On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:33:19PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> - you can build packages that aren't normaly autobuild (if the buildd
> >> makes the debs available, encrypted witht the DDs key or so)
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
> that they are a bad idea.
>
> * Converting to lsb init function requires modifying every initscript in
> Debian.
Well, d'oh.
> * Every initscript has to read in
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:56:14AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 01:34:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> >> I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote:
> On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does make
> >it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another package
> >that completel
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:25:31AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture initscripts'
> > > standard output (and exit status) and formatted it in such a way
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:31:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:10:47PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Oh, I was thinking it is in SARGE and SID
> > because two different versions of it.
>
> The name is sarge, not SARGE. Please don't shout at our releases.
Well,
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:12:12PM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> > "Bartosz" == Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
> > *doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
>
> Exactly. This time I thin
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I would bet 10$ that during the freeze more than 300 packages will be
> admitted into Sarge.
> And I would bet another 5$ that "base-files" will be one of them.
even considering that base-files has been frozen for, what, half a yea
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation
> > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what
> > can go in and what not. We know most
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:00:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >How often does a quick NMU that gives a fast improvement in the RC
> > >bugs metric hide the real problem that the maintaine
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Also, if I recall correctly, there was a gnu project to write a pine
> replacement, but I don't know where that stands. Probably it's
> not complete because of a lack of development effort.
Well, there's nano -- and if you want the pi
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:10:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> It wouldn't hurt to mention that the stateless server is the Debian
> package 'radvd' and doesn't require specific client software other than
> iproute or whatever.
s/other than.*//
The kernel handles routing advertisement packets
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 06:19:58PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:36:18PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > > > You would rather have silence than know why you are being ignored?
> > > > Then silence
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:41:34PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/18/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, well. But he's still right. This once.
>
> Is there some reason why "eat a dictionary" had to be copied to all of
> debi
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 06:53:59PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > Certainly there would have been ways to tell Bluefuture that his mail
> > was hard to read/understand without becoming offensive.
>
> No, really, there isn't. It
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 03:45:10PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Quoting Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Why is the latest version in debian lower than the one before?
> >Regards Nico
>
> Becuase it is, in fact, a different program. The higher numbered releases
> are of a non-free version
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 05:59:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then the new program should still have a higher version number, to allow
> > people who currently use the non-free program to upgrade to the free
> > program.
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 12:15:33PM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> If have already sent your key and heven't received and acknowledgment
> message, please resend it.
I can't remember if I have. I do remember sending, though. I also can't
find the message, but that doesn't mean I didn't jus
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:14:45PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:19:05AM +0100, Adrian Mastronardi wrote:
> > I need to setup an shell variable:
> > ENFDATA=/usr/share/rnamotif/enfdata/
>
> according to debian policy, programs must not have to rely on the
> existe
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:34:34PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
[...]
> Why not ship SARGE with unrar-nonfree and provide a
[...]
> Maybe in ETCH.
[...]
> SARGE $USER are using now "unrar-nonfree" and in
[...]
> ETCH we can remove the virtual-package "unrar".
[...]
It's Sarge, and Etch. Please d
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 09:23:44PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> reassign 310887 debian-installer
> severity 310887 important
> retitle 310887 Does not mount non-root partitions before fs check if other
> drivers required
> thanks
>
> On Thursday 26 May 2005 21:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Packag
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure
> (and shouldn't require more than half a year).
In this case, it did because of scalability issues. This was known and
publicised for quite a while; so either you're bei
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
> > relevant auto* be installed.
>
> Or you put the patch in the .diff.gz. I think that's the best option.
Uh, i
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:18:03PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I got some questions to library packaging. If the ABI of a library
> breaks, the SONAME of it gets updated and thus the binary package's
> name. As soon as the new revision gets uploaded the old binary package
> should get NBS (Not Bui
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:09:38PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2005 19:06, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> > I find it a quite interesting idea. If it was implemented, there should be
> > an scale, so that maintainers have some reference in order to tag their
> > packages.
>
>
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:54:51AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:13:54 -0600, "Wesley J. Landaker"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal, which is
> >a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires government I
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:02:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Anyone who can't distinguish between an "officially announced release date"
> > and a projected target release date isn't worth wasting my breath on.
>
> It seems you
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:18:13PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:46:24PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 14:08 +0200 schrieb Peter Van Eynde:
> > > A message like this makes you the perfect victim :-) for my question:
> > > what should a deb
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:29:56PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:37:28 -0700, Stephen Birch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Darren Salt([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-05-31 21:49:
> > > For those who've missed the first three broadcasts today, there's one
> > > more at
> > > 01:05 GMT;
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 01:06:44PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> instead of trying to force people to do things "your way", i would suggest
> that you come up with an infrastructure for making these packages that
> really is easier and consistant, and then say something like "packages
> built with ja
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 06:01:33PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 17:57 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> > The plan outlined in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/04/msg00153.html is what
> > Ubuntu is already doing. Note that some of the people involved
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:15:49PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 19:00 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a écrit :
> > If you're going to complain about a cabal, please do try to get the
> > facts straight: The DPL team consists of only one Canonical employee,
> > who was e
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 06:50:57PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The problem is that the decisions are always taken for the Ubuntu
> distribution first.
There's two reasons why this could be happening:
* There's a master plan over at Canonical to try and take over Debian.
* For every step some
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 10:37:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 20:40 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 06:50:57PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > The problem is that the decisions are always taken for the Ubuntu
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:25:45AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 18:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > Now, please tell me what I can do so that all architectures in sarge are
> > > supported in etch.
> >
> > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the build
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:00:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Then what do you mean? There are several architectures with porters
> ready to do huge amounts of porting work. For example, would you dare to
> say m68k is lacking manpower?
We can speak for ourselves, thank you.
--
The amount
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:22:08PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > * Split the architectures over two sets of mirror networks, so that
> > mirror administrators don't need 100G just to mirror Debian anymore.
>
> That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 Euro...
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:00:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Then what do you mean? There are several architectures with porters
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: emile
Version : 0.9, probably (not released yet, still CVS version
at this point)
Upstream Author : Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:48:56PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:47:12AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 07, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - _No_ bugs in base packages (well, at least no old bugs). Base system
> > should be upgraded to latest upstream (forward patches!) this includes
> > PAM,
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Oh, you'll also note that the traditional "slow" architectures (mips,
> mipsel, m68k, arm) aren't on this "problems" list. That's because a *lot*
> of effort has been put into providing sufficient parallelization for each
> architec
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:18:47AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:12:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:47:12AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > 2.4.x kernels are already obsolete by now except that for some doorstop
[This is actually more a question for debian-cd. Cc set appropriately]
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:51PM +0100, Brian Teeman wrote:
> Is there any way that the source can be remastered so that it fits on 2
> dvd. Seems kind of daft that it stretches to three dvd for the sake of
> 212mb.
>
> If
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:31:24PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Julien BLACHE
>
> | A bug is a bug, whether it triggers or not.
>
> It's not RC and therefore not a priority if it has no effect.
The primary question, I think, is whether one can be 100% sure whether a
bug that results in an
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 07:10:15AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:27:42PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
>
> > It looks like this software could use some redesign to put less work
> > on the buildd maintainers and scale better to more buildds.
>
> There was one in the m
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:21:15PM +0100, Brian Teeman wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Josh Lauricha wrote:
>
> > On Tue 06/07/05 18:17, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Dropping a source package might get you into legal trouble (some of the
> > > licenses for software in
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:15:18PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
>
> > If your X configuration is broken and your X won't start then that is
> > effectively the same thing as the proposed run level 3 anyway. So
> > what is the point?
> Well, I used to have problems with my graphiccard that hard l
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 07:58:32PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:34:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> > Nobody. However, you're assuming that xdm et al will keep trying to
> > start an X server, even if it fail
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:55:17AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:10:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The primary question, I think, is whether one can be 100% sure whether a
> > bug that results in an FTBFS on only one out of eleven platforms will
&
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:13:00AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 07, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - - The locale codeset should be UTF-8 for all new installs by default.
> FFS! When will people learn to not mess with other cultures they know
> nothing about?
> Feel free to ad
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:18:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 juin 2005 à 10:53 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > Now, that is why we have runlevel 1. But in most cases, wasting
> > runlevels to things that could just as easily be fixed by ending the
> >
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:58:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Right now, therefore, the buildds for those four platforms try to build
> every OpenAFS release, install all its dependencies, and then error out in
> the configure script. This is doubtless a bit annoying to the buildd
> admins, is a
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:24:43PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> And anyway ifconfig is deprecated,
While I don't have a very strong opinion on this matter either way, I
feel I should point out that
a) ifconfig is an application that exists not only on Linux, but on many
other (free or non-free
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:15:31PM +0400, Roman Pastukhov wrote:
> I am wondering whether it's possible to include Sedna in Debian
> distribution.
You can make this happen yourself!
You would need a sponsor who would help you, check your package for
obvious errors, and, eventually, upload your pa
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Historically we always wanted to be able to use all the source in the
> > archive with the tools available in stable. If that policy is still
> > true you would be able to use the new features by the time edge releases
> > wi
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g.,
> > buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source
> > packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said "manipulate", not
> > "build".
>
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:00:35PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > ok, that's gotta be invalid argument since this could be argued for
> > ANY file so you would end up with links to EVERYTHING in /etc, so that
> > program would know where to find li
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > As I understand DSFG 8, this covers only the case that the firefox package
> > distributed by Debian *as is* must still be usable legally when used
> > outside Debian.
>
> Come on,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:43:28PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > Why not? Trademarks are not software, and the mozilla trademark policy
> > is not depriving anybody of freedoms about their code.
>
> *Their* trademark policy. Maybe the emphasis should have been there in
> the first place.
Do you
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:06:51PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a
broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote:
> > Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal.
>
> Sorry John, but this is BS. The text of the GPL#6 says: "You may not
> impose *any* further restrictions on the reci
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> So, in this paragraph you are basically stating that we *should*
> >> rename firefox to save them from such burden.
> >
> > No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save o
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:26:11PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> People seem to be using DFSG 4 as a justification for keeping the
> name, but I believe that is flawed. DFSG 4 allows for a license to say
> "if you meet conditions X, you can use our name, otherwise you
> can't". So the TeX guys have
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > Does the opposite make it worse? I think so.
>
> IMHO it makes no difference at all. The "normal", "regular",
> "I-dont-read-debian-mailing-lists" folk install the "Gnome Desktop"
> or the "KDE Desktop" tasks, see the "W
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:35:10AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> As I said, I only regard the symlink target as configuration value, I
> don't actually pretend that the actual log file is in /etc.
Okay, good; it's just that someone seemed to imply that this was not the
case.
--
The amount of time
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:50:59PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> I think keeping the name does hurt Debian. Keeping the name means we
> cut a Debian specific deal. That doesn't sit well with me. I don't
> want to get special treatment just because we're popular.
We don't get a special treatment ju
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:54:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > Firefox is free software, and DFSG-compliant: "The license may
> > require derived works to carry a different name or version number
> > from the original software." (Even if it is "a compromise").
>
> But is non-rebrand
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:35:12PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> We're losing sight of the key issue here. We *cannot* use their
> trademark under their current trademark policy. They are offering us a
> deal that is Debian specific to allow use to use the marks. Can we
> accept such a deal as a pro
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:47:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a
broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote:
> > Yes, it's not nice, it's crap, but it's still entirely
> > possible within the
> > (pseudo-)legal framewark Debian gives itself.
>
> Isn't Debian point to be less crap? Yeah,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:09:49AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > I didn't see anyone proposing prelinking so far. I've seen rumors
> > that program start time for some programs decrease a lot if prelinking
> > is enabled. I
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:10:06AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:05:20PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > Come on, that can't possibly be the intention. I could craft a license
> > > that
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > That's simply not true. Anyone distributing significant copies of
> > Firefox can have a representative on the security group, which has
> > access to all the confidential bugs. Just ask Dan Veditz
> > <
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:38:34AM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> *Their* trademark policy. Maybe the emphasis should have been there in
> >> the first place.
> >
> > Do you know the history of the Adamant
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:07:58AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães used a
broken MUA that breaks threads and wrote:
> > Not really, because the DFSG is not supposed to apply to trademarks.
>
> This is the center of Wouter's and Marco's argument, IMHO. But I don't
> see anything in the DFSG restri
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 02:48 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > Furthermore, this package has a long history of triggering weird
> > > compiler errors, including several ICEs. Is there a way to test the
> > > build with g++-
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:43:36PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 13:27 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > Fine. And we also agree that the basis for that is the DFSG? If so,
> > where does the DFSG speak about trademarks at all?
> >
> > The license of firefox is DFSG
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Where possible, sure. But "principles" doesn't mean "the rules should be
> > exactly the same".
>
> Please stop putting words in
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:23:19PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> The MoFo has made no statement that they would grant a trademark
> license to anyone would adhered to the same standards as Debian. If
> this were true (and hopefully in writing), I think things would be
> much less problematic.
Well
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:50:44PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:20:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > You're free to make /any/ modifications to firefox, as long as you
> > either r
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:23:39PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:48:55AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > Where possible, sure. But "
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 03:09:47PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Jeu 16 Juin 2005 14:33, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> > Now that we have released sarge, I would like to ask debian-admin and
> > the Project Leader to consider seriously doing something to reduce
> > the level of spam we have to rec
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:30:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is realtime a requirement for bug reporting?
>
> Since delays could be weeks from graylisting--or worse--yes.
Uh, no. If properly configured, graylisting will not produce suc
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 02:59:07PM +0300, Markus Åkerman wrote:
> hi,
>
> i suggest a raphical insallation to debian, one is soon coming ro gentoo.
This is being worked on, and might happen with etch.
Note, however, that it's never a good idea to just go and suggest
something to an open source p
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 08:48:05AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:30:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Since delays could be weeks from graylisting--or worse--yes.
> >
&
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 02:03:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That being said, even if you couldn't do that, there still are ways to
> > avoid the problem: e.g., do graylisting based on the /24 of the sending
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 07:21:52PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Monday 20 June 2005 21:45, "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyway, the major problem now are the @packages.debian.org addresses, I
> > have ~20 of them and most days they account for 1/3 to 1/2 of all the
> > spam I r
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:48:19AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
[...]
> So, I don't feel I can accept the agreement offered by the Mozilla
> Foundation, because of my objections to it and because I don't feel
> empowered to make an agreement like this on behalf of Debian.
[...]
> If the DPL does not
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:34:00AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> "Presumably" isn't good enough IMHO. If they cared about fairness they
> would develop a trademark policy that could be applied to everyone,
> based on the "quality" criteria that is right now only known to the
> MoFo.
How do you judg
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 03:05:47PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Marco d'Itri:
>
> > What is the rationale for changing the default setting?
>
> Reducing wormability. I think it's a pretty clever change.
Some of us actually do care what is listed in that file, and edit it
from time to time.
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:04:18PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst:
>
> > Some of us actually do care what is listed in that file, and edit it
> > from time to time. Hashing those names makes that much harder
>
> There should be tools supporting this, I
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:35:09PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/2/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > > These are two very different cases, though. If a local admin installs a
> > > new root cert, that's
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:56:46AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2005-07-05 Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Besides the C++ ABI change, all m68k and hppa packages depending on
> > libgcc1 have to be rebuilt to use libgcc2.
> [...]
>
> Hej,
> Who is responsible for this?
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 09:43:39PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Loïc Minier writes:
> > I had that very same customization for alpha *and* for sh builds, I
> > didn't see the same customization for sh. Is it safe to assume gcc-4.0
> > will work at its best under sh too?
>
> the patch is curr
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:50:37PM +0300, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I don't know much about the SH port either, except that it's been dead
> for years now. Not much point in trying to support it, I'd say.
Okay. It's been pointed out to me on IRC that the SH port is cur
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:50:35AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Then we would have
> >
> > Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
> > release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
> > (for example), etc.pp.
>
> Coun
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:40:55PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 08, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Feel free to add any other wishlists (or discuss any one of them). I'll try
> > to track the subsequent thread and keep the list current somewhere...
> Make h
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:07:20PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 08, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Feel free to add any other wishlists (or discuss any one of them). I'll
> > > > try
> > > > to track
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:25:00AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >Erast Benson wrote:
> >> I do not need to make the build system
> >> available under GPL (GPL §3 requires me to make it available but does
> >> not mention a license)
>
> >GPL 3(a) requires the "comp
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:28:04PM -0500, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:03:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:25:00AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Note it is unclear whether the makefiles could be called "scr
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 04:32:58PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > You should better _read_ the GPL and try to understand it.
> >
> > Good plan.
>
> Did you have some time to make your plan reality meanw
301 - 400 of 1709 matches
Mail list logo
