Anthony Towns writes:
> It would be helpful if you didn't repeatedly skip over the points people
> think are substantive, even when they're specifically brought to your
> attention.
I'm desperately trying to punt the whole meta discussion and the whole
meta meta discussion, to focus on the issue
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:11:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
> > > I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
> > > Geez
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
> > I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
> > Geez, I hope not.
>
> If you don't want it, how does it m
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
> I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
> Geez, I hope not.
If you don't want it, how does it make sense as a "compromise"?
> > M
Anthony Towns writes:
> I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quote the parts you
(There wasn't a Mail-Followup-To: header in the mail I'm replying to)
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:06:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > Then why do you want them put in some special "debian-political" package
> > > > which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
> > > I didn't say
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:35:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Then why do you want them put in some special "debian-political" package
> > > which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
> > I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:35:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Then why do you want them put in some special "debian-political" package
> > which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
> I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed it out as a wacky suggestion,
Ac
Anthony Towns writes:
> Then why do you want them put in some special "debian-political" package
> which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed it out as a wacky suggestion,
which would rather "put it" to RMS by decrying his contention that
it's irrelev
Stop Cc'ing me.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:04:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > If you find the restrictions are that bothersome, then it's probably
> > appropriate to just put the docs in non-free. That's what it's for.
> I don't think the restrictions are that
Anthony Towns writes:
> If you find the restrictions are that bothersome, then it's probably
> appropriate to just put the docs in non-free. That's what it's for.
I don't think the restrictions are that bothersome. (Duh!)
I said that I could understand that some people might want such a
rule.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:12:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think it's reasonable to judge that people who install a package
> shouldn't automatically get something with more restrictive conditions
> attached to it.
We don't have any such rule within main; for example apt-get install
Anthony Towns writes:
> Now, I don't see any problems with the doc-debian approach I suggested,
> but perhaps you do: it's hard to tell since you just completely ignored
> it and made your own suggestion.
Well, the doc-debian approach:
1) Would still have invariant text in the main archive (sin
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And voila, you're Cc'ing me again.
> > I know it's easy to forget, but ``Our Priorities are **Our Users**
> > and Free Software''. Putting docs for random packages in a package with
> > a completely bizarre name, and collating
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:43:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > I can see justification for making a rule t
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:43:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > I can see justification for making a rule that one shouldn't have a
> > > dependency on a package w
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I can see justification for making a rule that one shouldn't have a
> > dependency on a package with invariant manual sections.
>
> And what justification would that be?
Um, f
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I can see justification for making a rule that one shouldn't have a
> dependency on a package with invariant manual sections.
And what justification would that be?
> If the primary motivation in this discussion is what's easi
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:49:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> You're, uh, just eliding what I consider the substantive and interesting
> points in this discussion. That's not really very helpful. Do you agree
> with them, and are you convinced by the arguments
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:49:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You're, uh, just eliding what I consider the substantive and interesting
points in this discussion. That's not really very helpful. Do you agree
with them, and are you convinced by the arguments?
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Th
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm uneasy with this approach. Does this mean that any time anyone wants
> to tie an (invariant, non-removable) political-type statement to technical
> docs, Debian has to take a position on that issue?
No, I'm happy to leave it up to the developer to
Anthony Towns writes:
> Uh, it's the program you've chosen to use; it's no one else's
> responsibility to make it match list policy. And hell, we've even gone
> out of our way to use a standard header to make this easy for you.
It's not a standard header. But, hey, if the proponents of this
hea
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:22:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > What does it take to get this damn message across to people? Do you
> > assume that "No Junk Mail" signs have an "(Unless it's too much effort)"
> > rider or something? If not, why do you assume M-F-T
On 12 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > What about a rant that goes the other way, about
> > how the GPL sucks? What about one that talks about why "free software"
> > beats "open source" any day? How about vice-versa? How about one that,
> > instead of talking
Anthony Towns writes:
> Please do not Cc me on mailing list posts.
>
> What does it take to get this damn message across to people? Do you
> assume that "No Junk Mail" signs have an "(Unless it's too much effort)"
> rider or something? If not, why do you assume M-F-T headers and the list
> guide
Please do not Cc me on mailing list posts.
What does it take to get this damn message across to people? Do you
assume that "No Junk Mail" signs have an "(Unless it's too much effort)"
rider or something? If not, why do you assume M-F-T headers and the list
guidelines in the developers-reference do
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The manual then goes in debian-political. I insist that
> debian-political would still belong in main, but it might perhaps be a
> good idea to prohibit other main packages from depending on it; they
> would be required to onl
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:14:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Quite right. I think we should look at the statement, and decide on
> > that basis whether we want to carry it.
>
> So, if I write a manpage for, say, mutt, and include an essay about
> how the G
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:14:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Quite right. I think we should look at the statement, and decide on
> that basis whether we want to carry it.
So, if I write a manpage for, say, mutt, and include an essay about
how the GPL is a much better licenses than th
"M. Drew Streib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is somewhat easy to sympathize with the FSF in this matter, since the
> invariant text happens to be a free software manifesto, but what if
> the invariant text were something else? Do you really want to carry around
> invariant sections from every
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:19:45AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In any event, RMS has asserted that he is not going to change how the
> Emacs Manual is licensed. We could decree that the GNU Emacs Manual, as
> presently licensed under the GNU FDL, is DFSG-Free, and you *still*
> wouldn't have
31 matches
Mail list logo
