with porting to new architectures,
> either package specific or general. Problems with bootstrapping a new
> architecture. Cross compilation of Debian packages. Maybe setting up some
> documents or entries in the FAQ-O-MATIC.
>
> Do y
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Ole> Is there an easy way to have both libgtk-dev and
> Ole> libgtk1.1-dev available? I have trouble with yagirc and
> Ole> libgtk1.1. It compiles but I get a sigsegv when I try to run
> Ole> it. I was hoping that linking with libgtk (stable) would fix
>
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> the GPL explicitly makes an exception for libraries which are included
> with the operating system itself.
Not quite so - it makes an exception for binaries that are NOT
included with that operating system itself.
Debian ships a large number of GPL'd binaries t
> "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> You cannot have libgtk-dev and libgtk1.1-dev installed at the
Ben> same time, but you don't need to.
Martin> gnotepad+ does not work with gtk 1.1 while many
Martin> application that come with Debian are linked again
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ben> You cannot have libgtk-dev and libgtk1.1-dev installed at the
> Ben> same time, but you don't need to.
>
> Martin> gnotepad+ does not work with gtk 1.1 while many
> Martin> application th
> "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> gnotepad+ does not work with gtk 1.1 while many
Martin> application that come with Debian are linked against 1.1.
Martin> Thus you can't compile gnotepad+ on that machine.
Ben> Sure, but you can always remove lib
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin> gnotepad+ does not work with gtk 1.1 while many
> Martin> application that come with Debian are linked against 1.1.
> Martin> Thus you can't compile gnotepad+ on that machine.
>
> Ben>
> "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Hmm, so I have 1.1 installed as well as 1.0-dev. Now if I
Martin> compile, I compile against 1.0. So it's dynamically
Martin> linked against 1.0. But 1.0 is not installed and even
Martin> conflicts with 1.1.
l
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin> Hmm, so I have 1.1 installed as well as 1.0-dev. Now if I
> Martin> compile, I compile against 1.0. So it's dynamically
> Martin> linked against 1.0. But 1.0 is not installed and even
>
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > the GPL explicitly makes an exception for libraries which are included
> > with the operating system itself.
>
> Not quite so - it makes an exception for binaries that are NOT
> included with that operating system its
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
>the last sentence, from "However, as a special exception" is particularly
>relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
special exception? :)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says.
>
> from clause 3 of the GPL:
I've read clause three, thank you. I'll upper-case the bit you
must have missed:
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the
> work for makin
"Steve Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
> special exception? :)
That's what he says. That still, however, would not permit
applications distributed with the OS to use Qt. In other words, if
thar paragraph were the big issue
Hi,
I've got g++ 2.9.29-0.6, the egcs compiler, and libstdc++2.8dev
2.9.29-0.6 installed. I was playing around with some STL stuff when I
tried to declare a wstring. No luck.
Examining the file /usr/include/g++/string yields:
// Main header for the -*- C++ -*- string classes.
#ifndef __STRIN
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:58:58PM -0500, Jeff Noxon wrote:
> >
> > I'd prefer a new logo as well (with no offense intended toward the kind
> > person who created the current one!)
>
> I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
> We shoul
> Is there an easy way to have both libgtk-dev and libgtk1.1-dev
> available? I have trouble with yagirc and libgtk1.1. It
> compiles but I get a sigsegv when I try to run it. I was
> hoping that linking with libgtk (stable) would fix it, but I
> need gtk-1.1 for balsa.
Yes, you can. I have gtk-1.
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> It's clear that (e.g.) libc accompanies (e.g.) /bin/ls in Debian: They
> are both in main, and the package maintainer makes sure you get libc
> when you get /bin/ls. If you also think that libc is a "section of"
> (see section two) /bin/ls and so on, then
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> >the last sentence, from "However, as a special exception" is particularly
> >relevant here.
>
> So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under
> the special exception
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:25:07PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
> > We should run a gimp contest. They produced the Gnome logo, and there are
> > artists as well as designer. They'll come up
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Whenever you start a program running under X11, the windows created
> > usually have the little 'X' logo in the upper left hand corner. If
> > you are running RedHat linux however, the upper left hand corner of
> > the windows c
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
> KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
> In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
> its terms, to apply to Qt.
if you link
Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indeed. If you read the GPL word for word you will find that a binary
> distribution requires ALL libraries to be distributed under the GPL.
Interesting that you do not even quote the GPL to try and back up your
non-arguments.
Martin.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:45:35PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is "what
> is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
> license"? How does it hurt them to do that? it's not difficult to do,
> and it would solv
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> >the last sentence, from "However, as a special exception" is particularly
> >relevant here.
>
> So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall unde
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is
> derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL
> as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work
> without additional permission being granted by th
This just came up on the #Debian IRC channel: a growing number of
folks have cable modems and wish to install Debian over them. However,
as it stands, they cannot get on the net from the base floppies,
because they require a DHCP client to get their IP.
I believe this is adequate need to get dhcpc
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> > All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is "what
> > is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
> > license"? How does it hurt them to do that?
>
> Is that really not obvious to you?
Craig Sanders and s
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked together. Does that mean that you
think Debian should convert libc and
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is
> > derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL
> > as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work
>
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
> of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
>
> You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
> files and libraries being linked together. Does that
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
> of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
>
> You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
> files and libraries being li
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 02:43:05AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
> We should run a gimp contest. They produced the Gnome logo, and there are
> artists as well as designer. They'll come up with a good, inspiring logo,
> I'm sure. We should vot
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
> "under the terms of the GPL".
No. It's stricter, it requires that "the distribution of the whole
must be on the terms of this License". That is, distribut_ed_, not
distribut_able_. Bi
Arnt Gulbrandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says.
> >
> > from clause 3 of the GPL:
>
> I've read clause three, thank you. I'll upper-case the bit you
> must have missed:
>
> > The source code for
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> as mentioned at least once before, glibc is distributed with the operating
> system. therefore the special exception applies.
It applies to applications that are not distributed with the operating
system (and to other applications that are distributed along wit
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
> "under the terms of the GPL". Do you think that means that I have to
> re-license the individual parts?
Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp server?
According t
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:33:07PM -0700, David Welton wrote:
> > I'm here, working on 0.66 as we speak. This might be a good time to ask
> > a question. yagirc can now be built with gnome interface or
> > text interface. Should I make two packages, include both in one
> > package or just drop the
Simple (conceptually) problem:
I'm working on packaging the pm3 Modula 3 distribution for
Debian, and have run into a problem. There are two tarballs
that are available for this: the bootstrap compiler, and the
sources for the rest of the system. Once M3 is up and running,
you can generate a boots
> "Martin" == Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp
Martin> server? According to several Debian developers Motif is
Martin> not a part of the OS.
No. We don't link xemacs with Motif. Besides, since lesstif is a par
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:40:04AM -0700, David Welton wrote:
> > > Slashdot has posted an article about the decision to remove the KDE
> > > binaries
> > > right now.
> >
> > Could someone please post the article or at least the complete URL?
>
> http://slashdot.org - it's a pretty good source
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:56:06PM +1000, Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
> The bootstrap compiler is distributed (mostly) as assembler
> source, so they're clearly platform dependant. The sources
> for the rest of the system are distributed as Modula 3 source
> code, so they're clearly platform _in_depend
On 9 Oct 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
che>This is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distribution of
che>Debian, which technically makes it not part of the operating
che>system. I'm not sure how that interacts with the GPL.
People keep telling me that you can distribute it with the
Le Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:29:27AM -0400, Michael Alan Dorman écrivait:
> I think you should read the docs or follow the last couple of years of
> the perl5 development mailing list, as I have, before you suggest you
> know better than I. From doc/perldelta.pod:
I apologise, I did not want to sug
Lyx is currently in contrib.
Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least) of
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >the last sentence, from "However, as a special exception" is particularly
> >relevant here.
>
> So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
> special exception? :)
Some people argue that it would. RM
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote:
> Lyx is currently in contrib.
> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
> linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
> statement, this means we shoul
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:56:23AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Let me try to make some qualified guess about this:
>
> If KDE would add the permission note, they would admit that there is a
> license problem, and they had to stop sucking in GPL'ed third party code
> without explicit permissio
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
cas>nope. sounds right to me (but i haven't looked at the licenses
cas>concerned, just going from memory of libxforms being no-source and
cas>non-free).
libforms is definitely no-source (so its not GPL'd !)
/usr/doc/lyx/copyright defini
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:14:19AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
>
> On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>
> > > All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is "what
> > > is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
> > > license"? How does it hurt th
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
On 10-Oct-98 Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote:
>
>> Lyx is currently in contrib.
>> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
>> linked against a non-free library (libforms)
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
> TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
That doesn't mean everyone else ise sensible. I've seen many people DEMAND
Troll Tec
This was forwarded to me by a freeamp developer. He said that mpg123
contains GPL'd code, but its license prohibits non-free use.
Anyone know what the legal status of mpg123 is?
Ben
--
Brought to you by the letters T and W and the number 2.
"You forgot Uranus." "Goodnight everybody!" --
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
> > TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
>
> That doesn't mean everyone else i
FWIW, I think having McAfee .debs, even in non-free, would be a win.
However, another thought occurred to me. Stephen, could you ask them
to clarify the licensing of their DAT files? If they are indeed free,
as http://www.nai.com/download/updates/whatdat.asp> seems to
imply, someone oughta look
Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp
> server?
I don't believe that Debian *has* a Motif-linked XEmacs on their ftp
server, but if they do, then all it should take to get it removed is to
file a bug report. That's what happened to KDE.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
> of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
>
> You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
> files and libraries being li
> Now, I won't install Qt even for the parts of KDE I like.
This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
the refusal of the KDE developers to FIX THE KDE LICENSE PROBLEMS, a lot
of people are being turned of
> I've essentially come to the opinion that the GPL has no control over
> dynamic linking b/c it's something a user does in the privacy of his own
> home.
Besides, what if I create a binary that links to a non-existant library. I
build the ELF structures by hand (?). Could you distribute a binary
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Darren Benham wrote:
gecko>Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
I haven't tried. But I read the fltk docs on the subject last
week, and the upshot was that most large packages would take a good deal
of work to port. eg, there is no canvas widget
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:56:30PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Martin> Will Debian remove LyX from their ftp server? According to
> Martin> several Debian developers Xforms is not a DFSG compatible
> Martin> library.
>
> This is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distributio
I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I
was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the
signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message
and what the contents were when it was signed?
Thanks.
Zephaniah E, Hull.
On Sat, Oct
Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
> : Look at fakeroot's shlibs file. This is not a bug (or certainly not
> : the one you're claiming it is).
> Ok. Of course, you are right ;) I've added (>= 2.0.7u) to
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:29:26PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Now, I won't install Qt even for the parts of KDE I like.
>
> This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
> library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
> the refusal of the KDE develop
> Ideally, we need a version of the logo that can be reproduced in one
> or two colors. That way it can go directly on a CD or be printed
> inexpensively. Full-color printing can be rather expensive.
And it should scale well, from fairly large to quite small. This means
lines and *simple* curve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I
> was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the
> signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message
>
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Zed Pobre wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 02:36:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as
> > I was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match
> > the signature, would someone care to varify
On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 14:35:51 +0200 (CEST), Igor Mozetic wrote:
:
:
>However, a tool like that, [ a general configuration tool ] with
>Debian support (eg, all packages with config files
>should register with it, like menu system) would certainly bring
>Debian much closer to non-experienced users.
>
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 10:31:08PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> This was forwarded to me by a freeamp developer. He said that mpg123
> contains GPL'd code, but its license prohibits non-free use.
>
> Anyone know what the legal status of mpg123 is?
mpg123 is non-free all right. No commercial us
Adam P. Harris wrote:
> > Ok. Of course, you are right ;) I've added (>= 2.0.7u) to
> > /var/lib/dpkg/info/fakeroot.shlibs and now it works, but I think
> > dpkg-shlibdeps should know that "libc6, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)" should
> > be "libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)". Anyway, I don't know much about how shlibs
> >
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:25:07PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > >
> > > I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
> > > We should run a gimp contest. They produced the Gnome logo, and th
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
> Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone
working on a gtk ver
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:35:19PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
> Lyx is currently in contrib.
> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
> linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
> statement
> This just came up on the #Debian IRC channel: a growing number of
> folks have cable modems and wish to install Debian over them. However,
> as it stands, they cannot get on the net from the base floppies,
> because they require a DHCP client to get their IP.
>
> I believe this is adequate need
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 07:22:07PM -0700, Jeff McWilliams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got g++ 2.9.29-0.6, the egcs compiler, and libstdc++2.8dev
> 2.9.29-0.6 installed. I was playing around with some STL stuff when I
> tried to declare a wstring. No luck.
>
> Examining the file /usr/include/g++/stri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Brian White, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>Perl 5.005 will be replaced in Slink with 5.004. The new version will
>remain in the next unstable.
>
>Correct?
Definitely. Sorry for the slow reply but my root disk started spewing
scsi errors about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ian Jackson, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>A whole .deb for such a simple problem seems overkill. The
>file/manpage below is what I use. It was in the Perl4 distribution.
>Presumably perl5 comes with it too in the source. I have it as
>/usr/lo
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:42:53AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
> > "under the terms of the GPL".
>
> No. It's stricter, it requires that "the distribution of the whole
> must be on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
> > : Look at fakeroot's shlibs file. This is not a bug (or certainly not
> > : the one you're claiming it is).
>
> > Ok. Of course, you are r
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
> > existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
>
> This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter) I disagree; I've oft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Zephaniah E. Hull, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>Rename perl to perl5.005, version 02-2 or such..
>Then use the alternatives setup to decide which perl gets run when you
>try to use just 'perl'..
That's possible but I'm not sure it's a good idea
Craig Sanders wrote:
> imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
> request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
> rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the
> request or choose not to change their license then we have t
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
> library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
> the refusal of the KDE developers to FIX THE KDE LICENSE PROBLEMS, a
> lot of people are being turned off of Qt! Qt does
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> The key is in an earleir paragraph.
>
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
> works in themselves,
James Troup wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > > Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
> > > existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
> >
> > This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
Hi,
I wonder if there will be a new gtop in slink now that it has
been moved out of gnome-core (or another core Gnome module).
Regards,
Joey
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The only pain I had to face was that I had to upgrade my libc6 and
>that upgrade broke sendmail, so I had to upgrade sendmail as well.
Uh - oh .. please check out this bug:
#27334: libc6: breaks sendmail, probably problem in resolver
d
Arnt Gulbrandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > as mentioned at least once before, glibc is distributed with the operating
> > system. therefore the special exception applies.
>
> It applies to applications that are not distributed with the operating
> system
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
