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
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 ;-)
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
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
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
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
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clearly fits in the above category, and will be withdrawn until there is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
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
Seconded, this seems a good solution.
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
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
Hmm... perhaps a more catching name like why-free would be better?
No-one's going to read gnu-philosophy :-)
Richard Braakman
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,
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
Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:
Jorge Araya (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
