On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
entirely opposed to it either. Especially if the firmware is just
assembled assembly for a specific processor that could be disassembled.
I'm not very familiar with firmware though, is virtually all firmware
compiled C code or is alot of it assembly
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 12:10]:
Anthony Towns wrote:
* firmware will need to be split out of the kernel into userspace
in all cases
It's good when this happens.
* debian-installer will need to be
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
entirely opposed to it either. Especially if the firmware is just
assembled assembly for a specific processor that could be disassembled.
I'm not very familiar with firmware though, is virtually all firmware
compiled C code or is alot of it assembly
On 8 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The role non-free plays and the distinction between the distribution and
the project was a reflection of the compromise at the time between the
people who wanted to produce a distribution and the people who wanted to
persue a political goal of
On 6 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
In which case, it's gone. We currently have a distribution which is
not 100% Free Software, as our contract promised. We should fix that.
I don't understand how you can say that.
My memory is a little bad, but when I joined there certainly was a
On 8 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The role non-free plays and the distinction between the distribution and
the project was a reflection of the compromise at the time between the
people who wanted to produce a distribution and the people who wanted to
persue a political goal of
On 6 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
In which case, it's gone. We currently have a distribution which is
not 100% Free Software, as our contract promised. We should fix that.
I don't understand how you can say that.
My memory is a little bad, but when I joined there certainly was a
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
expelled from the project.
If you were to follow debian-legal, you'd find that this sort of thing
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
expelled from the project.
If you were to follow debian-legal, you'd find that this sort of thing
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Because it contains several clauses that are never enforced. That
means it breaks the DMUP is clearly not grounds for disciplinary
action (DSA doesn't *need* grounds for disciplinary action, so they
don't appear to be concerned by this). There have
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Because it contains several clauses that are never enforced. That
means it breaks the DMUP is clearly not grounds for disciplinary
action (DSA doesn't *need* grounds for disciplinary action, so they
don't appear to be concerned by this). There have
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
The LDAP database of active UIDs can help:
However, LDAP contains non human UID entries as well, so one must
correlate this with the key rings. We may do this by querying LDAP by
fingerprint information. So, extracting all
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 11:25:15AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
I would like to know the opinions of the DPL candidates on
responsibility for Debian machines and services.
As it stands now, we have outages, and no one seems to really have a
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 11:25:15AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
I would like to know the opinions of the DPL candidates on
responsibility for Debian machines and services.
As it stands now, we have outages, and no one seems to really have a
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In the current method, an incoming vote is fed to a script
that, on the fly, checks the signature on the message, queries the
LDAP for canonical information, generates a response, extracts the
vote information, and writes it out to a
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In the current method, an incoming vote is fed to a script
that, on the fly, checks the signature on the message, queries the
LDAP for canonical information, generates a response, extracts the
vote information, and writes it out to a
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
* #debian-devel has always been a channel for Debian development. It
never was a channel restricted to just Debian developers
This simply is not true, as I've said over and over again elsewhere.
Ask the people who were there years ago,
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
* #debian-devel has always been a channel for Debian development. It
never was a channel restricted to just Debian developers
This simply is not true, as I've said over and over again elsewhere.
Ask the people who were there years ago,
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'm not asking whether debian-admin thinks Michael should be punished,
I'm asking debian-admin to rule on whether or not it views his recent
activities as bulk emailing.
(keep in mind this and the last message are not a formal statement from
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
I request a ruling from the Debian-Admin team on whether Michael
Bramer's actions constitute bulk emailing.
We don't generally do rulings.. But,
I personally feel that Grisu's actions aren't not extreme enough to
warrent a formal punishment. It
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
to do with as he will; in which case it should be the voter who gets to
choose the random number, and it would want to be longer than just a few
digits to avoid collisions.
Sounds like the PGP signature ID, date and key fingerprint tuple is what
you
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
to do with as he will; in which case it should be the voter who gets to
choose the random number, and it would want to be longer than just a few
digits to avoid collisions.
Sounds like the PGP signature ID, date and key fingerprint tuple is what
you
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
Here's how people voted:
I was under the impression that ballots were supposed to be kept secret
for DPL elections.
As was I..
If this was anything but debian this would void the results of the
election.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
Here's how people voted:
I was under the impression that ballots were supposed to be kept secret
for DPL elections.
As was I..
If this was anything but debian this would void the results of the
election.
Jason
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Darren O. Benham wrote:
Ko... as soon as I get Jason's response...
I don't actually know with exim. You should test it in your home directory
and see what works. a-w might do it without bouncing.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Darren O. Benham wrote:
Ko... as soon as I get Jason's response...
I don't actually know with exim. You should test it in your home directory
and see what works. a-w might do it without bouncing.
Jason
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
So please, if you are using mutt, configure it correctly.
Can you tell me how? I use the example code from
/usr/doc/mutt/examples/gpg.rc.
No idea, I don't use mutt.
Jason
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
== Message Error: Verification of signature failed
Python Stack Trace:
? /org/vote.debian.org/bin/gpgwrapper:149: raise Error, Res[0];
Someone needs to clean up his pythyon code :). It does look like
the system is using an outdated
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
== Message Error: Verification of signature failed
Python Stack Trace:
? /org/vote.debian.org/bin/gpgwrapper:149: raise Error, Res[0];
Someone needs to clean up his pythyon code :). It does look like
the system is using an outdated keyring
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
This is still not accepting my key. I'm using GPG with an RSA/IDEA key
(generated with PGP originally). I confirmed that the signature is OK.
The updated key was accepted into the keyring several weeks ago.
In plain terms.. Your mailer is screwed up
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
I guess it is acceptable to use GPG instead of PGP as written in the ballot?
Unless Raul has altered the vote system..
The vote system uses my mail gateway wrapper script which is used by the
db.debian.org mail gateways and others. It accepts any
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
It looks like ~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.gpg hasn't changed since
April 2000. Is the intent to prevent maintainers who are not around
for at least a year from voting or is this a bug?
It's worse than that.
The cannonical location of the
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
I guess it is acceptable to use GPG instead of PGP as written in the ballot?
Unless Raul has altered the vote system..
The vote system uses my mail gateway wrapper script which is used by the
db.debian.org mail gateways and others. It accepts any mail
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
It looks like ~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.gpg hasn't changed since
April 2000. Is the intent to prevent maintainers who are not around
for at least a year from voting or is this a bug?
It's worse than that.
The cannonical location of the
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
Meanwhile, on the debian-vote side of the fence: I'm not seeing any
particular push on the social contract/DFSG issues. Could it be that
people are waiting for the voting mechanism to be nailed down, first?
Uh, aren't we supposed to be having a
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
Meanwhile, on the debian-vote side of the fence: I'm not seeing any
particular push on the social contract/DFSG issues. Could it be that
people are waiting for the voting mechanism to be nailed down, first?
Uh, aren't we supposed to be having a
On 25 Sep 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and
familiarize themselves with the issue again.
The URLs cited all return Not Found. To give everybody the
chance to read the initial exchange and familiarize themselves with
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Paul J Thompson wrote:
archives. For instance, I mean, the Helix Gnome collection of debs is
far better then our group and I think it would be nice to show our
support to them. So, what about providing a place within the debian
distribution unofficial area to include
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
I should point out that leaving this issue unresolved makes it possible for
people to raise a legitimate challenge to our voting procedure, since the
present description avails itself of multiple interpretations of the same
set of ballots.
I
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
I should point out that leaving this issue unresolved makes it possible for
people to raise a legitimate challenge to our voting procedure, since the
present description avails itself of multiple interpretations of the same
set of ballots.
I
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
216 people, if I counted right (wc(1) :). So much for the `300 active
developers' vaporware, even if you include dissidents et al...
It think it just clearly shows typical lack of election interest. FYI,
Echelon has confirmed a total of 346 developers
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Looking at the error you're not using a keyring at all but the LDAP
database.
The checker uses the FTP keyring for the actual key data, if your key is
not in there then you will be rejected outright.
It then consults the LDAP directory to see who
On 28 Feb 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
But, I've been uploading packages signed with this key for weeks now,
at least, and they've all been dealt with successfully. No problems.
All of my packages and all of the Alpha autobuilder's are signed with
this key, and they've been installed.
Weeks
The Leadership Debate Opening Speeches are now available at:
http://www.debian.org/~treacy/debate
Along with their platforms and information about the debate.
Jason
The transcript of the IRC Debate has been HTMLized and posted at
http://www.debian.org/~treacy/debate
If the candidates would like to discuss the topics (posted to the above
site) that did not get asked then they can do it it on the debian-vote
list.
The raw transcript is a bit hard to read
Everyone now agrees, the Leadership Debate will be held at:
6am +1100 (sorry .au folks)
8pm +100
7pm 000
2pm -500
1pm -600
12pm -700
11am -800
On Tuesday, Feb. 15. Rob Levin from Linux Care will be moderating.
It will be held on irc.debian.org on channel #debian-debate.
Hi,
As you may know the Debian project democratically elects its Project
Leader periodically once each year. The time has come again for the
Project to elect a leader for the 2000/2001 term!
The four candidates this year are:
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Current leader)
Ben Collins
Hi,
It looks like we are going to go ahead with the Leadership IRC debate,
there has been a very positive response to the idea so far. The structure
will go like this:
* 24 hours before the debate each of the candiates will email me their
'opening speech'. I will take all the speeches and
Hi all,
Once again, I'd like to see a Leadership Debate this year on IRC between
the 4 candidates. Rob Levin from Linux Care has graciously indicated that
he would like to moderate and I will coordinate a time and the format. I'm
hoping to do this sometime after LWE, in 1 week I think.
I would
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Chris Lawrence wrote:
IIRC, the main problem with the Bruce interview was that Bruce got
attacked by script kiddies (who saturated his connection with pings).
If we anticipate such a problem, we may want to set up some proxies
beforehand.
I hope to advoid this by not
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
What ever happened with the question of making a way that
we could distribute and reference just the Official Debian system
without referring to the non-free packages? Is anyone working on this?
Have people decided to do this?
I've heard rumors
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
- you already have the package installed (You made your choice when you
first installed it)
- you asked for the package from non-free to be installed (You've just
read the infos about the package and agreed on the consecuences)
- you asked for a
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
Moving the non-free (and contrib) part out of the main archive is a
logical conclusion to our social contract. I don't understand why
developers who agree to our social contract now disagree with this
conclusion.
Well, nobody has been able to show
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
The Proposal is Counter to the Social Contract
~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~
If you read the social contract you'll see that the very first point is
`Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
The problem is that we, Debian, *have* to ask that question, somehow,
somewhere.
No, that is not exactly true. What is true is that many of the people
in Debian want to offer a system which does provide non-free packages,
and will
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
If there really were a policy that this shouldn't be on the web site,
[..]
would be using the net to install Debian have net access). So if we do
have such a policy (I'm not aware of one), I think it's wrong.
Argubly this is part of what we will be
On 3 Jul 1999, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
The Social Contract says that Debian is 100% Free Software. As it
stands presently, there is not clear separation in the eyes of users
between the free and non-free parts of Debian. The maintenance of
non-free archives and mirrors was a favor to users,
As I mentioned earlier I have written what I'm calling a negative summary
of the split proposal. It focuses on the arguments against the archive
split and does not attempt to provide any sort of balance with the
arguments for the archive split which I belive are aplt represented in the
initial
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
Every tangible point in this summary appears to rest on the
assumption that we need to have multiple physical servers to support
the non-free/main split. This doesn't make sense to me: all we really
That's not very true, only the last paragraph
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
One posibility is to increase the number of sponsors needed to a level where
the proposer would have to activly try to get sponsors. It's pretty easy
to get 5 sponsors but (maybe) not 10... so he'd get 5-7 automatic sponsors
and then would have
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
I don't think it should be any blind ramblings but a situation where the
Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work,
either. Even he has opinions that would taint the choice he didn't like.
Well, I mean you should get to
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 09:10:00AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
[...]
10% of the packages, ruffly 300. It also accounts for 10.6% of the
transfers from ftp.debian.org. It is about 5% of the total ftp.debian.org
by size (~ 3G/day)
ok i have
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
Hi all, meybe we can consider the numbers of the package in the
contrib and non-free sections. How many contribe package
and non-free package are now on master (I can not verify).
In this way we have an idea of how big is the % of non-free
and
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
It just makes things messy on the mirrors. I think Jason has tried
to point this out in the past. I do browse the Debian web site
(about once a fortnight) at www.debian.org, but I certainly don't FTP
to ftp.debian.org (too slow).
My point
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Will Lowe wrote:
current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for
non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. Take non-free completely
The non-free packages *are* packaged to Debian's high standard and *are*
managable through the BTS.
My
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
I already mentioned a while ago that I think that the distinction
between main and contrib non-free is becoming less clear, both
to users and developers.
Personally I think that this is a very poor proposal. Instead of
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
--
Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software
that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the
DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian
web
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract. Wichert's is a
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract.
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 07:47:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
For instance, your proposal is too specific because it does not provide
any guidance for what to do with non-us, the web pages, bug system, user
web pages or APT.
Good point
On 21 Jun 1999, Kevin Dalley wrote:
If we really want to solve the problem, we should make it obvious that
the files being downloaded are not from a designated free tree.
Perhaps gnome-apt could display an evil-looking icon for non-free
software.
Trouble is that the social contract says
71 matches
Mail list logo
