#include hallo.h
* Michael Banck [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 07:10:13PM]:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:43:51PM +0100, Markus wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
Markus wrote:
Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
source.list looks. The main
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
wouldn't be complaining so much.
Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
whatever
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:40:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
That's part of what this proposal is all about.
When we've dropped non-free, it's just Debian, no need to differentiate
between 'Debian', 'the Debian project', 'the Debian distribution' or
'the non-free component of the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no text of the social contract which applies the word Debian
to non-free under any description at all, but rather, serves to
mention both only to make as clear as possible that non-free is not
part of Debian, using those very words.
I
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas We have not be taken away from work by the present
Thomas discussion, first, it's part of our work, and second,
Thomas Debian is a volunteer organization. Nobody is obliged to
Thomas be part of this discussion.
I
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
between 'Debian', 'the Debian project', 'the Debian distribution' or
'the non-free component of the Debian distribution'.
I responded:
Except, none of the introduced proposals get rid of this issue.
One of them hides the current most
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I hear from you and from Sven the argument that because this GR
doesn't fix everything, it's pointless. That doesn't seem right. It
fixes *something*; it doesn't fix *everything*, but it makes a start.
I'm saying that
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:14:35PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
NOTA should be on any call for votes, but especially any ballot that
has a Further Discussion option should also have a none of the above
option (aka the STFU about it option).
Your proposal is a bit late, given that the CFV has
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:36:35AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, my position is that it'd make sense to remove non-free when there
are only a handful of packages to be kept there, because it's likely
none of them would be particularly
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:26:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
#debian as a Project resource.
Fair enough. Do you think that hosting it on
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I hear from you and from Sven the argument that because this GR
doesn't fix everything, it's pointless. That doesn't seem right. It
fixes *something*; it doesn't fix *everything*,
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, the compromise is Debian distributes non-free packages, but it
also has a section that's free, and anyone who doesn't like non-free is
welcome to ignore everything else.
Pretending that Debian's focussed on what things are called rather than
what
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Read the message you're replying to, where I answered that exact question:
Sorry, but I was looking for more detail. How will we decide whether
a package is really important to some users? Who will determine if
this or that package is pointless? My
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:08:52 +0100, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:09:40 +0100, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
We have duties now? Can you point to me
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:15:10 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
wrote:
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key
that is in the Debian keyring.
Manoj, does signing with subkeys work now? Or do
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:47:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:40:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, non-free stuff is evil, and having it packaged is a threat
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:41:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Read the message you're replying to, where I answered that exact question:
Sorry, but I was looking for more detail. How will we decide whether
a package is really important to some
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:40:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pretending that Debian's focussed on what things are called rather than
what things are certainly seems ignorant historically, and still seems
pretty dubious.
It's obvious to you
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because i believe the time of confrontation has not yet come, and that
the moment to remove non-free from the debian infrastructure (see how
heavy this construction is over the simpler from debian, which you
choose to misunderstood). There is no
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
wouldn't be complaining so much.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:49:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:35:01AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Question 1, to Branden and Martin:
Reading over your platforms, I notice that they are very similar. I
don't think this is a bad thing; I happen to agree quite strongly with
both of your assessments of productive roles the DPL
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We'll be better able to produce such procedures when we actually know
what the circumstances are when non-free software becomes rare and
unusual in the world. We're so far off that now, anyone who claims to
be able to predict what circumstances are
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:31:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
time going in maintaining the supposed
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, there is also the problematic question of documentation. It pains
me to see that i was forced to remove the ocaml-doc package from the
debian distribution and into non-free, while at the same time loads of
non-free documentation still stands in
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 21:21]:
People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
their efforts, put them on the
So my question about ousting developers has generated a very
interesting discussion about the issue of inactive people, and it has
been interesting to see the candidates distinguish themselves in their
understanding of the issues concerned.
The intention of my question was a little different,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:13:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Out of main and into? And latest news report on this spoke of at least
6 more month.
As I said, time delay doesn't bother me. Latest reports said that
movement may happen. Bugs
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:19:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
separate apt-get repositories. The BTS is a
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:44:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We'll be better able to produce such procedures when we actually know
what the circumstances are when non-free software becomes rare and
unusual in the world. We're so far off that
On 8 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The role non-free plays and the distinction between the distribution and
the project was a reflection of the compromise at the time between the
people who wanted to produce a distribution and the people who wanted to
persue a political goal of
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ 3 ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ 2 ] Choice 3: Further
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am unaware of any official literature from the project that fails to
correctly use the terminology. We've worked hard to maintain the purity of
main. The 100% free subset continues to exist, so I don't think it is fair
to say the compromise isn't
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:12:42AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:42:16PM +, Stephen Stafford wrote:
Branden:
You have been seen by many in the past as an abrasive developer.
Yes, but as I noted in another message, this is increasingly a thing of
the *past*,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))
I'm on the GNU Latin translation team. I don't think we've ever
seriously done anything though, except brief flurries of
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:40:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, the compromise is Debian distributes non-free packages, but it
also has a section that's free, and anyone who doesn't like non-free is
welcome to ignore everything else.
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
work, will you
Eduard Bloch wrote:
do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge
installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free?
Yes.
Then we should change it again.
Yes, we should. The possibility to add 'non-free' shouldn't be mentioned
at all. People
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 08 Mar 2004 23:41:55 -0800
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lines: 7
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Thomas, for your information, until
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I think it'd probably be reasonable to drop non-free at around week
650 when we're only going to be affecting a handful of packages, or
possibly earlier, in the case, but the mere possibility of some
fluctuation isn't a problem even if we decided
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution,
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very clear that the non-free
I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be
between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3?
By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am
ambivalent about b, and dislike c, how should I mark the three
options?
Please cc me in your reply.
Thanks,
Shaun
On Sun
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What, exactly, is the problem with keeping this debate at a technical
level, rather than making it personal?
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:45:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I think [foo] but the mere possibility of [bar]
isn't a problem even if we decided [baz].
So your position is that we should have non-free for as long as there
is any doubt
On 6 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
In which case, it's gone. We currently have a distribution which is
not 100% Free Software, as our contract promised. We should fix that.
I don't understand how you can say that.
My memory is a little bad, but when I joined there certainly was a
Hi!
I resist to allow my tamagotchi to dress in Branden and Martin skins,
and answer their questions too... I donot know how longer I can keep him
from doing that, though...
I have a tamagotchi too! He's called Foo (I have a limited imagination) Why
is
your tamagotchi more suited to running
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
One thing I'd really like to see (in apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg, dpkg-deb,
and so on), is some kind of tag indicating the origin of the package.
You mean like the Origin tag that has been supported for a few years now?
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Big.bad.wolf wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
You can't argue for a change by saying that the current system's no good
because it's the current system.
I didn't say that, but apparently the thread has been lost. Sven
On 2004-03-08 12:04:50 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th
December.
elfutils is not an
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:23:29AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:48:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's take two examples :
netscape : it was in non-free a long time ago, and since the advance
of mozilla and the other free browser, i believe it reached a
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December.
elfutils is not an example of removal from non-free. It was in main. I
filed bug
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:41:20PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:18:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Or if it is clear that upstream is not going to change, have the
possibility to remove it from our archive in retaliation (as is the
case with the adobe package
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining
of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems
evident that even if
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:54:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
And believing
that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be
quite common,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:24:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:04:50 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 14:45]:
I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
to break that promise?
Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
nonfree.org or our pools) be a break of that promise? non-free is no
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
their licence. [...]
On 2004-03-08 12:28:15 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, they care only about licencing, and conflictive relationship
with
upstream, not about
Just looking at very recent past, debian-legal contributors have had
constructive discussions with people from the JasPer, Mozilla
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:20:55PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:34:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And more to the point, do you really think moving the non-free stuff out
of the debian archive and onto a separate archive would be something
more than a fiction to
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:41:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that
you want to volunteer for.
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including project-produced packages and
backport
projects.
And ? Is this a
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:04:37AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english
language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness
which is meant by it. And given
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What i object to is that somehow the non-free removal proponent expect
me to set it up, and no, i don't have time for it.
You were repeatedly told that this is not expected of you. If you failed
to notice that, I am glad to reiterate
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:14:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, would you be opposed to have non-free stay on the debian
infrastructure, and have some DNS magic mapping non-free.org to it, and
this being the exclusive way of accessing this ? This would, i believe
be a very costless way of
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
include the real packaging, which is but a small fraction of the global
time i devote to
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:45:20PM -0800, Shaun Jackman wrote:
I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be
between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3?
Should be 1 and 3. Looks like a typo.
By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am
ambivalent about b, and
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an asset to Debian users?
You can probably tell that I don't, and that's
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:09:11AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it.
As the implementation of an outside nonfree.org is not in the scope of
the Debian project, the GR *cannot* require this. We will try to make
sure it will happen
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution,
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:56:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Thomas, please tell me, what is the licencing situation of the bios you
run ? And if your motherboard has some defect, are you able to look at
the source code for the chipset, and modify it, or possibly make sure
there is not some
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs
think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there
non-free package and for the (maybe) new infrastructure. This is maybe
true or not. But i
On 2004-03-08 13:15:02 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent
of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:08:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
work, will you step in and pay me (and others who use the same modem) a
new adsl modem that
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:59:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:14:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, would you be opposed to have non-free stay on the debian
infrastructure, and have some DNS magic mapping non-free.org to it, and
this being the exclusive way of
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
You don't care about it, or you willingly close your eyes
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:44:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What i object to is that somehow the non-free removal proponent expect
me to set it up, and no, i don't have time for it.
You were repeatedly told that this is not
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:15:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
All in all, i think that there is a bit of a lack of maturity about
the remove non-free proposal.
Could you please stop your accusations? At most, there is a lack of
maturity in *this concrete* implementation proposal, perhaps
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
upstream
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:01:09PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
include the real packaging,
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:09:11AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it.
As the implementation of an outside nonfree.org is not in the scope of
the Debian project, the GR
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is a gross
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:19:44AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:56:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Thomas, please tell me, what is the licencing situation of the bios you
run ? And if your motherboard has some defect, are you able to look at
the source code for the
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i would like to know if you (or any other we you are refering to
here) are in any way related to an exterior to debian organisation or
company or whatever, which may have a vested interest in using or in any
way being
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:35:35PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:15:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
All in all, i think that there is a bit of a lack of maturity about
the remove non-free proposal.
Could you please stop your accusations? At most, there is a lack of
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:08:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
work, will you step in and
101 - 200 of 292 matches
Mail list logo
