On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:47:18AM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 19:05, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > I say it should build from scratch using all DFSG tools if it is going
> > to go in main. That's just me.
I agree completely. That is the definition of main, isn't it?
>
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 19:05, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I say it should build from scratch using all DFSG tools if it is going
> to go in main. That's just me.
I think that if software is to be in main, then besides being
buildable with tools from main - it should also not lack
functionality (when r
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:47:18AM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 19:05, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > I say it should build from scratch using all DFSG tools if it is going
> > to go in main. That's just me.
I agree completely. That is the definition of main, isn't it?
>
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 19:05, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I say it should build from scratch using all DFSG tools if it is going
> to go in main. That's just me.
I think that if software is to be in main, then besides being
buildable with tools from main - it should also not lack
functionality (when r
I don't think I agree. If you can't compile the package with Free tools
then putting it in main doesn't make sense. You can't rebuild the
package using Free Software. Jikes or something was seriously taken to
task for their use of a JavaCC generated grammer. The arguement was that
even though you c
I don't think I agree. If you can't compile the package with Free tools
then putting it in main doesn't make sense. You can't rebuild the
package using Free Software. Jikes or something was seriously taken to
task for their use of a JavaCC generated grammer. The arguement was that
even though you c
Hallo Egon,
* Egon Willighagen wrote:
>On Thursday 11 September 2003 09:37, Mark Howard wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote:
>If they are in contrib or even non-free, then they do not violate any policy,
>so important maybe, but I would say just normal... and cer
Hallo Egon,
* Egon Willighagen wrote:
>On Thursday 11 September 2003 09:37, Mark Howard wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote:
>If they are in contrib or even non-free, then they do not violate any policy,
>so important maybe, but I would say just normal... and cer
--- Mark Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote:
> > I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free
> > VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling
> > our software with free tools and again
On Thursday 11 September 2003 09:37, Mark Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote:
> > I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free
> > VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling
> > our software with free too
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote:
> I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free
> VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling
> our software with free tools and against free libraries or free APIs.
Doesn't this happen
--- Mark Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote:
> > I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free
> > VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling
> > our software with free tools and again
On Thursday 11 September 2003 09:37, Mark Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote:
> > I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free
> > VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling
> > our software with free too
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote:
> I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free
> VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling
> our software with free tools and against free libraries or free APIs.
Doesn't this happen
I have been observing the various discussions about changing java policy
etc ..
I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free
VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling
our software with free tools and against free libraries or free APIs.
For e
I have been observing the various discussions about changing java policy
etc ..
I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free
VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling
our software with free tools and against free libraries or free APIs.
For e
16 matches
Mail list logo
