-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:47:15PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As it is, to me, Ubuntu is just a group of people, some of which might
> > have names[1]. I find it hard to work with such a
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
> Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
> every package to add an "ubuntu" tag, and then be done with it,
> right? That would work well and be very easy to implement.
You are so hung up on this point, it's not even funny.
Do you really think u
On 1/19/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > you could check changelogs.ubuntu.com which holds changelog and
> > copyright files of the packages.
> Hi Reinhard,
> are the changelogs on changelogs.ubuntu.com only from stable releases or
> do they include testing/dapper? Also, I was checking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
> available via http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having
> unmaintained recipes and therefore some of them do not work
> properly. I think it would be an easy task for Debian maintainers to
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:26:05AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> > > Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. T
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
> > Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
> > every package to add an "ubuntu" tag, and then be done with it,
> > right? That would work well and be very easy to implement.
> Yo
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number?
Actually it seems fairly likely that they would -- version numbers are
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Spare disk space isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
>> Spare bandwith isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
>
> I see. Can we please have the numbers? Exactly how much disk space
> is
Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 08:48, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> For those following along at home, it seems klik is some sort of
> gateway to install Debian packages on various non-Debian distributions.
> I imagine it's an ftp frontend to alien.
Well..
In fact, it is a scripted version of apt that ca
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the bin
> It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
> sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
> suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
> "distinguishing version numbers for binaries" being by far the least of
> these).
Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 09:57, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> No where in his web page is written that in fact klik is a refactoring of
> actual debian packages.
Ok I was wrong it is written in small at the end:
"Thanks to debian for the software compilation and packaging."
Romain
--
Satan is an e
On Thursday 19 January 2006 09:57, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> My own feeling about it is that the author is not very honnest with the
> debian packaging work.
From klik.atekon.de: "Thanks to debian for the software compilation and
packaging."
> Hum... It allows non permanent installation which can b
Le Mer 18 Janvier 2006 20:58, Steffen Joeris a écrit :
> > You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
> > your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP
> > License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting
> > that they accept the PHP Licence for
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Some reasons:
> >
> > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back
> > and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubuntu mig
[Eric Dorland]
> This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
> respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
[Nathanael Nerode]
> IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
> after several years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal.
> At which point
Md wrote:
This reminds me that there should be a list of modules which MUST NOT be
added to the initramfs because loading them too early is both useless
and as in this case actively harmful.
I'm testing this solution:
I added a blacklist file in /etc/mkinitramfs/, put "blacklist
net-module" lin
On Jan 19, Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> udev now can rename the interfaces, because they haven't a name yet.
udev still loads the modules, you just have been lucky.
This is not a solution in any way.
> furthermore this (or something similar) could be useful if we need some
> modu
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 20:44 +, Dallam Wych wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:03PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 06:28 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > > > Do you think your constant bitching is fu
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for
> > programs
> > in the base system
> > * allowing us to provide python early on installs
After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
If not, is there a way to remove packages from Experimental?
Regards
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:35:45PM +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
> After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
> generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
> experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
>
> If not, is there a way to
[Jérôme Warnier]
> After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
> generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
> experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
Hmmm, I thought experimental was garbage-collected automatically in
this ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jan 19, Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> udev now can rename the interfaces, because they haven't a name yet.
> udev still loads the modules, you just have been lucky.
> This is not a solution in any way.
Maybe network interface renamin
On Jan 19, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've looked into the Suse sysconfig package, and it includes all the
> network configuration utils, such as ifup and dhcp handling, and
> they're coupled with the udev rules. As previously said those
Look harder, because there is n
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 12:43 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:35:45PM +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
> > After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
> > generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
> > experimental (currentl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jan 19, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Merging that into Debian would mean that udev would replace some
>> ifupdown planned functionality.
> Wrong.
I think that ifupdown maintainers are the ones who can say that for
sure,
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 21:51, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
> > syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian
> > regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull
> > by Debian (in
* Anthony Towns [2006-01-19 19:21:07]:
> > In Ubuntu, we've split the package in
> > order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are part
> > of base).
>
> Then what's the benefit of having python(-minimal) be essential at all?
you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and p
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:54:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Interfaces renaming must be handled by udev because if it's not then
> network hotplug handlers will be called with the wrong interface name.
When are those network hotplug handlers called?
I've got udev loading the network drivers,
On Jan 19, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Interfaces renaming must be handled by udev because if it's not then
> > network hotplug handlers will be called with the wrong interface name.
> When are those network hotplug handlers called?
When udev receives the events from the kernel,
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
>> available via http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having
>> unmaintained recipes and therefore some of them do not work
>> properly. I think it wou
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
> > sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
> > suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
> > "distinguishing version nu
Md wrote:
udev now can rename the interfaces, because they haven't a name yet.
udev still loads the modules, you just have been lucky.
This is not a solution in any way.
maybe I miss something, but for what I see we don't need udev not to
load the modules: we just need they are not loaded *be
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [2006-01-19 19:21:07]:
> > > In Ubuntu, we've split the package in
> > > order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are
> > > part
> > > of base).
> > Then what's the benefit of having pyt
On Jan 19, Davide Natalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe I miss something, but for what I see we don't need udev not to
Indeed. udev can rename the modules without any need to mess with the
initramfs or change anything else. Even if the driverss have already
been loaded, network hotplug even
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
>box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
>unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years*
>bef
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25:45AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could
> be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is
> metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an
> Ubuntu developer in the same
> > >2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html
>
> the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it
> can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution.
Please read the message to debian-legal that I originally referenced. It
outlines recent
Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
What does /bin/sh point to?
Could you please explain what is exactly what you need to check?
ls -l /bin/sh
In other words, what does /bin/sh point to?
What shell is /bin/sh? bash? zsh(gods no)? pos
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Then the *source* packages can legitimately use the same Maintainer: field.
> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian, the
> binaries
> can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in Debian, because they
> are essentially the same pack
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:08:42AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Eric Dorland]
> > This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
> > respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
> [Nathanael Nerode]
> > IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
> > after
I was wondering if the developers thought Backports will ever become an
official part of Debian, one where the bugs are tracked on the BTS
etc... I really want to use backports, I'm just intimadated by:
"
I provide these files without any warranty. Use them at
your own risk. If one of thes
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
> > that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
>
> To clarify explicitly:
>
> - Ubuntu does
Hi,
> >
> > * Let's modify pbuilder to run test-build tests and (if
> > possible) also the generic tool and test-install tests.
> > These belong, I think, better into pbuilder then piuparts,
> > but it might be that piuparts should run them also.
>
> pbuilder hook is ava
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
> arguing on abstract phi
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they
> >box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field
> >unmodifi
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
> python. That is a "ease of development" helper for ubuntu.
All of those can be done today using dependencies.
.config scripts, for example, cannot.
--
- mdz
--
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> > which do not su
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for
> > > programs
> > > i
* Joseph Smidt wrote:
> Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> Debian?
No.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Norbert Tretkowski [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:02:03 +0100]:
> * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > Debian?
> No.
Is this to be read "as the person behind backports.org, I don't have
in mind working to make them official", or "I believe ftp
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:41:19 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, the text of the amendment says at its very end:
> ,
>> Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation
>> document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority
>> to pass.
> `
>
* Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Norbert Tretkowski [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:02:03 +0100]:
> > * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > > Debian?
> >
> > No.
>
> Is this to be read "as the person behind backports.org, I don't have
> in mind working to m
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
> resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
> rider to be added to
* Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
> * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > Debian?
>
> No.
i remember a conversation where you pointed out some principal
problems (security support, manpower) but in general were
On Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:35 AM, Jérôme Warnier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
> generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
> experimental (currently, Sid has 2.0.1-2 and Experimental 2.0.1-1).
Further to
* Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
> > * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > > Debian?
> >
> > No.
>
> i remember a conversation where you pointed out some principal
> problems (secu
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
> > available via http://klik.atekon.de/. However, most of them are having
> > unmaintained recipes and therefore some of them do not work
> > properly. I think
* Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:38:45]:
> * Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > * Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
> > > * Joseph Smidt wrote:
> > > > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
> > > > Debian?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>> * Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:02:03]:
>> > * Joseph Smidt wrote:
>> > > Do you think we will ever see backports officially supported by
>> > > Debian?
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> i remember a conversat
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
>
>> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
>> the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.
>
> I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
On second thoughts...
> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG.
The amendment intentionally talks only about what Debian is going to
do ("allow
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
> resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
> rider to be added to the SC, s
* Frank Küster [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:04:03 +0100]:
> The answer also depends on the understanding of "officially supported".
> By definition, backports are not part of a release and can never get the
> same level of support as a stable release gets, like upgrade tests (we
> already don't support up
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006, Simon Richter wrote:
> I'm unconvinced that bumping the priority on the other terminal
> emulators is an adequate solution, hence I'm opening this "general" bug
> for discussion on how to reflect individual users' choices properly.
We had a similar problem for G
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:31 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Some reasons:
> > >
> > > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported
> > > back
> >
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > There seems to be a fairly good amount of Debian Sarge packages
> > available via http://klik.atekon.de/.
>
> You know, I almost didn't bother to visit the web site, since you're
> unwilling to even sign your name to your message, and you didn't say
> anything about what k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How did bin-NMU numbers work for the old numbering scheme on native
> packages?
In a Complicated Way. Essentially, the debian revision and NMU revision were
filled in with 0s (which were, accordingly, not supposed to be used in normal
version numbers).
>What prohibit
aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
> MJ Ray's already done such a summary; it's rather trivially inadequate,
> due to the information its summarising being equally inadequate.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00901.html
So the summary amounts to "patents". Is that right? In other wo
> Le Jeudi 19 Janvier 2006 08:48, Peter Samuelson a écrit?:
> > For those following along at home, it seems klik is some sort of
> > gateway to install Debian packages on various non-Debian distributions.
> > I imagine it's an ftp frontend to alien.
>
> Well..
> In fact, it is a scripted version of
Apologies to AJ and the ftpmasters. I found the *important* part of the
thread, which I'd apparently missed during December, in which the
ftpmasters...
drumroll
explain what would be needed for mplayer to go into Debian now, barring
finding additional problems.
Congrats Jeroen van Wolfella
Colin Watson wrote:
> FWIW the relevant design docs from when this was done in Ubuntu are
> here:
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EssentialPython (requirements)
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PythonInEssential (details)
>
> The rationale for the set of included modules is in the latter, and was
> basi
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
>
> a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
>that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
> b) include only the modules
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
> contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
> non-controversia
Em Qui, 2006-01-19 às 07:32 -0700, Joseph Smidt escreveu:
> I'm just intimadated by:
> " I provide these files without any warranty. Use them at your own
> risk. If one of these packages eats your cat or your rabbit, kills
> your neighbour, or burns your fridge, don't bother me. "
Hmmm... Just thi
* Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> upstream explicitly objects to.
Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, n
On 10539 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Congrats Jeroen van Wolfellaar, ftpmaster extraordinare, not afraid to take
> on
> the difficult cases (he also managed the REJECT on rte IRRC).
Nope, he didnt reject rte.
--
bye Joerg
> 16. What should you do if a security bug is discovered in o
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> > upstream explicitly objects to.
Le Jeu 19 Janvier 2006 22:47, Matt Zimmerman a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be
> > > part of base, but not full python, and th
On Jan 19, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
Yes, I object to asking for removal of MPEG encoders because there is no
good reason to do it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 15:15 -0500, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
> Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
The ffmpeg package doesn't include any faad, mp3, or other encoders for
which patents are actively enforced. Therefore there is no reason to
remove it from main
On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
> proper interpretation would be:
>
> (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
> two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > > of base, but not full pytho
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> And third, klik doesn't really "install". It brings exactly 1 additional
> file (the *.cmg) onto the system. It works with "user only" privileges.
Hang on. You loop-mount with user-only privileges? How?
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
distro's agree on then.
And one more problem:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> > not us.
>
> Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
Ah, ok
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
> Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
> invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
But if this amendment passes, we would still have to modify the DFSG for
the sake of consistenc
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> > > not us.
> >
> >
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:54, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
> > Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
> > invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
>
> But if this amendment passes
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> > And third, klik doesn't really "install". It brings exactly 1 additional
> > file (the *.cmg) onto the system. It works with "user only" privileges.
>
> Hang on. You loop-mount with user-only privileges? How?
The klik client insta
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:26:29 +0100, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
>> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact that
>> works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
>> resolution to allow
* David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:58]:
> For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for breaking
> the standard library in to its component parts and not installing it all by
> default. This problem has been largely abrogated as of late, but I'd rather
> not see
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
>> proper interpretation would be:
>>
>> (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
>>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
> No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
> officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
> the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no
> way arguing for any sort of exception or
On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
> > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
> > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
> > the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. Thi
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:11:11 -0500, Christopher Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has
> the authority to determine these matters of interpretation?
> Specifically, who decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The
> developers do,
Thanks to those who saved me the time and hassle of filing some wnpp
bugs.
> bricolage
#348948
> dbacl
#348949
> libcache-mmap-perl
#348951
> libmasonx-interp-withcallbacks-perl
#348952
> libparams-callbackrequest-perl
#348953
> libstring-crc32-perl
#348954
> scottfree
#348950
--
T
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
>> > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
>> > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which view
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
