On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project
leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
The ballot will contain the options:
1)
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:43:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
YEAH!!! Wichert, you are my hero! It's so important that we make a decision
on it, and I hope it will be (1) or (2), but not (3).
I agree :)
Richard Stallman will be happy, too, and I think it is a good idea to make
this step
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:43:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
YEAH!!! Wichert, you are my hero!
Oops :)
This should have been sent privately to Wichert. There is nothing
confidential in it, but because it is not actually a useful contribution to
this thread, please ignore it. I apologize
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project
leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
First off, I agree this is a bad thing and
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:05:03PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
I think it could be done simply by moving contrib and non-free out of the
dists/ directory.. Nobody is confused as to project/experimental and I
think they would be no more confused by something on the order of
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:07:32PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:05:03PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
I think it could be done simply by moving contrib and non-free out of the
dists/ directory.. Nobody is confused as to project/experimental and I
think they would
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:44:30PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
SOMEBODY somewhere is going to argue that contrib isn't non-free and
shouldn't be treated as such. You won't hear me arguing it, however you
have been warned.. =
True, but it contrib is 1) non-debian (but
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Mitch Blevins wrote:
R Garth Wood wrote:
The reason the distinction is not clear now is that ppl want
that feature(to be easy to install debs of any license).
If you try to change that they will just circumvent
whatever measure is in place and make it just as easy,
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
Personally I think that this is a very poor proposal. Instead of
On Jun 21, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
What you have proposed will end up about half way to three quarters of the
way to that full statement, you might as well finish the job, and really
that is what the vote will be about, not about a 'archive split'.
Incidently, as an aside.. to anyone who
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
--
Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software
that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the
DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian
web pages and miscellaneous other software will
Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract. Wichert's is a mere technical change.
--
see
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
--
Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software
that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the
DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian
web
On Jun 21, Joey Hess wrote:
Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract. Wichert's is a
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract. Wichert's is a
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract.
On Jun 21, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
5.Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that
don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created
contrib and non-free areas in our FTP archive
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 07:47:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
For instance, your proposal is too specific because it does not provide
any guidance for what to do with non-us, the web pages, bug system, user
web pages or APT.
Good point but (in the rest) I think you carried it to far.. to an
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 07:47:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
For instance, your proposal is too specific because it does not provide
any guidance for what to do with non-us, the web pages, bug system, user
web pages or APT.
Good point but
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:40:14AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Good point but (in the rest) I think you carried it to far.. to an extreme.
Deliberately so, but still. Sometimes painting a horror picture can focus
attention - As I said at the bottom, I feared a rehash of the merits of
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 09:16:08PM -0400, R Garth Wood wrote:
The problem posed is that when a person installs software,
they know it's not or is debian main, right?
# apt-get install foo
doesn't quite do that.
How about just a warning when you install a package? like:
!! THIS IS NON-FREE
Le Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project
leader écrivait:
Personally I strongly prefer the first option: it makes it much more
clear that the Debian distribution contains only DFSG-free software,
and that contrib and nonfree are an extra.
I am not much in
On Monday 21 June 1999, at 23 h 30, the keyboard of Wichert Akkerman - Debian
project leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
...
I. Create a new
* RH = Raphael Hertzog
RH I think that if we want to change anything we should split
RH non-free in open-source and non-open-source or something like this
Open-source doesn't concern Debian by the slightest mean: we have
our DFSG.
Regards,
--
Davide G. M. Salvetti - IW5DZC [JN53fr] -
* WA = Wichert Akkerman
WA I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
WA between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
WA to users and developers.
[...]
WA I hereby propose to resolve this matter by General Resolution (ie a
WA vote).
WA The ballot
* JG = Jason Gunthorpe
JG --
JG Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software
JG that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the
JG DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian
JG web pages and miscellaneous other
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project
leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
The Debian distribution itself consists only
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 06:05:00PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Er, that contrib is close to non-free, not non-debian.debian.org which
sounds silly... =
non-debian sounds like not-created-by-debian (incorrect), rather than
not-part-of-debian or not-supported-by-debian (correct).
Hamish
--
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:26:01AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I suggest also to purge master of non-free software, if we are really serious
about free software purity:
#37143 www.debian.org: Should use a free search engine.
And master still uses qmail :-(
And we still use PGP.
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 01:34:42PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Why contrib ? contrib is perfectly dfsg software, there is no reason not to
distribute it the same way as main ?
Because it's useless without non-free.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD).
CCs of replies from mailing lists
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 07:45:39AM +0200, Sarel J. Botha wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 09:16:08PM -0400, R Garth Wood wrote:
The problem posed is that when a person installs software,
they know it's not or is debian main, right?
# apt-get install foo
doesn't quite do that.
How about
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:49:24PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 01:34:42PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Why contrib ? contrib is perfectly dfsg software, there is no reason not to
distribute it the same way as main ?
Because it's useless without non-free.
Ok, i
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project
leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
[snipped]
The ballot will contain the
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:49:24PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Because [contrib is] useless without non-free.
This is untrue. There are items in contrib which do not depend on
items in Debian's non-free archive, but do instead depend on
externally available non-free items. Two obvious examples
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the debian.org part makes
it somehow official again.
Personally, I would prefer unofficial.debian.org.
Even those who know nothing about the
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the debian.org part
makes it somehow official again. Personally, I would prefer
unofficial.debian.org.
But that, in itself, is a
Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
The Debian
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the debian.org part makes
it somehow official again.
Personally, I would prefer
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:26:01AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I suggest also to purge master of non-free software, if we are really serious
about free software purity:
#37143 www.debian.org: Should use a free search engine.
And master still uses qmail :-(
Debian *is* doing this.
On Jun 22, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 06:05:00PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Er, that contrib is close to non-free, not non-debian.debian.org which
sounds silly... =
non-debian sounds like not-created-by-debian (incorrect), rather than
not-part-of-debian or
On 21 Jun 1999, Kevin Dalley wrote:
If we really want to solve the problem, we should make it obvious that
the files being downloaded are not from a designated free tree.
Perhaps gnome-apt could display an evil-looking icon for non-free
software.
Trouble is that the social contract says
Wichert proposes:
The ballot will contain the options:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
2) create official.debian.org domain
3) keep the current situation
4) further discussion
It would be nice if there was a 1+2 option like
5) create nonfree.debian.org and official.debian.org domains
Trouble is that the social contract says that we do support the use of
non-free software, putting an evil icon seems to be to be not supporting
the use of non-free software. The same argument is why it is listed in the
Ok. Seems to me that this is the crux of the problem. We say We don't
I am in favor of breaking out the domain into sub domains.
RedHat, for other reasons, did it.
Official.Debian.Org
Contrib.Debian.Org
Non-Free.Debian.Org
Even
Updates.Debian.Org ala RH
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 07:21:37PM +0100, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
IMHO, if we choose I), the creation of nonfree.debian.org and the move of
non-free and contrib there should be postponed until potato is released.
But there's no point in discussing it until the vote is done...
--
I'm not
*Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
The Debian distribution itself consists only of the main-tree. Contrib
and non-free are there mostly as a (popular) service to our users. But
the distinction isn't as visible as it used to be; advances in searching
in the distribution and
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
:
: 1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
:
: I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the debian.org part makes
: it somehow official again.
: Personally, I would
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project
leader wrote:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
2) create official.debian.org domain
3) keep the current situation
4) further discussion
Guess, that idea already has been discussed and ruled out, but still I think
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:37:24PM +0200, Norbert Nemec wrote:
Guess, that idea already has been discussed and ruled out, but still I think
it may serve better:
Why not put some kind of a sign on every non-free package, instead of moving
those packages anywhere? There is a number of ways
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:06:29PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:49:24PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 01:34:42PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Why contrib ? contrib is perfectly dfsg software, there is no reason not
to
distribute it the same
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:28:23PM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:49:24PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Because [contrib is] useless without non-free.
This is untrue. There are items in contrib which do not depend on
items in Debian's non-free archive, but do
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:28:23PM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
[...]
1. installer/helpers for commercial or other non-free apps; and
2. free emulators that require ROM images for normal use.
I strongly object to any move of contrib. I formally oppose any voting
proposal to that effect
On Jun 22, Chris Waters wrote:
Shane King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The pragmatic approach is just as hypocritical, if not more so. You've
basically said it's ok for debian to be pragmatic while telling the users
they should not be pragmatic and instead rely on only software which
53 matches
Mail list logo
