Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:00:55PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: All of you volunteers just remember: If you spend money out of your own pocket to help Debian and want to be repaid you are an evil idiot. If you complain after not getting paid for six months you are a naggy grouser. If you inquire about these topics regularly and comment on them then your organization is incompetent and so are you! 6 months!?! Lucky you. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please announce the IRC debate on debian-devel-announce
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 03:13:05AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On question: will the debate be published at vote.debian.org? http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200303/msg00012.html Two more questions, when and where? Or (third question) am I just blind? yes, logs will be available, and will be posted to the web site. I assume this web site is www.debian.org/vote. I can't see anything there that looks like an IRC log. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please announce the IRC debate on debian-devel-announce
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 03:13:05AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On question: will the debate be published at vote.debian.org? http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200303/msg00012.html Two more questions, when and where? Or (third question) am I just blind? yes, logs will be available, and will be posted to the web site. I assume this web site is www.debian.org/vote. I can't see anything there that looks like an IRC log. Christian
Re: Questions for Branden
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 12:02:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote a lot: BTW, I'm feeling alone ... does no one else have questions for our candidates or are you alll waiting for the IRC debate ? I thought somebody would collect all questions and they would be aske/answered in one go? I do have some questions after reading the platforms, but I thought maybe I wait till after the rebuttal. Is this list to place to discuss the platforms? Looked to me more like a discussion on statistical theories recently... What will happen to the french developers if you're elected ? :-) Oh don't forget the germans. They want to boycot french and german fries and wine now! If it weren't so sad, I would be laughing all day. If you french people don't behave, the will send you back the statue of liberty. ;-) Christian, who thought that french fries and this crisis came from Belgium originally... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for Branden
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 12:02:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote a lot: BTW, I'm feeling alone ... does no one else have questions for our candidates or are you alll waiting for the IRC debate ? I thought somebody would collect all questions and they would be aske/answered in one go? I do have some questions after reading the platforms, but I thought maybe I wait till after the rebuttal. Is this list to place to discuss the platforms? Looked to me more like a discussion on statistical theories recently... What will happen to the french developers if you're elected ? :-) Oh don't forget the germans. They want to boycot french and german fries and wine now! If it weren't so sad, I would be laughing all day. If you french people don't behave, the will send you back the statue of liberty. ;-) Christian, who thought that french fries and this crisis came from Belgium originally...
Re: [BALLOT] Leader Election 2001
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:28:17PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:12:08PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote: This is still not accepting my key. I'm using GPG with an RSA/IDEA key (generated with PGP originally). I confirmed that the signature is OK. The updated key was accepted into the keyring several weeks ago. In plain terms.. Your mailer is screwed up and is violating the standards. [..] So please, if you are using mutt, configure it correctly. Can you tell me how? I use the example code from /usr/doc/mutt/examples/gpg.rc. Interesting, maybe the vote script doe not handle detached(?) signatures? My mutt signature did not work either, but when I look at the Fcc, mutt checks the sig ok... so mutt is totally out of rfc? Yeah, I know, real men use Emacs... Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [BALLOT] Leader Election 2001
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:28:17PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:12:08PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote: This is still not accepting my key. I'm using GPG with an RSA/IDEA key (generated with PGP originally). I confirmed that the signature is OK. The updated key was accepted into the keyring several weeks ago. In plain terms.. Your mailer is screwed up and is violating the standards. [..] So please, if you are using mutt, configure it correctly. Can you tell me how? I use the example code from /usr/doc/mutt/examples/gpg.rc. Interesting, maybe the vote script doe not handle detached(?) signatures? My mutt signature did not work either, but when I look at the Fcc, mutt checks the sig ok... so mutt is totally out of rfc? Yeah, I know, real men use Emacs... Christian
Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 06:15:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 02:46:39AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: But when X fails to install into testing it really does hurt the release; many packages in Debian depend on X. When X, Perl (and thus so we make an exemption for X? What comes next, boot-floppies? For example glibc and gcc had some problems getting ported to arm for a fair while; X had problems (and still does) working on m68k (in particular xserver-xfree86); alsa needs some bugs fixed; libqt2.2 wasn't building on alpha without a newer version of gcc. Just a few comment on the m68k issues (quite OT for -vote?): There was not much support for m68k in the X 4.0.x packages, it took me well over a month to get X _build_ on m68k. If there were somebody who knew something about X (I know nothing about it), this would have been fixed in a day. The xserver is still not running, I think its not too hard to fix, but I have no time for that. Again, somebody with a clue might get this fixed in another day (not counting compilation time...). The buildd did not build packages for a long time, since a) the ftp mirror ran out of space and b) binutils have a serious bug on m68k makeing many builds fail. Hopefully the binutils are working now (thanks to a new potential clueful m68k maintainer) and we might catch up with the rest again. Now if we got a list of important packages which need to be built, Michael asked once? twice? for that and got nothing... X is current on m68k (unless there was another new version which was again not announced on debian-x), glibc is current, apt fails to build but probably the bug is found, perl was built by the maintainer. What else is _important_ to get built immediately? I just wish everybody would try to give m68k a hand before they start complaining. And now everybody join hands and go to vote. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 06:15:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 02:46:39AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: But when X fails to install into testing it really does hurt the release; many packages in Debian depend on X. When X, Perl (and thus so we make an exemption for X? What comes next, boot-floppies? For example glibc and gcc had some problems getting ported to arm for a fair while; X had problems (and still does) working on m68k (in particular xserver-xfree86); alsa needs some bugs fixed; libqt2.2 wasn't building on alpha without a newer version of gcc. Just a few comment on the m68k issues (quite OT for -vote?): There was not much support for m68k in the X 4.0.x packages, it took me well over a month to get X _build_ on m68k. If there were somebody who knew something about X (I know nothing about it), this would have been fixed in a day. The xserver is still not running, I think its not too hard to fix, but I have no time for that. Again, somebody with a clue might get this fixed in another day (not counting compilation time...). The buildd did not build packages for a long time, since a) the ftp mirror ran out of space and b) binutils have a serious bug on m68k makeing many builds fail. Hopefully the binutils are working now (thanks to a new potential clueful m68k maintainer) and we might catch up with the rest again. Now if we got a list of important packages which need to be built, Michael asked once? twice? for that and got nothing... X is current on m68k (unless there was another new version which was again not announced on debian-x), glibc is current, apt fails to build but probably the bug is found, perl was built by the maintainer. What else is _important_ to get built immediately? I just wish everybody would try to give m68k a hand before they start complaining. And now everybody join hands and go to vote. Christian
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:27:46PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:40:52PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote: John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian So, why confuse the issue ? What's so difficult about it ? Just two things: - who is John? - please stop CCing me when I say so. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller groups, individuals or research institues or other such. If you continue like this, I think you make me change my mind about debian and non-free... I myself maintain the ocaml package, developped at french INRIA. it was previously distributed under a free but only distribute as pristin source + patch (well no binaries). and couldn't go even in non-free without permission from the author. There are loads of GPLed and other free stuff which depended Its a free package but can not even go into non-free? I don't get that. This is no netscape or sun, they distribute rpms of the packages, but simply lack the time for debian packaging (i guess so, also i suspect most of them don't use debian). Sure i could propose as volunteer to package it for them, but i would prefer to do it for debian (well no more a problem since the package is free now). Now its free again? Even weirder... But I think _you_ didn't get Ean's point. non-free is and never has been part of debian, it just happened to be available on Debian's ftp servers. If you want to package very-non-free or even-more-non-free software for debian, just do it(TM), but you simply have to find another place to put it. Ean just offered in his mail (IIRC) a place to put those packages, other people will probably also offer things like this, maybe like KDE2 before qt2 was fixed. Now whats your problem with that? Packages will move only to a different ftp server, they are still available for everybody, only they are not on debian machines, to put a little pressure on the authors. There is even a package which i packaged and use personnaly, the author gave its ok to it, but was rejected (even in non-free) due to obscure wording in the licence. The author don't respond anymore to my mails, so i let it be. So you put the package on your own machine and install it from there, like we all do with lame and co. See, just like Ean proposed, so you finally agree with him, but are only a little confused by your own words? But then maybe reclassifying what is in non-free can help here. Not all non-free packages are equal. Like a little pregnant and a little more pregnant? Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: depend on it go into contrib. but what if the packages is not even in non-free, you will have a package depending on a package that is compiled differently by every user. I don't know what this can make to bug reports. No package can depend on a package that is not even in non-free. Be sure to get mail bombed by the buildd's if you upload packages like that. i said it in the original mail, i think i agree with that, but the issue is fine (volutarilly ?) obscured by strange ballots and flamming discution. Now that is a completely different thing. I did not understand the ballot and I usually ignore flamewars. I am waiting for the real ballot, which joe normal debian developer can understand. But its no use mixing up technical discussions, philosophy and flamewars. No, there are package where you cannot see the source, there are packages which only can be distributed as source + patch (well it is dfsg free, but ??? there was talk to change this) there is package that is free in spirit but non-free because of bad licence wording and the author don't care. There is package that are free but you cannot use it for commercial purpose. there is package that is free, but you cannot ship with some other package, there is package that is free but cannot be used for military research or other such limitation. All of these are non-free and the authors need a little convincing to change the license of their package. and then there is package like lha, which is non-free, but i think nobody knows what happened to the author and it is not actively developped anymore (at least the one in debian). And m68k boot floppies use lha, isn't it ? Nope, I kicked it out long ago. I said so several times on the debian-boot list, and I said if thats the only reason why the boot-floppies are in contrib, its time to change that. you cannot pack them all in the same bag. It was ok for now, because we put them all in non-free, and told people to check the licence for themself. but if we remove non-free, what will happen to those, almost free packages. Will You swore an oath on the DFSG, didn't you? we allow more almost free but non-free packages in main ? will we move them to not possible, neither contrib contrib ? will we just remove them, let the big one (netscape co) be distributed by some volunteer and let forget the other one ? IIRC, that was the thing the ballot was supposed to be about. I am in favor of the removing the reference to non-free in the DFSG, but this don't mean we have to remove it from the archive all at once immediately like is proposed. and anyway, if you remove netscape, how big is non-free ? cts@ap031:/debian/dists/woody/non-freedu -s -m * 65 binary-all 79 binary-i386 37MB of that are netscape I guess. Not really worth the fuss I would say. That stuff fits on the small-removable-media-I-do-not-find-reliable, you could probably have binaries for all arches on one CD. Do we really have to waste so much time on that? What i am not happy with is the coup like manner of having done this in late stage of the potato freeze, during holiday season, and with things escalating to amendment and counter amendment in an attempt to disinterest or confuse people until the thing get passed. As usual, nothing happened yet, right? And it will be hard to remove contrib and non-free from all the CDs out there, so what? I have seen articles claiming that debian is organized in a democratic way (well we are, not we have a constitution and such), but those methods are not note? ok. More akin to what happens in the banana republics. Have you ever been to parliament? I think its even worse there, and they run our countries. Maybe I should come to Strassbourg and we visit the european parliament, that would be fun. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller groups, individuals or research institues or other such. If you continue like this, I think you make me change my mind about debian and non-free... I myself maintain the ocaml package, developped at french INRIA. it was previously distributed under a free but only distribute as pristin source + patch (well no binaries). and couldn't go even in non-free without permission from the author. There are loads of GPLed and other free stuff which depended Its a free package but can not even go into non-free? I don't get that. This is no netscape or sun, they distribute rpms of the packages, but simply lack the time for debian packaging (i guess so, also i suspect most of them don't use debian). Sure i could propose as volunteer to package it for them, but i would prefer to do it for debian (well no more a problem since the package is free now). Now its free again? Even weirder... But I think _you_ didn't get Ean's point. non-free is and never has been part of debian, it just happened to be available on Debian's ftp servers. If you want to package very-non-free or even-more-non-free software for debian, just do it(TM), but you simply have to find another place to put it. Ean just offered in his mail (IIRC) a place to put those packages, other people will probably also offer things like this, maybe like KDE2 before qt2 was fixed. Now whats your problem with that? Packages will move only to a different ftp server, they are still available for everybody, only they are not on debian machines, to put a little pressure on the authors. There is even a package which i packaged and use personnaly, the author gave its ok to it, but was rejected (even in non-free) due to obscure wording in the licence. The author don't respond anymore to my mails, so i let it be. So you put the package on your own machine and install it from there, like we all do with lame and co. See, just like Ean proposed, so you finally agree with him, but are only a little confused by your own words? But then maybe reclassifying what is in non-free can help here. Not all non-free packages are equal. Like a little pregnant and a little more pregnant? Christian
