Re: Opera in your repos
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:39:43PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 01:59:55PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: We need the redistribution bit, I don't think we need it to be allowed to be used by all users. Non-commercial is fine in non-free, or at least was, last time I checked. I wouldn't be surprised if our requirements have increased even in that regard in recent years. At least nowadays I mostly expect stuff that has weird licenses about modification and following redistribution in non-free. I hardly expect stuff that one is not even allowed to use. But maybe that's just me. :) I think that's just you. There has been no decision by the project to change the license requirements for non-free, and if the ftp masters have decided this, they haven't disclosed it anywhere appropriate. Indeed, last time I checked, the requirement was that Debian is allowed to redistribute the stuff, which kind of makes sense ;) -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
also sprach Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org [2009.08.08.1500 +0200]: They are sticking to that promise. Of all the derivative distributions out there, Ubuntu is the only one that actively, as a matter of policy, does contribute back bugreports and patches. They contribute, but they're far from the only one. There are distributions that are so tightly integrated with Debian that we don't really notice their development, yet they are their own distributions: Quantian, Skolelinux, and numerous administration- and/or security-specialised derivatives, like grml, to name but a few. Those are all targetted products, like Ubuntu targets the desktop, and aims for large numbers of users. And there are distros out there who steal from us, but we don't care because we don't notice them either. It's the quantity, success, and maybe other ideological factors that make us expect too much from Ubuntu, namely to give back /more/ even though we don't make it easy for downstreams to give back. This puts the ball into our court but does not make Ubuntu a perfect player. There's a lot in Ubuntu that annoys us, from hyperbole to quality-issues, and Ubuntu are too radical about change for us to follow blindly, thus the resistance. But Ubuntu needs Debian, and they need Debian faster because we're holding them back — after all, they are not a (one-time) fork. There's a chance in that for us: we can improve Debian all along, and if we do it right, we can improve Debian with Canonical resources. But I don't think the lock-step freeze cycle is the right way forward, or that Ubuntu has the manpower, direction, or overview to support such a cadence. -- .''`. martin f. krafft madd...@d.o Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems * Overfiend came out of the womb complaining. -- #debian-devel digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Re: Debian on Atom 330 Question
Floris Bruynooghe schreef: To the original poster: Maybe a better place to ask is debian-u...@lists.debian.org (I couldn't find a dutch version of the user list so you'd still have to try to speak engish). In short there will be a dutch version: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=539102 With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Opera in your repos
I think that's just you. There has been no decision by the project to change the license requirements for non-free, and if the ftp masters have decided this, they haven't disclosed it anywhere appropriate. Indeed, last time I checked, the requirement was that Debian is allowed to redistribute the stuff, which kind of makes sense ;) Its still that. Allowing people to use it is a nice thing, but strictly speaking its not needed for it. -- bye, Joerg pasc man pasc the AMD64 camp is not helped by the list of people supporting it pasc when nerode is on your side, you know you're doing something wrong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Opera in your repos
On Mon Aug 10 21:08, Joerg Jaspert wrote: I think that's just you. There has been no decision by the project to change the license requirements for non-free, and if the ftp masters have decided this, they haven't disclosed it anywhere appropriate. Indeed, last time I checked, the requirement was that Debian is allowed to redistribute the stuff, which kind of makes sense ;) Its still that. Allowing people to use it is a nice thing, but strictly speaking its not needed for it. True, but *I*'d rather not upload it if people using Debian can't use it. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On cadence and collaboration
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:26:07 -0300, Marga wrote: This has been one of the main concerns of the December freeze, apart from the fact that we wouldn't meet our release goals, that you are suggesting how to solve. Ubuntu has shown in the past a tendency to ship with the latest versions of software. In the case of GNOME, the freeze in Ubuntu usually happens before GNOME is even released, and yet the latest GNOME goes into the release. It is my opinion that freezing after GNOME releases (and gets into testing) would be better for Debian. This means either April or October, depending on which GNOME release we want to ship. I think that this point truly deserves to be discussed for a number of reasons. Personally, I think that releasing a new distribution right after GNOME or KDE has produced a new major version is an extremely bad idea, because the X.XX.0 release of anything tends to have too many rough edges (feature regressions, out of sync translations, etc.) that usually need further polishing via X.XX.1 and X.XX.2 releases before a new major desktop release becomes truly usable by non-technical people i.e. not requiring any workaround for some stupid regression that gets fixed later in point releases, much after the initial distribution release has started shipping with X.XX.0. As such, I'd prefer if whatever common freeze for core packages that is agreed between Debian and its derivatives (Ubuntu and others) only happened after the next X.XX.2 versions of GNOME and KDE have been released. This will of course require GNOME and KDE to sync their clocks as well and my understanding is that recent Guadecs and aKademies have seen the two communities visiting each other and working towards this goal, which is very good news indeed. Some people might also find ensuring that XFCE and LXDE are also kept in the loop is desirable too and, if that's the case, it would be desirable to help them achieve this goal as well. I think that the fact we're having this discussion and are taking concrete actions towards achieving cadence is a step in the right direction. I'd however humbly hope that distributions would be as willing to accommodate upstream cycles as they hope to see upstream accommodate distribution cycles. Both sides will have to give some slack and agree to shift their release cycles by a couple of months and meet half-way, for this cadencing idea to work. One simply cannot expect upstream to magically jump just because one or two major distributions reached a consensus. The same way that Mark suggested Ubuntu lending resources to help Debian reach the target freeze on time, resources will need to be lent to upstream to reach the same target date on time. Best Regards, Martin-Éric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
