On 13/03/14 11:14, Mateusz Jończyk wrote:
W dniu 12.03.2014 22:17, Vincent Cheng pisze:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I don't believe Debian is the right place or mechanism to pick this fight. I
think it would be a huge distraction from the point of
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said:
Reading the thread, it appears that people have some hope that this
would actually be considered as a package, e.g. if they remove the
images that are technically illegal
An outsider looking at that discussion - and not finding anything in our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W dniu 12.03.2014 22:17, Vincent Cheng pisze:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I don't believe Debian is the right place or mechanism to pick this fight. I
think it would be a huge distraction from the point of
On 11/03/14 20:47, Neil McGovern wrote:
On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote:
There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP
masters will accept a particular package
For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro writes:
On 11/03/14 20:47, Neil McGovern wrote:
On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote:
There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP
masters will accept a particular package
For those who weren’t around 10
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious
megathreads).
I don't know why gmane doesn't show it.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/03/14 18:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious
megathreads).
I don't know why gmane doesn't show it.
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said:
My impression is that the type of issue currently under discussion is
not adequately specified in the FTP master delegation, it leaves the FTP
masters to do more work on something that is actually quite complicated
and has far-reaching
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes:
On 12/03/14 18:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious
megathreads).
I don't know why gmane doesn't show it.
(Crossposting to debian-devel-games, where most of the discussion is
being held about this)
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes:
On 12/03/14 18:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700,
http://bugs.debian.org/535645 is perhaps relevant:
2. reaffirms the ftp team's authority to exercise their own judgement in
deciding to remove packages from the archive, whenever this is done for
reasons consistent with the twin mandates to keep the archive operational
and to support the
Daniel Pocock writes (clarify FTP master delegation?):
The FTP team wiki[1] links to a delegation email[2]
The delegation email is very light, it just says they are Accepting and
rejecting packages that enter the NEW and byhand queues without any
reference to the policies they should apply
On 11/03/14 20:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
Daniel Pocock writes (clarify FTP master delegation?):
The FTP team wiki[1] links to a delegation email[2]
The delegation email is very light, it just says they are Accepting and
rejecting packages that enter the NEW and byhand queues without any
On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote:
There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP
masters will accept a particular package
For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up on
#283578, and associated mails to
14 matches
Mail list logo
