On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Then why should one have "non-open" at all? The argument was that this
> somehow brings some sort of "security" by being able to audit things
> (though the license may probably still forbid you from doing so or
>
On 2016-01-04 23:14:11 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Your second item has been brought up before with different
> > focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest
> > in splitting "non-free" into
Philippe Cerfon writes:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Philippe Cerfon:
>> Your second item has been brought up before with different
>> focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest in
>> splitting
Johannes Schauer writes:
> I am talking about adding the metadata about which license code is released
> under and/or which DFSG freedoms it violates as proposed by Stefano in a
> machine readable way: either debtags or DEP-5 and make either or both of them
> understood by apt
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>Another one that is worth mentioning here --- which I discussed in
> the
> context of non-free.org with Dafydd Harries and others --- is
> introducing a debtags facet to capture the reason why a package is in
> non-free.
I'd still say that solving that via debtags isn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Philippe Cerfon:
> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Christian PERRIER
> > wrote:
> >> Discussing infrastructure changes like what you're proposing (which I
> >>
On 2016-01-03 07:35, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Philippe Cerfon (philc...@gmail.com):
Package: general
Severity: wishlist
Tags: security
Hi.
I think Debian has the following two problems (or rather its security
conscious users) with respect to software that gets into the system:
No
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Your second item has been brought up before with different
> focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest
> in splitting "non-free" into "non-free/firmware" vs. various other
> non-free sub components.
Hey Niels
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Philippe Cerfon:
> Your second item has been brought up before with different
> focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest in
> splitting "non-free" into "non-free/firmware" vs. various
Hey.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> debian-project, or hopefully debian-devel. -project for talking about the
> idea, -devel for discussing an implementation.
Mehdi mentioned below that it would already land on debian-devel.
So I'm not sure whether it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 05/01/16 08:15, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (2016-01-04 23:14:11)
>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> Your second item has been brought up before with different
>>>
Hi,
Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (2016-01-04 23:14:11)
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Your second item has been brought up before with different
> > focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest
> > in splitting "non-free" into
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:15:37AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> while I would welcome this sort of information being captured using debtags,
> this would not help me if I wanted to tell apt which packages are okay for me
> and which ones are not because apt cannot set pin priorities according
Hi,
Quoting Jerome BENOIT (2016-01-05 08:25:47)
> On 05/01/16 08:15, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (2016-01-04 23:14:11)
> >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >>> Your second item has been brought up before with different
> >>>
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Discussing infrastructure changes like what you're proposing (which I
> have no advice about) should usually be done through our mailing
> lists,
Which one would be the appropriate list?
I thought general would fit,
Philippe Cerfon:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>> Discussing infrastructure changes like what you're proposing (which I
>> have no advice about) should usually be done through our mailing
>> lists,
> Which one would be the appropriate list?
>
> I
Package: general
Severity: wishlist
Tags: security
Hi.
I think Debian has the following two problems (or rather its security
conscious users) with respect to software that gets into the system:
First,
more and more packages install software which sneaks around the
package manager (and thus
Quoting Philippe Cerfon (philc...@gmail.com):
> Package: general
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: security
>
> Hi.
>
> I think Debian has the following two problems (or rather its security
> conscious users) with respect to software that gets into the system:
No idea whether what you're proposing
18 matches
Mail list logo