On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since
these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I
think that even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages
themselves, the result of
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:23:09 -0400, Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just my 2 cents. I completely agree with Steve. If the only
freeness of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point
to make another installer, then that's
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 23:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since
these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I
think that even if there's no
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
He might even be running vrms - and vrms
will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
Then file a bug
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
He might even be running vrms - and vrms
will not complain about the
Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
installer package in contrib instead of a debian package in
non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
[snip]
So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
installer package in contrib instead of a debian package in
non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
true debian package in
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
installer package in contrib instead of a debian package in
non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
true debian package in non-free, to
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
installer package in contrib instead of a debian package in
non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
I don't need to be CC:'d, thanks.
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the
possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools.
my experience with the installer .deb's is
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
installers made for pine and djbware.
Strictly speaking those are not installers. The source is available in
the debian archive, we just can't distribute compiled binaries from it.
Installers for
I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
software, when installing it.
the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
of them, though.
If they all works this way, there
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
Supposedly, it already does:
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/office/
needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that
would switch over
On Tue 16:34, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Supposedly, it already does:
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/office/
Actually, my boss just installed that the other day and it apparently
does work well. How much of it is just WINE is a pretty wrapper, I'm not
to certain.
--
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:56:51PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
installer package in contrib instead of a debian package in
non-free? For instance, why the non-free
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
installers made for pine and djbware.
they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the
result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a .deb
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Ah, reductio ad absurdum. Such a wonderful means of demonstrating that you
can't think up a decent argument, so you'll take something to it's illogical
extreme to try and scare some people.
more accurately, it is a useful tool
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
| When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your
| argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on
| the probable or possible results of using the package, instead of
| the code in the
Mathieu Roy dijo [Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200]:
So I do not agree that Contrib is a ok place for installers. While
basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software.
Finally, someone who install the
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 14:47 US/Eastern, Bruce Sass wrote:
contrib would disappear and a case
could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be
used to create non-free stuff.
That's silly. There is a difference between package automatically
brings in non-free stuff and
On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
He might even be running vrms - and vrms
will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if
installer packages somehow marked that they've installed
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
| When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your
| argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on
| the probable or possible results of using
This one time, at band camp, Bruce Sass wrote:
Exactly. What if a generalised DFSG-free software installer used a
separate config file to download, debianize (using dh_make templates),
then install the resulting package (most of it non-free because such a
scheme should not be necessary for free
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
He might even be running vrms - and vrms
will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
To address the original point, however:
I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance. By
my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of three
On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 20:27 US/Eastern, Martijn van Oosterhout
wrote:
Random package:
Provides: non-free-installer
vrms:
Conflicts: non-free-installer
No, because that's not how vrms works. vrms just mails you (once a
month, I believe) which non-free packages are installed. It also
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Hi
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:13:17PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in
the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free
software and install it on a users'
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
[...]
So I do not agree that Contrib is a ok place for installers. While
basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software.
From the policy :
Examples of
Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words you do not agree with the Debian policy. It's quite
amazing since according to :
http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=yeupou%40gnu.org
You passed the Philosophy and Procedure.
There are many developers not agreing completly with
Em Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:48:46 +0200, Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
[...]
So I do not agree that Contrib is a ok place for installers. While
basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
hypocritical
Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Em Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:48:46 +0200, Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
[...]
So I do not agree that Contrib is a ok place for installers. While
basically these
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
...
But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since these
packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I think that
even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages themselves, the
result of the installation of these
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:47:11PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
...
But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since these
packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I think that
even if there's no non-free stuff within
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
To address the original point, however:
I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance. By
my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of three reasons:
1) They strictly depend on non-free
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:45:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present
(OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI),
Still in contrib, last I knew.
Whoops, it is too. I thought I'd left contrib and
35 matches
Mail list logo
