Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
Apparently.
However, one thing you haven't mentioned yet, are out package-fetch
tools like
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
Moving the non-free (and contrib) part out of the main archive is a
logical conclusion to our social contract. I don't understand why
developers who agree to our social contract now disagree with this
conclusion.
Well, nobody has been able to show
Previously Richard Stallman wrote:
I saw a proposal to replace the non-US category with a different kind
of labelling which is more general. That seems like a good idea to
me.
Indeed. The major problem with that proposal is that it would force
mirrors to use special software to mirror the
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
I would like to amend this to make it say non-free.debian.org. That is
consitent with non-us.debian.org and with the current section name,
non-free.
Sounds reasonable. I'm open to other suggestions as well, the main
options are the way the split is made.
Wichert.
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
How about not.debian.org?
debian.nonfree.org :)
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW:
A few months ago, I think someone mentioned that some packages were in
contrib because their quality or utility was marginal, even though
they had no dependence on non-free software. If that is true, those
Some packages are in contrib because they depends on software like
On Jun 30, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few months ago, I think someone mentioned that some packages were in
contrib because their quality or utility was marginal, even though
they had no dependence on non-free software. If that is true, those
Some packages are in contrib
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jun 30, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few months ago, I think someone mentioned that some packages were in
contrib because their quality or utility was marginal, even though
they had no dependence on non-free software. If that is
Otherwise just about everything in contrib has dependency on non-free
software.
That makes it simple--put the contrib packages on the server that has
the non-free packages.
A few months ago, I think someone mentioned that some packages were in
contrib because their quality or utility was
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[contrib]
You can't modify everything it does.
How so?
--
see shy jo
Will Lowe wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the debian.org part
makes it somehow official again. Personally, I would prefer
unofficial.debian.org.
But
The ballot will contain the options:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I would like to amend this to make it say non-free.debian.org. That is
consitent with non-us.debian.org and with the current section name,
non-free.
--
see shy jo
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 06:53:25PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[contrib]
You can't modify everything it does.
Well, if you consider a program which uses Motif (ignoring lesstif's
existence), you can't modify Motif so you cannot modify everything about
a program -- some
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 06:49:18PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
I think that if we want to change anything we should split non-free in
open-source and non-open-source or something like this ...
Again, you misunderstand. The Open Source Definition is currently identiacal
to the DFSG. Nothing
Adam Heath wrote:
dpkg-awk 'section:.*non-free.*' -- package|sed -ne 's/\(..*\)/\1/p'
This fails to pick up libforms0.88 and any other package that doesn't
have the Section line. Not everyone uses:
dpkg-gencontrol -isp
Peter
* RM = Raul Miller
RM Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
libmagick4g-lzw
openssl
gpg-{rsa,idea}
All perfectly DFSG free. In non-free because of something the DFSG is
completely silent about, software patents. I tried to do something about
this, however there was very little
On 27 Jun 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Stephane == Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephane (if I take over the maintenance of a Debian box and I want
Stephane to get rid of all the non-free stuff, I cannot, except by
Stephane reading every licence).
That
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The programs in contrib are free, but many programs are put in contrib
because they are not useful in an all-free system. Many depend on
non-free packages to be useful.
I think these programs should be kept with the non-free packages.
On the
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 01:29:20AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
dpkg-awk 'section:.*non-free.*' -- package|sed -ne 's/\(..*\)/\1/p'
grep-status -F Section -s Package non-free
;-)
And to get a list of all non-free packages currently installed:
grep-status -F Section -s Package,Status non-free |
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Bruce Sass wrote:
These methods only work reliably if one uses dselect or apt.
The philosophical/political/religious status of Debian packages is
usually only found in the Packages files, those of us who don't use the
package fetching tools (too much overhead for me) do
The status file is on all Debian systems (those that use dpkg anyways),
the field within the DPKG DB that contains the information which
indicates main/contrib/non-free is not usually packaged within the .deb
file itself... it is found in the Packages files on the ftp sites.
Also, unless one has
Hi,
Stephane == Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephane (if I take over the maintenance of a Debian box and I want
Stephane to get rid of all the non-free stuff, I cannot, except by
Stephane reading every licence).
That is not true. You really need to learn scripting,
The programs in contrib are free, but many programs are put in contrib
because they are not useful in an all-free system. Many depend on
non-free packages to be useful.
I think these programs should be kept with the non-free packages.
On the other hand, some programs are in contrib for another
Dale Scheetz wrote:
already a lot of packages that overwhelms the newcommer. I used to lose
a lot of time when I was installing for the first time a Debian, only
because of browsing our packages. And if we drop the dependencies, we
will look exactly like RH: we will have a bunch of
Norbert Nemec wrote:
Guess, that idea already has been discussed and ruled out, but still I think
it may serve better:
Why not put some kind of a sign on every non-free package, instead of moving
those packages anywhere? There is a number of ways that could be done
- something in the name
On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 11:08:22AM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
Contrib shouldn't go in main for a very simple reason: all those
packages will not install because of missing dependencies.
This is not true. (Would people please stop saying this!) Contrib
contains software that has some
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:59:45PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote:
[...]
That's the problem is was (unsuccessfully) trying to get at earlier.
Anything on a Debian site is a de facto part of Debian in the eyes of the
public, no matter what the Social Contract says.
interesting point, how many users
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 09:10:00AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
[...]
10% of the packages, ruffly 300. It also accounts for 10.6% of the
transfers from ftp.debian.org. It is about 5% of the total ftp.debian.org
by size (~ 3G/day)
ok i have understood.
Now technically make a new host will be
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 09:12:32AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I lost track of who said what...
Some here. I will probably only post once - I am not really intersted
in this thread, but some issues have caught my eye.
Without giving legal advice, the package was put into non-free
for a
On Jun 24, Brian May wrote:
I think dpkg (or some other package) should provide some mechanism to
automatically list all non-free and/or contrib software installed on a
system. Especially for non-free software I may have installed ages ago,
and never used since...
apt-get install vrms
Chris
On Thursday 24 June 1999, at 11 h 8, the keyboard of Ionutz Borcoman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of the packages (main, non-free and contrib), but add these:
- as suggested, a file that briefly explain why package is in non-free
I agree. Just try to see why TAO is non-free in
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 07:28:29AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:28:23PM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:49:24PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Because [contrib is] useless without non-free.
This is untrue. There are items in contrib
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 12:30:08AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
The social contract has as the very first item `Debian Will Remain 100%
Free Software'. So we need to do something to make once again clear
to everyone exactly what Debian is and show more clearly what we don't
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:05:18PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:54:02PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away?
that's those debs are not an part of the official distribution? No, it's
On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 01:26:03AM +0200, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
Note that in italy the biggest part of debian users uses the cd on
the magazine that are a mix of main/contrib/non-us/non-free divided
in different numbers of the magazine (monthly).
Of course, the cdrom vendors will just
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
Norbert Nemec wrote:
Guess, that idea already has been discussed and ruled out, but still I think
it may serve better:
Why not put some kind of a sign on every non-free package, instead of moving
those packages anywhere? There is a number
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 09:10:00AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
[...]
10% of the packages, ruffly 300. It also accounts for 10.6% of the
transfers from ftp.debian.org. It is about 5% of the total ftp.debian.org
by size (~ 3G/day)
ok i have
Debian uses a single transferable voting method, in which developers
rank their preferences. Presumably your votes would be 1243 (in order
of ballot position).
That avoids the problem I was worried about.
I'm sorry to have brought up an unnecessary tangent.
That's a good message. Because as we all (or most at least) know,
free software is just plain better. [:=)
I don't think that's an accurate statement, and I don't think even the
FSF has ever said this. I think their point is that free software is
morally 'better', and for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:43:16 -0600 (MDT), Richard Stallman wrote:
It's true that most readers would tend to think better means
technically better. So it is better to be specific.
Morally or technically better? :D
OKOK, I couldn't resist.
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 02:10:59PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
- a message when installing the package
Nagware-ish. Every non-free package you install, you have to agree to some
announcement that this package is non free...
I concur, however it's the lesser of a lot of possible evils. See
From the vote page, http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0006:
Quorum: With 509 developers,; Q=22.56 making a quorum of 68
Miniumum Discussion: Wichert Akkerman can call for vote anytime
after
July 5th.
Forum: Discussion is on the debian-vote list.
Outcome: The winner is the
The social contract has as the very first item `Debian Will Remain 100%
Free Software'. So we need to do something to make once again clear
to everyone exactly what Debian is and show more clearly what we don't
consider to be free.
Hear, hear!
I. Create a new host,
On Jun 23, Richard Stallman wrote:
The ballot will contain the options:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
2) create official.debian.org domain
3) keep the current situation
This way of holding the vote would tend to split the support for
change. I worry that 100 people
Hi,
Robert == Robert Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 02:10:59PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
- a message when installing the package
Nagware-ish. Every non-free package you install, you have to agree to some
announcement that this package is non
Hi,
Chris == Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris I thought the intent of the proposal *was* to make non-free software
Chris harder to find..
This goes against the social contract, IMHO.
Chris . or at least harder to confuse with main.
Thanks to apt, this is
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 11:47:09AM -0700, Mark Ayers wrote:
I am in favor of breaking out the domain into sub domains.
RedHat, for other reasons, did it.
Official.Debian.Org
Contrib.Debian.Org
Non-Free.Debian.Org
Even
Updates.Debian.Org ala RH
And officeupdate.microsoft.com ...
It just
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 04:52:48PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
It just makes things messy on the mirrors. I think Jason has tried
to point this out in the past. I do browse the Debian web site
(about once a fortnight) at www.debian.org, but I certainly don't FTP
to ftp.debian.org (too slow).
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:40:14AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Debian uses a single transferable voting method, in which developers
rank their preferences. Presumably your votes would be 1243 (in order
of ballot position).
Assuming no further discussion appears #1 on the least ballots, it
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Thanks to apt, this is impossible unless we make apt annoying
(and hence reduce its utility). I don't think moving it shall make
much of a difference to people, apart fr5om the annoyance of having
to change mirror
On Jun 23, Darren O. Benham wrote:
Debian's counting method is more complicated than that :( We use the
concord accounting system where an option gets a point if more people
prefer it to some other option... Debian only falls back to STV in case of
a tie.
I suspect the net effect is the
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:34:55AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
I suspect the net effect is the same, however. (My bad, should have
re-read the constitution.)
In about 75% of the cases (that I tested), it is...
The bottom line is that RMS's concerns are addressed by the voting system.
Agreed!
On Jun 23, Darren O. Benham wrote:
Debian's counting method is more complicated than that :( We use the
concord accounting system where an option gets a point if more people
prefer it to some other option... Debian only falls back to STV in case of
a tie.
A fairly concise explanation of the
On Jun 23, Darren O. Benham wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:34:55AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
I suspect the net effect is the same, however. (My bad, should have
re-read the constitution.)
In about 75% of the cases (that I tested), it is...
That low? Wow...
Chris, who smells a very
Richard Stallman wrote:
The social contract has as the very first item `Debian Will Remain 100%
Free Software'. So we need to do something to make once again clear
to everyone exactly what Debian is and show more clearly what we don't
consider to be free.
Hear, hear!
Yes,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 01:34:42PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Why contrib ? contrib is perfectly dfsg software, there is no reason not to
distribute it the same way as main ?
Because it's useless without non-free.
And it generally has the 'stigma', if you will, of
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Because it's useless without non-free.
Ok, i understand, but still it is DFSG compliant no ? why then
penalize it and move it away from main into some server that will
matbe not be mirrored everywhere ?
Why don't we just get rid of the 'contrib' distinction altogether
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 12:30:08AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
The ballot will contain the options:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
2) create official.debian.org domain
3) keep the current situation
This way of holding the vote would tend to split the support for
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 07:28:29AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:28:23PM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
[...] There are items in contrib which do not depend on
items in Debian's non-free archive, but do instead depend on
externally available non-free items. Two
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:41:25AM -0500, R. Brock Lynn wrote:
Sven LUTHER wrote:
Because it's useless without non-free.
Ok, i understand, but still it is DFSG compliant no ? why then
penalize it and move it away from main into some server that will
matbe not be mirrored everywhere
On Jun 23, Giuliano Procida wrote:
Untrue! (Social Contract section 5 is misleading) You may have always
treated contrib as unofficial but it is often fully supported GPL
software. Plenty of other people do not share your view. Put another
way, you may lump contrib with non-free, plenty of
Chris Lawrence wrote:
I thought the intent of the proposal *was* to make non-free software
harder to find... or at least harder to confuse with main.
Hmm, I disagree, I think the only intent was to make a very clear distinction
between free and non-free and Debian's commitment to 100% free
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 10:25:04AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
Because it's useless without non-free.
Ok, i understand, but still it is DFSG compliant no ? why then
penalize it and move it away from main into some server that will
matbe not be mirrored everywhere ?
Why
Ben Armstrong wrote:
I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the debian.org part makes
it somehow official again.
Personally, I would prefer unofficial.debian.org.
I like this idea.
Even those who know nothing about the Debian Social Contract should know
what that means.
Previously Richard Stallman wrote:
This way of holding the vote would tend to split the support for
change. I worry that 100 people might vote for 1, 100 people might vote
for 2, while 110 people might vote for 3--and 3 would win.
Our voting system allows voters to vote for multiple options
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
Foo Emulator: used for development of a free OS for platform Foo (I do
Foo Frontend: used with development versions of free alternatives to
Foo Client: used to aid development of a free server for Foo (some are
Then all this
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 04:28:49AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
[...]
Hi all, meybe we can consider the numbers of the package in the
contrib and non-free sections. How many contribe package
and non-free package are now on master (I can not verify).
In this way we have an idea of how big is the
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 07:59:07PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Foo Emulator: used for development of a free OS for platform Foo (I do
Foo Frontend: used with development versions of free alternatives to
Foo Client: used to aid development of a free server for Foo (some are
Then all
Giuliano Procida wrote:
Why don't we just get rid of the 'contrib' distinction altogether
and put it all in main then? Why penalize it like that too?
I nearly suggested this as well in my last mail, however, it would
really really piss off the people who opposed ICQ clients in main.
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:38:15AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 10:25:04AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
[attribution lost] wrote:
Why don't we just get rid of the 'contrib' distinction altogether
and put it all in main then? Why penalize it like that too?
I
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:53:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 07:59:07PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Foo Emulator: used for development of a free OS for platform Foo (I do
Foo Frontend: used with development versions of free alternatives to
Foo Client:
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:53:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
[...]
Foo Frontend ... Well, how does a Tk frontend for xanim help you make a
free replacement for xanim?
imho the point is different. Why we penalize a GPL software putting
into the hell of ``nonfree.debian.org'' ?
If we would
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:57:10AM -0500, R. Brock Lynn wrote:
and for 'non-us' I guess that's ok, as later on, there may be other restricted
stuff besides just crypto... who knows...
[...]
yes this is a good point, why non-us and not non-iraq ?
also in iraq (for example) there are
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
imho the point is different. Why we penalize a GPL software putting
into the hell of ``nonfree.debian.org'' ?
If we would take a sort of Dante's Comedy metaphor, we could compare
the main part of debian dist with the Dante paradise, the non-free
I lost track of who said what...
And perhaps, the README.Debian should be mandatory to
contain a brief explanation why this package is considered
non-free (often it is obvious, but often it is not,
especially for those new to the world of free software)
I think this is a good
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:53:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Foo Emulator would be in main if it didn't require non-free Foo ROMs to
make it work at all.
Does it require them? Most of them emulate the hardware like the CPU,
sound and graphics devices, etc. No reason why you couldn't use them
Robert Woodcock wrote:
Here's an idea:
# apt-get install navigator-smotif-46
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
netscape-base-46 navigator-base-46
The following NEW packages will be installed:
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
Hi all, meybe we can consider the numbers of the package in the
contrib and non-free sections. How many contribe package
and non-free package are now on master (I can not verify).
In this way we have an idea of how big is the % of non-free
and
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
It just makes things messy on the mirrors. I think Jason has tried
to point this out in the past. I do browse the Debian web site
(about once a fortnight) at www.debian.org, but I certainly don't FTP
to ftp.debian.org (too slow).
My point
* CL = Chris Lawrence
CL One very important category of contrib software is omitted:
CL packages that depend on free software in non-US.
This sort of stuff should go into main, either the part on master,
either that on non-US.
I maintain mailcrypt, which is such a beast, and I'm planning to
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:17:50AM -0500, R. Brock Lynn wrote:
I. Create a new host, nonfree.debian.org and move non-free and
contrib there and ask our mirrors if they can consider also
mirroring that.
That wouldn't be too much of a problem for the mirror admins huh?
But
wrote:
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:40:45 -0500
From: R. Brock Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Thomas Schoepf [EMAIL PROTECTED],
debian-vote@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
Resent
Hi,
Darren == Darren O Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Darren The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the
Darren ftp/http trees.
And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away?
manoj
--
Why isn't there a special name for the tops of your
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Darren The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the
Darren ftp/http trees.
And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away?
that's those debs are not an part of the official
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:35:24PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Darren The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the
Darren ftp/http trees.
And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead
How does the casual browser know that something on a particular server
that *is* in the debian.org domain isn't really part of debian? Again,
who's this targeted at--casual users or hard-liners who already know the
difference?
That's the problem is was (unsuccessfully) trying to get at
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:54:02PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away?
that's those debs are not an part of the official distribution? No, it's
not.
Would making them available as
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project
leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
The ballot will contain the options:
1)
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:43:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
YEAH!!! Wichert, you are my hero! It's so important that we make a decision
on it, and I hope it will be (1) or (2), but not (3).
I agree :)
Richard Stallman will be happy, too, and I think it is a good idea to make
this step
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:43:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
YEAH!!! Wichert, you are my hero!
Oops :)
This should have been sent privately to Wichert. There is nothing
confidential in it, but because it is not actually a useful contribution to
this thread, please ignore it. I apologize
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project
leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
First off, I agree this is a bad thing and
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:05:03PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
I think it could be done simply by moving contrib and non-free out of the
dists/ directory.. Nobody is confused as to project/experimental and I
think they would be no more confused by something on the order of
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:07:32PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:05:03PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
I think it could be done simply by moving contrib and non-free out of the
dists/ directory.. Nobody is confused as to project/experimental and I
think they would
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:44:30PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
SOMEBODY somewhere is going to argue that contrib isn't non-free and
shouldn't be treated as such. You won't hear me arguing it, however you
have been warned.. =
True, but it contrib is 1) non-debian (but
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
Personally I think that this is a very poor proposal. Instead of
On Jun 21, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
What you have proposed will end up about half way to three quarters of the
way to that full statement, you might as well finish the job, and really
that is what the vote will be about, not about a 'archive split'.
Incidently, as an aside.. to anyone who
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
--
Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software
that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the
DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian
web pages and miscellaneous other software will
Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract. Wichert's is a mere technical change.
--
see
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
--
Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software
that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the
DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian
web
On Jun 21, Joey Hess wrote:
Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract. Wichert's is a
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
