Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sam Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: perforce
Version : 2007.2-2
Upstream Author : Perforce Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.perforce.com/
* License : proprietary
Programming Lang: binary only (with
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 07:30:09PM +0100, Sam Clegg wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Sam Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: perforce
> Version : 2007.2-2
> Upstream Author : Perforce Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.perforc
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
> for Debian, what is the point of adding another? Especially when it is
> non-free.
How about "people use it"? There's plenty of installations of
perforce
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 07:52:55PM +, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> > Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
> > for Debian, what is the point of adding another? Especially when it is
> > non-fre
* Pierre Habouzit:
>> How about "people use it"? There's plenty of installations of
>> perforce;
>
> s/perforce/windows/ and the sentence is still true ;)
The Windows copyright is pretty restrictive AFAIK. If it weren't, I'm
certain we hould ship things like Virtualbox VMs in non-free because
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to me that this depends on Perforce. D'oh.
>
> (I don't know anything about Perforce. Perhaps it's really dangerous
> software. But perhaps it's just non-free.)
Perforce is an absolutely *excellent* VCS with the unfortunate
distinction
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 09:32:23PM +, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit:
> >> I think making it easier to use Debian with them is
> >> within the mandate for non-free.
> >
> > There is ways to interact with perforce in debian, in a free way:
> > git-p4 being one of them.
> | * The imp
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
>> Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
>> for Debian, what is the point of adding another? Especially when it is
>> non-free.
>
> How about "people use it"? There's p
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 14:42 -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seems to me that this depends on Perforce. D'oh.
> >
> > (I don't know anything about Perforce. Perhaps it's really dangerous
> > software. But perhaps it's just non-free.)
>
> Perf
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 05:41 +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> >> Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
> >> for Debian, what is the point of adding another? Especiall
Sam Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perforce is an absolutely *excellent* VCS with the unfortunate
> > distinction of being proprietary. SubVersion can do most (but not all) of
> > what it does, albeit 10 times slower. Still, I've migrated all of my stuff
> > over to subversion, because, w
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
> for Debian, what is the point of adding another?
I don't see the relevance of this argument, really, but if you really think
it's a problem: What if someon
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:15:38PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
> > for Debian, what is the point of adding another?
>
> I don't see the relevance
* Pierre Habouzit:
>> (I don't know anything about Perforce. Perhaps it's really dangerous
>> software. But perhaps it's just non-free.)
>
> OTOH I'm always reluctant to see new things enter non-free when there
> is perfectly suitable alternatives. I mean git, hg, bzr, or even the
> horrible s
On 08-Oct-07, 16:15 (CDT), "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. S??nchez wrote:
> > Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
> > for Debian, what is the point of adding another?
>
> I don't see the r
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
> for Debian, what is the point of adding another? Especially when it is
> non-free.
Firstly, as it is non-free, it isn't really going "into Debian".
Second
Le jeudi 11 octobre 2007 à 15:01 +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
> It seems every other semi-controversial ITP gets an obligatory "why
> package this when we have X,Y,Z instead?" reply, although seemingly
> never from an ftp-master or mirror maintainer or anyone else who is
> actually impacted by arch
Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems every other semi-controversial ITP gets an obligatory "why
> package this when we have X,Y,Z instead?" reply, although seemingly
> never from an ftp-master or mirror maintainer or anyone else who is
> actually impacted by archive sizes :-(
Consid
18 matches
Mail list logo
