On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:41:59PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> Then, I compounded my error by today mailing a similar "move the thread"
> request to 119 parties
That's right. Don't ever spam like that again or you WILL be reported to
the list-admins to have your subscription(s) cancelled. If Cra
Whether or not the proposed GR passes, I believe we need to figure out
some way of coordinating the Debian-based distributions so we do not
end up in an "RPM" type of situation where supposedly common formats
lead to highly inconsistent systems. Here's what I think is needed:
1. Some sort of way
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:53:26AM -0700, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> I see the issue of pool integration as having the following sticking
> points:
Again at the expense of "tooting my own horn", may I humbly suggest,
once again, the proposal I made in debian-devel a short while ago
concerning an ap
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Franklin Belew wrote:
>
> 1> All completely new packages are required to go into experimental for no
>less than 30 days as a trial period.
>
> 2> All new maintainers must put their packages into experimental for no
>less than 30 days as a trial
Greetings: God bless you.
Noting the tension between proponents of purifying in Debian's support
for
Free Software by removing non-free from what is now unstable (woody),
and proponents of supporting the users of non-free software by
continuing
to host non-free -with good arguments on both sides
I'm sorry for any inconvenience I've caused you.
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > Are you suggesting that this post of mine was not about a development
> > > issue?
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 10:50:59AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> > Not merely suggesting, but pointing out, as in the quote including a
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 07:37:23AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Franklin Belew wrote:
> > This is a proposal to reduce the number of bugs on the main archive and
> > to allow for a cleaner transition on package maintainership and version
> > control.
> The
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Franklin Belew wrote:
> This is a proposal to reduce the number of bugs on the main archive and
> to allow for a cleaner transition on package maintainership and version
> control.
>
[ snip - reasons why experimental should be used. ]
> This tentative p
On Jun 09, Franklin Belew wrote:
> This is a proposal to reduce the number of bugs on the main archive and
> to allow for a cleaner transition on package maintainership and version
> control.
>
> 1> All completely new packages are required to go into experimental for no
>less than 30 days as
This is a proposal to reduce the number of bugs on the main archive and
to allow for a cleaner transition on package maintainership and version
control.
1> All completely new packages are required to go into experimental for no
less than 30 days as a trial period.
2> All new maintainers must
[disclaimer: I'm not a developer. I've not posted anything here
before. Laugh me off the list if you like]
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> Nobody is forced to work on non-free. Some people choose to.
> Others want to stop them from doing so because they consider
> their ideals to b
Gentlemen (and whatever ladies there may be out of the 119
names above -I really didn't spot any-):
It really is with some embarrasment, due to my relative
late-comer-ness, not yet being a full-and-accepted
Debian Developer -my application is a week old-, and
the status of Debian-maturity of many
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, dare I ask, when was non-free created, and why? What were
> the reasons and who agreed to put non-free into the Social Contract and
> was Ian Murdock aware/involved?
Ian had left the project before the Social Contract was discussed
and a
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 12:54:04PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> I have been a Debian user for year and a half now. After having come from a
> Red Hat background, I came to love the quality that Debian offered.
Me too. (Except I came to the fold via SuSE...)
> However, although I did use a few
Hi,
I have been a Debian user for year and a half now. After having come
from a Red Hat background, I came to love the quality that Debian
offered. However, although I did use a few packages from non-free
like Netscape for a while, I found free replacements like Mozilla and
lynx-ssl were more th
> > Are you suggesting that this post of mine was not about a development
> > issue?
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 10:50:59AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> Not merely suggesting, but pointing out, as in the quote including a
> snip from http://www.debian.org/MailingLists (again, below). -devel
> is suppos
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:16:27 -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
>In the Debian Manifesto Ian Murdock said that Debian would be distributed
>by The Free Software Foundation. This would effectively prevent a non-free
>section.
Why? It prevented the distribution of non-free packages as part of th
Hello,
I am not a Debian developer, so I have no rights in the any formal matters
relating to how Debian governs itself. In earlier versions of
representative democracy, those without a vote were supposed to try to
convince those who _could_ vote of their (the non-voters') position. So,
here go
Gentlemen, thank you for responding. Of the fourteen requests I sent
to move this discussion to debian-project, which is "chartered" for
this type of intercourse, you were the only ones who replied.
I don't know whether I'll keep up the effort to make these kinds
of requests, since there are so
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:05:36AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> But this is wrong too. People can still run non-free software with
> Debian if they like; as amended, the social contract would still
> explicitly state that, and that we will support people who so choose.
We would support them, bu
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But this is wrong too. People can still run non-free software with
> Debian if they like; as amended, the social contract would still
> explicitly state that, and that we will support people who so choose.
As is being pointed out (at length and with mu
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:09:37PM +0200, Fabrice Gautier wrote:
> I suppose that the side who win the vote can keep debian.org, but
> the others may have to pick one of these.
Perhaps complete-debian.org or uncompromised-debian.org or
authentic-debian.org.
pragmatic-debian.org?
Hamish
--
Ham
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 08:30:31PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> A developer split may be a good idea. Those who want to honour
> the current contract with our users can continue to do so; those
> who want to change it on a whim can do that too.
Jez' !
Has someone registered OpenDebian.org, N
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 04:00:58PM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Some people have started to talk like if they don't get their way on
> this vote they will pick up and leave. That's distressing. I
> certainly hope they don't do so. The "pick up your toys and go home"
> philosophy has bee
24 matches
Mail list logo
