o vim users over nvi, even without
>vim-runtime
> - vim can behave just like old vi (as nvi does), and will do so when
>invoked as "vi"
- vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
important as size or accuracy of emulation.
--
MJ Ray - personal email,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > - vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
> > important as size or accuracy of emulation.
>
> Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a funct
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 21-Dec-05, 16:11 (CST), MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Current unstable Installed-Size:
> > vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
> > nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
> &quo
doesn't.
My request was as suggested by
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
so please honour it.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vi users who will just use vim-tiny?
Most "small vi" users don't seem to like vim, IME.
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote:
> > I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
>
> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
[...]
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, if you feel a particular post was inappropriate / out-of-line bring
> it to the attention of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suggest using a bug report if it's important enough
to track. This is mentioned as an alternative on
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#maintena
Floris Bruynooghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> But I've heard people claiming M-F-T is not a proper standard (despite
> not having an X- in the header) and even being broken. [...]
If I recall correctly, you can look in the IETF DRUMS working
group archive and you'll see it not becoming a proper st
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> donated by Schlund + Parner where it is hosted as well. It is a
> DualCore Opteron and only runs this service for Debian users and
> developers.
I think/hope it should read "runs only this service".
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://pe
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
>
> Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
It's generally quite easy to spot the
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An arm buildd maintainer not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] is simply not
> doing his job as buildd maintainer.
Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
given as a requirement for buildd maintainership.
> You can't pretend to be the one
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
> > given as a requirement for buildd maintainership.
>
> It seems common sense!
Huh? It seems common sense that
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This one time, at band camp, Michael Banck said: [...]
> > Or rethink whether your issue needs posting at all.
>
> This is Jidanni you're talking to.
Please follow Michael Banck's advice before posting more
opaque comments that look like pure personal attacks.
-
Does anyone know the current status of maintainer Christoph Wegscheider?
Last maintainer uploads:
* qiv 2005-05-23 (sponsor Thomas Viehmann cc'd)
* potracegui 2005-05-01 (sponsor Bartosz Fenski cc'd)
* rsnapshot 2005-04-14 (I sponsored this)
Staging repository http://wegi.net/debian/ last modifie
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>license agreement; and (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun
>and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities,
>settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees)
>incurred in connection with any claim, lawsui
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] I refer
> to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've read the devref since I
> went through the NM queue. [...]
Then, as you know, Policy contains the instruction:
'When in doubt about a copyright, send mail to debian-legal@lists.debian.org'
a
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Starting with "What is key for Debian" makes it sound like a policy
> statement on behalf of Debian, and "Just fix the license" could then be
> interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license.
If Sun believe things from random people that easi
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It has happened in the past that the DPL asked a DD and a NM to make
> together a team to deal with a problematic license and to give together
> official Debian statements. [...]
Whatever happened to that? July's coming, bringing a new FDL draft,
if the news re
Anthony Towns [...]
> And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
> like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license
> is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the
> loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
> They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the othe
Anthony Towns
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20
>
> That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a
> decision making body. That's precisely as it should be,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
> suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy
s2.3. It is a
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence
> 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'.
I don't believe that those claims are consensual on debian-legal. The
MIT/X11 licence is frequently recommended by participant
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it doesn't say that: it says "If in doubt, send mail to -legal". It
> doesn't say "if the license is doubtful", which is a different matter
> entirely.
We've been told "both James and Jeroen extensive contact with
Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream
> > cha
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Why do I need a case where some other application breaks?
> > The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System,
> > not only for Sun Java.
>
> Right. And w
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and
> elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where
> these decisions are taken.
Who did that? I must have missed a few posts.
FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful res
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it?
>
> If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need
>
David Pashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Out of interest, if[0] that is saying that "we agree that anything isn't
> Sun's fault isn't Sun's fault" (which is fair enough) then that doesn't
> mention anything about any warranty that we might offer. For the large
> majority of the software we ship, we disc
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
> lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
> limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
> "last post wins" school of debate. People don't listen
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suspect that if it were confined to Debian developers, this problem
> would be much reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced.
On what is that suspicion based?
I disagree. Some of the worst noiseboxes were DDs and some of the
best moderators weren't. Rest
On 2003-10-06 19:57:06 +0100 Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A logo is a graphical equivalent of a name.
I do not believe that, either. The logo is more of a creative work
than a word.
As to your example, you should note that the BSD licence does not
attempt to enforce the trademark its
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> [...] Even if in the last two years it has become
> popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the
> project was not looking [...]
Yes, the debian-legal cabal has been working in secret on its
public mailing list and has devised a plot
gluck, merkel,
samosa and raff uncontactable (192.25.206.* network problem?)
I don't know anything more at this time, but wanted to push a small
message out so that others know it isn't just them and lists and IRC
are both still up, as far as I can see so far.
We now return you to your regula
Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> GeoIP is a quite usefull library for geolocation.
> It has got a stable ABI/API and upstream is normaly very helpfull with
> patches and issues.
[...]
> Currently I see only three options:
> 1) upstream decides to open his build system
> 2) we move it to contrib with all c
spect looks pretty clever to me.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.to
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> and a vaguely interesting note is:
>
> * actually suing based on the license might be complicated by a
> choice of venue
>
> That you can argue the latter is analogous to a "fee" isn't really
> very interesting. That some people are c
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> That's mostly because -legal won't even say that the GPLv2 is DFSG-free,
> except in so far as it's explicitly listed as being DFSG-free.
Got a reference for that?
GPLv2 is a very frequently-suggested DFSG-free licences, has been the
subject of rep
Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> It's just the usual nit-picking on anybody who actually does anything to
> improve our infrastructure. [...]
It's also combined with the usual failure by many people who improve
our infrastructure to accept they wrote a confusing email (ftp-maste
Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Posting a simple mail like "I can't predict why we might want to move
> > it, but it seems like a possibility we should leave open and yes,
> > ftp-master was a symbolic name, b
e check of debian-packaged drupal modules
(maybe through debconf option?);
3. something else.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/e
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 09:44 -0500, Steve Greenland kirjoitti:
> > But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.
>
> If I have understood things correctly, in England (and the rest of the
> UK?) the copyright is owned by the crown and
.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/11/msg00350.html to
"ML Discussion" if you're set up for editing it.
(BTW, your message-ids are @localhost - MTA config OK? ;-> )
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmi
my appearance on
http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA as that Postfix won't last.
Best wishes,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.
policy server delay an incoming mail?
I suspect that sleeping in the perl would delay all incoming mail and
there's no access(5) response like Exim's delay, else I could do it
another way. How can it be done? (I want to increase the connection
cost to maybe-spammers of sending to my postfi
satisfy it?) and not a current live problem.
Beware some of the "ported" CCs which include the trademark notice by
mistake and produced a licence which failed to follow DFSG - and some were
incompatible with other CC licences.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray
My Opinion Only, see http:/
Ian Jackson
> I have just received a review by a l10n team of a package of mine.
>
> The reviewer seems to be under the impression that there is something
> wrong with the computer speaking to the user in the first person.
I'm not active within the l10n-english reviews for some time (see
below)
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "MJ Ray (Debian)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: irc2html.scm
Version : 1.2
Upstream Author : MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://mjr.towers.org.uk/software.html#other
* License
48 matches
Mail list logo
