Re: Let's Debian blow... gracefully! [was Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages]
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 05:37:15PM -0400, Fabien Ninoles wrote: The reason for a seperate directory is for ease of mirroring and CD building. It gives us also an easy way to check if a package can be on data. I will really like to see this one at least second. It's an old thread that I saw reborn and kill too often. My english is not perfect, so it's certainly need some correction but I think the idea is here. ---end quoted text--- I like this idea. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ivan E. Moore II Rev. Krusty http://www.tdyc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- GPG KeyID=0E1A75E3 GPG Fingerprint=3291 F65F 01C9 A4EC DD46 C6AB FBBC D7FF 0E1A 75E3 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
And if you want to you can package the ESR view point and upload it. grin Anyone taking bets as to which will be the first to add a depends on the popularity-contest package ;-)
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 10:35:57AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: I changed the description so it does not say it is a mirror anymore: [..] Does that help at all? Not really, but if enough people really think I'm wrong on this I won't press the issue. I also didn't press the issue with the anarchists thing, I'm hoping for a better solution to the overall size od the distribution. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - Shinobi There are worse things than PerlASP comes to mind pgpXCARd8NUoi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On 24-May-99, 22:06 (CDT), Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are other reasons that free software is good (e.g. the ESR utilitarian arguments). Some Debianers might agree with one philosophy, others another. um.. Debian GNU/Linux ^^^ I'd say that's reason enough for us to include them. Though of course you *are* free to dissent in a constitutional anarchy ;-) The name is a politeness and respect issue. The philosophy/incentive for free software is something else. For FWIW, while agreeing that ESR has codified a lot of reasons why free software can be better than non-free software, I'm pretty much with RMS when it comes to why free software is a Good Thing(tm). None-the-less, I don't think this kind of stuff belongs in the main Debian distribution. We need to create a data/doc area for these items. When I suggested that it become part of the standard Debian doc package (whichever package contains the SC and DFSG, if there is one), I was expecting a size of 5K-20K, based on the core documents. I now see that it is pushing 1M, which seems, to me, excessive. What is the point of packaging up an entire website, which will be out-of-date next week? Obviously, a person can package whatever zie wants, and offer it to Debian (subject to copyright/licensing/etc.) But we need to be at least *aware* of what we are doing to the people who create/distribute Debian CDs. We're already up to three CDs (right?). Adding arbitrary documents, websites and datasets makes that bigger, makes it harder to maintain a mirror, makes it harder to distribute, and scores fairly low in the value added area (compare the difference between the binary and source packages for something like Apache, and something like the GNU philosophy package.) Having said that, and thought about the packages I maintain, 'jargon' clearly fits in the above category, and will be withdrawn until there is an appropriate archive. Steve
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On 25-May-99, 01:47 (CDT), Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 24 May, 1999, Steve Greenland wrote: There are other reasons that free software is good (e.g. the ESR utilitarian arguments). Some Debianers might agree with one philosophy, others another. If you're going to package one, and the justification is as above, then you need to package summaries of all the reasons. And if you want to you can package the ESR view point and upload it. I don't think either (any!) of them should be placed in the main archive. Why should they include the GNU view of free software when there are others around? Are you being deliberatly obtuse? I was pointing out that there *may* be an appropriate place for *all* such political/philosophy documents. In *particular*, it strikes me that the GNU why free docs combine well with the DFSG and SC. (Of course, that was before I realized you were talking about several hundred Kbytes.) Steve
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On 25-May-99, 04:35 (CDT), Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 23 May, 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: I have the same objection to this I had to the anarchist thing: You're trying to package their website. I don't think we should be doing that. I changed the description so it does not say it is a mirror anymore: Oh, so therefore it's not a mirror? Table of Contents . * About Free Software * About the GNU project * Licensing Free Software * Laws * Terminology and Definitions * GIFs * Motivation * Speeches * Third Party Ideas * Translations of these documents Is there any chance of convincing you that if you must package these and place them in the archive to please limit it to the first section (About Free Software) and a pointer to the rest? Steve
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 12:47:33AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: Having said that, and thought about the packages I maintain, 'jargon' clearly fits in the above category, and will be withdrawn until there is an appropriate archive. nah, don't do that. Wait for wichert's proposal when the logo vote is finished might cause removing it now just to re-add it later to be kinda annoying. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - World Domination, of course. And scantily clad females. Who cares if its twenty below?-- Linus Torvalds pgpUavwq8Mmei.pgp Description: PGP signature
Let's Debian blow... gracefully! [was Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages]
Quoting Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 10:35:57AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: I changed the description so it does not say it is a mirror anymore: [..] Does that help at all? Not really, but if enough people really think I'm wrong on this I won't press the issue. I also didn't press the issue with the anarchists thing, I'm hoping for a better solution to the overall size od the distribution. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - Shinobi There are worse things than PerlASP comes to mind Although I tend to agreed with Joseph on this point, I also think that the main problem is still the same as with the Anarchy FAQ: No other cool place (personal web page is not the answer because is not part of the distribution) to place this kind of stuff. So I want to make a Suggestion: Creation of a sub-directory aside from main, contrib, non-free named data. The data directory will contain packages DFSG-Free that the maintainers feel they can be useful to a minority of people or is too big to be included in the main distribution. The main purpose is too provided data that's is not essential to any programs in main but can be useful for any user. Examples of those packages are: - Supplemental themes (a default should however be included in main); - Some not program specific documentation; - Tutorials; - Astronomical data; - Foo-Scripts; - Funny manpages. The following rules should be follow, however: - No packages in main should depend solely on a package in data. - The maintainer decision on this subject is just the same as with the Section: field. It's a suggestion that can be override by the archive maintainer. - The data should only contain packages compliant with the DFSG. - The data subdirectory is an entire part of Debian. It's purpose is to let the CD vendors/archives maintainers/users choice between a Debian Light who fit on a reasonable amount of CDs, and an Debian Extended who can fill you're entire RAID array. The reason for a seperate directory is for ease of mirroring and CD building. It gives us also an easy way to check if a package can be on data. I will really like to see this one at least second. It's an old thread that I saw reborn and kill too often. My english is not perfect, so it's certainly need some correction but I think the idea is here. Fabien NinolesChevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers aka Corbeau aka le VeneurDebian GNU/Linux maintainer E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WebPage:http://www.tzone.org/~fabien RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
Re: Let's Debian blow... gracefully! [was Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages]
Seconded, this seems a good solution.
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On Mon, May 24, 1999 at 06:59:47PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: Why does Debian only accept free software? What is so good about free software? It is all explained in this package. Indeed. If your objection remains, I will not upload the package. Why? Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
NDN: Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to: Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
NDN(2): Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to: Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
Why does Debian only accept free software? What is so good about free software? It is all explained in this package. There are other reasons that free software is good (e.g. the ESR utilitarian arguments). Some Debianers might agree with one philosophy, others another. um.. Debian GNU/Linux ^^^ I'd say that's reason enough for us to include them. Though of course you *are* free to dissent in a constitutional anarchy ;-) - Ron. who wonders why ESR continually misspelled bizarre.. 8 ~~ Debian. Because all Linux distributions are equal.. It's just that some are more equal than others. ~~
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't like Documentation-only packages if they are not specific to Debian. It's the 40 MB atromonical dataset in a smaller scale. Hmm... perhaps a more catching name like why-free would be better? No-one's going to read gnu-philosophy :-) I hope not :) GNU-free is not Debian-Free. A why-free packages should explain the freeness of debian as a hole. a lot of Debian-free stuff isn't free in the GNU-free sense. Then at least it should be why-free-gnu so somebody could package a why-free-bsd, why-free-X etc. -- Peter er den mindst gamle af de gammeldags usenettere, og moderator på den eneste modererede gruppe i dk.*, so there. - citat RockBear
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On Mon, 24 May, 1999, Steve Greenland wrote: On 24-May-99, 12:59 (CDT), Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does Debian only accept free software? What is so good about free software? It is all explained in this package. There are other reasons that free software is good (e.g. the ESR utilitarian arguments). Some Debianers might agree with one philosophy, others another. If you're going to package one, and the justification is as above, then you need to package summaries of all the reasons. And if you want to you can package the ESR view point and upload it. I think it is important for an explanation of the benefits of free software to be included in Debian. A: The Debian web pages ought to do that. B: Aren't the Social Contract and DFSG already included? If so, then you might try to convince that package maintainer to include the GNU stuff. (If the DFSG and SC aren't included, why not?) Why should they include the GNU view of free software when there are others around? -- I consume, therefore I am pgptyA2CX5df0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On Mon, 24 May, 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Mon, May 24, 1999 at 06:59:47PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: Why does Debian only accept free software? What is so good about free software? It is all explained in this package. Indeed. If your objection remains, I will not upload the package. Why? Actually you are right, we are never going to have everybody being happy. I will upload later today. -- I consume, therefore I am pgpXOgnkzmZ2Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On Sun, 23 May, 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: I have the same objection to this I had to the anarchist thing: You're trying to package their website. I don't think we should be doing that. I changed the description so it does not say it is a mirror anymore: new debian package, version 2.0. size 655030 bytes: control archive= 2736 bytes. 581 bytes,23 lines control 6139 bytes,70 lines md5sums 191 bytes, 6 lines * postinst #!/bin/sh 171 bytes, 6 lines * prerm#!/bin/sh Package: gnu-philosophy Version: 1.0 Section: doc Priority: optional Architecture: all Installed-Size: 1277 Maintainer: Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: Philosophy of the GNU Project Ideas about free software, and the reasons behind it. Adapted from the philosophy section of the GNU web site. . Table of Contents . * About Free Software * About the GNU project * Licensing Free Software * Laws * Terminology and Definitions * GIFs * Motivation * Speeches * Third Party Ideas * Translations of these documents Does that help at all? -- I consume, therefore I am pgpLsdNIeQQid.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
Another thought, here is the current doc-base file: Document: gnu-philosophy Title: Philosophy of the GNU Project Author: Richard M. Stallman, Georg C. F. Greve, Tom Hull, Kragen Sitaker, Loyd Fueston, Michael Stutz, Bjørn Remseth, and others Abstract: Ideas about free software, and the reasons behind it. Adapted from the philosophy section of the GNU web site. Includes texts: About Free Software, About the GNU project, Licensing Free Software, Laws, Terminology and Definitions, GIFs, Motivation, Speeches, Third Party Ideas, Translations of these documents. Section: debian Format: HTML Index: /usr/doc/gnu-philosophy/html/philosophy/philosophy.html Files: /usr/doc/gnu-philosophy/html/philosophy/*.html In my opinion the section should not be debian, but none of the other section appear to be the right one, where should it go? -- I consume, therefore I am pgprCUfz0oUGE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why should they include the GNU view of free software when there are others around? Maybe because we're Debian _GNU_/Linux?
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
Hmm... perhaps a more catching name like why-free would be better? No-one's going to read gnu-philosophy :-) Richard Braakman
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
I have the same objection to this I had to the anarchist thing: You're trying to package their website. I don't think we should be doing that. Granted I'd rather see this website packaged before one trying to tell me all about the good political and philosphical things resulting from anarchy, but my objection is not at all based on the content. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - Overfiend partycle: I seriously do need a vacation from this package. I actually had a DREAM about introducing a stupid new bug into xbase-preinst last night. That's a Bad Sign. pgprHKvBw6eM8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On Sun, 23 May, 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: I have the same objection to this I had to the anarchist thing: You're trying to package their website. I don't think we should be doing that. Granted I'd rather see this website packaged before one trying to tell me all about the good political and philosphical things resulting from anarchy, but my objection is not at all based on the content. Why does Debian only accept free software? What is so good about free software? It is all explained in this package. I think it is important for an explanation of the benefits of free software to be included in Debian. It is not the whole web site, only a couple of articals about free software. It is similar to the packaging of the Debian Developer's Reference or Debian New Maintainers' Guide, they are both on the Debian web site. The Anarchist FAQ is not a web site either, it is an FAQ, we have loads of FAQs already, and I accept they are all a little more computer related, but Debian is an anarchic organisation (a poor link I know, but a link never the less). If your objection remains, I will not upload the package. -- I consume, therefore I am pgp4UxbXmuB5U.pgp Description: PGP signature
NDN: Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to: Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
Re: Intent to package GNU Philosophy web pages
On 24-May-99, 12:59 (CDT), Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does Debian only accept free software? What is so good about free software? It is all explained in this package. There are other reasons that free software is good (e.g. the ESR utilitarian arguments). Some Debianers might agree with one philosophy, others another. If you're going to package one, and the justification is as above, then you need to package summaries of all the reasons. I think it is important for an explanation of the benefits of free software to be included in Debian. A: The Debian web pages ought to do that. B: Aren't the Social Contract and DFSG already included? If so, then you might try to convince that package maintainer to include the GNU stuff. (If the DFSG and SC aren't included, why not?) The Anarchist FAQ is not a web site either, it is an FAQ, we have loads of FAQs already, and I accept they are all a little more computer related, but Debian is an anarchic organisation (a poor link I know, but a link never the less). Debian is anarchic? We have a constitution, several officers, and decision making procedures, both democratic and technocratic. It hardly qualifies as an anarchy. (No, I don't want to debate this point in the lists or via private e-mail; I suspect your comment was tounge-in-cheek, mine certainly was.) Steve
