On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:26:37PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
There are a variety of licenses in non-free and a user (or their lawyers)
can be
fine with some of them but not all. The choice of non-free packages
installed
should remain with the users.
Now apt is just a tool and
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
The problem is the expectation of the developers that wrote the Depends
line: they expected that the non-free or-group would not replace the
free group unless the user installed the non-free alternative before.
As a developer, that's
On Freitag, 19. November 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
I believed that because that's what Debian has done for as long as I've
been involved in it, so I always assumed that was the intended meaning.
You convinced me with this.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote:
I do not think it is correct to ever upgrade a free package to a non-free
one. Now, apt is not at
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:06, Bill Allombert
bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote:
I do not think it
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Bill, so far you're the only one in #587279 objecting to the
clarification making the what-you-call strange interpretation crystal
clear (and following the way it was
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:26:37PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:06, Bill Allombert
bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
[Debian policy: For reference, this is bug #603680.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:59:00PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:34, Bill Allombert
bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:35:55PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
[… snip …]
Hi,
if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote:
I do not think it is correct to ever upgrade a free package to a non-free
one. Now, apt is not at fault, the problem rather lie in a strange
interpretation of policy
9 matches
Mail list logo
