ere are other fundamental
issues then please add them here)
The Vancouver proposals satisfy all of these, potentially at the cost of
removing some architectures from the set released by Debian. If we want
to avoid that cost, can we come up with another proposal that solves the
same problems in a way
oposals they don't
like instead of coming up with a decent and comprehensive set of
solutions. If you don't like what's been proposed, produce something
better. For the most part, that's how Debian works.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ose work that would delay the release,
which sounds like their job.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hat we distribute, not what is on my
> computer.
Why? How does it benefit Debian if our users have to obtain firmware
from somewhere else to make their hardware work? How does it benefit
freedom if we imply that hardware with on-chip firmware is preferable?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED
27;ve made them waste money and material)
When people actually get around to a decent "Free firmware" campaign,
then I think we'll have a stronger argument for not distributing
firmware. At the moment, the non-freeness of firmware isn't something
that seems to bother most people
hing. Is your point anything other than "The Debian
release process is broken and you should get rid of testing"? If not,
we've heard that several times already. It doesn't need reiterating.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why? How does it benefit Debian if our users have to obtain firmware
>> from somewhere else to make their hardware work? How does it benefit
>> freedom if we imply th
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> When people actually get around to a decent "Free firmware" campaign,
>> then I think we'll have a stronger argument for not distributing
>> fi
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 1) Distribute the non-free firmware. Our users are happy.
>> 2) Don't distribute the non-free firmware. Our users either download the
>> non-free firmw
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please check the facts:
>
> gcc 3.4 has a different C++ ABI compared to gcc 3.2/3.3 on _all_
> architectures [1].
I'm sorry, you're completely right. I must have been thinking of 3.3.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>> I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
>
>> This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
>
> Which ones?
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas, please stop Cc:ing me on Debian mailing list threads. I read the
list.
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
>>
>> This
know this already.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tions - and even Debian developers will have to use the
> GFDL'ed documentation as part of their Debian work).
The fact that we can remove the documentation and still distribute the
software demonstrates that it isn't an unavoidable requirement.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:22:11PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The fact that we can remove the documentation and still distribute the
>> software demonstrates that it isn't an unavoidable requirement.
>
> The questio
either. ACPI is a specification for setting up interrupts, hardware
management and putting an entire machine to sleep. In the general case,
it has nothing to do with power management of individual devices.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett schrieb:
>| The Pegasos doesn't support ACPI - it has no ACPI tables anywhere in its
>| firmware.
>
> I am aware of that. That is what is on my list. Enabling support in the
> kernel should be trivial aft
e more than its part in trying
> to fix this. It didn't work. It's time to remove the non-free
> stuff (or will be soon).
The fact that the discussion has not been public does not mean that the
FSF have refused to discuss the issue.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And now you say it's *still* going on?
Yes. For various reasons, I'm more hopeful now than I have been
previously.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of &qu
e the release /after/ we've successfully done it?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n to
rebuild them granted. There's all sorts of potential issues with
non-free licenses. This isn't part of some sort of anti-non-free
campaign.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE!
You're entirely right. After having to read that lot, I'd be impressed
if anyone cared about making sure amd64 shipped with non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Brian Teeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps there is source for a very large game or something that could be
> left off??
ia32-libs has 214MB of source and is only shipped on ia64. It's possible
that something could be worked out that way.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PR
Markham in a couple of weeks - I'm happy to
bring this up with him in person. It'd be easier to do so if we could
firmly establish what we think is needed when it comes to trademark
issues like this. Perhaps that's better suited to -project?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d in order to conform with the trademark policy.
(I don't think this is an issue for DFSG compliance, it's just something
that would be nice to have :) )
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o their own,
and so doesn't worry about us tainting their image. That's not
necessarily true of our downstreams (and, let's face it, not all
Debian-derived distributions are of equal quality)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s whether we remove them
or not.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sort of behaviour as
free?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nsition to libglade2 so libglade can eventually be
> removed?
libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a
GTK->GTK2 transition.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-14 13:48]:
>> libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a
>> GTK->GTK2 transition.
>
> And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in th
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as
>> free?
>
> (This is a compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors to
> not restri
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under the
> terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free.
This is, uh, debated.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /usr/share/doc/mozilla-firefox/copyright would seem to indicate Debian
> distributes Firefox under the MPL.
We have no choice at the moment. Not all of the tree has been relicensed
under the GPL as well.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECT
kage can remain in main, and is free; if not, then the
> package is not free.
Our users have permission to modify it and further redistribute it *as
long as they change the name*. That's a limitation we're willing to
accept for ourselves - why should it not be free enough for our users
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Right. We don't like it, but we think it's free.
>
> We don't like it, and, as a compromise, we accept it when it's not
> possible to do otherwise; it'
not a terribly meaningful phrase. Lack of choice of
venue imposes a burden on the licensor in case of litigation - I see no
reason why one is obviously free and the other non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubsc
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Imagine the following: by your reasoning, there is *no* free
> software, because writing the software to start with is a burden on
> the licensor.
Some burdens are reasonable. Some are not.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROT
they do. I believe (and history seems to
back me up on this) that DFSG 8 was intended to prevent a situation
where our users didn't have a full set of rights to the software we
provided. Can you suggest why your version is preferable?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBS
g up the build system. Doing s/gtk_/g_/g over
the source gets you most of the rest of the way there.
However, most of the apps that are still gtk1 are the ones that *are*
more difficult.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of &
not
explicitly permitted by the DFSG doesn't make it non-free. It just means
that Bruce hadn't considered the issue back then.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an official pronouncement. In a volunteer organisation it's not
always clear whether somebody is speaking officially or not, and people
should take that into account when making public statements.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For doing this without corebutils.
Coreutils is required. Why is the ability to do something without it an
advantage?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in order to provide a more
complete solution for a more narrow use case. It's not possible to
simultaneously believe that Debian's flexibility is what makes it
worthwhile, and that the fact that other projects treat Debian as a
supermarket is a bad thing. One or the other.
--
Matthew
dea. Far better to reimplement it locally in order to ensure
that we have more copies of it to fix should there ever be any sort of
security flaw.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16-Aug-06, 19:23 (CDT), Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yeah, wanting to use functionality when it's available is always a
>> dreadful idea. Far better to reimplement it locally in order to ensure
>
hit the kernel team till they apply the
> patch. :)
Bear in mind that the 64-bit kernel doesn't offer all the functionality
that the 32-bit one does. vm86 is the most obvious thing missing.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 07:30:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Bear in mind that the 64-bit kernel doesn't offer all the functionality
>> that the 32-bit one does. vm86 is the most obvious thing missing.
>
> [8:23am
work happily,
but there's no guarantee that the x86emu emulation is strictly accurate.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
emu instead of vm86.
>
> Or am I missing something?
The x86emu code doesn't get built on i386, does it? It doesn't look like
the INT10_VM86 and INT10_X86EMU conditionals can both be set
simultaneously.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
le reduction in interactive performance. When I worked on that
script originally, I decided that anyone who wanted that could just add
p4_clockmod to /etc/modules.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 07:30:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Bear in mind that the 64-bit kernel doesn't offer all the functionality
>> that the 32-bit one does. vm86 is the most obvious thing missing.
>
> and it
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> driver: p4-clockmod
p4-clockmod is entirely useless. It's high-latency and doesn't drop the
core voltage. Deeper C states (C3/C4) will save more power, so the only
reason to have it loaded at all is to support thermal throt
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> p4-clockmod is entirely useless. It's high-latency and doesn't drop the
>> core voltage.
>
> Nice. Is there a good alternative for P4 machines? Is the ACPI one any
> better (assumi
ific or legally binding officialness that we are
> signing and interchaning keys based on ID cards.
If there's anyone who should be revoking signatures, it's the people who
are signing keys without being fairly certain that they belong to the
correct person. This really shouldn'
?
That would require the kernel to be able to speak DDC to every video
card one of these devices could be plugged into. At the moment, it
can't.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d to? Mike demanded that
the DPL perform certain actions. Suggesting that somebody actually get
involved in Debian before making demands of its leadership isn't
unreasonable. Alternatively, it could be phrased as a request.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
y say "If you are not participating in Debian development, you do
not get to make demands of the project". Being in NM is one way of
showing that you're participating in Debian development, but there are
several others - including making useful contributions to the
debian-devel mai
it.
>
> His message also was much more than that, which aj totally dismissed.
The post was phrased in an unnecessarily hostile manner. There should be
no expectation for people to usefully respond to that sort of thing.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
"
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. In that
context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not
peak on behalf of Debian emailing him back. The
DPL chose to clarify that Walter was not in a position to speak on
behalf of Debian, presumably because he felt that there had been
potential for confusion. Does that seem unreasonable?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
ing him a private mail discussing your concerns would work better?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ttacks for no obvious reason whatsoever[1]? If not, why did you post
it?
[1] As a hint for answering this question, consider the amount of
private mail received by Anthony. Consider the amount of it that has
been published on his blog.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSC
x27;bless', I hope I can find
> out as I delve deeper.
You can't. Intel Mac blessing is different to traditional HFS stuff -
it's not too difficult to do the blessing, but we have no way of
generating HFS+ filesystems without resorting to APSLed code and that
seems to be
etting.
You can, but you can't get into the firmware interface without having
blessed a file first. Which needs MacOS right now.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
watcom and distribute that modified version
(even internally), you must provide the source code to the modified
version to the public. Some people may find that objectionable, but it
doesn't appear to mean what you claim.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
compile a piece of software. You don't
> need to distribute openwatcom to anyone to fall within this clause.
Ok, but it still needs to be modified. Are you suggesting that the
freedom to produce a binary that can't be recompiled by anyone else is a
necessary freedom?
--
Matthew G
ibution.
Like Mozilla.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;s worth, I have no great objection to the CDDL. Most of the
aspects of it that people claim to be unhappy with are also in the MPL,
and we still ship Mozilla quite happily. Yes, I know that most of
Mozilla is also available under the GPL. I don't really see why that's
relevant...)
--
#x27;s absolutely great. Is there any sort of announcement of
this anywhere?
Thanks,
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 01:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 1) The GPL requires that all scripts used to control compilation and
>> installation of the executable be released under terms compatible with
>> the GPL.
>
>
ted in improving Ubuntu than Debian, and just added the
> following rules to my .procmailrc:
How does dropping potentially useful patches improve Debian?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find
> it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive
> packages...
foo-data can often be arch: all, saving mirror space.
--
Matthew Garrett | [
27;t it be a good thing to remove all the circular
> depends that are not neccessary?
Wouldn't it be a better thing to fix the bug and have deterministic
software?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e will be willing to submit a patch or
NMU it for you.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of time I currently have available to me, I
tend to choose the latter. If Debian had slightly less of a culture of
"Keep your hands off my package", I'd do it here instead.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject o
ch I hope is the correct one) in order to check if there
> is somebody out there that's been through this path before.
Can't you just grab a libc4 deb from archive.debian.org? That worked
fine last time I tried it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
x27;s
sufficient technical justification for something (and consensus that
that decision is correct), then it ought to be enacted regardless of
what policy says. Policy can be fixed up later.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
cy you should document it
instead.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
installed, not
whether something is running. The kernel is one of a very small number
of pieces of software that can have multiple versions installed in
parallel, even though only one of them can run. It's entirely reasonable
to special-case it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, every report I've had for the nc6000 has been a
failure. The 4000 seems to have similar issues.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; is required depends on how much you want to achieve.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ures that are better supported by one than the other.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ic binary that users run directly" and "platform
specific binary that users don't run directly" division.
Debian's not a BSD, regardless of the kernel that it's running on.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rsal concept - UK law doesn't
include it (the "fair dealing" provisions that deal with the same sort
of thing are significantly more limited), and so any argument that
something is "free enough" based on the existence of fair use provisions
isn't a terribly strong one.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the Perhalia
and G550 have closed drivers, and you need closed drivers to get
reasonable functionality out of the G450)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mes.
Though unaccelerated 3D may not be an issue, unaccelerated 2D is
massively painful. For a server it's not an issue, but in that case why
bother with X? Health and safety regulations in various parts of the
world require a vertical refresh rate that the VESA driver may not be
able to
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:17:25PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What's the alternative?
>
>A more responsive DAM, one that has time for the tasks that the job
>requires. This would reduce the wait time for DAM approval and remove
>the n
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Someone who enters Debian is in a position to upload a package that
>> could backdoor a very large number of machines. Attention to detail at
>> the DAM stage is *more* important than
Pierre THIERRY wrote:
>I don't think the script is meant to be edited... So it should be in
>/usr/sbin.
You think wrong. The user should be able to choose whether the power
button triggers shutdown or suspend to disk, for instance.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
harder) for people to get the
ability to upload packages? That way the people who do just want to
claim to be a 1337 Debian contributor on their CV can do so without
consuming as much time, but we don't risk anything significant as a
result...)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
martin f krafft wrote:
>also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.21.1=
>614 +0200]:
>> Should we stop shipping security fixes backported from development
>> code?
>
>It always depends, doesn't it? We are backporting *security* fixes
>to packa
dealing with kernels) breaking bunch of usefull
>kernel-patch-.
Historical precedent is against you. That's not to say that the current
situation is ideal, but statements like this don't help.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George Danchev wrote:
>On Monday 22 September 2003 14:20, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> It would be inappropriate to do it within a stable release, sure, but it
>> is something that Debian do do in general.
>
>Then all kernel-source-x.y.z prepared like this kernel-source-2.4.22
martin f krafft wrote:
>also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.22.1=
>320 +0200]:
>> It would be inappropriate to do it within a stable release, sure,
>> but it is something that Debian do do in general. In this case
>> it's a chunk of code tha
is is to be able to trivially patch and unpatch the kernel source
as required during building.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. On the
other hand, I agree that this was an entirely inappropriate way of
voicing this concern.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the SPAM-Filter of Debian fails, you will shot yourself...
> I think, the filter trash around 99% of the SPAM.
That should be "spam" - "SPAM" is a trademark of Hormel Foods
Corporation.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> That should be "spam" - "SPAM" is a trademark of Hormel Foods
>> Corporation.
>
> Only when used to sell food (in which case "spam" would also infringe the
> mark).
No,
?
You don't need to license any books you write because nobody has the
right to produce derivative works. It would be helpful if data in the
wiki is available under a license that permits derivative works to be
produced, especially if those derivative works can then be included i
Debian.
--
Mat
able in main.
[1] With the obvious exception of contrib and non-free. Yes, I know that
there are issues with the current website.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
101 - 200 of 295 matches
Mail list logo
