PS. Dict'ing the subject line confuses me even more. While i
certainly have fun with the software, i hope that the originator of
this subject did not mean to 'defeat expectation through trickery'
or 'oppress'?
no
Screw is a synonym for fuck, and as it is not a 4-letter word, it
is
On Saturday 20 March 2004 11:36, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:47:52AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
not changing things is effectively a removal of non-free:
Some bug-free contrib and non-free packages are
* Martin Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-22 15:51]:
There is this list of QA maintained packages, however. I don't use
any of them and currently can't put more into my 'queue of
promises'.
Half of this stuff doesn't exist in unstable anymore.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 22 March 2004 16:24, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Martin Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-22 15:51]:
There is this list of QA maintained packages, however. I don't use
Half of this stuff doesn't exist in unstable anymore.
Oops, sorry, i always forget about the stable Debian machines
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:55:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:39:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A package was built by the maintainer for one architecture.
Can I be sure, that the licence allows rebuilding it on another
architecture?
Not without reading the
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:16:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:55:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:39:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A package was built by the maintainer for one architecture.
Can I be sure, that the licence allows
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:47:52AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
not changing things is effectively a removal of non-free:
Some bug-free contrib and non-free packages are waiting for more than
one year to enter testing since they
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:36:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 11:55:56AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The buildds currently ignore non-free packages.
How do you propose to rectify or work around that? Will passing Anthony
Towns's proposed amendment automatically
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:55:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:39:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A package was built by the maintainer for one architecture.
Can I be sure, that the licence allows rebuilding it on another
architecture?
Not without reading the
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
not changing things is effectively a removal of non-free:
Some bug-free contrib and non-free packages are waiting for more than
one year to enter testing since they were not rebuilt on all
architectures.
File ftp.debian.org bugs
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:11:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:45:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
maintainers even if the software
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:28:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I've started occasionally building powerpc non-free packages with a
private sbuild installation (I should set up buildd too, but haven't got
round to it). It's relatively slow work since I need to check the
copyright files first,
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:28:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I've started occasionally building powerpc non-free packages with a
private sbuild installation (I should set up buildd too, but haven't got
round to it). It's relatively slow work since I need to check the
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:51:28PM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:28:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I've started occasionally building powerpc non-free packages with a
private sbuild installation (I should set up buildd too, but haven't got
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 11:55:56AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The buildds currently ignore non-free packages.
How do you propose to rectify or work around that? Will passing Anthony
Towns's proposed amendment automatically rectify it?
If not, shouldn't we have a plan in place for
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:39:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A package was built by the maintainer for one architecture.
Can I be sure, that the licence allows rebuilding it on another
architecture?
Not without reading the license, no. Apparently there've been packages
like this in the past
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:45:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
Out of date in non-free by
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:15:02PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
HM == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HM To our users who were used to quality packages from
HM accountable maintainers even if the software wasn't 100%
HM DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
There appear to be a
(No need to CC me.)
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
Out of date in non-free by arch
---
[...]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
HM == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HM I don't think the removal of non-free from debian.org can be
HM justified on the basis of time effort alone.
Of course not. Supporting non-free and contrib also complicates all our
tools
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 01:02:54PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Supporting non-free and contrib also complicates all our tools and
confuses people as to what Debian is.
Neither of which is as tangible as the amount of effort necessary to switch,
so you have to understand that there are people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
JR == Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me Supporting non-free and contrib also complicates all our tools
Me and confuses people as to what Debian is.
JR Neither of which is as tangible as the amount of effort
JR necessary to
To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
Out of date in non-free by arch
---
alpha72
arm 78
hppa 72
i386 6
ia64 67
m68k 59
mips101
mipsel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
HM == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me Having Debian-the-project put time or effort into anything
Me that isn't Debian-the-OS is wasteful.
HM Perhaps it is, but is that important? Anyone who works on
HM non-free is
24 matches
Mail list logo
