On 11 May 2005, 00:40, Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because its already been done. mtms announced earlier that he's keeping a
mirror of our old non-free. And he's not going to get sued by anyone either.
Wait a mo! Not me, bytekeeper.as28747.net keeps the mirror. I'm not
involved with
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 1:59am, mtms wrote:
On 11 May 2005, 00:40, Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because its already been done. mtms announced earlier that he's keeping
a mirror of our old non-free. And he's not going to get sued by anyone
either.
Wait a mo! Not me,
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Note to others: if you want to attack and ridicule me some more, you'll need
to CC me, as I'm not longer subscribed to this list)
Thank god.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 4:23pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
Hi everybody,
I'm only have a doubt, if someone make a mirror of the official debian
(including non-free) and all that packages are ditributed is in danger
to being sued?
Accordingly with Goswin that's nothing about complain, only the main
server of the distribution don't have non-free, the main
* Ed Cogburn
| We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake!
I can't see that you've done anything at all for the AMD64 port, nor
are you a DD. Please go troll somewhere else.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who
Ed Cogburn wrote:
Because its already been done. mtms announced earlier that he's keeping a
mirror of our old non-free. And he's not going to get sued by anyone either.
If there's already a mirror available of amd64 non-free, then what on
earth are you complaining about? Just use the
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE!
You're entirely right. After having to read that lot, I'd be impressed
if anyone cared about making sure amd64 shipped with non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other arch! If this is not the
I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have
understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release
(which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the
developers instead of thaking them for all the work they've already made?
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go
in right now because they don't require anyone's permission to
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:44pm, Rafael Rodríguez wrote:
I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have
understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release
(which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the
developers instead of
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:44:29PM +0100, Rafael Rodr?guez wrote:
I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have
understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release
(which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the
developers
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:12:22PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there no
reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem, except the one
they are conjuring up. Besides, according to Goswin in the post you
responded
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go
in
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 1:33pm, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:12:22PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there
no reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem, except
the one they are conjuring up.
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:48:14PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking about
release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will eventually
become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before Etch does. :)
The
Ed,
El mar, 10-05-2005 a las 13:48 -0400, Ed Cogburn escribi:
If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking about
release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will eventually
become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before Etch does. :)
Ed Cogburn wrote:
If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking about
release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will eventually
become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before Etch does. :)
The issue here is just the co-location of
On 10 May 2005, 17:19, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone
complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of course,
NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will become Debian soon
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:13:39PM +0200, mtms wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are pine sources distributed in official Debian
Sarge?
(the usual yes/no reply will suffice :))
As far as I can tell it is not. pine-tracker is the closest thing I can
find in sarge.
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation
please. Things like most of that is of zero help in deciding what
can go in and what not. We know most of it
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:44pm, Rafael Rodríguez wrote:
I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have
understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release
(which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so...
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 1:33pm, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:12:22PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Just trying to be helpful and point out to those developers that's there
no reason to hold back non-free at all. There isn't a problem,
On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen.
Laywers arent rationale.
Give us one reasonable example of why some one would waste time and
money to sue the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:13:39PM +0200, mtms wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are pine sources distributed in official Debian
Sarge?
(the usual yes/no reply will suffice :))
As far as I can tell it is not. pine-tracker is the closest thing I
This one time, at band camp, Ed Cogburn said:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 12:44pm, Rafael Rodríguez wrote:
I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have
understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release
(which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 2:09pm, Alexander Rapp wrote:
Ed Cogburn wrote:
If you had read my response to Goswin, you would know we aren't talking
about release dates for anything, I'm talking about Sid, which will
eventually become Etch, but obviously will exist for a long time before
Etch
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 3:22pm, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen.
Laywers arent rationale.
Give us one reasonable example of why
On Sunday 08 May 2005 4:23pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn.
Ed Cogburn wrote:
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
provide non-free, not harder.
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
provide non-free,
On Sunday 08 May 2005 05:02, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian,
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the other
arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that explanation
I am
forced to agree with Ed - the
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other
arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that
explanation I am
forced to agree with Ed -
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other
arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other
arch! If this is not
Hello List,
one additional remark: As main and contrib archives are now available on
amd64.debian.net it would be quite useful
to state the new url a) in a new version of the debian-.amd64 faq/howto
document and b) in the topic of the IRC channel #debian-amd64 in the
freenode network to prevent
Max [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi
As announced earlier the Debian AMD64 archive moved away from alioth
the weekend from 30. April til today, 2. May.
But what happened with http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/openoffice.org/ ?
It seemed to be moved away from alioth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello List,
one additional remark: As main and contrib archives are now available on
amd64.debian.net it would be quite useful
to state the new url a) in a new version of the debian-.amd64 faq/howto
document and b) in the topic of the IRC channel
Hi
As announced earlier the Debian AMD64 archive moved away from alioth
on the weekend from April 30 til today, May 2. Well, we are still
polishing some bits, but hey - 99% of it works.
For the impatient here are the important things you need to know:
- Modify /etc/apt/sources.list to include
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
There will be multiple mirrors, yes.
Already mirroring are
bytekeeper.as28747.net and
bach.hpc2n.umu.se
I already got asked by some others here from europe and from asia. (No,
i havent lost your mails, you get the answer tomorrow. :) )
They will be added Wednesday evening (my
On 10282 March 1977, Pete wrote:
(And as always: More mirrors are always good, so just mail me if you
want to be a mirror and get pushes whenever there are changes.)
Anybody know if there's going to be a mirror in or near Australia at
all? The mirrors are all quite far away from me here...
On Sat, 7 May 2005 07:16 am, Pete wrote:
Anybody know if there's going to be a mirror in or near Australia at
all? The mirrors are all quite far away from me here...
I have asked the sysadmins at planetmirror.com to mirror it.
The old version was being mirrored.
We've chatted with the project
John Verhoeven wrote:
I have asked the sysadmins at planetmirror.com to mirror it.
The old version was being mirrored (see below).
We've chatted with the project maintainers, and they're happy for us to
become a mirror. I've started a sync, and the archive should be available
soon from
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi
As announced earlier the Debian AMD64 archive moved away from alioth
the weekend from 30. April til today, 2. May.
But what happened with
http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/openoffice.org/ ?
It seemed to be moved away from alioth also but I cannot find it at
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
For the impatient here are the important things you need to know:
- Modify /etc/apt/sources.list to read like
deb http://amd64.debian.net/debian/ DIST main contrib
ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it?
--
Olleg Samoylov
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
Olleg Samoylov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
For the impatient here are the important things you need to know:
- Modify /etc/apt/sources.list to read like
deb http://amd64.debian.net/debian/ DIST main contrib
ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it?
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it?
If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require
makeing a new connection for every file and is thus faster and
firewall friendlier.
Now I'm
Stephan Seitz wrote on 04/05/2005 17:45:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it?
If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require
makeing a new connection for every file and is
Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it?
If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require
makeing a new connection for every file and is thus
Stephan Seitz wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
ftp://amd64.debian.net/debian work too. Is correct to use it?
If you must. Http is prefered by almost everyone as it doesn't require
makeing a new connection for every file and is thus faster and
On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so
if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come
back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure
Hello,
Is there any chance that http://amd64.debian.net is going to be
reachable via IPv6?
Regards,
Petr
--
Petr Sebor / SCS Software [ http://www.scssoft.com ]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so
if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come
back to you
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so
if you are an interested mirror admin please
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:27:46AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so
if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will
On 10278 March 1977, Stephen Frost wrote:
We also intend to offer a push-mirror service for interested mirrors, so
if you are an interested mirror admin please contact me and I will come
back to you with further instructions, as soon as we are sure our
archive is clean.
What about for
On 10278 March 1977, Petr Sebor wrote:
Is there any chance that http://amd64.debian.net is going to be
reachable via IPv6?
At the moment - no.
Not yet possible.
Just ask your local ipv6 mirror to mirror us. :)
--
bye Joerg
HE Lalalala ... Ich bin die Sponsoren-Schlampe - Wer hat heute Lust?
On 10279 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Is there any chance that http://amd64.debian.net is going to be
reachable via IPv6?
At the moment - no.
Not yet possible.
Just ask your local ipv6 mirror to mirror us. :)
Eh, of course if he has ipv4 too. :)
--
bye Joerg
Some AM to his NM on [11
61 matches
Mail list logo
