e
> fashion.If there's a desire for that, just get in touch with me.
Thanks for your offer. Mako Hill and Don Armstrong have been talking to
the FSF in that matter for some time now, I suggest you contact them
first to discuss whether this is likely to be of good use.
cheers,
Michael
fixed (yet?) and ignoring them for one more
release.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:30:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> This requirement is extremly costly for anyone attempting to
> distribute Sarge either as a mirror or as an ISO image.
Can you point to testimony of people actually hindered by this?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Dev
> I'm thinking of something like
> http://people.debian.org/~mjr/gr-fdl.txt (24k, only based on originals)
Uhm, this is a joke, right?
Michael
--
ban me
ban me
ban me
20:58 -!- apprentice has quit [Excess Flood]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:22:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (1) Did you join the (proposed) DPL team as an endorsement of the
> candidate or the team concept, or because it seemed the best opportunity
> for you to assist Debian in the event that candidate was elected?
I think Jeroen has
I believe this should be voted on and second the below proposal.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that a
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> he doesn't use the leader@ address even on issues related to his DPL role, as
> i well know, so this is no guarantee.
AFAICT, he always signs those mails with DPL in the signature. Plus, at
least in this thread, he did use [EMAIL PROT
Hrm, maybe this thread should move elsewhere.
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:35:00AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Eduard Bloch]
> > > . Ship a separate non-free CD.
> >
> > >* Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
> >
> > How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think t
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
> of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
> answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
> and as a result may badly
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:33:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> * security (I _really_ think it's nonsense, as it's not less secure
> than the usual DD's uploads, which I tried to prove) ;
Maybe "security" in this context means "build can be reproduced by our
official buildd network and w
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:52:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 05 mars 2007 à 14:52 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa a écrit :
> > Criticise, yes. Mock, no.
>
> If I understand your opinion, Greg Folkert's way of criticising people
> is acceptable, while Sam's is not. Is that correct?
Greg isn'
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:10:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Because I would seek one that mandates listmasters banning Sven Luther
> >from all lists, and DAMs expelling for ban-evasion. I realise that
> there is a way for it to continue after that, but hopefully it wouldn't.
Did you (or somebody el
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:18:33PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:10:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Because I would seek one that mandates listmasters banning Sven Luther
> > >
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:48:28 +1100, Anthony Towns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint any
> > Developer to the Technical Committee replacing the longest
> >
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:05:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The difference being that the former is being resolved with a
> license change, and the latter is being resolved with code changes, and
> will require adjustments to the infrastructure. That makes the former
> a faster
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:44:45AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> A desktop with a "host cpu" and components with "firmware" is directly
> analogous to a small cluster of computers. There is no *real*
> difference between a host programming its RAID controller and a
> cluster manager handing a blad
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:12:18PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>
> > Note that firmware is no program AFAICS...
>
> I do not think I agree. I think it is indeed a software program,
> and I am not alone:
> ,[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C
Hi Ean,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 05:35:20PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
[...]
Why the heck did you post this to -vote?
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 04:35:04AM -0500, Michael Pobega wrote:
> Anyway, we all know Ubuntu is just a crappy overlay on top of Sid,
> bundled with proprietary blobs.
Please keep your opinion on off-topic matters to yourself or voice them
elsewhere. This list is bad enough to read as is right now
Hello,
I'd like to know the candidate's opinion on the following questions.
They can either be processed here or during the irc-debate (but I don't
know if I can make it for the debate physically).
For the following points, I'd like to know whether the candidates think
this particular thing/issue
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> This election has demonstrated quite nicely that those Debian developers
> who voted prefer Martin to any other single candidate. In other words, if
> you held a vote which would ask whether to annul the vote and replace
> Marti
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:39:01PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
> The ballot paper
>
> 4
>
> is a special paper that gives the voter a power equal to 50,000 times
> the power of all other ballot papers. Only Mr Urlichs knows that.
Wrong, it's '6'.
Michael
--
67% of girls are stupid
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 12:32:33PM -0700, Chris de Vidal wrote:
> --- Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you mailed this to debian-vote
>
> Sorry, I scanned the large list of mailing lists and this seemed
> appropriate.
What? debian-vote is for things related to
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment does NOT
> mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
> anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to provide a
> "non-free s
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
> brochures freely-licensed?
AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I might be
mistaken, though. (there has been an ironic comment on this matter b
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> something like:
[...]
I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB
binaries". If I would not despise(sp?) non-free software, that would b
Bah, was trying to hold off on this as long as possible.
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 05:26:17PM +0100, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> I just read (a large part of) the "Removal of non-free" thread, and I, as a
> basic, garden-variety, Debian user, am *frightened*.
>
> A small bit of background : I ha
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:33:23AM +0100, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> >You seem to technically qualify for the 'point your
> >/etc/apt/sources.list somewhere else' bit. Why do you worry about this
> >at all?
>
> Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
> infrastructures beh
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > >> http://www.apt-get.org/
> > >
> > > What about BTS?
> >
> > Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla
> > now.
>
> Gnome is in main.
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them,
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which
> there is not yet a free replacement, so that our usaers can use
> Debian, not as a pedantically pure toy, but as a useful tool in a
> world that is not yet all
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:46:08AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> > shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
>
&g
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > anything I'd rather do
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
>
> Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
You won't find an example which fits perfe
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands dirt
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > There are tons of those already, many in wide use. download.kde.org,
> > backports.org, and the bunk backport collection all come to mind. I don't
> > see this as big stumbling block.
>
> Both of which represent far larger efforts
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:33:51AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And what was my last example, a yes, lha. I hear there are some free
> versions of this one around. I would be happy to package it if this was
> the case, please point me to alternatives, and we can remove lha from
> non-free, no proble
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:07:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > - get a life and stop worrying about what other people run on their
> > > own computers.
> >
> > The issue here is not what other people run on their own
> > computers. The issue is what Debian will and will not distribute.
>
>
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:03:20AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> By the way, doc-rfc is an example of a package in non-free which is
> useful to some people. If a person is doing network development, they're
> likely to need this documentation and [because someone doing network
> development often n
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:37:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And what debian developers are allowed to work on inside of debian's
> > > infrastructure.
> >
> > Care to elaborate? I don't understand that point.
>
> I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver,
[...]
Ah, ok. Thought yo
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:53:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Why this is all nice and true, I fail to see the point why the
> > documentation absolutely needs to be on an APT source with
> > debian.org in
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:01:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The "per package" costs are, indeed, trivial.
Great, so we only need to find somebody who thinks the rest is trivial,
and we're set?
Michael
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> And what happens to be one of the advantages of Debian? Its multi-arch
> support... Even for non-free.
Non-free does not get autobuilt.
Michael
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:40:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
I drop out of this. I'd rather fix a couple of bugs than play games
about words.
Michael
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:07:22AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Why this is all nice and true, I fail to see the point why the
> > documentation absolutely needs to be on an APT source with debian.org in
> >
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, no. If the issue was resolving confusion, we could just say "main
> is 100% DFSG-free software; non-free isn't; both are part of the project;
> we distribute both" and rewrite any confusing or misleading claims we
> make elsewhe
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:50:46AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > > (One cannot start projects for non-free stuff on Sourceforge, of course,
> > > but somebody could setup a similar service for www.nonfree.org. Asking
> > > the Alioth admins how difficult that would be might
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:21:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > (It is not part of debian, we were told in the past. Opponents of the
> > suggested GR seem to forget that and talk of things like removing from
> > debian, or phasing out from debian.) What's your suggested plan for
>
> I don't r
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:42:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I think all those sort of benefits are outweighed by the
> people who need to run proprietary software, and finding Debian lets
> them do that very easily, are then able to see first hand the benefits
> of a pure free soft
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:50:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Perhaps. I think you're underestimating the problems though -- most
> external apt sources don't bother with most of our infrastructure; they
> don't bother validating uploads (since only one person can upload), they
> don't have good
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:14:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:18:30AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Well, no. If the issue was resolving confusion, we could just say "main
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I believe most (if not all) of the other issues could be solved by
> > running an Alioth-like service.
>
> I don't think Debian running an
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> our voting system can deal with them.
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:46:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:10:21AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I see only one vital point for having those packages on the "real Debian
> > infrastructure", instead of a mere copy of it: You could continue
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an
> atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :)
He didn't speak as Secretary, just for himself, AFAICT.
Michael
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
> RAR files used anywhere.
I believe they still in wide use as transport for games with, uhm,
"removed copy protection". At least one of my former flatmates had load
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with
> upstream and the wo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
> using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
> What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
> offline ?
We
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
> > introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
>
> Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
> know this is n
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
> > which are really about bugs in upstream software.
> >
> > I don't see what's so difficult here.
>
> You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as wha
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this
> > > utility too. They just need to add a "send-to" header to the
> > > control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control.
> >
> > A, nice, this would be fine for th
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
> arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
>
> So this is not really a concern.
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole pro
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
> > irrelevant.
>
> Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
> fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package,
>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
> > modified so as to ask the user "You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
> > whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it.
>
> Sure. If you a
sn't that one of the arguments for
> > > removing non-free ?
> >
> > Huh? I totally do not follow what you're saying here.
>
> See Michael Blank argumentation about non-x86 arch in non-free.
a) I'm called Michael Banck
b) I do not understand what you are trying to say, either
Michael
[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> so, what exactly is in non-free?
Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
> since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it myself. a
> classification of e
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
> a meaningful position.
It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded
by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote c
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:12:26PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It would be interesting to split into classes "no commercial", "no
> modification", "patent", "compatibility", "notification" and "other"
> at first glance.
Yes, if somebody could do this, this would be very valuable.
Another thing I thi
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:27:09AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:39:38PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > there for non-free packages. I.e., how many maintainers would be affected
> > by the migration to another service, WRT package maintanence.
>
>
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > "non-free removal GR draft"?
>
> Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dictionary. Sure, i
> don't have the chance to be a native english speaker,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [This is not an amendment; this my proposal of December 29th repeated,
> with some extra text surrounding it]
Thanks Andrew for doing this.
> It has been drawn to my attention that people are failing to read
> and/or understand my
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free,
> per se -- how would interpret 20% saying "no", and 80% saying "yes"?
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was proposing to poll the users
whether they think '
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
> loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
> doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
> writing is not of t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> non-free section. Clause 5 of the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:15:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
That would be misleading I think.
Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
Michael
:49:36PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:15:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
> >
> > That would be misleading I think.
> >
> > Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
>
>
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:42:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Also, this means that we will provide free alternatives, which is a bit
> > more but also a bit less than what i propose. In my proposal the free
> > alternatives could we
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> +Still, we will actively encourage users of non-free software to migrate to
> +free alternatives when they are available, and either encourage the upstream
> +authors to modify their licence to a DFSG-free one and/or encourage the
> +de
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:12:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> AJ was saying that editorial changes belong on the same ballot as the
> more substantial changes, and that putting them on separate ballots was
> a bad idea.
Well, I let you vote-gurus hash that out.
I actually (mis)read you that you
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:07AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Craig Sanders dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100]:
> > > Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against
> > > non-free
> > > packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into the
> > > copyrigh
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
> intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
>
> There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> propose a version whi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
> >Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dea
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>>Did someone say 124 developers had packages in non-free? That's not
> >>>an insignificant portion of our developers, you know.
> >>"insignificant" is a noise word unless you define what you see as
> >>significant.
> >Well I don't conside
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The statistics summary by John Goerzen on vote (which you replied to)
> suggested that at least 18% of popcon users are using a non-Debian
> source, as we don't have j2re1.4. Is over a sixth a large fraction?
> Depends on what you mean by
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> The main problem being the non-existance of ftp.non-free.org, and the
> doubt that such a thing will ever happen in a satisfactory way.
Yeah, we could bitch about this all the time, so we don't have to
discuss any other issues.
Do you
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > *I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
> > supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a trans
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And this doesn't apply to me only, i am perfectly happy with the way
> things are, it is the other who are trying to take the non-free archive
> and its infrastructure from me.
Then shut up, fix bugs and vote "No" when the time is righ
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
> > proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
> > years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
>
> I'm guessing you're thinking: fork
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one
> > machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how
> > easy it would be to get mirrors for that)
>
> The issue is support. Uptime, package int
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:20:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Uptime and infrastructure (including archive, BTS and perhaps PTS[1])
>
> I will believe in it once i see it. I have serious doubts, but please,
> g
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:45:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
>
> I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
So why do
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:19:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to
> > > work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style,
> > > third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do
> > > a w
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
>
> That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
>
> 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read:
>
> Using Debian machines for
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:26:50PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I don't like "Shall Continue", as it feels as though you have to know
> that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make
> sense. Would
>
> New: "1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free"
>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:17:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:49:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > It would be equivalently a trivial statement. As aj pointed out - even
> > Microsoft distributes Software That's 100% Free (some parts of the GN
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:41:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> We're promising that our system will stay free --
I can't find that assumption in your proposal. You say that 'the Free
Software in Debian will remain Free' and 'We will distribute Free
Software'(paraphrased). That doesn't mean that t
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> much bigger pressure to either free the code or replace it by free
> alternatives, and you will hurt the upstream much more than by removing
> non-free, after all, y
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:22:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:17:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> &
1 - 100 of 386 matches
Mail list logo
