On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
So I have a few questions for you:
Anthony if you answer can we consider that as a signal you are finally
entering the DPL race?
[snip - long list of interesting questions]
Perhaps these set of questions can be re-posted to
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think that's a decent objective. But we have historically had
things in non-free even when we did have alternatives. Things that go
in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers say-so is not
enough to satisfy that
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The compromise to which that message referred is the compromise
embodied in the social contract.
Oh ? I thought this is the one you are wanting to drop.
You're losing track
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from
debian/main ?
How should it handle it?
Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:45:40AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:06:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I believe it is well possible that some third party, after having
examined the particular licence of
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:30:03AM +, Adam Majer wrote:
I hope that the above can be one of the unwritten laws. Here in Canada,
a few years ago one of the provinces thought it would be a good idea to
separate so there was a big referendum in that province. The separatists
lost, but
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from
debian/main ?
How should it
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about recomends and suggests of
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:09:23AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:45:40AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:06:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I believe it is well possible that
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about recomends and suggests of
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Does this mean that you would support the removal of all of non-free
with the exception of those packages necessary to support closed
hardware?
Why is closed hardware so special? What about our Japanese, Chinese and
Korean
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:
On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that
upto
now, nobody cared enough to
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:28:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, semi-official is vague enough to encompass many things
...[snip]... it would be partially official, and so : partial, semi,
...
Semi-official implies that there is a blessing of OK-ness involved.
By the merit of the contents on
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
Yes.
In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
for] is the state of glibc:
[1] Upstream sources generally are not buildable on older versions of the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Necessary for what purpose?
You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
necessary it is. I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
word means for you, and that
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
The compromise was: non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian.
Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely. It's purpose has
long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
themselves not happy with the compromise.
This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
thingy. You
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
involve changing a few others just to
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
The compromise was: non-free can be on the FTP
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The compromise was: non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian.
You'd think that if everyone were supposed to know and agree to this that
there's be some kind of
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
personal need for any of it, and
Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
(need) frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
I have heard similar
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for example, consider how --prefix= magically impacts what gets
built.
Hrm; I guess I knew about that from the beginning because I had a role
in it, but you're right, that's an important bit of undocumented
magic.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:51:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
abuse of power on someone's part in
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
two opposing opinions on the non-free
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If the dewveloper has done something horrible, why would there
be disagreement as to what to do about them (apart from perhaps a
difference in degree)? I think we are far better off treating the
situation on its
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:03:40PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
So I have a few questions for you:
Anthony if you answer can we consider that as a signal you are finally
entering the DPL race?
[snip - long list of
Quoting Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:42:16PM +, Stephen Stafford wrote:
Given that the DPL is, in many ways, the
representative of Debian to the world
Is that *really* true, and should it be?
Yes, it's true. Both Bdale and Martin have worked hard
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
Yes.
In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
for] is the state of glibc:
[1]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
(need) frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
After performing a vote from the ilisp developers, I've change the
license. ilisp is now DFSG-free.
It may not be good for them in the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting that
Branden writes:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:06:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
minded, bigoted group.
Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown up
enough to be able to interact with women yet.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
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 don't decide what to
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:22:27AM +1030, Ron wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I've drunk to excess in biker pubs before, but I
think the important part of what what Manoj was inferring was:
Keep it in texas dude. (and if he wasn't then I am)
That goes double for the 'baby kissing' bandwidth
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
similarly, it's impossible to enforce a Further Discussion option yet
it's there on the ballot.
So?
Maybe
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it.
You first.
Fortunately, Swears like a sailor Sanders is not the most reasoned
of the keep-non-free supporters.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up
about this subject. that's it.
I guess it's been
Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And yet still its not short enough to already know your preference for
a public flogging over any exercise involving self restraint.
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise. If we want to make Debian
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
suggestion that it would be good if people
Hello Debian-vote,
For the first time on the web, we are offering 4
V*I*A*G*R*A F*R*E*E!
http://as.doctorspill.com/gv/index.php?pid=eph3404
Yes, check out this limited time offer:
http://baseman.royaldrugs.com/gv/index.php?pid=eph3404
Super Vi-a-gra(Cial-is) is HERE:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ ]
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
removal of non-free from the Debian archive. So who is it that fits
your description?
I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
off women (and others too)--are you going to join me here and tell
Craig that this is
On Thursday 11 March 2004 03:18, i wrote:
Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
No longer, i am subscribed now.
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
I apologize, i propably should have ranked this positively.
Have a nice day, martin
--
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
month after month.
No matter how much someone
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
anyone needs.
Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
vrms would say on their own system.
Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tell you what - you write YOUR words however you like according to YOUR
standards, and i'll write my words according to mine.
That's funny, given that your unacceptable words were an effort to try
and tell people that they should stop talking about
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:03:40PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
So I have a few questions for you:
Anthony if you answer can we consider that as a signal you are finally
entering the DPL race?
No; there are a few reasons why I
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:42:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
off women (and others
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:01:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the case of [0], Enrico certainly doesn't seem to have been satisfied
at the outcome and that frustration seems to be resulting in him
expressing some outrage at communications issues on my behalf [4],
and you seem to have been
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
Yes -- this seems to be the problem with Craig.
The only thing that it takes for evil to flourish is for
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
Yes -- this seems to be the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that he has ever done for the project?
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don' think it's a professional attitude if the RM has given up
talking to the maintainer of xfree86. Please, Anthony, adjust your
attitude, or ask someone else to be the RM.
Ah, what I love about Debian is just
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
The compromise was: non-free can be on the FTP
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
ie, to talk about
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and
grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for me
to make any complaint about the constant petty idiocy and pedantic spitefulness
on this list.
No,
Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
The
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
ie, to talk about real issues, not pedantic non-events -- unacceptable?
He can make whatever requests he wants, but
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
without clarification that non-free isn't part of Debian is exactly
as bad as
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:34:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested
in doing anything
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
without clarification that non-free
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it.
My complaint was that you're making things personal; changing your
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a
less trusted source. I would have concerns myself.
Of course, and this was indeed one the prime
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:01:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This is exactly what I mean when I say that the compromise embedded in
section 5 of the SC has broken down. That compromise allows for
non-free to be hosted on Debian, but also says it is not a part of
Debian.
Again, it
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 of the Social Contract section 5,
which is
Sam Hartman wrote:
I ask you to be responsible in looking at the results of this
election. If the results make it clear that most of the voters have
made up their minds and are done with the discussion, then let the
issue rest.
I hope that the above can be one of the unwritten laws. Here in
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
The key issue here is that different people have different takes at
different times on actually fullfilling that responsibility.
True. But that's not the same as stating theat there is no responsibility
there in the first place.
I don't have hard-and-fast answers
HELLO I JUST WON A PRIZE FOR BEING THE 10.OOO, TH VISITOR TO THIS WEB SITE IT JUST SAID CONGRATULATIONS AND THAT I WAS TO CLOSE MY WEBSITE AND CONTACT THE PRIZE DEPARTMENT SO HERE I AM SO IF THIS IS THE WRONG WEBSITE COULD YA PLEASE GIVE ME SOME KIND OF DIRRECTIONS I WOULD REALLY APPRICIATE
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:07:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:56:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:26:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:34:11AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I don' think it's a professional
On 09 Mar 2004 18:51:38 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process
now? If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious
threat of abuse of power on someone's part
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:43:21 +0100, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
_If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two
(as opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different
result WRT both to my standing in the community and my
I, being a man, am also scarried when interacting with Debian webpage or
mailing list. I'm not too confident about my skills, and I feel
something like we know the way, please don't tell us Your opinion
around Debian. Maybe I feel wrong, but if this is what does scare You
too, than maybe some
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
So I have a few questions for you:
Anthony if you answer can we consider that as a signal you are finally
entering the DPL race?
[snip - long list of interesting questions]
Perhaps these set of questions can be re-posted to
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The compromise to which that message referred is the compromise
embodied in the social contract.
Oh ? I thought this is the one you are wanting to drop.
You're losing track
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:06:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I believe it is well possible that some third party, after having
examined the particular licence of every package, do indeed at non-free
to the CD set, as they
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:10:07PM +0100, Markus wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:10:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, spim may be an exception, but as soon as you speak about
libraries, and different versions from different sources of those, you
are starting to do into the .rpm dependency
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from
debian/main ?
How should it handle it?
Well, i would say that recomends and suggests from
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:45:40AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:06:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I believe it is well possible that some third party, after having
examined the particular licence of
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:30:03AM +, Adam Majer wrote:
I hope that the above can be one of the unwritten laws. Here in Canada,
a few years ago one of the provinces thought it would be a good idea to
separate so there was a big referendum in that province. The separatists
lost, but
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about recomends and suggests of contrib or non-free packages from
debian/main ?
How should it
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about recomends and suggests of
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:09:23AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:45:40AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:06:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I believe it is well possible that
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:15:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about recomends and suggests of
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Does this mean that you would support the removal of all of non-free
with the exception of those packages necessary to support closed
hardware?
Why is closed hardware so special? What about our Japanese, Chinese and
Korean
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:
On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that
upto
now, nobody cared enough to
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
[-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project.
You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case,
I will try read and reply to any comment]
I think this is relevant to debian-vote too,
#include hallo.h
* Sven Luther [Wed, Mar 10 2004, 12:28:11PM]:
Ok, they add parts of it. Thanks for clarifying my impressise
terminology. Still part of non-free remains non-free :)
That does not make it 'semi-official' though, or what was your point?
Well, semi-official is vague
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a
less trusted source. I would have concerns myself.
Of course, and this was indeed one the prime design requirements. Do
you feel your concerns are adequately
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:28:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, semi-official is vague enough to encompass many things
...[snip]... it would be partially official, and so : partial, semi,
...
Semi-official implies that there is a blessing of OK-ness involved.
By the merit of the contents on
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Necessary for what purpose?
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:25:51AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
necessary it is. I'm
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Necessary for what purpose?
You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
necessary it is. I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
word means for you, and that
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
involve changing a few others just to allow
Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely. It's purpose has
long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
themselves not happy with the compromise.
This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
thingy. You
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
involve changing a few others just to
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
The compromise was: non-free can be on the FTP
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The compromise was: non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian.
You'd think that if everyone were supposed to know and agree to this that
there's be some kind of
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
