Unidentified subject!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi all Have you read about Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)? See: https://u.fsf.org/xk I think next releases of Iceweasel should be build *without* EME and any other DRM-related stuff. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTeNlPAAoJEAkexyki2U7qm4EH/0aEDp/hLHd8OCL8Wk/3ZYSs zD407Sm29pN4wngaCPy6FdLTJjkyLCnwRlMCzWk9lmpPkS4MsA7scSgfclGBU007 Qv3Sucd9BG4zVevl+F/DJy24KEqFcexrpaiQVyeUNlHRksBfjnWw64X8g7BJ97FD XR4LbYIXLQdoY9fmuGbSgj5yHw88au8ZF/m8DYb8OoMOKD87dbRHb1+OP6hLTUTb K7t4dPqa4lTgBSxsmU3fW5EugU8Qt8AFP2xkxbPpAHGyihvgtDvkbPAfR+IiJE30 /dWXRMmaR5CHjkU/Yb4pWgO8Z7JmpN7HoA3gBT0soNeuRU5fZaWC1fZbQKorTgI= =4z6P -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378d94f.8020...@me.com
Re: Point 1 of Social Contract
Le 04/05/2014 23:15, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 01:59:09PM +0200, Solal wrote: I think we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters Who's 'we'? We in the official list of Debian developers means... The Debian developers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53679cde.3080...@me.com
Re: Point 1 of Social Contract
No +1 because proprietary firmware is unethical too. Le 05/05/2014 17:28, Salvo Tomaselli a écrit : …and firmware. +1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5367ae79.5060...@me.com
Error in the Debian Social Contract
The Artistic link go to the Perl license text. The Artistic License isn't a free license (non-defined definitions such as C or Perl subroutines make it invalid and potentially proprietary, FSF is right when they says is too vague for talk about free). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5366293a.4030...@me.com
Point 1 of Social Contract
I think we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters, and we should warn proprietary software users about proprietary software unethicality (this does not mean that we will not help users proprietary software but just that we warn of dangers. howewer, we will not help proprietary software creaters). [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53662b8d.7060...@me.com
Re: Point 1 of Social Contract
[GR2004-2] have nothing to do with it. My proprosition is just warn about proprietary software dangers, but users would still install non-free software from repositories, get help from developers, etc. But they are warned. Le 04/05/2014 14:20, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit : On 04/05/2014 13:59, Solal wrote: I think we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters, and we should warn proprietary software users about proprietary software unethicality (this does not mean that we will not help users proprietary software but just that we warn of dangers. howewer, we will not help proprietary software creaters). [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] This is your idea. However, as shown by [GR2004-2], this is not the opinion of the project. [GR2004-2]: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 Sincerely, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53663170.1060...@me.com
Re: Point 1 of Social Contract
I speak about Point 1 : We will help creaters and users of both free and non-free software. Help creaters of non-free software is unethical. Don't support non-free software creaters and don't help them is freedom protective. Proprietary software is unethical and I see no reason to help unethical things. Le 04/05/2014 17:07, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit : On 04/05/2014 14:24, Solal wrote: [GR2004-2] have nothing to do with it. My proprosition is just warn about proprietary software dangers, but users would still install non-free software from repositories, get help from developers, etc. But they are warned. Le 04/05/2014 14:20, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit : On 04/05/2014 13:59, Solal wrote: I think we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters, and we should warn proprietary software users about proprietary software unethicality (this does not mean that we will not help users proprietary software but just that we warn of dangers. howewer, we will not help proprietary software creaters). [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] This is your idea. However, as shown by [GR2004-2], this is not the opinion of the project. [GR2004-2]: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 Please do not top-post if possible. I'd rather not annoy our users more than the current warning about enabling non-free at install time. However, this warning may be rewritten if the project feels it is not informative enough. However, your proposition also has the sentence we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters. This is subject to many interpretations. The first interpretation that comes to my mind is in contradiction with point 5 of the Debian social contract (for example in Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages). As for other interpretations, the project generally does not distinguish between uses of the software, be it for creating free software, curing cancer, being evil, or worse: creating non-free software. Not supporting proprietary software creaters would probably, in some of these interpretations, require considering not allowing Debian to be used for non-free software, which would bar us from using almost all currently DFSG-free software. Is that what you meant by we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters? Because providing them our wonderful distribution is supporting them. Sincerely, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536658a7.1090...@me.com
Re: DFSG : Really useful?
The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, trademarks limited, etc. GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if used in opinions (nobody want peoples modify their opinion in a text). The GFDL prohibit the use of Invariant Sections in technic texts. The only case where a software respects FSD but not DFSG is good. That can be a software which prohibit the use of proprietary software in aggregates. This is good, totally ethical, and I think a license should do that for protect uers from proprietary. The cases where a software respects DFSG but not respects FSD are bad. For example, a software which prohibit the distribution of modified versions respects DFSG if it authorize patch files. But it's unethical. In some years, the patch will maybe be incompatible with the new version. The Debian project authorize that (but encourage to do not do that, but that's not suffiscient). The Debian project authorize too certain licenses which is too vague for talk about free (the Artistic License 1.0, for example). The DFSG is really bad, too laxist and useless. Le 26/04/2014 22:13, Dimitri John Ledkov a écrit : On 25 Apr 2014 15:15, Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote: Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of time in specific guidelines. I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will : -Be more efficient instead of lose a lot of time in the DFSG. -Be sure to be in the 100% free GNU/Linux distros list of the FSF. One is not a superset of the other. The two documents are incompatible. As one example each way - In debian, we consider GFDL license with invariant texts to be non-free. Whilst FSDG, disqualifies providing compatible archives of non-free software. How are you measuring efficiency / loosing time here? Given the non-trivial cost of switch and more restrictive terms of FSDG would require more audit and ongoing work. The FSF 100% free list is not a deal-breaker pretty much for everyone. What specific aspects of FSDG do you find to not be met by DFSG? I am not sure if DFSG predates FSDG or not, but DFSG was used as a basis for free software definition as published by Opens Source Initiative (OSI) thus many organisations, including the Linux Foundation, do recognise Debian as a free operating system. To answer the topic of your email - yes by large DFSG has been extremely useful (especially in the early days of pleora of self-written licenses) to current times with established license terms and non-trivial compatibilities between them. It is concise and easy to read and understand. Widely accepted by everyone else. Switching to a different metric will not magically resolved all licensin issues (patents, trademark violations, copyright assignments etc.) nor make upstream tarballs to be magically correct and acceptable. Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/535cd661.9080...@me.com
Re: DFSG : Really useful?
The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, trademarks limited, etc. GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if used in opinions (nobody want peoples modify their opinion in a text). The GFDL prohibit the use of Invariant Sections in technic texts. The only case where a software respects FSD but not DFSG is good. That can be a software which prohibit the use of proprietary software in aggregates. This is good, totally ethical, and I think a license should do that for protect uers from proprietary. The cases where a software respects DFSG but not respects FSD are bad. For example, a software which prohibit the distribution of modified versions respects DFSG if it authorize patch files. But it's unethical. In some years, the patch will maybe be incompatible with the new version. The Debian project authorize that (but encourage to do not do that, but that's not suffiscient). The Debian project authorize too certain licenses which is too vague for talk about free (the Artistic License 1.0, for example). The DFSG is really bad, too laxist and useless. I see that you don't like the DFSG. But as already has been said: We are Debian and follow our own contract and not a contact of some other project/company. I think if you have problems with the DFSG you should propose changes to improve it instead of saying we should drop it and follow someone else. PS: Please don't top-post. Regards Sven I understand you do not want use a someone else's contract, but the FSDG are an anagream of DFSG, so that's the same... No, I joke. There are a lot of things to change in the DFSG, but why change the DFSG, the better contract is created : that's the FSDG! I do not see any problems for using it! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/535cf51f.9050...@me.com
Re: lintian source-is-missing for jquery -- was Re: Bug#744699: Frets On Fire bug report 744699
I agree with you. An obfuscated source isn't source and should'nt be in source packages. But in binary packages, yes. Also, as say the GNU LibreJS standard for publish free JavaScript code, If there are a comment which is an URL to the source and the corresponding source is free, the obfuscated code is free too. Le 25/04/2014 15:41, Thomas Goirand a écrit : On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition. I don't agree with this. On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: It's interpreted in different implementations of an ISO-approved interpreted language, and it is valid code. It is compiled code, not *source* code. It's impossible to modify as-is. On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: Even in obfuscated form, with minor transformations it's probably easier to understand that some other proper source code out there. No! :) On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: So it can be argued that this lintian error is not correct, it is source code even if obfuscated, and open to interpretation in any case. Saying that source code is missing for a file that is actually proper source code is a special case and should be treated differently. This minified source code is as helpful as the output of a binary that has been decompiled. It is *not* something someone will work on, especially if there's the equivalent non-obfuscated source code available. On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: b) The first lines of the unminified file clearly states the software projects, version, and URLs to get the non-minified versions, so if users want to modify the code, they can go there or take the version from their Debian system. In Debian, we don't package URLs, but human readable source code. If your source package doesn't include source code for *anything*, then it's a serious violation of the DFSG and social contract. On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: This is vastly different to the normal idea of binaries without sources No it's not, it's exactly the same thing. On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: There's value in the warning, in the sense that if one wants to modify the code, one would prefer to use the unminified version And therefore, the obfuscated code is considered non-DFSG free. On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: So the presence of the file in the source tarball is not diminishing the freedom of users, and the actions proposed by lintian don't enhance user freedom, from my point of view. This is backward thinking. You'd better think this way: the presence of the file doesn't, in any way, help your users. Quite the opposite: it makes the source package bigger, and makes users look at files which they can't anyway modify. So why would you keep it? Realistically, the only reason is because it makes your maintainers life easier. Any other point of view is just wrong, IMO. On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: and the dance of repackaging the upstream tarballs in this case, and probably for all uses of jquery, is a waste of time, and Debian users would see more benefits if contributors spent time elsewhere. This is only where I can agree with you. On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: I don't think that overriding hides the problem... I do. Overrides are there only to cover false-positives. What is the reason for yours, if not hiding issues? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/535a671c.6080...@me.com
DFSG : Really useful?
Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of time in specific guidelines. I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will : -Be more efficient instead of lose a lot of time in the DFSG. -Be sure to be in the 100% free GNU/Linux distros list of the FSF. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/535a5fc9.1040...@me.com
Idea for apt-get : getting source code instead getting binaries
Hello! I've an idea for a new apt-get package style : Developer side : -The developer create a ./install script in the source code. -The install script executes all commands necessary for install the software. Also, it getting dependancies, etc. -The developer create a tarball (.tar.bzip2) and rename the file name. Instead of software.tar.bzip2 , that's software.deb -The developer distribute the software.deb Apt-get side : -The apt-get tool download software.deb from the Debian repository. -The program is installed with dpkg Dpkg side : -dpkg rename the software.deb software.tar.bzip2 -tar uncompress the software.tar.bzip2 -cd go into the software folder -./install execute install script -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/77f6194c-04df-4e3d-ad74-2a3f55520...@me.com
Re: contrib and nonfree distribs
Le 3 mars 2014 à 13:59, forum::für::umläute zmoel...@umlaeute.mur.at a écrit : assuming for a second that you are not trolling, On 2014-02-28 12:56, Solal Rastier wrote: Further proof that Debian is proprietary software... hmm. but since both contrib and non-free are not part of Debian, how does the existence of these sections lead to the conclusion that Debian is proprietary. another random example: the existence of ubuntu does not mean, that Debian is (say) owned by canonical. fgsdfm IOhannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53147ca0.1070...@umlaeute.mur.at The installer recommend contrib and nonfree... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/143de185-efa2-491f-ae20-404e83cdd...@me.com
contrib and nonfree distribs
Why the nonfree and contrib distributions aren't removed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/db2f0f4e-6f63-4246-a1cd-7a509f378...@me.com
Re: contrib and nonfree distribs
Further proof that Debian is proprietary software... Le 28 févr. 2014 à 12:46, Wouter Verhelst w...@uter.be a écrit : Op vrijdag 28 februari 2014 12:42:39 schreef u: The FSF believe documentation need to be free, and that's true... It is true that it needs to be free, but their license just isn't free: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/4e9bee82-8ef2-4c11-80fc-9a7d55746...@me.com
Re: contrib and nonfree distribs
1. I'm not a troll 2. What is top-post? 3. Why I need stop? Le 28 févr. 2014 à 13:10, Thibaut Paumard thib...@debian.org a écrit : Le 28/02/2014 12:56, Solal Rastier a écrit : Further proof that Debian is proprietary software... I applause this almost inconspicuous troll attempt. Please don't top-post. http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Regards. PS: full stop. Le 28 févr. 2014 à 12:46, Wouter Verhelst w...@uter.be a écrit : Op vrijdag 28 februari 2014 12:42:39 schreef u: The FSF believe documentation need to be free, and that's true... It is true that it needs to be free, but their license just isn't free: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/
Re: contrib and nonfree distribs
That's not an answer. For users, that doesn't change anything. Le 28 févr. 2014 à 15:20, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org a écrit : Solal Rastier, le Fri 28 Feb 2014 12:56:00 +0100, a écrit : Further proof that Debian is proprietary software... contrib and non-free are not part of Debian releases. Really, read about GR etc. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/aea50c09-f7b6-4bc3-821b-88ce3875e...@me.com
Re: contrib and nonfree distribs
I not compare Debian with Windows. The FSF publishes a GNU/Linux freedom indicator. Debian is proprietary, sorry. Le 28 févr. 2014 à 18:24, Octavio Alvarez alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org a écrit : On 02/28/2014 05:18 AM, Solal Rastier wrote: 1. I'm not a troll 2. What is top-post? 3. Why I need stop? Hi, Solal. I'm not a Debian Developer, just a user, but let me take an attempt to explain what happened, and please don't take this the wrong way. I'll address each part of the issue without sugar-coating anything. Please don't take it the wrong way. Debian is not proprietary or closed software. There is a lot of effort put by the whole Debian team in making sure licenses are not violated while keeping software fully free, always. If you knew Debian just a little bit you would know this. However, you said: Further proof that Debian is proprietary software.. Where did that come from? Initially you asked why were not the other areas removed, which is a valid question despite having no context at all, and suddenly there is an accusation? Are you seriously comparing Debian with Windows? You see, if you want to prove a point you get your facts straight first. If you want to get answers you use questions, not accusations or false statements. Just by this alone, you fit the troll profile: a person that just comes in to raise useless discussion with no beneficial outcome, not even for himself, even more if it's accusation-based. About top-posting: in the message from Thibaut you were given a link regarding top-posting. You ignored it (proved by the fact that you are now asking what it is instead of having it read). You may have not seen it of found it too long, but you didn't even Google for it (you would have found at least a Wikipedia article about this with a more friendly explanation). You just don't care to do your part of the job. Now, to your question: Packages in the other archive areas (contrib, non-free) are not considered to be part of the Debian distribution... [1]. First match in Google for debian main contrib non-free. ... we also provide packages in separate sections that cannot be included in the main distribution due to either a restrictive license or legal issues. They include: [explanation continues]... [2]. Second match in the same Google search. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html [2] https://www.debian.org/distrib/packages This should *at least* make it clear that contrib *is* open and free, what the sections are, and what they are for. Imagine a program that is GPL but includes images that are redistributable but not modifiable, the images go into non-free. There is not a license violation and it doesn't make the program proprietary, much less the whole Debian. Now, my question to you is: how does the non-free and contrib areas make the whole project proprietary, considering that those are not even part of the Debian project? And how does that prove --using your words-- it? Finally, you just replied with: That's not an answer. For users, that doesn't change anything. Again, trolling. Now you are *demanding* a good answer despite not asking a good question. We are not mind readers. You should *really* look for and read and take the time to ask. Explain what your doubt is and provide the relevant context to your question. You'll get a reply as useful as your question. A vague question will give you a vague answer at best. An accusive question will get you an accusive answer at best. (Personally, I didn't even understand your reply: if that is not an answer, and you were already given other answers, that *what* is an answer for you? For *what* users, that doesn't change anything? *What* do users want to have changed? I only perceive a defense for who-knows-what in your reply.) Anyway, my two cents. All help and questions are welcome, but some are useful than others. Just don't get defensive and do your part of the job. Remember that people are volunteers and they work on Debian mostly on their free time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544bef2c-c875-4ee5-87ed-948eb4d36...@me.com
Re: contrib and nonfree distribs
Le 28 févr. 2014 à 19:22, Octavio Alvarez alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org a écrit : On 02/28/2014 09:29 AM, Solal Rastier wrote: I not compare Debian with Windows. The FSF publishes a GNU/Linux freedom indicator. Debian is proprietary, sorry. Ah! The FSF website [1] says otherwise. The FSF website acknowledges Debian as Free Software as in conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system, but it does not endorse it (by the title of the Web page). [1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html See? Get your facts straight. It's not the same not to endorse than to it is proprietary. Also, non-free is not the same as proprietary. Windows is not even in the list because it *is* proprietary, flat. By stating Debian is proprietary you are, in fact, comparing Debian licensing with Windows licensing. You are saying that Debian is as proprietary as Windows. Again, get your facts straight or nobody will care. And please (and this has nothing to do with Free or Open-Source Software at all), next time, if I reply off-list to have a private conversation, please be respectful and keep my response off-list. Finally, you still top-posted. Do you even understand what that is, at least? Do you accept now that you behaved like a troll? My mail client top-posting automtically. I don't compare Windows and Debian. Windows is proprietariest than Debian, but Debian isn't 100% free. Now, think about the utility of contrib and nonfree. We must create free replacements to proprietary, not put proprietary in Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/6e00bfce-0973-4a8b-ac63-6ff7a8cd6...@me.com
