I am not subscribed to debian-legal
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:01:05PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>
> I'm saying that a package built with ecc (or icc or whatever) is not
> the same package that you'll get if you build the same so
be harder to track down, but not from a ``it is a different
package'' because of using icc instead of gcc.
--
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
> > the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
>
hich neatly sidesteps the entire
``intent of buildable with tools in main'' issue entirely.
--
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I don't have any problems with Don personally, but I personally would
> rather we had a full-fledged Debian Developer as our other delegate to
> this committee.
i tried to volunteer[1] but i have not seen that message hit the list
yet.
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTE
John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:16:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >
> > >Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer.
> > >Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a
> > >computer to read
Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:50:13PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
%< snip of definitions >%
> Pretty good. I would have tried to phrase it slightly differently, but you
> have hit the nail on the head.
>
> If it's represented essentially as
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:38:43 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are
> > missing is a clear working definition to separate out Software,
> > Data,
MJ Ray wrote:
>
> Does anyone have *NEW DATA* to bring to the discussion?
as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing
is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and
Documentation.
once we do that to our own satisfaction, then we can get on with
def
9 matches
Mail list logo
