On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well
> as documents.
Bl
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:16:28PM +0200, Otto Wyss wrote:
> What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any
> figures. So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in
> this subject and therefore it can't be a big problem.
It is a problem on cdimage.d.o, which is also f
There is something that has always bothered me about the scripts in
`/etc/init.d'. Every once in a while I attempt to execute one of these
scripts while logged in as a non-root user. For example, I might type
`/etc/init.d/foobar restart' while having the privileges of user `jps'
(uid=1000). Normall
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:35:57PM -0400, jpstewart wrote:
> if [ ! $EUID == 0 ]; then
> echo "Sorry, this script must run with root privileges."
> if
Oops. I forget to add the `exit 69' or whatever error code.
--
Jean-Paul Stewart
pgpnpQJPMuk43.pgp
Description: PGP sig
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:45:39AM -0700, Randolph Chung wrote:
> it needs some c++ work. For one thing it references internal libstdc++
> symbols (__STL_BEGIN_NAMESPACE, etc). Instead you should use "namespace std;",
> etc.
In fact I noticed the problem and I already forwarder it to the upstream
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> > "Transparant copy" is for example.
>
> Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I guess that the package will have to predepend on python, right?
> So, unlike the current debconf usage, a debconf dependency is no
> longer sufficient.
No, pre-depending on python will not ensure that your package's
config script has python available at preconfgiu
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:05:07PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> Chris Cheney indends to adopt the package, yes, but he only mailed
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of properly renaming the bug to ITA.
I have this sneaking suspicion that we need a tool more appropriate than
the BTS to handle the WNPP
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > > into the common reference area?
> > >
> > > Who should I talk to about
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.
>
> The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:59:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Package: xbase
> Version: 2.0.0-1
> Severity: normal
>
> xbase |2.0.0-1 | unstable | source
> xbase | 3.3.6-11potato32 |stable | all
>
> This seems pretty broken to me ... it's a source package, so the lowe
Sending this bug report to debian-devel so that hopefully the maintainer
of this package will see it.
Please rename your package.
- Forwarded message from Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bdale Garbee)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bug#141688: FTBFS: config.su
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 example :
> > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
> that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
> non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.
>
> 4. If we still
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:34:45PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> the DFSG or not. However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> probably not DFSG-complia
> BTW, why this problem manifest itself only on hppa? Is the c++ compiler
> somewhat different or is only a chain of #ifdef and/or configure
> switches that behaves differently on that arch?
In woody, hppa is the only architecture that is using gcc-3.0 compilers.
The other architectures are all us
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:22:51AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> > explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> > The problems, alt
update_output.txt says:
trying: postgresql
skipped: postgresql (134+2)
got: 46+0: a-46
* alpha: courier-authpostgresql, dbf2pg, ddt-server, gda-postgres,
gphotocoll, gtksql, guile-pg, libapache-mod-auth-pgsql, libch,
libch-dev, libdbd-pg-perl, libgql0-driver-pg,
libgtran
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 07:30:48PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> It's also probably worth pointing out, as you seem to see yourself as
> "the Dutch RMS", that the Free Software Foundation also accepts
> donations from proprietary software companies:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/thankgnus/2002supporters
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
>
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true.
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Whatcha mean "becoming"? Lispers have been blurring the line between
> data and code for the last half-century.
Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through "On Lisp" while my
classes ruin my brain with Java), I'm well aware of this.
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 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 20:28, 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 Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:11:27PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> 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
On 7 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> > So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> > and therefore it can't be a big problem.
>
> He
On 7 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 11:16, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > What amazes me is that nobody is able or willing to provide any figures.
> > So I guess no provider of an rsync server is interested in this subject
> > and therefore it can't be a big problem.
Btw,
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:39:12PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Whatcha mean "becoming"? Lispers have been blurring the line between
> > data and code for the last half-century.
>
> Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through "On
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 community are using this license. Thus, the onus
> is on yo
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, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia 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 example :
> > > > open KHelpcenter and click
> "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> getpwnam.passwd = x as it is written in /etc/passwd.
Martin> getspwnam.passwd = encrypted password.
Perl doesn't supoprt getspnam(). It used to do a getspnam under the
covers in the getpwnam call in 5.00404 (I wrote the
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > > are under the GNU FDL.
> >
> > 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 p
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
>
> Also consider that pulling gcc
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 22:49, 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't violate the DFSG.
>
> Where "cl
Anthony Towns writes:
> ilisp
>
> These packages will get a brief chance to be reconsidered in the
> next few days, but don't bet too heavily on them making it. From
> this point on, packages that are still in testing that have serious,
> grave or critical bugs that get removed probably won'
> I don't see any harm in making up jigdo files for DVDs --- I don't see
Ooh, yes, please - I'd love to be able to make bootable dvds to pass
around here [MIT area.]
> Of course, if loads of people with DVD writers mail me, I'm likely to be
metoo :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
This is probably the same "missing build-depends for makeinfo" that
id-utils was having trouble with...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, 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 fre
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 the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.
Why do we need to pull
> How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
> a file?
Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter.
my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast
proportion of the content will be literal text for output. See Andrew
Greene's BASiX (BASIC interp
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
