Re: debian-devel-digest Digest V2004 #758
Why are there no unsubscribe instructions at the
bottom of each messages?
--- debian-devel-digest-request@lists.debian.org
wrote:
> ATTACHMENT part 1 message/rfc822
>
> debian-devel-digest Digest Volume 2004 : Issue
> 758
>
> Today's Topics:
> Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic p [ Joel Baker
> <fenton@debian.org> ]
> Re: When will amd64 be allowed in si [
> viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co ]
> Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was: Resi [ Christian
> Perrier <bubulle@debian.o ]
> Re: COUNTRY: proposal of a solution [ Christian
> Perrier <bubulle@debian.o ]
> Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was: Resi [ Wang
> WenRui <wangwr@ustc.edu> ]
> Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was: Resi [ Roger So
> <rogerso@debian.org> ]
> Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was: Resi [ Dale Amon
> <amon@vnl.com> ]
> Re: Definition of COUNTRY [ John
> Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> ]
> Re: When will amd64 be allowed in si [ Joel Baker
> <fenton@debian.org> ]
> Re: When will amd64 be allowed in si [ Kurt
> Roeckx <Q@ping.be> ]
> Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was: Resi [ William
> Ballard <40414.nospam@comca ]
> Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic p [ Don
> Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com ]
> Re: links2 package [ Moritz
> Muehlenhoff <jmm@informatik. ]
> Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was: Resi [ Colin
> Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> ]
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:15:04 -0600
> From: Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic
> protection against modification
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 10:36:02PM +0200, Goswin von
> Brederlow wrote:
> > Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 11:48:31AM -0700, Brian
> Nelson wrote:
> > >> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wed, 05 May 2004, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > >> >> He's making a valid point. The social
> contract now reads, "Debian
> > >> >> will remain 100% free", and since license
> files are part of Debian,
> > >> >> that's a violation of the contract.
> > >> >
> > >> > License files that are legal documents (eg.
> are incorporated by
> > >> > copyright) have been excluded from needing to
> comply with the DFSG for
> > >> > quite some time. [Primarily because in their
> position as a legal text
> > >> > they can't be modified anyway, so they must
> necessarily violate some
> > >> > portions of the DFSG.]
> > >>
> > >> I understand, but it's still not allowed by the
> SC. "100% free" doesn't
> > >> give us any leeway.
> > >
> > > Except that "Free" is a referential term which
> is drawn, for the purposes
> > > of Debian, from the DFSG. Precedent and current
> practice says that issues
> > > of DFSG-freeness are the domain of the
> ftpmasters, generally operating on a
> > > (near or total) concensus from the debian-legal
> mailing list.
> > >
> > > The standing opinion there for some time
> (certainly every time I've seen
> > > this issue raised, which has been some number)
> is that a license text which
> > > is required solely to allow us to distributed
> the software under said
> > > license is Free by the DFSG, in that it is a
> pre-requisite to being able to
> >
> > Which does not apply here since the licenses are
> distributed on their
> > own and not just acompaning some code under that
> license.
> >
> > The reason for that was, I belive, so that not
> everyone needs to ship
> > a full copy of the licenses, thus saving space.
>
> For fairly meaningless values of 'of their own'
> which involve a distinction
> of organization (packaging), rather than one of
> practice (you don't install
> base-files without things those licenses apply to,
> in practice).
>
> However, if that's just too big a nit to leave
> alone, the suggestion of
> proposing another amendment (to the DFSG) to clarify
> why we allow this very
> narrow gray area in the guidelines would still fix
> it.
>
> > The argument that they are legal documents applies
> but what is
> > stopping anyone from adding source to legal
> documents? E.g:
> >
> > // This license applies to the following source
> > int main() {
> > }
> > // and may not be modified.
> >
> > Then you just compile the license into your
> program and you have DFSG
> > free source with an invariant section.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends on what the ftpmasters
> (normally relying
> on debian-legal) decide about it. *Guidelines*.
> Meant to be interpreted.
> If the above was done for clearly obnoxious reasons,
> it would generally
> be shot down rapidly; if it were more complex, there
> would be a lot of
> arguments over whether a license-terms-only
> invariant was acceptable that
> would look a lot like some of the debates over the
> GFDL. That's how it's
> meant to work.
>
> Still, it is becoming more and more clear to me that
> the concept of
> applying common sense by way of understanding that
> they are guidelines, and
> noth a definition, is lost on a lot of folks. So
> maybe a DFSG amendment IS
> called for, just to force the endless discussions to
> turn into SOMETHING
> new.
>
> > > establish and protect the other freedoms
> required by the DFSG in a world
> > > with legal systems that require such.
> > >
> > >> I'm not going to argue that we should throw out
> the GPL because we can't
> > >> distribute its text because that would be
> insane. Throwing out the SC
> > >> seems a lot more rational at this point.
> > >
> > > "It isn't Free!"
> > >
> > > "You keep using that word. I do not think it
> means what you think it means."
> > >
> > >> > It is quite trivial to distinquish between a
> license which is a legal
> > >> > document necessary to include and a license
> which is just text. The
> > >> > latter must comply with the DFSG, while the
> former need not.[1]
> > >> >
> > >> > Again, if you seriously think this is a
> problem (beyond the mere
> > >> > argumentative games that are being played
> here) bring up the issues on
> > >> > -legal, or -project or propose a proposal on
> -vote.
> > >>
> > >> It's a problem because it's unquestionably a
> violation of the SC (albeit
> > >> a silly one), and we can't knowingly violate
> the SC. Does no else
> > >> agree?
> > >
> > > Er. Unquestionable... no. I believe I just
> questioned it, above. Again,
> > > IDNTIMWYTIM. The key to undoing the Escherian
> knot of logic is to
> > > understand that they're Guidelines for this
> reason, and the "court" of
> > > interpretation is debian-legal, which has
> rendered it's opinion clear
> > > numerous times. In fact, I'm fairly sure this
> was one of the questions
> > > proposed for the d-l FAQ.
> >
> > So Debian has some files that the SC does not
> apply to. Nice. That
> > sounds a bit like "100% free sex, for just 9.99$".
>
> No, the SC applies to them, via the DFSG. It's the
> 'G' part of that, and
> what that implies about handling things that fall on
> the borders, that
> seems to be getting lost here.
>
> > Has debian-legal reafirmed that opinion after the
> "editorial" SC
> > change? Because before it the SC didn't apply. The
> argument is that
> > _now_ it does [which is quite insane].
>
> Frankly, most of the folks I've seen talk about it
> considered the SC to
> apply then, just as it does now. I suggest, however,
> that if you doubt
> that, you take a poll of them. See Branden's poll
> WRT the GFDL last year
> (IIRC) for an example of a reasonable way to take
> such a poll.
> --
> Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
> ,''`.
> Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter
> : :' :
>
> `. `'
> http://nienna.lightbearer.com/
> `-
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2.2 application/pgp-signature
> ATTACHMENT part 3 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:15:47 +0100
> From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
> To: Jens Schmalzing <j.s@lmu.de>
> CC: Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net>,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: When will amd64 be allowed in sid?
>
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:20:14PM +0200, Jens
> Schmalzing wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Chad Walstrom writes:
> >
> > > Where can someone, who wants to start running a
> Debian AMD64 pure,
> > > find this information?
> >
> > I put myself through the ordeal of getting pure
> 64-bit running on an
> > Opteron system this morning. I followed the
> documentation on alioth,
> > and kind people on #debian-amd64 filled in the
> gaps.
> >
> > > Most of the documentation on the amd64 port
> details bi-arch setups.
> >
> > Thing is, you need a bi-arch toolchain to build
> your first 64-bit kernel.
>
> Only the first one? IIRC, some of the code early in
> boot sequeunce used
> to require biarch toolchain; had that been fixed?
>
> ATTACHMENT part 4 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 17:49:35 +0200
> From: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>
> To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was:
> Resignation)
>
> Quoting Dale Amon (amon@vnl.com):
>
> > The only authority on what is a nation are the
> people
> > who live there. When in doubt, ask them.
>
> Which ones, catholics or orangists (I don't remember
> the common
> name)? No offense intended here, but I think you get
> the point. Same
> for Basque Country, by the way, and zillions of
> other places around
> the world.
>
> In the Taiwan case, one solution proposed has been
> asking the
> taiwanese developer (there's only one).
>
> This is a possible solution, sure. But what if this
> one individual is
> indeed biased himself, who can tell?
> (I do not suggest our Taiwanese DD is.....I just
> raised a
> counter-argument)
>
> We are in politics on this topic, even if we don't
> like it. We just
> have to find the less worse solution.
>
> ATTACHMENT part 5 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 17:44:15 +0200
> From: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>
> To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: COUNTRY: proposal of a solution
>
> Quoting Jean-Michel POURE (jm@poure.com):
> > Dear all,
> >
> > The problem here is to find a solution for the
> buggy display of the Chinese
> > locales (zh_TW, zh_HK and zh_CN) in GNU/Linux
> Debian.
>
> The Chinese people, as far as I know, have found the
> current system
> correct. Their concern is not in the way for
> representing their
> language but on some wording.....and thus in another
> debate everyone
> is now well aware of..:-)
>
> They have not, until now, objected to the used
> scheme.
>
> IIRC, considering the different ways of *speaking*
> Chinese is not
> relevant when it comes to *written* Chinese.
> Differences arises there
> between the "Simplified" way, used in China
> "mainland" and the
> "Traditional" way, used in Taiwan. Singapore and
> Hong-Kong are in one
> of both, also.
>
> Using phonetic writing has not been considered,
> probably because our
> Chinese contributors do not consider it's worth it.
>
> ATTACHMENT part 6 message/rfc822
> Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 01:44:55 +0800
> From: Wang WenRui <wangwr@ustc.edu>
> To: Dale Amon <amon@vnl.com>
> CC: debian-boot@lists.debian.org,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was:
> Resignation)
>
> Around 18 o'clock on 06 May, Dale Amon wrote:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:19:05AM +0800, Wang
> WenRui wrote:
> >
> > Just make sure you have the options available.
> What the text(Taiwan, Province of China) is must be
> decided in d-i.
> >
> >
> > We'd have two options. UK and Ireland. You'll
> > see one flag or the other flying in different
> > parts of Belfast. The formal government is UK,
> > but many look to Dublin. Would seem fair enough
> > to let people make their own choice. For us, the
> > default answer would be UK; but many would want
> > to make a different selection (perhaps 20%+
> > of the population.)
> >
> > Likewise anyplace else where nationality is an
> Do NOT assume it as a matter of course when you say
> "Likewise". The case
> in China is not like the one in UK.
>
> I totally agree with Colin Watson on this issue[1]:
> "Debian cannot win this argument and should not
> participate in it. We
> have to choose names from some standards body
> somewhere, and no matter
> what we do somebody will disagree."
>
> Changing the standard *is* participate in this
> (political) issue.
>
> [1]
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2004/03/msg05328.html
> > issue. Give all the possible choices and let
> > people self select.
> >
> > Make reasonable defaults; but make dissent easy.
> >
>
> ATTACHMENT part 6.2 application/pgp-signature
name=signature.asc
> ATTACHMENT part 7 message/rfc822
> Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 01:40:18 +0800
> From: Roger So <rogerso@debian.org>
> To: jm@poure.com
> CC: "D. Starner" <shalesller@writeme.com>,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was:
> Resignation)
>
> On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 14:29 +0200, Jean-Michel POURE
> wrote:
> > To come to the technical point, the locale system
> is buggy because zh_CN
> > reffers to "simplified Chinese" and zh_TW to
> "traditionnal Chinese", which in
> > reality have little to do with countries. It is an
> historical error in Unix.
> >
> > It would be nice if the installer could display
> "Traditionnal Chinese" and
> > "Simplified Chinese". I think that the RH
> installer does this (although I am
> > not sure).
> >
> > Why not ask the Chinese their point of view.
>
> OK, here's my take.
>
> People in Hong Kong speak Cantonese. People in
> Taiwan speak Mandarin.
> People in mainland China speak Putonghua. (Yes, I
> know Putonghua and
> Mandarin are essentially the same thing, but common
> terms and even
> grammar are slightly different across the three
> regions, so from a l10n
> point of view they should be treated as different.)
>
> (And although people in southern mainland China also
> speak Cantonese,
> the terms and grammar they use are the same as the
> rest of mainland
> China and not Hong Kong. (correct me if I'm wrong
> here!))
>
> All of these are dialects of the Chinese language.
> They can be written
> down in both Traditional Chinese and Simplified
> Chinese.
>
> So theorectically you have six combinations here:
> zh_CN@simplified zh_CN@traditional
> zh_HK@simplified zh_HK@traditional
> zh_TW@simplified zh_TW@traditional
>
> Practically, nobody in Taiwan use Simplified
> Chinese. Only the older
> generation in mainland China still use Traditional
> Chinese. "Native"
> Hong Kong people use Traditional Chinese, but use of
> Simplified Chinese
> is increasing in printed materials to cater for the
> influx of mainland
> tourists swamping^Wvisiting Hong Kong. ;)
>
> So the default for zh_CN should be zh_CN@simplified,
> zh_HK
> zh_HK@traditional, and zh_TW zh_TW@traditional.
>
> I'm not sure how the languagechooser handles locale
> modifiers, but
> showing both Traditional Chinese and Simplified
> Chinese at the top level
> should be acceptable.
>
> Roger
>
> ATTACHMENT part 8 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:19:42 +0100
> From: Dale Amon <amon@vnl.com>
> To: Dale Amon <amon@vnl.com>,
> debian-boot@lists.debian.org,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was:
> Resignation)
>
> On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:19:05AM +0800, Wang
> WenRui wrote:
> > Around 16 o'clock on 06 May, Dale Amon wrote:
> > > The only authority on what is a nation are the
> people
> > > who live there. When in doubt, ask them.
> > Can you ask them all? vote?
>
> Just make sure you have the options available.
>
> > > D.Amon, Belfast, Northern Ireland
>
> We'd have two options. UK and Ireland. You'll
> see one flag or the other flying in different
> parts of Belfast. The formal government is UK,
> but many look to Dublin. Would seem fair enough
> to let people make their own choice. For us, the
> default answer would be UK; but many would want
> to make a different selection (perhaps 20%+
> of the population.)
>
> Likewise anyplace else where nationality is an
> issue. Give all the possible choices and let
> people self select.
>
> Make reasonable defaults; but make dissent easy.
>
> --
>
------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Amon amon@islandone.org
> +44-7802-188325
> International linux systems consultancy
> Hardware & software system design, security
> and networking, systems programming and Admin
> "Have Laptop, Will Travel"
>
------------------------------------------------------
>
> ATTACHMENT part 9 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 12:39:53 -0500
> From: John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
> debian-boot@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of COUNTRY
>
> Christian Perrier writes:
> > If the user thinks "hey, I am American, thus I
> choose "English
> > (USA)"....bingo..:-)
>
> Right. He thinks he is choosing English as spoken
> in the USA, not English
> as his language and USA as his area.
>
> > However, the mixed choices for very common choices
> saves users one
> > screen.
>
> But does not necessarily make things simpler for
> them. If you are going to
> stick with the present system I think you need to
> somehow make it clear
> that in choosing 'English (USA)' the user is
> selecting the English language
> and the USA area.
>
> Would it be feasible to sort the area choice based
> on initial language
> choice? Put Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and
> USA at the top of the
> list if the user chooses English?
> --
> John Hasler
> john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
>
> ATTACHMENT part 10 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:08:29 -0600
> From: Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: When will amd64 be allowed in sid?
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 10:01:30PM -0500, Chris
> Cheney wrote:
> > When is amd64 going to be allowed to go into sid?
> It has been more or
> > less ready to go into sid since mid Feb and seems
> to be primarily
> > blocked on the fact that it is not an official
> Debian port yet. If it is
> > simply an issue of mirror space then why isn't one
> of the many unused
> > archs dropped, or preferrably the rsync script
> modified? As can be seen
> > by popcon almost all users use i386 currently. By
> the end of 2005 nearly
> > all new desktops will be based on amd64.[1] Which
> very likely will be
> > before sarge+1 is released... Also,
> debian-installer already works on
> > amd64 as I understand it. If amd64 was allowed
> into sid it would
> > probably not take too terribly long before it
> would be ready for release
> > with sarge.
>
> <humor mode="weird">
>
> But.. amd64-pure are my best alpha testers for
> debpool! Just look at how
> many bugs they've filed on it that ended up exposing
> subtle (and not
> so subtle) problems, or the wishlist items that tell
> me what's really
> needed...
>
> </humor>
>
> (In all seriousness, I do appreciate having alpha
> testers who are both
> willing to put up with the fact that it is, in fact,
> alpha, and who are
> doing a rapidly-growing port that excercises many of
> the less-tested code
> paths simply due to what they need... keep those
> bugs coming.)
> --
> Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
> ,''`.
> Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter
> : :' :
>
> `. `'
> http://nienna.lightbearer.com/
> `-
>
> ATTACHMENT part 10.2 application/pgp-signature
> ATTACHMENT part 11 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 19:51:03 +0200
> From: Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be>
> To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
> CC: Jens Schmalzing <j.s@lmu.de>,
> Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net>,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: When will amd64 be allowed in sid?
>
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:15:47PM +0100,
> viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> > > Thing is, you need a bi-arch toolchain to build
> your first 64-bit kernel.
> >
> > Only the first one? IIRC, some of the code early
> in boot sequeunce used
> > to require biarch toolchain; had that been fixed?
>
> I was able to build syslinux in a pure64
> environment. I wasn't
> able to build either lilo or grub in it though.
> I've used
> bi-arch to make a 32bit staticly linked version of
> grub.
>
>
> Kurt
>
> ATTACHMENT part 12 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:03:29 -0700
> From: William Ballard <40414.nospam@comcast.net>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> CC: Dale Amon <amon@vnl.com>,
> debian-boot@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was:
> Resignation)
>
> On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:44:55AM +0800, Wang
> WenRui wrote:
> > Around 18 o'clock on 06 May, Dale Amon wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:19:05AM +0800, Wang
> WenRui wrote:
> > >
> > > Just make sure you have the options available.
> > What the text(Taiwan, Province of China) is must
> be decided in d-i.
>
> I can't tell who said what.
>
> How nutty would it be to have *both* options
> available and some sort of
> switch to Toggle between the two? Or at least a
> patchset or something.
>
> That seems to be the most accurate representation of
> the situation.
>
> ATTACHMENT part 13 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:10:44 -0700
> From: Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic
> protection against modification
>
> [This is OT for -devel. Send replies to -legal. MFT
> set accordingly.]
>
> On Thu, 06 May 2004, Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
> > Don Armstrong schrieb:
> > > If you really want to be that pedantic about
> things, it's rather
> > > trivial to argue that the GPL should be
> explicitely exempted by DFSG
> > > §10, even though I'm personally not happy with
> doing that.[1]
> >
> > But the GPL text is not GPL'ed.
>
> Read §10 very carefully again.
>
> Now note that it doesn't say (even though that's
> usually what we take
> it to mean) that works licensed under the GPL are
> considered Free. It
> just says the licenses themselves are free.[1]
>
>
> Don Armstrong
>
> 1: Yes, if we want to become insane rule-mongerers,
> its quite possible
> to read rules in just about any way that you want to
> read them. No,
> I'm not particularly interested in discussing the
> other possible
> outcomes of such an interpretation.
> --
> I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company
> whose motto was:
> "We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold
> chisel."
> -- Cory Doctorow
>
> http://www.donarmstrong.com
> http://rzlab.ucr.edu
>
> ATTACHMENT part 14 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 19:55:23 +0200
> From: Moritz Muehlenhoff
> <jmm@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: links2 package
>
> Paul Seelig wrote:
> > And then again it looks like the closely related
> elinks browser is a
> > far better text mode browser than links2.
>
> In general elinks is the superior textmode browser,
> but links2 offers
> javascript support, which elinks currently lacks.
>
> ATTACHMENT part 15 message/rfc822
> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 19:29:51 +0100
> From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of COUNTRY (Was:
> Resignation)
>
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 05:49:35PM +0200, Christian
> Perrier wrote:
> > Quoting Dale Amon (amon@vnl.com):
> > > The only authority on what is a nation are the
> people who live
> > > there. When in doubt, ask them.
> >
> > Which ones, catholics or orangists (I don't
> remember the common
> > name)?
>
> "Protestants". "Orangemen" is a more loaded term,
> and best avoided as a
> general description of that side of the community.
> (And anyway the
> denominations aren't really an accurate
> categorization, but this isn't
> the place for that discussion ...)
>
> > No offense intended here, but I think you get the
> point.
>
> Actually there's pretty much no argument about which
> nation Northern
> Ireland is part of today. There's a great deal of
> argument about which
> nation it *should* be part of, but I don't think
> I've ever heard anyone
> dispute its current status (and I grew up in the
> side of the community
> who are generally less likely to be happy with the
> current status).
>
> Furthermore, nobody thinks Northern Ireland is a
> nation by itself
> (except for the purposes of some sports, which
> aren't relevant here), so
> there isn't a good analogy between it and Taiwan.
> From
> debian-installer's point of view it's a non-issue: I
> think the only
> place Northern Ireland is alluded to at all is in
> the Europe/Belfast
> choice in timezone configuration.
>
> --
> Colin Watson
> [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Reply to: