On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:11:11PM -0500, Christopher Martin wrote:
> The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has the
> authority to determine these matters of interpretation? Specifically, who
> decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The developers do, through
> GRs
Best stock for Year 2006 - read the story and you will s e e f o r y o u
r s e l f.
Breaking news alert issue - big news coming.
A $1,000 dollar investment could yield a $4,000 dollar profit in
just ONE trade if you trade out at the top.
The stocks we profile show a significant increase in st
Hai ,
I want to create a debian based Live cd ... From the nete I got the tool
called "mklivecd " .. Its a deb package ..I have installed on my system..
But I didnt get excat procedure to build a live cd with my own root file
system ( may the host root file system) ...
>From whr can I get the sp
Hi Noèl,
thanks in advance. I would have started on that myself, but in our shop
time is a problem...
cheers,
wjl aka Wolfgang Lonien
--
Key ID 0x728D9BD0 - public key available at wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
'94 Honda NTV still running on fuel -
everything else here proudly runs Debian GNU/Linux
--
T
HI all!
When I go to
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=info
it tells me
... to the source package texinfo's bug page ...
But when I go to
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=texlive-base-bin
I don't see te link to the source package.
Furtherm
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> require a supermajority.
This comment seems insincere.
If the GR is adopted by Debian, ther
is anyone working on packaging helix player? I'd like to see
RealPlayer packaged also, though it would have to go in
non-free of course.
I saw an old resolved RFP for helix, but searching in synaptic
doesn't show up any matches for helix.
Britton
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Marco Nenciarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: wengophone
Version : 0.99+svn4179
Upstream Author : Wengo SAS
* URL : http://dev.openwengo.com/
* License : GPL with exception for ssl linking
Description : A fre
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:18:10AM -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
>
> is anyone working on packaging helix player? I'd like to see
> RealPlayer packaged also, though it would have to go in
> non-free of course.
>
> I saw an old resolved RFP for helix, but searching in synaptic
> doesn't show up any
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
> essentially this:
>
> We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have
> permission to remove them.
>
> Or rewritten slightly more clearly (
Britton Kerin wrote:
> is anyone working on packaging helix player? I'd like to see
> RealPlayer packaged also, though it would have to go in
> non-free of course.
I'm working on the rest of the helix-tools and real-player too. I'm in
contact with Real to fix the helix-player license and to get a
I thought I saw some stuff on their web page about helix being GPL now.
Not so?
Britton
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:14:39 +0100, "Daniel Baumann"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Britton Kerin wrote:
> > is anyone working on packaging helix player? I'd like to see
> > RealPlayer packaged also, though it
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
> > essentially this:
> >
> > We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we h
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> > DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> > require a supermajority.
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
> agreed with it. In which case those asse
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> > it would therefore seem to be the cas
Anthony Towns writes:
> In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
> suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
> felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
> DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
> > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
> > felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the so
18 matches
Mail list logo
