Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> "This program is catware. If you find it useful in any way, pay for this
> program by spending one hour petting one or several cats."
>
> I'm indeed not quite sure 'ca
Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
I wrote:
> We don't.
Darren Benham writes:
> Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every
> tom-dick-harry that wanted to use it in any way-shape-form.
I meant, of course,
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depends on the cat :-)
Indeed.
Now all we need is a way of petting /bin/cat, and we can automate payment.
--
Raul
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can the 2.1/2.2 kernels handle a gigabyte of memory?
Yes.
For more than 1GB, go to:
http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/more_than_1GB.html
There was a lot of discussion about this on the linux-kernel mailing
list lately.
> Also, I remember reading
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 06:20:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
> Or don't license it: just use it on Debian stuff and grant individual
> licenses on a case by case basis. I doubt that you will be swamped by all
> the requests.
>
I'm glad to see you volunteer to take respond to requests that come
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Steve Dunham wrote:
> "M.C. Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would see this as a RH-style - so a rather bloated kernel which includes
> > lots of stuff as standard, and asks them the pertinent questions all at
> > once at the beginning, and then
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:35:50PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
> > Larry Ewing and Tux. You don't see him writing a license, do you?
> The picture of Tux is licensed freely for any use as long as Larry
> Ewing is mentioned. Don't know about modification, t
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 07:52:34PM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Depends on the cat :-)
Mrowl?
Zephaniah E. Hull..
(Who is peering at the humans oddly.. (=:])
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
PGP E
Hi
I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
be installed by default.
Regards
--
Robbie Murray
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
> priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
> 2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
> be installed by default.
James A. Treacy writes:
> Even with the existing license (and a valid expiry date) I have probably
> handled 20 requests for use of the logo in the last 6 months.
Doesn't seem like many considering that the present license encourages
requests. Do you really think that forty people a year would en
Paul Sheer wrote:
>I remember someone was maintaining the debian release of this software
>(although then, it did not support encryption). Please get the latest
>version from:
> ftp://lava.obsidian.co.za/pub/mirrordir/US/
I maintain the Debian package of mirrordir. The last version I
packa
I recall some interest in generating a debian history timeline sort of
thing here - does anyone know the status of that? A friend of mine is
interested in putting it on a poster...
Thanks,
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian
Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> is the name debian a registered trademark?
I think so.
> if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo?
I agree. I think trademarking the logo will allow us to prevent misuse and
at the same time allow us to give it a DFSG-free copyright.
--
see shy jo
Hi Joey and *...
I have noticed something in 2.2.0* that has potential to break scripts that
add net routes. If I don't include "netmask " in the route commands,
it tells me "SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument".
Relevent versions:
basically everything is recent slink, except
kernel-image-2.2.0-pre1-i58
My answer to exercise 1: since you have quoted text, rule (2) says you must
not comply with rule (6), but rule (3) says you must comply with all even
rules (including, presumably, 6). This seems to imply that no message
containing quotations would be allowed.
I'm not sure if that's only true wh
All:
Please pardon my non-developer comment, but one thing about the license has
bothered me for a while, and I've seen no else bring it up:
Do we really want to limit the maximum size of an entity that can display
the license?
Points 2, 3, & 4 of the license state, roughly, that yo
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:43:33PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>
> My answer to exercise 1: since you have quoted text, rule (2) says you must
> not comply with rule (6), but rule (3) says you must comply with all even
> rules (including, presumably, 6). This seems to imply that no message
> co
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:19PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> 2) Branden doesn't like xfnt-* hanging around. We agree.
I don't just dislike it hanging around on people's machines, I dislike
having to keep the packages around at all, even just as compatibility
packages.
> 3) However, if someone w
Here we go again. There weren't many comments or suggestions on the last
version so I think we're getting close to a formal proposal to change. Note,
we've removed the clause that requires the copyrights to be displayed during
execution. It doesn't affect the GPL as version 2. Are there any
lic
A few minor nits (many stylistic):
On Jan 24, Darren Benham wrote:
> This document, in it's source form, exists in DebianDoc
should be its (the possessive of it) not it's (short for "it is")
> 2.1. Use
> -
>
> Anyone must be able to use the softw
Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
(no offense for all the work being put into it, but I like the
original, thankyou very much)
Thanks,
--
David
I have two comments...
> 3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
> --
>
> The license may restrict the use of names and trademarks of the
> copyright holders in association with modifications of the original
> software.
>
>
>
>the copy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I've received two platform statements from the canidates to put on the web page
so, they're up. If you go to http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0001 you'll
find a list of them. Or you will within a day or two. They've been uploaded,
now they have to filter t
On Jan 25, David Welton wrote:
> Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
> vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
> we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
I think you (or we) can discuss the merits of the proposal now (that
seems
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:08:14PM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
> 3.3. License of Derived Works
> --
> The license can require modified and derived software be distributed
> under the same license or the general requirement "any compatible
> license."
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 Buddha Buck wrote:
> I have two comments...
>
>> 3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
>> --
> ...
>> 3.6.2. Versioning and Renaming
>> ---
>
> Are these two clauses redundant? And should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 David Welton wrote:
> Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
> vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
> we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
Ummm... I suppose you could if you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote:
> IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
> be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
> revision proposals "out there", even though this one is the only one
> being currently
What's the current policy about adding new names into fonts.alias in a
directory shared by more Debian packages?
Thanks for any advise.
Milan Zamazal
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>
> On 25-Jan-99 Buddha Buck wrote:
> > I have two comments...
> >
> >> 3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
> >> --
> > ...
> >> 3.6.2. Versioning and Renaming
> >> ---
> >
> > Are these two claus
[please reply to me or to debian-devel, as I am subscribed only to it]
Hi everybody,
If I remember well, some time ago someone posted his results on a port
of dpkg to HP-UX.
Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that platform, and I would
like to push a Free solution, a debian one specific
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:33:00PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
> I recall some interest in generating a debian history timeline sort of
> thing here - does anyone know the status of that? A friend of mine is
> interested in putting it on a poster...
The Linux Weekly News folx have come out with a
> - I would not be able to include the new crypto features in the package
>anyway due to US export laws.
no, the US version contains no crypto code.
> (Debian packages are binary only, and
Both the source and binary US versions of mirrordir contain no crypto
code.
>FTP connectivity is
Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that platform, and I would
> like to push a Free solution, a debian one specifically (because it's
> the best :-).
We do think the same... (we do the same thing:)
I'm setting up a dpkg package manager under solaris...
...But t
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:24:13AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
> > be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
> > revision proposals "out there", even though this o
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, loic wrote:
> Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
>
> > Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that platform, and I would
> > like to push a Free solution, a debian one specifically (because it's
> > the best :-).
>
> We do think the same... (we do the same thing:)
> I'm setting u
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:41:20AM +0200, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> [please reply to me or to debian-devel, as I am subscribed only to it]
>
> Hi everybody,
> If I remember well, some time ago someone posted his results on a port
> of dpkg to HP-UX.
> Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for
Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[snip more discussion of xfnt packages]
> I'd still rather we explored alternatives.
For how much longer? I don't think I've heard of anything else that has
a chance of working. (Did I miss something?) Alternatives have been
talked about for a while no
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:16:13AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > 2.1. Use
> > -
> >
> > Anyone must be able to use the software in any way without paying a
> > fee or royalty or performing special actions.
>
> "performing special actions" seems a bit vague. How about "... a fe
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 05:46:00PM -0800, Adam Klein wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Steve Dunham wrote:
> > Excuse me, but RedHat actually boots on my laptop because the kernel
> > is _less_ bloated than Debian's kernel. Debian's install disk doesn't
> > boot.
Ahem, _Which_ "De
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 03:32:30AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > No, the first refers to using the author's name (such as Buddha Buck or
> > Darren
> > Benham). The second refers to the name of the software it's self (grep or
> > sendmail).
>
> I should have seen that... What confused me about 3.
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 03:37:57AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> to either of these animals. We have our own message, too. We are
> constructors. We take the work of thousands of people and put them together.
> Shouldn't this be reflected by the logo, too?
You mean like a penguin wearing a har
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, you wrote:
>> I believe that eventually bzip2 support should be added to dselect and
>> dpkg (I would like to have packages such as xbooks compressed by bzip2).
>
>That would be nice as an additional option...
>
>> I doubt that 180K would be added if it became base_2.2.tbz2, in
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:37:31AM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, loic wrote:
>
> > Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> >
> > > Now I have to evaluate packaging systems for that platform, and I would
> > > like to push a Free solution, a debian one specifically (because it's
> > > the best :
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:19PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > 3) However, if someone were to create xfnt-* packages which *Depend* on
> > the corresponding xfont-* package, then the user will automatically
> > install the new xfont-*, which will in
Hello everyone
There are several bug reports on (x)gmod which currently render it
useless. Unless nobody wants to fix it, I won't object if it will
be removed from atleast slink. I've got still 66 mornings left
military service, so I'm VERY engaded until 2.4.1999.
Have an ice day,
Private Voipio
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:59:00PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Yes, but if it gets to the point where someone else will do it if I don't,
> > then I will do it.
> >
> > I'd still rather we explored alternatives.
>
> I think it got to that point.
On Sat 23 Jan 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 11:36:23AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
>
> > isdnutils contains the basic isdnctrl, ipppd stuff needed for
> > networking
> > isdnmonitoring isdnlog, imon, xisdnload, ... that sort of thing
> > isdndocs the faqs and oth
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You have yet to explain what will BREAK if people continue to use the old
> font packages. Not in the future, RIGHT NOW.
Oh, you have yet to explain why a clock bomb is *not* a bad thing.
"Surely, it will exploit, but not now" ;-)
> How will the up
After seeing some trojan horses being spread and Martin trying to make
sure xisp can be verified as secure on the debian-user list, I started
thinking of how to secure our mirrors. The thought I had was to make pgp
signatures of the package files and save them as Packages.pgp. This will
not inter
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This document is free software; you may redistribute it verbatim in
> any format. You may modify this document and redistribute it in any
> form so long as you change the title of this document. You may use
> parts of this document for
gnome-xml is an xml-library needed for the new version of Dia. As far as i
know gnome-xml can only be found in the gnome-cvs.
RealTimeBattle is a programming game similar to CRobots.
http://realtimebattle.netpedia.net/
Pike 0.6.110. This a object-oriented script language used by the web server
R
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:15:11AM -0600, BugScan reporter wrote:
> Package: emacs20 (main)
> Maintainer: Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 28177 dpkg --print-architecture requires gcc
>
>
> Package: xlib6 (main)
> Maintainer: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Fredrik Hallenberg wrote:
> gnome-xml is an xml-library needed for the new version of Dia. As far as i
> know gnome-xml can only be found in the gnome-cvs.
gnome-xml is already packaged (binary packages: libxml0 and libxml-dev).
I needed it to package gnumeric.
Cord
>
> I can very well understand them. First of all some Linux distributors have
> been creative in the past and have moved rc[0-6].d/ and init.d/ to
> interesting places like /sbin/ or /etc/rc.d/, probably just to be
> ``different'' from a real System V. Just one of the small but annoying
> diffe
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:15:11AM -0600, BugScan reporter wrote:
>
> > Package: emacs20 (main)
> > Maintainer: Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 28177 dpkg --print-architecture requires gcc
> >
> >
> > Pac
[ hope you don't mind me cc'ing the list, but I think I didn't detail an
important point. ]
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Vincent Murphy wrote:
> i would favour another field in the .deb package format which contains a
> signature, which can be used by apt or whatever to verify that it is
> genuine. h
Previously David Welton wrote:
> I recall some interest in generating a debian history timeline sort of
> thing here - does anyone know the status of that? A friend of mine is
> interested in putting it on a poster...
Quoting Will Lowe, Nov 3, 1998:
> I've just cvs-committed a new version of the
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 06:10:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to package wmsysmon.app -- but I'm not sure about the .app that
> *some* wmaker apps get -- I'm not sure if I should have the package as
> wmsysmon.app or just wmsysmon.
[ There are so many wm* packages showing up wil
>> "FH" == Fredrik Hallenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
FH> Pike 0.6.110.
FH> PiGTK, GTK+ module for Pike.
FH> http://www.pike-community.org/sites/pigtk/
So you package up both of these ? Great.
About Roxen: Roxen can be compiled with pike 0.6. Is there a need for
both versions 0.5? Maybe th
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:43:33PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
[ interesting solution to exercise 1, which I'm not quoting to avoid rule
(2), but I have to comply with anyway because I want this message to make
its way to debian-devel, or debian-humour if it existed ]
According to rule (0) y
> I thought the purpose of this project (at least the FHS) is to create a
> standard
> of what the filesystem should look like, not necessarily what it currently
> looks
> like. Just because `Everyone is doing it' (tm) doesn't mean it's right.
> Personally, I want Linux to be clean and elegant in
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:48:36AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3.1. Notices of Authorship
> > ---
> > The license may require the copyright, license, and any associated
> > disclaimers be prominently displayed in the mo
On 25-Jan-99 Joseph Carter wrote:
> Please include URLs, there are SO MANY different proposals we really
> should give people pointers to exactly which they're voting on.
>
No proposals have been made, yet. Just drafts offered for posting. So far, it
looks like only several different versions o
On Jan 25, Brandon Mitchell decided to present us with:
> The thought I had was to make pgp signatures of the package
> files and save them as Packages.pgp. This will not interfear
> with the current package files, therefore we are still
> backwards compatable. Then apt could check for a pgp file a
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If all the vendors think /var/mail is stupid then its perhaps time
> for the FHS to ask "ok why.. is there a problem, did we make a bad
> choice, or did we simply fail to explain the reasons /var/mail is
> good"
Well, I've been told that Debian, Red Hat, SuS
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> for the user. If it fails, it could just warn the user and ask to
> continue. This would require: a) gnu's version of pgp to work (so that we
> don't request non-free software to get the free software) and the bad part
> b) someone to be at the con
Lalo Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OTOH, we could just sign all packages with a same key ("the
> Debian key"); when dinstall verifies the signature and md5sum in
> the .changes file, it signs the package and updates
> Packages.pgp).
I prefer this method. Then we have less key distributi
The keyboard of Daniel Quinlan emitted at some point in time:
> Before reverting to /var/spool/mail, the practical question to ask
> distributions is:
>
> If we explicitly allow /var/mail to be a symbolic link to
> /var/spool/mail (or whereever), will you *consider* changing
> programs to r
I have added a third platform to the web page at
http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0001 and it should show up in the next day
or so.
Remember, as you read these platforms, if you wish to change your vote, just
send the ballot again with the required changes. The vote system will replace
the ol
t sippel-dau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ten years.
Are you serious? The Linux community has already made larger changes
in far far less time. We're talking about modifying one or two lines
in 10 or 20 source packages (like src RPMs).
It was several years ago already that we dropped some of
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:49:43AM +, Russell Coker wrote:
> >...but I wouldn't do that *and* remove that .tgz completely, or
> >hhaving all the .debs converted to tbz2.
>
> I agree, we're not ready for that yet. However we only need bzip2 in the
> base if we have bzip2 compressed .deb packag
On 25-Jan-99 Raul Miller wrote:
> This seems to conflict, in scope, with 1.1 -- I'll pose a couple other
> examples where I'm not sure about 1.1 once I get there.
No. This document is meant to cover software... not itself. Some of your
other comments seem to try to make the same application.
>
Jason wrote:
>
> I would prefer to use the idea of a trusted site (like ftp.debian.org) to
> fetch package file MD5 summs from, that way we do not get involed with the
> sticky issue of cyrpto hooks.
What about:
1. Every package already contains MD5 checksum.
2. Each section contains two new fi
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic
> link for about two years.
No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
years -- we've already provided upgradeable distributions for 3.5.
Erik
---
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > Ten years.
>
> Are you serious? The Linux community has already made larger changes
> in far far less time. We're talking about modifying one or two lines
> in 10 or 20 source packages (like src RPMs).
You seem to be ignoring the upgrade issue. Al
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic
>> link for about two years.
Erik Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
> years -- we've already provided
> >> New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic
> >> link for about two years.
>
> Erik Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
> > years -- we've already provided upgradeable distributions for
thanks for the NMU without asking the maintainer FIRST, AGAIN :-///
Note: the last upload of this package was last month and there is no reason
for a quick uplaod since there are no critical warnings pending for FROZEN.
Thanks for the patches anyway, I will include them in my working copy. Would
On 25-Jan-99 Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On a separate note, since this started the discussion about this point,
> (I must sound like an advocatus diaboli ;-): What happened if the Zope
> people would replace their "attribution button" with a copyright notice,
> and modified Zope so that this notice
I've just looked over some of the code for the latest LSH snapshot
(1-21-99) and it seems to be turning into a decent program. It is lacking
some critical features (listed below), but once they are implemented, we
may want to consider this our ssh replacement (the final blow to the
non-free softwar
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:00:06PM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Steve Shorter wrote:
>
> > Since when has the purpose of debian been to appease the interests
> > of the mass of unskilled consumers? There are lots of dists that are
> > trying to do that. I'm sure they will do a
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> thanks for the NMU without asking the maintainer FIRST, AGAIN :-///
No problem, I will mail you next time.
> Note: the last upload of this package was last month and there is no reason
> for a quick uplaod since there are no critical warnings pendin
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:14:35PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
> As an experienced Debian user, I'll second these sentiments. Since
> buzz I've been waiting for the Debian installation process to become
> a (as it should be) 30 minute process, hopefully with some tools
> included for mass insta
I keep hearing people claim that distribution folks are saying "ick",
but I haven't heard any technical reasons besides, "Moving spool
directories is hard". When I and others have pointed out that moving
the spool directory isn't required; just a symlink, I have heard dead
silence. So the lack o
If people really want to be able to verify package integrity we might as
well go the whole way. Ian Jackson posted (1.5 years ago I think) a
proposal that would secure the complete stage from building a package to
distribution on the mirrors.
You might want to look that up in the list archives.
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:
> Sounds good, as long as I can shut it off :-) Also, it should
> use the keyring in developers-keyring or one that comes with
> apt, otherwise the point is moot (anyone who can upload a .deb
> with a trojan can upload a Packages.pgp with a signature)
The
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Erik Troan wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>
> > New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic
> > link for about two years.
>
> No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
> years -- we've already p
Rather than attempt to list all the freedoms that Debian guarantees, why
not list the *restrictions* on freedom that we do allow, and say that
any other restrictions violate our guidelines.
IOW, instead of saying, "we allow this, we forbid this, we allow
this...", simply say, "we forbid all restri
90 matches
Mail list logo
