On 17183 March 1977, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
I am also the original author of packages, and since I am told that
salsa is
only for debian and upstream projects are not supposed to be there,
for me it
is easier to keep packaging and development on a single repository.
Which of
course can't
On 16804 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
And yes, if someone manages to go that way with another conspiracy
theory that directly affects people like this one did, I do believe
the
outcome will be the same. The ones you list above are on the comedy
side
of things. :)
You, on the other
On 16803 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Yet, would someone posting about the earth being flat, the moon
landings
being faked, or aliens being kept in various secret government
facilities around the world have been so swiftly removed from the
project?
Hardly swiftly. And not to a
On 16594 March 1977, Timo Lindfors wrote:
3) Ensure that the filename of the installation media includes
"non-free-firmware" or something similar so that it is clear to
everyone what they are getting into. Debian has had such a long
history of not including non-free bits in the
On 16594 March 1977, Steve McIntyre wrote:
=
We will include non-free firmware packages from the
"non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
media (installer images and live images). The included firmware
binaries will *normally* be enabled
On 16454 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
While that war is idiotic and entirely stupid - what is the gain for
Debian issuing such a statement? What is the goal here?
Oh, and why now, not for all of those other wars and the misery coming
out of them, all over the world, in the last years
On 16454 March 1977, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
The Debian project strongly condemns the invasion of Ukraine by
Russia. The Debian projects affirms that Ukrain is a souvereign
nation which includes the Donbas regions of Luhansk, as well as
Crimea, which has already been illegaly annexed by
On 16314 March 1977, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Wrong wrong wrong ... we're "project members" ... don't you remember?
:)
Just like AH is now CT. (Gosh, DMT TLA...)
This shows that it will take years, if not decades, for the rename to
ever be effective (if the person(s) in charge decide(s)
On 16308 March 1977, Jonathan Carter wrote:
I would like to rename the FTP Masters team—ideally via a General
Resolution.
Ideally? Its the worst possible way to go about.
I'm at a loss to actually find polite words to describe how off it
is,
That might be slightly harsh, Felix only became a
On 16306 March 1977, Felix Lechner wrote:
I would like to rename the FTP Masters team—ideally via a General
Resolution.
Ideally? Its the worst possible way to go about.
I'm at a loss to actually find polite words to describe how off it is,
to do this via a GR. Without even ever asking the
to your close circle of friends, and the Community Team.
--
For the DAMs,
Joerg Jaspert
Enrico Zini
Jonathan Wiltshire
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 16082 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
I accept an amendment to include the word "board" (which was missed on
accident by me) and would ask the seconders to confirm their
acceptance of
this amendment so we can avoid any unnecessary extra variations on the
GR
ballot.
Confirmed.
--
bye,
On 16082 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:
I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged
discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting
quickly in this instance.
So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion
period.
And for whatever it
On 16082 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
body
who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
is a statement which I believe Debian as a
On 16077 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
There are quite a few software projects that have hired staff to help
smooth the internal working of organizations, I know at least of
Django
with its fellowship program:
https://www.djangoproject.com/fundraising/#fellowship-program
The current
On 15614 March 1977, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
Anyway, thank you for clarifying that using people's preferred
pronouns is a requisite for being welcome in Debian. As I read them,
neither the CoC nor the Diversity Statement are explicit on that.
Maybe it would be useful to make it explicit?
They
On 15367 March 1977, Mathias Behrle wrote:
*Usually* they do not do that during running elections, just short before
they start, so you may be out of luck.
If so then I think there is a clear gap in the procedures.
That may be, though they are like this for a long time now.
- What about
On 15367 March 1977, Mathias Behrle wrote:
- originally set to 2019-04-07
- updated on 2019-04-08 to 2021-04-06 and pushed to various keyservers
including keyring.debian.org.
That was a bit late, but the right place to send to.
Do I have to wait for a keyring sync of the DD Keyring? When
Hi
three weeks of campaining, nearly over. Soon we have two weeks of
voting.
It was a nice time with a managable amount of mails. And one that
certainly gave me new ideas and also incentive to get some of my
thoughts around Debian clearer and more focused. Should I win, the extra
time I gain
On 15361 March 1977, Sean Whitton wrote:
Yes. The amount of effort that we would need to expend on implementing
zack's Statement seems out of proportion to the benefit, given that it
mandates no particular git workflow.
That's because you are all in way too deep in technical stuff. This is
On 15361 March 1977, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But upstream development is increasingly diverging from our approach.
I think that depends a bit in which area you look.
Many new software ecosystems are based on external code repositories
rather than relying on the distribution, and in several
On 15361 March 1977, Chris Lamb wrote:
So, in general, I fear that the candidates may be over-estimating how
much of the DPL's tasks can be delegated to teams or other individuals.
[...]
So, reading this back I am not entirely sure what I'm asking here but
I would be interested if our
On 15360 March 1977, David Kalnischkies wrote:
Old codebases usually do not attract many new people.
Well, yes, but what is that supposed to mean?
Not much more than something you probably already knew.
APT had at least one (serious) sort of rewrite (cupt) which isn't
exactly overrun
On 15359 March 1977, David Kalnischkies wrote:
Mindless sweet talk might be boring through, so let me get some (wordy)
questions you can dwell on as much as you like (to improve stats[2]):
You know, if thats just some 1st april joke, its a bad one.
But there is some stuff in that can actually
On 15360 March 1977, Jonas Meurer wrote:
Gitlab subgroups would solve this problem: Move every Debian package
into the 'debian' group, but allow subgroups in there:
Not in the current way they work, no. Though there is a gitlab upstream
bug about it.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15359 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
However, I wonder why you picked this ("maintained on salsa + upload
rights for all DD") as the first step towards increasing uniformity
(thus I assume that you see this as the most important thing to fix).
In practice, we already have a version
On 15359 March 1977, Jonas Meurer wrote:
Do you have concrete plans to improve the mutual/two-way communication
between the DPL and the rest of the project? Monthly bits from the DPL
are already helpful, but they're mostly a one-way communication so far.
I don't mean private communication
On 15359 March 1977, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Should we try to catch up with these other systems in terms of ports?
Specifically today, should we try to make Debian usable on any of the
operating system kernels that I quoted above?
While it is nice to have many ports, "We have the most" is not
On 15359 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
I agree with what you are saying here. However, I am concerned that the
"push == automatic package upload" idea may be a step too far in some
cases.
I assume this would only happen if you push a signed tag. I wouldn't want
every random commit I push
On 15358 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'm not fundamentally against that being a "must", but we should just be
aware that there might be some use cases that we'll end up sacrificing
in order to make such a unification of source control hosting possible.
I agree with your analysis
On 15358 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Statement: every Debian package must be maintained in Git on salsa and
> every Debian Developer with upload rights to the archive should have
> commit/push right to every packaging repository on salsa.
Well, you took it from one of my mails, so
On 15358 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
And less "I'm the package maintainer, this is my castle, go away" and
more "This is how the majority does it, you follow, the benefit of it
being one way, not a dozen different, outweight some personal
preferences".
Let's cut to the chase of this.
On 15356 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
Did anything happen to that? (Or perhaps, that's better phrased as:
did anything cause it to stall other than ENOTIME?) I'm guessing not?
[1]
ENOTIME. And ENOONEELSEINTERESTEDINCODING.
Unless the things that caused it to stall were legal concerns or
On 15356 March 1977, Laura Arjona Reina wrote:
There are some teams in Debian that focus in areas similar to the DPL tasks
and
allow people to make a difference in the project working on them, without
the
need - and the burden? or the satisfaction? - of being a DPL. For example:
*
On 15357 March 1977, Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana wrote:
We have debated on the "debconf-discuss" mailing list about DebConf21
and it was said about the huge number of DD in Europe.
So, what the DPL can do to increase the number of DDs in other regions
outside Europe and USA?
Well. Yes, its
On 15354 March 1977, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Really? Taking off weekends unless there's something urgent is
"problematic"? For a volunteer, unpaid position?
No. Taking time off is fine. I do that too, sometimes, or I wouldn't be
a DD anymore after all this time.
Announcing a set time where
On 15353 March 1977, martin f. krafft wrote:
I am holding positions of power in Debian
What does this mean in the context of you running for DPL? Will you
hold on to these roles, or give them up?
Thats part of my platform:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
7
Hi
* Conflict of interest: I'm happy to see that your and Joerg's
employers would support your DPL activities. However, I've no idea who
they are or what they want from Debian. Maybe they use Debian and
want to give back with no strings attached, but I could definitely see
a situation where a
On 15352 March 1977, ans...@debian.org wrote:
Do you think Debian should be more active to establish (official)
presence on newer platforms?
For those that are free, sure.
In particular I also wonder if Debian should look at Matrix[1]: it is a
free and decentralized platform, and the UI (of
On 15349 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm probably missing something, but it doesn't sound like a lot of work
to me? It's "just" a service that:
Same here: You think about just something that keeps the traditional
layout around. If one does that, yes, that service isn't too hard.
I was
On 15348 March 1977, Jonathan Carter wrote:
1. Do you think that free software is inherently political? Do you think
there's place for politics in free software?
2. The same as #1, but for Debian instead of free software.
Well, I think that in the case of #1, the Free Software Foundation (and
On 15348 March 1977, Jonathan Carter wrote:
My question is to the other 4 DPL candidates, and I'm happy to answer it
too if anyone is interested in my view.
Yes, please go.
1. Do you think that free software is inherently political? Do you think
there's place for politics in free software?
On 15348 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Couldn't we imagine a schema where a push of an annotated signed tag to
the salsa repository triggers a gitlab-ci job that notifies a service on
ftp-master that there's a git repo with a suitable signed tag waiting?
that service could then fetch the
On 15348 March 1977, Sean Whitton wrote:
I won't write a long reply because it's not that important to the DPL
election, but I did want to note that `dgit push-source` has answers for
everything you've listed. I'd encourage you to take a(nother) look!
Do those answers only apply if you still
On 15347 March 1977, Jose Miguel Parrella wrote:
One of the questions in my platform hinted at one point: The "package"
managers various new languages came up with.
Do you (and other candidates) see this as a threat or as an
opportunity?
Both.
It is a threat if we do nothing and ignore it
On 15347 March 1977, Sean Whitton wrote:
I would actually like if we end up with a "git push turns into an
upload". Which would need some central $thing for it to make it so. Not
sure thats salsa. Or something seperately (but maybe together with it).
We already have something that is quite
On 15347 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
As a random factoid related to this: in the Debian contributors survey
that we ran a while ago, ~18% of the respondents who declared to be
Debian contributors also declared to be paid (at least in part) for
their contributions [1].
I think there
On 15347 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
You are probably familiar with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis
Nope.
Note that if you prefer not to frame this in the context of SWOT
analysis, you can also answer the following four questions, which should
result in basically the same
On 15347 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:
I would like to reframe this question:
When should we expect a Debian maintainer to put in effort for use
cases, software designs, hardware platforms, etc., that they don't
personally care about ? I have an answer to this:
So long as most of the work is
On 15347 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
1) So, if you were asked to write a Social Contract paragraph about our
universality, defining/outlining both what we aim for, and also maybe
some limits to that quest for universality, what would it be?
I wouldn't be the one to write such a
On 15347 March 1977, Jose Miguel Parrella wrote:
To add to this question:
Do candidates think Debian "competes" for "share"/"mindshare" of users
and contributors in the "Linux distro" category?
Whenever I get asked (especially at events) "I'm a new linux user, do
you recommend Debian" or
On 15347 March 1977, Andreas Tille wrote:
Recently I've read the article "Winding down my Debian involvement" from
Michael Stapelberg[1]. I consider that article an interesting reading and
I would love to hear the opinion of the candidates about it.
I read it and it influenced parts of my
On 15347 March 1977, Michael Meskes wrote:
But yes, depending on/with some events/companies, speaking as a DPL
will be perceived much more strongly. Any "normal" DD won't be heard.
If that is the case, and if its sufficient, a delegation can be good.
Are you saying you would delegate the
On 15347 March 1977, Jose Miguel Parrella wrote:
* As a DPL, what steps would you take (if any) towards reducing the
workload and breadth of activities the DPL is expected to engage in?
Depending on the actual activity and there being any volunteers, it may
get delegated.
* Would you pursue
On 15337 March 1977, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Since there were no candidates during the nomination period, the
nomination period has been extended by 1 week.
Soo, lets ensure we do not have another week:
I hereby nominate myself for the DPL election 2019.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15337 March 1977, Zlatan Todorić wrote:
So, funny, maybe we will live to our long history of community
fostering (which is the thing I most enjoy from Debian, besides that
we produce kickass OS) and be leaderless as we in all nature of
project actually are.
While the idea of going
On 15337 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:
In fairness, I'd recommend that the nominations period be extended for
some explicit time. I think that we want to have a known window for new
nominations rather than say starting the campaigning as soon as someone
nominates themselves.
§5.2.4 to the
On 14994 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Since Debian distributing whatever random people upload to salsa
> is fine for you, I fail to see the point why you would consider
> distributing what is in the DD-only NEW a huge problem.
It is not fine. But I've chosen to not go down the road that
On 14993 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> As an example for a rule that does not make sense, recently a member of
> the ftp team stated on debian-devel that the contents of NEW cannot be
> made available to people outside the ftp team since it might not be
> distributable, and that this is not
On 14634 March 1977, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Debian has a "we don't hide things" wording in his constitution.
> However we don't have a public irc log system, and most
> of the conversations between us are happening there.
> How do you relate to that issue? Do you see it as a problem,
>
On 14549 March 1977, Sean Whitton wrote:
> No-one who understands how GNU/Linux distributions work thinks that
> there is anything problematic about short-term embargos of information
> about serious security bugs. However, the SC is not just for those
> people: it's also something for newcomers
On 14361 March 1977, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
>
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the
On 14106 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:
>- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
>
>
>Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
>
>Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
>Committee could overrule a Developer with a supermajority of 3:1.
>
>
On 14106 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:
>- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
>
>
>Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
>
>Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
>Committee could overrule a Developer with a supermajority of 3:1.
>
>
On 13461 March 1977, Guillem Jover wrote:
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and inappropriate
Quite the contrary, it was the right thing to do. This issue will not
get any easier or more clearcut the longer we let it wait and see if
maybe the
On 12243 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
Even better, now with attachments!
There is yet another pronoun I have missed. Please find a patch
attached.
Applied (wording / punctuation fix), thanks!
New current text is
I think unlimited upload access should be simply another one of those sets
of permissions that some people have and others don't. Those who need
that access to do their work can receive it after appropriate vetting of
their ability to use that access appropriately, just as someone would
On 12238 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
---
The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system.
To that end the project benefits from various types of contributions,
including but not limited to:
I also think that we need to review the NEW uploads. But this is not what I
discuss here. I propose to let all DDs look what is in the NEW queue. (This
would of course help to review the NEW uploads).
If there is ever any legal fun around this, it is a *HUGE* difference
if you can say Only
(And to answer to the comment ‘you do not need to be DPL for doing this’, that
is true, but if I make a bad score at this election, I will conclude that
there
are not many persons interested in what I propose anyway, and will save
everybody's
time by not discussing them further in the
Our users includes not only an individual with a single computer who
never sees the source, but also derivative distributions, private
organizations, system administrators, etc, all of whom may need to
modify the source for their own purposes.
Our users, if they want to modify, study,
The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
operating
system. It is controversial.
It is a lot but not controversial, actually its pretty clear.
For that statement alone *I* hope NOTA will have a big win over you,
sorry. It shows you are way off with actual project.
Heyho,
a little question to all those up for the next DPL:
Do you plan on taking on a 2IC or a team?
If so: Who? And why this/those?
Thanks.
--
bye, Joerg
Well, I’m tired of being a wannabe league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
pgpc4eVogfX8Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 11696 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
I come to you again, with the same request as i did last year, that you
lift the censorship you are imposing on me for the duration of the DPL
campaign on debian-vote.
As you obviously do not know the word, lets copy what a dictionary or
also Wikipedia
On 11697 March 1977, Neil McGovern wrote:
AMENDMENT START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
smaller, I
Hi,
and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of
floor(Q) developers to second a GR.
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size
There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it
is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do
not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300
Of course, had the FTP master rejected packages under the AGPL from the
archive, I would not have bothered with a GR. However I would like this
GR to be considered independently of the FTP master resolution. They are
not the target, the AGPL is.
It is not seperate. You do want to override a
If someone can't set up a poll, I'll send another message asking for
DDs to privately mail me (or maybe me-too to -vote) if they find the
debates useful.
http://doodle.com/nmpesn9t5fwv6ewe
Having this run for 7 days now, we had 72 participants.
The question asked was
Are the Debian DPL IRC
Perhaps someone could set up a poll for DDs to indicate whether they
find the debates useful or not? [I think Jeroen was doing this last?]
If someone can't set up a poll, I'll send another message asking for
DDs to privately mail me (or maybe me-too to -vote) if they find the
debates useful.
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind?
How
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say,
this would be a good time.
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then?
(Not
I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change
the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
release...
If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, that would
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
discussions told
On 11603 March 1977, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
:( Sorry to hear that. Whoever is your follower *will* have a hard
time.
As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
petition for the DAM to have me
Hi,
just out of curiosity (somehow I'm affected :) ):
When do you plan to provide us with the results of the vote that was
supposed to end 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, 14th Dec, 2008?
In the past (IIRC) it was always nicely a few minutes after the vote
ended, at least a preliminary result /
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 00:21, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its
sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it
*WONT* do anything except creating needless work?
You could give them an incentive to do so...
WTF do you
As long as Joerg doesn't agree with that, I don't see why we should drop
the immediate vote or the GR itself.
Then please explain what the immediate vote will gain, besides
*NEEDLESS* work for the secretary (running it), needless work for
everyone (to vote)?
There is 0 need for the immediate
On 11551 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
I would be more than happy if a discussion between the different poles of
opinions would start, with focus on convergence.
This GR effectively blocks any [motivation to have a] discussion.
--
bye, Joerg
A.D. 1492:
Christopher Columbus arrives in
On 11551 March 1977, martin f. krafft wrote:
The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
mailing list (Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) are
suspended [§4.1(3)]. This suspension is effective immediately [§4.2(2.2)].
I do not understand why we need to do this at
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
[ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
[ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
[ ] Choice 3: Further discussion
- -
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
[ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
[ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
[ ] Choice 3: Further discussion
On 11327 March 1977, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
We need to break that logic. I would like to talk with James and try to
convince him to create accounts as they come. It's well known that small
task (when they take less than 5 minutes) are usually best done on the
fly instead of accumulating them.
On 11099 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote:
Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to
vote any more :-)
Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
Sure, if everyone with a key in the current keyring, ie. including those
MIA, sends a seconded (and
On 11099 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Seconded.
Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to
vote any more :-)
That said, once we reached the 5 DD who seconded (+2/3 more just to be
sure in case of bad signatures), it doesn't bring much to send further
On 11097 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the
On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
what you do in private.
I dont have a problem with it being public.
I have one with someone just making
Hi
The following is basically what I wrote in my blog a few minutes ago,
but IMO should also be on -vote, as thats the place where vote stuff is
handled, and noone can expect people to read blogs or planet...
The DM GR
=
So, let's join the postings about the currently running Debian
On 11057 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
[ In case some of the stuff below is already answered in different mails
- pointing me at them is enough. I just had no time to read all of them,
way too large thread. :) Thanks. ]
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
