On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:14:17PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> May you should consider VMware's current beta of 3.1?
That might have been an option if my VMWare sessions weren't
"suspended". To upgrade, they first have to be restarted with
version 2.0 and shut down properly. Then they can be u
Hi all,
I use ssmtp and mutt but I'am unable to sign mail with GnuPGP I always
have the following error :
sendmail: 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html
so is it a bug in ssmtp or in GnuGP (I dont think so because pgp
signature works fine with sylpheed) ?
thanks
best regards
--
R.
I asked:
> Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
> that should be read?
To answer my own question:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
> > documentation?
>
> Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
>
* Michael Stone
| On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:08:10AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
| > I have this sneaking suspicion that we need a tool more appropriate than
| > the BTS to handle the WNPP. The BTS seems rather fragile for this
| > purpose - the format for bug titles and to a greater extent the way
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08
Severity: normal
Sorry, folks, but it is clear I have not enough time to work seriously
on a package like dupload, which is important and should be handled
with care.
I leave it to someone more active.
There are many bugs reported but most are mino
also sprach Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.08.1943 +0200]:
> | we're talking about the PreservePermissions configuration option,
> | which is something different. i should have been more clear.
>
> Uhm, that is actually just not enabled. I might enable it post-woody.
really? are yo
Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit :
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain
> clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using thi
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:24:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson 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: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: cccp
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Hampus Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://members01.chello.se/hampasfirma/cccp/
* License : GPL-2
Description : Console front
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:44:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > As much as I like to have woody released soon, I'm quite confused
> > because I don't understand why masqmail has to go:
>
> This is "had had to go".
> AJ mailed "over the past few weeks". note the plural.
Well, the last RC bug o
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:28:19PM -0700, 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 docum
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:22:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> 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
I'm packaging a library that includes three separate binary packages.
1) the shared library (libnjb0)
2) the dev library (libnjb-dev)
3) sample code (libnjb-samples)
I would like debhelper to create three separate package.substvars files, but
it's only creating the one substvars. I've read all th
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> > Let's replace movl %eax,%ebx with xorl %ebx,%ebx ;-) Apply
> > ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-1455-update12.tar.gz.
> > It fixes issue for VMware 3.0 an
"Bao C. Ha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
>
> Hi Donald,
>
>>
>> Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and
>> this morning I discovered that it dies with:
>>
>> VMware Workstation PANIC:
>> AIO: NOT_IMPL
> As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
> invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.
Gcc 3 docs do: gcc-3.0/gcc/doc/gcc.texi has (1) the GPL itself [which
we already need some way of dealing with, the text of the GPL isn't
DFSG but we include it...] (2) the three
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
> the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
> with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW)
>
> Jeroen Dekke
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:09:49PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> 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-pgsq
> That is Horms-versioning. He starts version numbers at 0 instead of
I was questioning the "exactly one release which hasn't been touched
in 14 months", rather than the actual number; it is a general rule
that the first public exposure of something is *not* good enough for
real use, and I find it
it is an error reported by qmail, NOT ssmtp, so it is either mutt or
gpg's fault. maybe it is just a setting in mutt as it works fine here
for me with mutt, gpg, ssmtp and postfix.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:18:15PM +0200, wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I use ssmtp and mutt but I'am unable to sign mail wi
* martin f krafft
| also sprach Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.08.1943 +0200]:
| > | we're talking about the PreservePermissions configuration option,
| > | which is something different. i should have been more clear.
| >
| > Uhm, that is actually just not enabled. I might enable
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> > from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
> > a big mistake with t
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
> >
> > By the definitions we have given "non-free", it is exactly that.
>
> If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about
> software. The
Il mar, 2002-04-09 alle 00:49, Colin Watson ha scritto:
> To clarify, not all of these packages are buggy in sid. The ones (by
> source package) that have a problem appear to be something like this at
> the moment:
>
> courier-ssl dbf2sql ddt gql gtksql guile-pg libch libnss-pgsql
> netsaint-
This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
>modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
>referred to. Flame away.
>
>http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html
Of course, I meant
http://people
This one time, at band camp, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>> http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdg.html
>
>Well written. Thanks.
>
>One issue though:
>The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
> --^^^
>
>Should
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> >
> > Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> > in Debian.
>
> Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc. So,
> if we'
also sprach Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.09.0112 +0200]:
> | really? are you aware how buggy it is?
>
> No. According to the stuff I've seen it gives problems on non-UNIX
> platforms, but that shouldn't be a concern to us.
okay, well then i'm misinformed. good for us. PreservePer
This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
>that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
>
>I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
>the license are not exercised. Using this lan
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:09:11PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
> >
> > When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
> > that one definition of software is "programs plus documentation though
> > this do
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
> "Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
> Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:17:28PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I asked:
> > Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
> > that should be read?
>
> To answer my own question:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
>
> Off to read about 100 message
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Software." Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
> Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an
It must be free software, even if it's documentation?
So any documentation, if included in Deb
Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> I'm packaging a library that includes three separate binary packages.
> 1) the shared library (libnjb0)
> 2) the dev library (libnjb-dev)
> 3) sample code (libnjb-samples)
>
> I would like debhelper to create three separate package.substv
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:46:48PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> I'm packaging a library that includes three separate binary packages.
> 1) the shared library (libnjb0)
> 2) the dev library (libnjb-dev)
> 3) sample code (libnjb-samples)
>
> I would like debhelper to create three separate package.s
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:39:31AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Software." Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
> > Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an
>
> It must be free software,
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
> Off to read about 100 messages ...
... and a tedious experience it was.
I would like to make the following points which I didn't
see mentioned in the hundreds of messages (many of them
snipes and flames).
1. Document
Thomas Hood wrote:
> Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be
> full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to
> delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But
> what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
