On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:18:04AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
That is when Ian pointed out to me how true that was in the Linux
community. I wonder if Debian is exemplifying this behavior. A lot of
good people have retired lately.
It is starting to feel like that block of homes
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
My reason for this proposal is the impression the revocation of the
delegation is based on the disagreement of the interpretation of the
policy between the chair of the Package Policy Committee and the Debian
Project Leader.
I
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think everyone understands where I stand now, so I'll stop posting about
this, but my agenda in this is to ask people not to be so worried about
employment conflicts as to force strict barriers between Debian and the
rest of
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
This is outlandish and insulting. That a Debian developer should be
held responsible every time someone in the press writes something
inaccurate is terribly wrong.
I
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:10:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Seconded.
I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people
are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their
judgement about recalling a DPL?
Remember what we are saying here -- that
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Debian to decide.
This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question.
It does nothing of the kind. You're saying that you're not even going
to give him the chance. You can't answer the question without making
the
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:26:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone
that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing
consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called external
structure has
Well...
So much for:
1) secret ballots
2) reading directions
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:44:29PM +0100, Emmanuel le Chevoir wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c
[ 3 ] Choice 1: Jonathan Walther
[ 6 ] Choice 2:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:25:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns's rebuttal to Branden Robinson looks partly
false. It mentions Branden's demotion to deputy-treasurer
under Jimmy Kaplowitz about SPI.
It looks from
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 09:07:37PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely.
Good point; it would probably be a good idea to announce them on d-d-a.
I would be happy to do that,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 01:07:16PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Ultimately the question still stands, have
operations been repaired?
I doubt anyone would take a yes here now, quite rightly. We
need to watch and decide for ourselves.
Ean is right
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ean is right that Debian needs to be more active with SPI. I wish many
more Debian developers were actively watching SPI.
It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely.
I do
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 04:17:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:26:00AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Ean is right that Debian needs to be more active with SPI. I wish many
more Debian developers were actively watching SPI. Every Debian
developer is entitled to vote
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely.
I do e-mail spi-general with the info about 2 weeks in advance.
Why
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] It's about time I learn how to edit the SPI site, I suppose.
If you find out, please add it to the site. I have no idea where to
OK, I've added a news item to the site. I've also added
have around here. Or are you aware of things I don't know of?
--
John Goerzen
Author, Foundations of Python Network Programming
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1590593715
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:39:16AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
You guys knew this was coming. When I shelved this flamewar months ago I made
it clear that the problem would be revisited at a future date. That future
date is here and I want to know how SPI has corrected its accounting
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 01:15:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
You want a line-by-line of each expenditure? You aren't going to get
These actually are often posted by Jimmy or Branden to spi-private.
They are not posted to spi-general due to privacy concerns.
-- John
--
To
Ean,
It is true that SPI still is not performing like it should be.
It is also true that SPI has never performed like it should in its
entire history. SPI has been dysfunctional from its very beginning.
It's also been short on manpower through its entire lifespan. For
whatever reason, SPI
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 03:16:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
You can read it at:
http://people.debian.org/~branden/dpl/to_run_or_not_to_run_in_2005.html
FWIW, the wiki page Branden mentions is at
http://wiki.debian.net/?DraftBranden
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:20:40PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
wrote:
I am pursuing it. I posted the three items which are currently
stopping the amd64 port to be added to the archive, and I'm in active
contact with ftpmaster to move the new architecture and common
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:42:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed sarge, will
include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted
at
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:01:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If people do not like the title selected by the proposer, they should
speak up _before_ the fact; and suggest alternatiuves, and not rail
against the secretary and, without proof, accuse him of substituting
his opinion in
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
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
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
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
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:17:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:34:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
meekness is found in both men and women, and meek men are discouraged from
participating in debian (and other groups) just as much as women are. men
suffer from
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:17:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:34:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
meekness is found in both men and women, and meek men are discouraged from
participating in debian (and other groups) just as much as women are. men
suffer from
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:05:01PM -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
#debian as a Project resource.
Couldn't it be a good idea to form a
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
bothered to collect the current versions of your proposals, and post
here a solicitation for
/ |
--
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]GPG: 0x8A1D9A1Fwww.complete.org
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us
with politics,' respond those who don't want to learn.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 10:34:16AM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Raul and Andrew: can you please answer these questions and post current
versions of your proposals in a
/ |
--
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]GPG: 0x8A1D9A1Fwww.complete.org
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us
with politics,' respond those who don't want to learn.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
bothered to collect the current versions of your proposals, and post
here a solicitation for
/ |
--
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]GPG: 0x8A1D9A1Fwww.complete.org
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us
with politics,' respond those who don't want to learn.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
that your
intent is to revive the GR from 2000, I'm not sure if that still holds.
Thanks,
John Goerzen
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00013.html
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 10:34:16AM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Raul and Andrew: can you please answer these questions and post current
versions of your proposals in a
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a
final version is there, then make a call for a proposal.
I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed.
See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments.
Right now, I
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a
final version is there, then make a call for a proposal.
I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed.
See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments.
Right now, I
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue.
If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even
criticising, I guess I should just drop it?
[And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version, ...]
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in
the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours.
I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who),
in December.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
I think the main problem of the DMUP WRT @d.o is the sole coverage of
*incoming* mail, thus stating (at least to me) that it's more about
being bandwidth-aware than
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in
the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours.
I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who),
in December.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:08:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
You said you wanted things out of non-free.
Um... he's posted the rest of that sentence at least twice
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:08:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
You said you wanted things out of non-free.
Um... he's posted the rest of that sentence at least twice
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Goerzen:
: You yourself said that is what you would like to do. There is no need
^^^
: for me to make the accusation.
This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Goerzen:
: You yourself said that is what you would like to do. There is no need
^^^
: for me to make the accusation.
This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148
^^
One word: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)
[1]
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:08:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this was
obvious from what i wrote.
No, the reason I chose to round off was because my terminal is 80
characters wide.
-- John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
or reference to mean
you concede that I am right in this instance?
craig
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148
^^
One word: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)
[1]
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:59AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm
dishonest. After all, you are the one that said your package has 0
entries in popcon[1], then tried to change it to used[2] once I had
shown you to be incorrect
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:08:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this was
obvious from what i wrote.
No, the reason I chose to round off was because my terminal is 80
characters wide.
-- John
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
repositories at work for some time and have not noticed it being any
lower quality that non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote. Here
are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
post corrections, the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
i386. This is due in part
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
Why not ?
Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
speculation on what
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:03PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Here is the output:
Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 00
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
non-free, not that we want to ammend
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
preferences appropriately?
Why
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
turn out.
Why
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
Yep, but the package i
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What package is that?
ocaml-docs, ocaml-book-fr, ocaml-book-en, unicorn, unicorn-source. maybe
i missed some, but at least some of those where in this category.
From the raw popcon output:
PackageVote
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:35:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:17:50AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Taken from the data you quoted :
PackageVote Old Rcnt Unknown
ocaml-book-en 0 0 019
ocaml-book-en
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
section. Uploads to the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
classified examples divided by the wrong ones or soemthing such.
I know my packages are used, let's say by 5
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. How
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:05:05PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
to them?
My post included both the Message-IDs and links to the messages in the
archive. Is that not sufficient?
Ahh; my apologies. Looks like I just
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, installing java stuff from third party sources is a pain. See for
example the problem with mozilla-cvs and mozilla-snapshot, which you
have to hand fix in the postinst. Also, there is no 1.4 .deb for powerpc
for
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
repositories at work for some time and have not noticed it being any
lower quality that non-free
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote. Here
are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
post corrections, the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
non-free, not that we want to ammend
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
Yep, but the package i
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
Why not ?
Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
speculation on what
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
preferences appropriately?
Why
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
i386. This is due in part
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:03PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Here is the output:
Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 00
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What package is that?
ocaml-docs, ocaml-book-fr, ocaml-book-en, unicorn, unicorn-source. maybe
i missed some, but at least some of those where in this category.
From the raw popcon output:
PackageVote
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:35:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:17:50AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Taken from the data you quoted :
PackageVote Old Rcnt Unknown
ocaml-book-en 0 0 019
ocaml-book-en
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:05:05PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
to them?
My post included both the Message-IDs and links to the messages in the
archive. Is that not sufficient?
Ahh; my apologies. Looks like I just
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
turn out.
Why
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
classified examples divided by the wrong ones or soemthing such.
I know my packages are used, let's say by 5
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. How
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, installing java stuff from third party sources is a pain. See for
example the problem with mozilla-cvs and mozilla-snapshot, which you
have to hand fix in the postinst. Also, there is no 1.4 .deb for powerpc
for
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:07:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to
setup
a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X
isn't trivially small.
It looks like some things need clarifying (eg Origin/Bugs) to make
Hello,
I thought it interesting to find out just how much non-free is used. I
wrote up a quick Python script that analyzes the latest
popularity-contest results. Any cavets that apply to popcon results
will, of course, apply this this analysis.
Below you will see some selected output from the
know better than to spit upon Gopher :-)
Gopher software distribution for UNIX
Copyright (C) 1991-2000 University of Minnesota
Copyright (C) 2000-2002 John Goerzen and the gopher developers
Seriously, you will likely find people that make a serious argument that
Gopher was, and even
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to
my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.
I, for one, share them, and wish I was as gifted with the keyboard to be
able to express them as
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:51:36PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Is the result of the 'popularity-contest' publich ?
If yes, where can I get it ?
In general I need only 'main', 'contrib' and 'non-US'
Yes, the full raw data is available
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr//popcon/
-- John
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
From the data, we can see that:
* The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (10%).
acroread is no longer distributable (or distributed), so should
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
moderate the incentive
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
