On Oct 18, Detlev Zundel wrote:
Damn they make it look like they are the first and only one committed
to open source stuff... This just makes me angry.
I don't see a word in that page that implies that they are the first
and only one committed to open source stuff. IMHO, if they
[This is my last post on -devel on this topic. More discussion
encouraged in debian-project.]
Debian is about creating a Unix/linux/hurd distribution, not about
packaging everything under the sun in the .deb format.
I think we need a policy on pure data packages.
Pure data packages are a
Hi *,=20
I am the maintainer who uploaded that big package and you convinced me=20
that it makes no sense to have something like this in Debian.=20
SUMMARY: You probably do not want to read all this. It is only a bad=20
excuse for wasting Debians bandwidth but I would like to tell you my=20
Examples of data packages which does NOT belong to debian (IMHO):
2) Any kind of text easily findable on the web (RFCs (even though I
love to have RFCs around, but we have a draw a line))
NO!! RFCs are *very* important when writing software. They are the
standards upon which a large
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Gerhard Poul wrote:
I don't think that there is something like an 'official' partner of the FSF.
AFAIK Debian evolved out of a GNU Project.
btw: RMS != rms :-)
Well - Debian is the preferred GNU/Linux distribution of the FSF - by rms'
words. As can be seen from the
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 09:57:30PM -0400, Decklin Foster wrote:
Philippe Troin writes:
snip
Comments welcome, but ON debian-project only please.
I like it, but... do I get to keep fortune? I *like* my fortunes, and
I feel bad agreeing with your sentiments on data whilst using this
[f'up]
On Tue, 19 October 1999 21:43:57 +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Why not allow Source only packages ?
Something like that is the only workable thing, methinks.
Having a source where a source is 99+ % the same data is waste.
Before that is agreed on (and there is a need, I read it
here) I
7 matches
Mail list logo
