donot generally roost.
Specifically, this package could be built with either gcc or icc. I will
accept the argument from a pragmatic standpoint, in as much a bug in icc
would be harder to track down, but not from a ``it is a different
package'' because of using icc instead of gcc.
--
John H
in contrib. Given
the circumstance, I felt that this action is the best.
We could fork this into a discussion of re-building all packages
uploaded (ala source only uploads) which neatly sidesteps the entire
``intent of buildable with tools in main'' issue entirely.
--
John H. Robinson, IV
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
Exact words
Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't have any problems with Don personally, but I personally would
rather we had a full-fledged Debian Developer as our other delegate to
this committee.
i tried to volunteer[1] but i have not seen that message hit the list
yet.
[1] Message-ID: [EMAIL
John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:16:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer.
Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a
computer to read a printed
Nick Phillips wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:50:13PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
% snip of definitions %
Pretty good. I would have tried to phrase it slightly differently, but you
have hit the nail on the head.
If it's represented essentially as a sequence of 1s and 0s
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:38:43 -0700, John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are
missing is a clear working definition to separate out Software,
Data, and Documentation.
My feeling
7 matches
Mail list logo
