Re: Suggest

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 07:30:24PM +0330, Binesh Moradi wrote: > In the future, definitely create a mobile version of Debian that can run on > phones, like Ubuntu Touch. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2024/07/msg4.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2024/07/msg5.html http

Suggest

Hello , Good time In the future, definitely create a mobile version of Debian that can run on phones, like Ubuntu Touch. Thank from IRAN 🦅

Re: Bug#882445: possible offensive packages in suggest

> > If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into > a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name > by adding "-offensive". For example, "cowsay" vs > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > be Suggested by the core packag

Bug#879946: ITP: suggest-el -- discover Emacs Lisp functions based on examples

Package: wnpp Owner: Lev Lamberov Severity: wishlist * Package name: suggest-el Version : 0.5 Upstream Author : Wilfred Hughes * URL or Web page : https://github.com/Wilfred/suggest.el * License : GPL-3+ Programming Lang: Emacs Lisp Description : discover Emacs

Bug#810378: lintian: suggest to use https:// over git:// (was: Re: Death to git://! Long live git://!)

Package: lintian Severity: wishlist Paul Tagliamonte writes: > We still have `git://` all over the place, for instance, on Vcs-Git on > control files. That makes me sad. Boo insecure transports. > > `git://` is plaintext, and plaintext transports are bad. > > I'd like to

Bug#699077: ITP: isenkram -- Suggest packages to install when inserting new hardware

, shell Description : Suggest packages to install when inserting new hardware Try to figure out what packages are need freshly inserted hardware dongle. See http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/isenkram/ > and the git source for information of the project. -- Happy hacking Pet

Re: Bug#686075: modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:05:46PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > On 28.08.2012 14:49, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Aug 28, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> We don't have the infrastructure though, to do such hardware based > >> installation requests, i.e. a system service which constantly monitors > >> ne

Re: Bug#686075: modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it

On 28.08.2012 14:49, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Aug 28, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> We don't have the infrastructure though, to do such hardware based >> installation requests, i.e. a system service which constantly monitors >> newly plugged in devices, has a database of devices mapping to packages,

Re: Bug#686075: modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it

On Aug 28, Michael Biebl wrote: > We don't have the infrastructure though, to do such hardware based > installation requests, i.e. a system service which constantly monitors > newly plugged in devices, has a database of devices mapping to packages, > and a service running in the user session whic

Re: Bug#686075: modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it

.oO(I thought I had explicitely dropped -devel, meh). Le mardi, 28 août 2012 14.07:40, Reinhard Tartler a écrit : > I'd suggest to signal the situation properly to the user. This would > make the situation less hard to identify. > > Ideally, the user is presented some dialog b

Re: Bug#686075: modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it

gt;> Version: 0.5.2.0-1 >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Michael Biebl wrote: >>>> Am 18.10.2011 21:16, schrieb Tollef Fog Heen: >>>>> >>>>> modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it. >>>>

Re: Bug#686075: modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it

M, Michael Biebl wrote: >> > Am 18.10.2011 21:16, schrieb Tollef Fog Heen: >> >> >> >> modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it. >> > >> > The problem then is, that users get failures which are extremely hard to >&

modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it

you want the s/Recommends/Suggests/. >> >> modemmanager shouldn't recommend usb-modeswitch, but suggest it. >> > > The problem then is, that users get failures which are extremely hard to > debug. The hardware simply won't work for them and we don't h

Suggest to purge removed packages with init scripts before squeeze upgrade (was: Why is help so hard to find?)

looks like the reason why I've never > seen this is that I routinely purge deinstalled packages on all my > systems and most of the problems are with packages that have been > deinstalled but not purged and have obsolete init scripts. I wonder if we > should suggest people consid

Re: Bug#505111: will suggest removal from testing

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 04:31:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > On Saturday 07 August 2010, Neil McGovern wrote: > > > As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of > > > August for the removal of the package unless there's significant

Re: Bug#505111: will suggest removal from testing

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 07 August 2010, Neil McGovern wrote: > > As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of > > August for the removal of the package unless there's significant > > progress to fixing the issue. > > I still feel this is an overre

Re: Bug#505111: will suggest removal from testing

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 04:31:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 07 August 2010, Neil McGovern wrote: > > As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of > > August for the removal of the package unless there's significant > > progress to fixing the issue. > > I still f

Re: Bug#505111: will suggest removal from testing

On Saturday 07 August 2010, Neil McGovern wrote: > As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of > August for the removal of the package unless there's significant > progress to fixing the issue. I still feel this is an overreaction as only the original reporter has ever see

Re: Bug#505111: will suggest removal from testing

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Can we PLEASE rename this from "rescue" image to "safe mode" image, and > document in its boot screen that it should NEVER be used in a system with > filesystem or RAID problems? Well, my whole reply came out with a lot more annoyed tone th

Re: Bug#505111: will suggest removal from testing

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, Neil McGovern wrote: > Well, it seems that other people haven't taken an interest in the bug, > and we've now frozen, again. Yes. And the justifications in the bug report for not fixing the underlying issues go like this: we should take actions which are guaranteed to destro

Re: Bug#505111: will suggest removal from testing

Well, it seems that other people haven't taken an interest in the bug, and we've now frozen, again. As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of August for the removal of the package unless there's significant progress to fixing the issue. Neil -- the hacklab room is the

Bug#590306: MTA/smarthost questions don't suggest reportbug works without them

Package: reportbug Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Hi (again), here is another wishlist bug inspired by the current thread on debian-devel. As several people noticed, it is not at all obvious that reportbug actually works very well without a local MTA or a smartho

Re: Fw: Bug#587620: (wishlist) debian packages: add an optional "Why" field to "suggest" entries (in the dependency field)

Neil Williams writes: > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:45:20 +0200 > Alexandre Fournier wrote: > >> > Sometimes, from a user point of view, understanding why a package A >> > recommends or suggests package B1 or B2 is not straightforward. >> > >> > It would be nice to add an optionnal "why" field to e

Re: Fw: Bug#587620: (wishlist) debian packages: add an optional "Why" field to "suggest" entries (in the dependency field)

It would be nice to add an optionnal "why" field to explain what features are enabled in package A when installing package B1. IMHO if the suggests isn't obvious, this should be part of the package description. Something like "this package can also handle postscript files if ghostscript is i

Re: Fw: Bug#587620: (wishlist) debian packages: add an optional "Why" field to "suggest" entries (in the dependency field)

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:45:20 +0200 Alexandre Fournier wrote: > > Sometimes, from a user point of view, understanding why a package A > > recommends or suggests package B1 or B2 is not straightforward. > > > > It would be nice to add an optionnal "why" field to explain what > > features are enab

Fw: Bug#587620: (wishlist) debian packages: add an optional "Why" field to "suggest" entries (in the dependency field)

: 587...@bugs.debian.org Sujet: Re: Bug#587620: apt: add an optionnal "Why" field to "suggest" entries (in the dependency field) Alexandre Fournier writes: > Package: apt > Version: 0.7.25.3 > Severity: wishlist > > Hello, > > Sometimes, from a user poin

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:36:12PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 19:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > > Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size, > > quantity is always quality ;-) [...] > Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:06:39 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement some >> functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you may >> think, policy is not dpkg doc

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement > some functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you > may think, policy is not dpkg documentation). Policy is also not something that should document something tha

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Burton schrieb: > The difference is probably that men have somewhat less of a history of > being evaluated this way when people aren't joking. Not sure. Perhaps, men just recently found out that they are evaluated. *g* Ciao, Eike (m)

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

> > I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but > > regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact, the > > ability to counter my sexist jokes with other jokes would be something > > that I'd really appreciate in a woman :-) > > The difference is pr

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

> > Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a > > way. This occurs much less often than its opposite. > > I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but > regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact, the > ability to counter

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov/13, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a > way. This occurs much less often than its opposite. I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:36:56 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> But our users should not be expected to look at control files in >> order to know what to install, should they? >> >> Following this reason

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:38:25PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote: > As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid in Europe and Japan > until mid 2004. Shouldn't this matter for an international project? What makes you think sarge will have been released by then? 8-) -- G. Branden Robinson

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:32:21AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > >> I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version > >> has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package. > > > >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:19:54AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order > to know what to install, should they? Users do this all the time, with tools like aptitude, apt-cache and dpkg which display [information from] the control file.

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order > to know what to install, should they? > > Following this reasoning, we might suggest that policy only states the > mandatory fields in control, and any field not co

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

gt; enhances, which means policy is allowed to talk about it. > > If you don't agree with that, talk about it on -policy(ie, that policy should > not discuss enhances). But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order to know what to install, should they? F

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Chris Cheney wrote: > Except for the fact that no tool supports Enhances... (or has that > changed?) Well, if we follow Manoj's advice, humans are tools, and they understand enhances, which means policy is allowed to talk about it. If you don't agree with that, talk about i

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > >> 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being > >>a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling > >>out of th

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:36, Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and > > > quantity, do you? ;) > > > > Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size, > > quantity is always quality ;-) > > I simply disagree

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 19:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > On Nov/12, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I don't see how making more packages available to our users is > > > "lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom". > > Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and > > qua

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:31:21AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > >> 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being > >>a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feel

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Anyway, on the given topic, are "reverse-suggests" possible? > > Quoth debian-policy, section 7.2: > > |Enhances > | This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size, > quantity is always quality ;-) And people wonder why linux doesn't encourage many women ;-) Corrin > > -- > Roberto Suarez Soto Alfa21

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov/12, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I don't see how making more packages available to our users is > > "lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom". > Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and > quantity, do you? ;) Regarding options available to choos

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > >> I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version >> has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package. > > Patented software isn't really non-free. That's why I wrote "patent emcumbere

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > >> 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being >>a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling >>out of this mailing-list, I do not give a toss about it and I t

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:28:15AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:41:10PM +0100, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > > > Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom, > > > there's no matter discussing that. > > I don't see how making more packages availabl

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Scripsit Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anyway, on the given topic, are "reverse-suggests" possible? Quoth debian-policy, section 7.2: |Enhances | This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite | direction. It is used to declare that a package can enhance the | fu

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:02:55PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > A liar? You have a very slant view on life. > > It's much better to say "you are mistaken" or "you are misinformed" then to > call someone a liar. Because you have said it this way, it looks badly on > you, no matter what the other pe

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

NOT PART OF > > DEBIAN? > > Packages are free to suggest whatever the maintainer wishes; I wouldn't even > consider it a particularly serious bug if the suggested package did not > exist at all. Anyone else up for putting a Suggests: on 'mathieu-roy-is-a-nitwit' in the

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version > has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package. Patented software isn't really non-free. Search the list archives.

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being >a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling >out of this mailing-list, I do not give a toss about it and I think >that noone else does. A liar? You hav

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:37:58PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > 4) Patch apt-listchanges so that id doesn't mail about suggestions >on packages that are not available. apt-listchanges neither knows nor cares about suggests or recommends. -- - mdz

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield schrieb: > good question. How do we deal with this situation for other source > projects that contain things like encryption that are outlawed in > countries X, Y, and Z but OK in the US? Establish non-non-US? ;o) Ciao, Eike

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy schrieb: > As far I know, there are still no patent for software in Europe, > whatever an European institution know to fail to comply to European > rules may do. Neither GIF nor LZW is software, though. The patent is about the LZW compression algorithm. Ciao, Eike

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that > a package in mail suggests packages in non-free, which ARE NOT PART OF > DEBIAN? Packages are free to suggest whatever the maintainer wishes; I

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:27:10 +0100, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : >> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote: >>> > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >>> > >>> > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -pol

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:10:02PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract. > (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...) I have a creepy feeling that you are not wearing a user hat but rather a hat of an organisation with a specific a

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:41:10PM +0100, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > > Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom, > > there's no matter discussing that. > I don't see how making more packages available to our users is > "lowering the quality of Debian in matter of fre

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Eike Sauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Ben Gertzfield schrieb: >> As I mentioned in a response to the bug report, this is mostly a >> nonissue, since the LZW patent has expired in the US and I've merged >> the -nonfree package back into the main package in the unstable Debian >> distribution.

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 12, 2003, at 7:38 AM, Eike Sauer wrote: As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid in Europe and Japan until mid 2004. Shouldn't this matter for an international project? This is true, I believe. Whether or not the main GIMP source (distributed in main) is even allowed in Europe and Ja

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield schrieb: > As I mentioned in a response to the bug report, this is mostly a > nonissue, since the LZW patent has expired in the US and I've merged > the -nonfree package back into the main package in the unstable Debian > distribution. As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid

Re: Bug#220363: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Nov 11, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote: > >> Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> gimp1.2-nonfree > > Discussion aside, this is a nonissue, since the gimp1.2-nonfree > package is gone in unstable. > > I would very

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 12, 2003, at 1:27 AM, Mathieu Roy wrote: So you confirm what I thought (yes, I checked this page before): - the support for GIF creation inside the main gimp package, in main, has been removed in favor of a package in non-free, that provide the same functionality (plus patented

Re: Bug#220363: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 11, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote: Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install gimp1.2-nonfree Discussion aside, this is a nonissue, since the gimp1.2-nonfree package is gone in unstable. I would very much like to close this bug. Does this solve this issue to you

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

* Mathieu Roy wrote: > Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : [...] >> Note, no mention of "Suggests". > > No mention is not necessarily approval. It may be just something > forgot. That's why Tollef suggests to discuss this on -policy. -- - nobse

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov/12, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > As you're not a member of the Debian project, you don't get any say > > in what's to be accepted or not > Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract. > (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...) Note that "Users" goes befo

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Anthony Towns a tapoté : > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: >> reopen 220363 >> thanks > > Please do not abuse the BTS. If you want to discuss it, feel free to do > so, but this is not a bug in the gimp package. If you consider that not being a bug, please never claim

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:54:29AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > It is also possible to create GIFs using a patent-free run > length encoding but this doesn't achieve the compression that > one normally expects in a GIF. > >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > reopen 220363 > thanks Please do not abuse the BTS. If you want to discuss it, feel free to do so, but this is not a bug in the gimp package. > Are you kidding? > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

ate for the package to Suggest: gimp-nonfree.][1] In around a year or so, the non-free portion of the GIMP will move back into main anyway. Don Armstrong 1: Packages like this that are non-Free only because of the decisions of a particular jurisdiction, eg. software patents, don't conce

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Le mer 12/11/2003 à 10:31, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > If you have anything on topic to do, you are welcome to reply to this > mail. The whole thread is off-topic on this list. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PRO

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If not, why incitating people to get non-free stuff while you just can > provide a Gimp that can save GIF without LZW? If it isnt already there - write a patch for it if you want that. -- bye Joerg A.D. 1492: Christopher Columbus arrives in what he beli

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

erent thing. The current policy still has to be followed. It is the > current agreement. No additional assumptions can be made. "It must not require [...] for execution...". Suggested packages are just nice addons for something, not required. They are for users to see what other pac

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : >> * Mathieu Roy >> | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> | gimp1.2-nonfree >> Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> If you disagree with this, please discuss it

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > >> 2) Why the gimp cannot any longer save gif files without installing >> non-free software? > > The software itself is free, but the algorithm necessary to save GIF > files (LZW) is patent encumbered in certain parts of the planet, and > the patent i

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:27, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main > > > > "...the packages in main > > > > * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or > > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> * Mathieu Roy >> >> | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> | gimp1.2-nonfree >> >> Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> >> If you dis

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote: >> > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> > >> > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a >> > technical discussion. >> >> 1) Do you have a pointer that g

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > 1) Do you have a pointer that give that information in the debian > policy? Policy 2.2.1: Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). In addition, the packages in main * must not require a

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. > > > > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a > > technical discussion. > > 1) Do you have a pointer that give that information in the debian policy? http://www.d

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Mathieu Roy > > | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install > | gimp1.2-nonfree > > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. > > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > * Mathieu Roy > > | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install > | gimp1.2-nonfree > > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. > > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a > technical discuss

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

* Mathieu Roy | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install | gimp1.2-nonfree Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a technical discussion. -- Tollef Fog Heen

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

reopen 220363 thanks Anthony Towns a tapoté : > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:00:44AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: >> Package: gimp1.2 >> Version: 1.2.3-2.4 >> Severity: normal >> >> Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> gimp1.2-nonfree > > If you don't want to install it,

gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Package: gimp1.2 Version: 1.2.3-2.4 Severity: normal Hi, Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install gimp1.2-nonfree I find non-appropriate for a package in main to advertise for non-free packages in non-free, which is theoretically not part of Debian -- a package part of Debia

The headers of this spam suggest knowledge of debian server setup (was Re: Secret Holy Code revealed to Seekers of Truth!)

Hi, Also... could someone please forward me all logs in regard to this spam, as well as the original posting as it was received by the list (i.e., with all headers intact? I intend to take action on its basis. -Jim --- Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: I'd like to suggest a new installation method for Debian

"Pauli Ojanpera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wouldn't it be useful to have an option for Debian remote install through > network? > > I mean this: > > - Boot the computer you're going to install Debian to with a installation > boot disk. > - Configure the installation through a telnet sessio

I'd like to suggest a new installation method for Debian

Wouldn't it be useful to have an option for Debian remote install through network? I mean this: - Boot the computer you're going to install Debian to with a installation boot disk. - Configure the installation through a telnet session using a remote workstation. - Get the packages through netwo

Bug#1972: perl should suggest kernel sources

Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in a magnificent manifestation of deity, wrote: >Package: perl >Version: 5.001-4 > >Perl should suggest kernel sources, rather than grumble in postinst >later. fixed. Darren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.daft.com/~torin/>