On Sunday 2023-06-18 23:37, Rob Landley wrote:
>On 6/18/23 14:58, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>>> Three years ago Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison lamented that "Both GPLv3
>>> and
>>> the AGPL have been rejected soundly by most developers" and talked about
>>> how he
>>> regretted the move and the dam
On 6/18/23 15:19, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Besides that it would also have been clear from actually reading the IRC
> log which incidentially also says
Good to know what the expectations for participation are.
>> This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
>
> As I said
On June 18, 2023 11:37:55 PM GMT+02:00, Rob Landley wrote:
>On 6/18/23 14:58, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>>> Three years ago Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison lamented that "Both GPLv3
>>> and
>>> the AGPL have been rejected soundly by most developers" and talked about
>>> how he
>>> regretted the m
On 6/18/23 14:58, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>> Three years ago Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison lamented that "Both GPLv3 and
>> the AGPL have been rejected soundly by most developers" and talked about how
>> he
>> regretted the move and the damage it had done to the project,
>> https://archive.org/det
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not genera
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Inde
On 6/18/23 03:45, Rene Engelhard wrote:> Am 18.06.23 um 10:32 schrieb Rene
Engelhard:
I don't really like sweeping it under the carpet again and would
actually pursue the "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
way pointed out and (implicitely) approved/suggested by the r
> Le 18 juin 2023 à 13:37, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 10:32:55AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Am 18.06.23 um 10:19 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
>>> On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 09:31 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Also note I am not talking about the
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 10:32:55AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Am 18.06.23 um 10:19 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
>> On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 09:31 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>> > Also note I am not talking about the debian-ports architectures. Those I
>> > forgot and I have no problem
Hi again.
Am 18.06.23 um 10:32 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
I don't really like sweeping it under the carpet again and would
actually pursue the "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
way pointed out and (implicitely) approved/suggested by the release
team...
You want Debian to drop sup
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 10:19 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 09:31 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Also note I am not talking about the debian-ports architectures. Those I
forgot and I have no problems making them stay into "testsuite ran but
results ignored" set.
Why did you
Hello!
On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 09:31 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Also note I am not talking about the debian-ports architectures. Those I
> forgot and I have no problems making them stay into "testsuite ran but
> results ignored" set.
Why did you send this mail exclusively to debian-ports then?
Hi,
I originally wanted to send the mail after all the architectures got
result but now even after 6d mips64el didn't try it so I send it now.
Prompted by riscv64 supposed to be added to the archive and even
as a release arch for trixie - see
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/
13 matches
Mail list logo
