Arno Töll wrote:
as somebody who pushed $work to donate money to Debian (i.e. via
FFIS), I always wondered about the financial merits of these
donations. As much as I am involved to work within Debian, I have no
clue what you used our money for. I am probably not literally
interested what for
Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi Moritz,
On Thursday 03 April 2008 23:51, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
And if so, what is the plan for wordpress in etch and lenny?
I recommend to drop it from Lenny, but if people choose to
repeat mistakes I won't waste my time on argueing.
Thanks for clarifying.
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 19:54:00 -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
The resolution passes, with 386 votes from 345 developers.
The winners are:
Option 1 Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers
Marc Haber wrote:
I think that a longer term could be a good idea. There must be a
reason why DPLs are usually invisible and unable to address the real
problems in the project.
Which, of course and quite naturally, simply vanish when they take the
burdon of being DPL another year.
Regards,
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
what you do in private.
I dont have a problem with it being public.
I have one
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their
teams
packages? And a subscriber and active Debian Edu developer
Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
It appears to me that the DM concept as sketched in the GR is mainly
meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that
front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix for that is
just to find someone besides Joerg to also read the
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
- Not everybody deserves to be DD. [2]
[2] The NM process rejects some people who have the technical abilities to
maintain packages but who are not in sync with the rest of the community.
I fail to see why we should refuse their technical contribution. The NM
process
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
maintained by someone who isn't keeping up with Debian-wide changes, and
Why that ? I expect all DM to be subscribed to d-d-a and would suggest a
check (or even some enforcement with auto-subscription if we really want).
Why is this not written in the GR but the use
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 26 juillet 2007 à 16:20 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit :
But what if this results in higher quality packages than the one of
overly busy DDs (because the maintainers are very focused on their pet
packages)? Did you think of this consequence?
If someone
Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
It appears to me that the DM concept as sketched in the GR is mainly
meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that
front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix for that is
just to find
Steffen Joeris wrote:
I took ajs proposal and modified it to fit my understanding of DM. See the
patch below the proposal, together with my comments for more information.
I avoid repeating most of the arguments, which were send several times in
dozens of mails. This is just my proposal and
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:35:59PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [070314 19:25]:
Since then we've also had Debian Times established
I don't see at all how this is realated to you being DPL - in fact, I
would have prefered a more
Marc Haber wrote:
Or are we going to require an IQ test before people allowing to vote,
understanding the ballot being one of the test?
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
--
The MS-DOS filesystem is nice for removable media. -- H. Peter Anvin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The
] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between
] two uploads. [...]
]
] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build
] packages. [...]
Frank Küster wrote:
I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there
aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present:
Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to
/dev/null.
FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 09:08, Stephen Gran wrote:
[...] reproducibility will suffer. The fact that it failed to run the
binary correctly in this failure instance is good. But another day, it
may fail to correctly run gcc, and that would be bad if it exited 0
Note that if you can get SPI to transfer the debian.org zone to other
DNS servers than the current ones, you can NMU the infrastructure.
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I heavily disagree to that. The current servers are owned by Debian or
sponsored to Debian by some people. So
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero
effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted,
Quoting
Julien BLACHE wrote:
Note that if you can get SPI to transfer the debian.org zone to other
DNS servers than the current ones, you can NMU the infrastructure.
But (probably) only if it was at the request of the DPL.
Could be at the request of the Project, via a GR I think, if the DPL
Julien BLACHE wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unlikely. SPI usually has a defined authorisationship with an associated
project, this refers to people, not the project as a whole or their
developers or their internal voting results. However, a GR should be
able to kick
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
Martin Wuertele wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader
Sven Luther wrote:
Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point than
most GRs out there.
One comment. As BLOB stands for Binary Large OBject, binary blob
is somewhat strange.
Regards,
Joey
--
Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
Martin Schulze wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1
Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently outside
of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
and
John Goerzen wrote:
* Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its
development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing.
I don't recall this coming with strings such as can't be spent on
programmer time. So there is even precedent for the project
doing this sort of
Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
two paragraphs:
A question that has been raised is whether the
organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 20:44, Graham Wilson a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
either, so
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.23.2110 +0200]:
It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or
indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up
to.
No, it's about a timely release and enabling two people of core
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
Denis Barbier wrote:
Hi,
Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
two paragraphs:
The first article[2] on the topic's already been
published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a
Debian project, and is
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part
of the
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:03:47AM +0100, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
I propose the following option to the GR:
PROPOSAL
The Debian Project reaffirms its commitment of providing a 100% free
operating system, and reaffirms the decisions taken by GR 2004-03, but
some
Anthony Towns wrote:
The Debian Project resolves that:
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
ARGS. This is certainly one of the worst GR proposals I've seen.
Not seconded, of course.
I believe it would
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
work or not. Are they? If the answer is yes, then I might vote for
a delay. If the answer is no, then I see no reason that
Anthony Towns wrote:
1. I'm utterly frustrated with your ways. The mail on d-d-a could not
have any other answer that please release etch in time, that's
something a perfect moron could have predicted without a doubt.
26% of the people on the forums said supporting hardware
Steve Langasek wrote:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for software freedom, but at the same time
Sven Luther wrote:
What Steve and others who seconded him propose is to ship non-free firmware in
main, and declaring it as data, and thus disguising it as free software.
I guess that's a good statement, it's disquising firmware, not necessarily
as Free Software, but disguising it. We should
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Why would we need more total CPU time? Not even leisner is
overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine.
(leisner has a different problem, though).
Hence, please explain why we
Frank Küster wrote:
5. Do you see any services for our users or developers missing or
poorly maintained? If so, which and what do you plan to do to
fix this?
I'm not directly aware of anything important missing at the moment. I
know that we struggled to get packages.d.o running
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:20:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Such requests and requirements change the situation. However, I have
to admit that I first read about this particular requirement here. I
noticed some babbling about ppc64, sparc64, mips64 and s390x
Frank Küster wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster wrote:
5. Do you see any services for our users or developers missing or
poorly maintained? If so, which and what do you plan to do to
fix this?
I'm not directly aware of anything important missing
Frank Küster wrote:
Moving this to -devel, it's off-topic for -vote; Cc to -admin.
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At some place where it can be found even if you don't want to look up a
month-old announcement. What about http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi,
and the developers
Bill Allombert wrote:
Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port machines.
Why?
Having two developers-accessible port
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
You were very busy and I knew you and joey had issues and a hard
time working together. In the same IRC conversation I first asked
Anthony about his working relationship with Joey. He would have
been an excellent contact point inside FTP-master to work with
him on e.g.
Anthony Towns wrote:
More generally, Joey's a member of DSA and as such has root on
security-master.d.o; if he really wanted to he could maintain the dak
install there (or an entirely different system) himself for security
I must not do that. Being a system administrator is not a green light
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
It didn't have.
The changes were underway and in discussion independently.
the security team, why do you think it should be impossible for
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.03.10.2250 +0100]:
Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
It didn't have.
The changes were underway and in discussion
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-07 20:09:11]:
When important teams seem to be disfunctional or have a hard time to
find a structure that scales into the future I would however use my
powers of delegation to restructure the team from the outside. I
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
aside, I think there should be more
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.03.08.0853 +0100]:
This has been rejected by James Troup.
What was the reason?
No reason given.
Regards,
Joey
--
MIME - broken solution for a broken design. -- Ralf Baechle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Now my question:
1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
openly?
2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how?
3.) Do you think more DSA
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
almost 3 monthes to have an AM
2 days to pass TS and PP
5 days more because of a mail of mine, stuck on an SMTP
exactly 8 monthes (WTF !?!?!) to have then my account created.
Did you notice that things have changed a bit since Joerg is acting
as pre-DAM?
Regards,
- Forwarded message from Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:23:33 +0100
From: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: XX
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Request to be approved as FTP-Master
I hereby request to be approved as FTP-master
Anthony Towns wrote:
which is to change the queue structure so that uploads don't enter
proposed-updates until approved by the SRM.
I'm wondering why you don't take the more obvious step: add the SRM as
an ftp-master for specifically updating stable.
I was made an ftp-master for the
Anthony Towns wrote:
*sigh*
Full ack.
For the record:
Feb 6th: SRM sends mail to ftp-master trying to negotiate a timeline
Mar 5th: SRM sends another mail since nobody replied to the old one
Mar 5th: aj complains that nobody answered his mail from Feb 22 about
modificating
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
release 3.1r1?) and
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
It seemed obvious to me. If uploads to s-p-u are blocked for approval by
the SRM, this needs to happen just after a point release so that s-p-u is
empty
to start with the new system (probably because once a package is
Marc Haber wrote:
and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
release 3.1r1?) and 3.1r2. May I ask why?
The dependency is the other way -- that change needs to
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:33:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be We
didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year and
justification for that seems to be I'll be in charge
Hi,
I'd like to ask some questions to the prospecitve project leaders:
1. Which are Debians top five strengths in your opinion?
2. Where do you identify Debians top five problems?
3. Do you plan to do anything to change the public recognition that
Debian suffers from severe release problems
Martin Schulze wrote:
- Forwarded message from Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:23:33 +0100
From: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: XX
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Request to be approved as FTP-Master
I hereby request
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not released
Frank Küster wrote:
* Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-05 18:48]:
I also asked the DPL a question about backups of the development
machines (after the CVS corruption last year) and never got any answer.
FWIW, there is a dedicated backup server now. I don't know any
details
Margarita Manterola wrote:
Also, people in the NM queue that have to agree to the Social Contract
and the DFSG, might be interested in knowing why these documents have
the shape they have before actually agreeing to them.
Once they leave NM-mode and enter DD-mode they can read the archive
John Goerzen wrote:
Well...
So much for:
1) secret ballots
2) reading directions
Reading is a lost art nowadays.
-- Michael Weber
I'm also quite appalled by the vote. *sigh*
Regards,
Joey
--
No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to have three Debian Project Co-Leaders.
No. However, a DPL is free to consult people he trusts in certain
matters in order to be able to talk properly. I read that the current
DPL was already doing to.
All the nominees are so good I think Debian would
Eduard Bloch wrote:
I would like to know your opinion about the discrimination of the
contrib and non-free parts of the Debian archive(*).
Do you think that hidding important pieces of software does serve our
users? (with or without the bug license teaching messages)
Out of curiosity, which
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.11.1715 +0100]:
That people who would like to know more about Debian internals
have no easy way of finding out, and if they approach those that
know at the wrong time, or not in the way those would expect
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.11.1222 +0100]:
Which machines are you talking about?
All those marked as restricted on db.debian.org.
And of course, ftp-master.debian.org and security.debian.org :)
So that was just a bogus comment to keep up
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.11.1353 +0100]:
And the point is what exactly?
That people who would like to know more about Debian internals have
no easy way of finding out, and if they approach those that know at
the wrong time
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I committed to working toward a six-month cycle. As DPL, I have no
desire to act unilaterally. Once a sufficient number of us are inspired
with the right vision, things will just happen. As DPL, my job is to
MJ Ray wrote:
I may do that later, so for future: Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] have an archive?
Yes, it's on master:/home/debian/archive/debian-dwn and readable
by the Debian (800) group.
Regards,
Joey
--
If nothing changes, everything will remain the same. -- Barne's Law
--
To
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
problems. I want to know the filing procedures.
Ean Schuessler wrote:
On Saturday 19 February 2005 02:30 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Branden's implication on IRC was that he had already paid it when he
got the note from your mother, and that you had already said Huzzah!
when your mother sent the reminder, suggesting that you and she
Ean Schuessler wrote:
On a single day:
- My mother sent Branden another reminder to pay SPI's very late postage bill.
- Branden posted a message to the list saying he finally paid it.
- I read Branden's message and said huzzah!.
I really wonder why you posted this and started yet another
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A strained suggestion at best. A promise from SPI to pay is not the
same as a check in hand. My Mom doesn't read spi-private. Worst case
scenerio, I did not run into my Mom's office and shout they paid!
the second I
I wonder if we have (or want) a resolution that would explicitly
exclude sarge from a stronger interpretation of the social contract
than it was on April 1st?
That would not have to change a foundation document again and hence
don't require a 3:1 majority. It would also allow the Release Manager
Branden Robinson wrote:
I have some questions:
1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
requirement, it is the same as FURTHER DISCUSSION, right?
I believe so.
1a) If so, what do we do? Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the
Social Contract and its
I wonder if we have (or want) a resolution that would explicitly
exclude sarge from a stronger interpretation of the social contract
than it was on April 1st?
That would not have to change a foundation document again and hence
don't require a 3:1 majority. It would also allow the Release Manager
Branden Robinson wrote:
I have some questions:
1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
requirement, it is the same as FURTHER DISCUSSION, right?
I believe so.
1a) If so, what do we do? Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the
Social Contract and its
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040502 20:25]:
On consultation with the other sponsors, I have decided to
add a sunset clause to the proposed Transition Guide, so that the
specific references to Sarge are ex-purged after it is released.
This
Craig Sanders wrote:
you obviously can't understand simple instructions. i'll give them to you once
more just in case some faint glimmer of understanding manages to seep in:
DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN. I DO NOT WISH TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU.
Then maybe you should stop communicating with him
Craig Sanders wrote:
you obviously can't understand simple instructions. i'll give them to you
once
more just in case some faint glimmer of understanding manages to seep in:
DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN. I DO NOT WISH TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU.
Then maybe you should stop communicating with him
Steve Langasek wrote:
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
serve our goals or the interests of our users,
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
be resolved?
Well, I do believe that non-program software should be as free as
program software, so I'd go the way Anthony described to resolve
this issue: i.e. help Nathanael to extract firmware blobs and
Steve Langasek wrote:
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
serve our goals or the interests of our users,
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
be resolved?
Well, I do believe that non-program software should be as free as
program software, so I'd go the way Anthony described to resolve
this issue: i.e. help Nathanael to extract firmware blobs and
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 12:40]:
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
be resolved?
Well, I do believe that non-program software should be as free as
program software, so I'd go the way
Florian Weimer wrote:
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
non-free software. Please keep this in mind.
Remembering
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
After the tremendous amount of dust this post has lifted, I think i
have only one complaint: I agree with you, we must remain true to what
ourselves define as our foundation documents. Many of us (I surely
did) could not see this consequence when we voted for the editorial
Florian Weimer wrote:
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
non-free software. Please keep this in mind.
Remembering
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
After the tremendous amount of dust this post has lifted, I think i
have only one complaint: I agree with you, we must remain true to what
ourselves define as our foundation documents. Many of us (I surely
did) could not see this consequence when we voted for the editorial
Anthony Towns wrote:
As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these
things removed from the Debian system -- ie main.
This will result in the following problems:
* important packages such as glibc will have no documentation
This should not be too bad given that
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 07:10]:
As this is no longer limited to software, and as this decision was
made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe
I
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Did you have a look to FSF-related software in the last few time?
I normally use them, of course.
Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 December 7, I
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040426 07:10]:
As this is no longer limited to software, and as this decision was
made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe
Anthony Towns wrote:
As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these
things removed from the Debian system -- ie main.
This will result in the following problems:
* important packages such as glibc will have no documentation
This should not be too bad given that
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Did you have a look to FSF-related software in the last few time?
I normally use them, of course.
Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 December 7, I
Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:32:34PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 December 7, I
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
