On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:36:12PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 19:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote:
Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size,
quantity is always quality ;-)
[...]
Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a
On Nov/13, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a
way. This occurs much less often than its opposite.
I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but
regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact,
Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a
way. This occurs much less often than its opposite.
I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but
regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact, the
ability to counter my
I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but
regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact, the
ability to counter my sexist jokes with other jokes would be something
that I'd really appreciate in a woman :-)
The difference is probably
Ben Burton schrieb:
The difference is probably that men have somewhat less of a history of
being evaluated this way when people aren't joking.
Not sure.
Perhaps, men just recently found out that they are evaluated. *g*
Ciao,
Eike (m)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement
some functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you
may think, policy is not dpkg documentation).
Policy is also not something that should document something that
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:06:39 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement some
functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you may
think, policy is not dpkg
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being
a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling
out of this mailing-list, I do not give a toss about it and I think
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version
has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package.
Patented software isn't really non-free.
That's why I wrote patent emcumbered package.
On Nov/12, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't see how making more packages available to our users is
lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom.
Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and
quantity, do you? ;)
Regarding options available to choose and
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote:
Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size,
quantity is always quality ;-)
And people wonder why linux doesn't encourage many women ;-)
Corrin
--
Roberto Suarez Soto Alfa21
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway, on the given topic, are reverse-suggests possible?
Quoth debian-policy, section 7.2:
|Enhances
| This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite
|
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:31:21AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being
a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling
out
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 19:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote:
On Nov/12, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't see how making more packages available to our users is
lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom.
Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and
quantity, do
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:36, Zenaan Harkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and
quantity, do you? ;)
Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size,
quantity is always quality ;-)
I simply disagree here... purely
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being
a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling
out of this mailing-list,
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
Except for the fact that no tool supports Enhances... (or has that
changed?)
Well, if we follow Manoj's advice, humans are tools, and they understand
enhances, which means policy is allowed to talk about it.
If you don't agree with that, talk about it
Adam Heath dijo [Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:45:38AM -0600]:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
Except for the fact that no tool supports Enhances... (or has that
changed?)
Well, if we follow Manoj's advice, humans are tools, and they understand
enhances, which means policy is
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order
to know what to install, should they?
Following this reasoning, we might suggest that policy only states the
mandatory fields in control, and any field not covered by policy
should
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:19:54AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order
to know what to install, should they?
Users do this all the time, with tools like aptitude, apt-cache and dpkg
which display [information from] the control file.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:32:21AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version
has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package.
Patented software
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:38:25PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote:
As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid in Europe and Japan
until mid 2004. Shouldn't this matter for an international project?
What makes you think sarge will have been released by then?
8-)
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:36:56 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
But our users should not be expected to look at control files in
order to know what to install, should they?
Following this reasoning, we might suggest that policy only
Package: gimp1.2
Version: 1.2.3-2.4
Severity: normal
Hi,
Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
gimp1.2-nonfree
I find non-appropriate for a package in main to advertise for non-free
packages in non-free, which is theoretically not part of Debian -- a
package part of
reopen 220363
thanks
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au a tapoté :
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:00:44AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Package: gimp1.2
Version: 1.2.3-2.4
Severity: normal
Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
gimp1.2-nonfree
If you don't want to
* Mathieu Roy
| Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
| gimp1.2-nonfree
Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok.
If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a
technical discussion.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
* Mathieu Roy
| Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
| gimp1.2-nonfree
Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok.
If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a
technical discussion.
1)
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Mathieu Roy
| Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
| gimp1.2-nonfree
Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok.
If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok.
If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a
technical discussion.
1) Do you have a pointer that give that information in the debian policy?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
1) Do you have a pointer that give that information in the debian
policy?
Policy 2.2.1:
Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG
(Debian Free Software Guidelines).
In addition, the packages in main
* must not require a
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok.
If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a
technical discussion.
1) Do you have a pointer that give that
Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Mathieu Roy
| Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
| gimp1.2-nonfree
Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok.
If you disagree with this,
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:27, Mathieu Roy wrote:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main
...the packages in main
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a Depends,
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
2) Why the gimp cannot any longer save gif files without installing
non-free software?
The software itself is free, but the algorithm necessary to save GIF
files (LZW) is patent encumbered in certain parts of the planet, and
the patent is actively
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
* Mathieu Roy
| Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
| gimp1.2-nonfree
Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok.
If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy,
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a Depends,
Recommends, or Build-Depends relationship on a non-main
package), ...
Note, no mention of
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If not, why incitating people to get non-free stuff while you just can
provide a Gimp that can save GIF without LZW?
If it isnt already there - write a patch for it if you want that.
--
bye Joerg
A.D. 1492:
Christopher Columbus arrives in what he
Le mer 12/11/2003 à 10:31, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
If you have anything on topic to do, you are welcome to reply to this
mail.
The whole thread is off-topic on this list.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
If not, why incitating people to get non-free stuff while you just
can provide a Gimp that can save GIF without LZW?
Because no such non-LZW plugin exists for the GIMP. [And since people
may wonder why they can't save GIFs, it is appropriate for the
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
reopen 220363
thanks
Please do not abuse the BTS. If you want to discuss it, feel free to do
so, but this is not a bug in the gimp package.
Are you kidding?
Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that
a
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:54:29AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
It is also possible to create GIFs using a patent-free run
length encoding but this doesn't achieve the compression that
one normally expects in a GIF.
If not,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au a tapoté :
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
reopen 220363
thanks
Please do not abuse the BTS. If you want to discuss it, feel free to do
so, but this is not a bug in the gimp package.
If you consider that not being a bug,
On Nov/12, Mathieu Roy wrote:
As you're not a member of the Debian project, you don't get any say
in what's to be accepted or not
Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract.
(Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...)
Note that Users goes before Free
* Mathieu Roy wrote:
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
[...]
Note, no mention of Suggests.
No mention is not necessarily approval. It may be just something
forgot.
That's why Tollef suggests to discuss this on -policy.
--
- nobse
On Nov 11, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
gimp1.2-nonfree
Discussion aside, this is a nonissue, since the gimp1.2-nonfree package
is gone in unstable.
I would very much like to close this bug. Does this solve this issue
to
On Nov 12, 2003, at 1:27 AM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
So you confirm what I thought (yes, I checked this page before):
- the support for GIF creation inside the main gimp package, in
main, has been removed in favor of a package in non-free, that
provide the same functionality (plus patented
Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Nov 11, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install
gimp1.2-nonfree
Discussion aside, this is a nonissue, since the gimp1.2-nonfree
package is gone in unstable.
I would very much like to
Ben Gertzfield schrieb:
As I mentioned in a response to the bug report, this is mostly a
nonissue, since the LZW patent has expired in the US and I've merged
the -nonfree package back into the main package in the unstable Debian
distribution.
As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid in
On Nov 12, 2003, at 7:38 AM, Eike Sauer wrote:
As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid in Europe and Japan
until mid 2004. Shouldn't this matter for an international project?
This is true, I believe. Whether or not the main GIMP source
(distributed in main) is even allowed in Europe and
Eike Sauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Ben Gertzfield schrieb:
As I mentioned in a response to the bug report, this is mostly a
nonissue, since the LZW patent has expired in the US and I've merged
the -nonfree package back into the main package in the unstable Debian
distribution.
As far
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:41:10PM +0100, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote:
Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom,
there's no matter discussing that.
I don't see how making more packages available to our users is
lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:10:02PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract.
(Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...)
I have a creepy feeling that you are not wearing a user hat
but rather a hat of an organisation with a specific
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:27:10 +0100, Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok.
If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's
not a
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that
a package in mail suggests packages in non-free, which ARE NOT PART OF
DEBIAN?
Packages are free to suggest whatever the maintainer wishes; I wouldn't even
Mathieu Roy schrieb:
As far I know, there are still no patent for software in Europe,
whatever an European institution know to fail to comply to European
rules may do.
Neither GIF nor LZW is software, though.
The patent is about the LZW compression algorithm.
Ciao,
Eike
Ben Gertzfield schrieb:
good question. How do we deal with this situation for other source
projects that contain things like encryption that are outlawed in
countries X, Y, and Z but OK in the US?
Establish non-non-US? ;o)
Ciao,
Eike
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:37:58PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
4) Patch apt-listchanges so that id doesn't mail about suggestions
on packages that are not available.
apt-listchanges neither knows nor cares about suggests or recommends.
--
- mdz
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being
a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling
out of this mailing-list, I do not give a toss about it and I think
that noone else does.
A liar? You have a
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version
has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package.
Patented software isn't really non-free. Search the list archives.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:28:20PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that
a package in mail suggests packages in non-free, which ARE NOT PART OF
DEBIAN?
Packages
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:02:55PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
A liar? You have a very slant view on life.
It's much better to say you are mistaken or you are misinformed then to
call someone a liar. Because you have said it this way, it looks badly on
you, no matter what the other person has
Scripsit Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway, on the given topic, are reverse-suggests possible?
Quoth debian-policy, section 7.2:
|Enhances
| This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite
| direction. It is used to declare that a package can enhance the
|
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:28:15AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:41:10PM +0100, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote:
Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom,
there's no matter discussing that.
I don't see how making more packages available to our
63 matches
Mail list logo
