On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stephen Gran:
>
>> It's not possible to express the full set of relations in a single
>> winner vote, as far as I can tell. It might be someone's vote to say
>> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever' and simultaneously
>> say 'but the relea
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
>> On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> >
>> >> | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
>> >> | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
* Stephen Gran:
> It's not possible to express the full set of relations in a single
> winner vote, as far as I can tell. It might be someone's vote to say
> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever' and simultaneously
> say 'but the release team does have the authority to downgrade these
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >
> >> | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
> >> | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
> >> | case-by-case-decisions as they consider
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> ,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as
>> needed ]
>> | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
>> | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the
>> | door, d
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Peter Palfrader's proposal [1] explicitly said, and I quote:
>
> | I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution.
>
> I don't think it's acceptable to bundle it up with the ongoing GR, since
> it was not proposed as an amendment to it.
> ,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as
> needed ]
> | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
> | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the
> | door, decisions need to be done how to get a rock stabl
Peter Palfrader's proposal [1] explicitly said, and I quote:
| I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution.
I don't think it's acceptable to bundle it up with the ongoing GR, since
it was not proposed as an amendment to it.
[1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00164.
Hi,
This is how things stand:
The Situation: We are close to releasing Lenny
The Problem: The kernels we are shipping have blobs that might not meet
the DFSG, and some might be in violation of the kernel's
GPL license. This would put them in conflict with the S
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:47:18 +, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.48, the following
> changes to the keyring have been made:
>
> [..]
>
> dm:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Full name: Giuseppe Iuculano
> Added key: AB92A49538EF7A0EC816A997371A69E3A
With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.48, the following
changes to the keyring have been made:
dm:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Full name: Franck Joncourt
Added key: C10ED1D0EF700A2ACACF9A3CC490534E75C089FE
dm:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Full name: Giuseppe Iuculano
Added key: AB92A49538EF7A
11 matches
Mail list logo
