d if perhaps
some arch failed to build because something changed in one of
the build dependencies?
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060801 14:25]:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:58:57AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060731 19:52]:
> > > I completely understand your point - but still, it still places an
> > > un
should limit to fixing one bug,
> doing as little besides that as possible, but if they don't it's not
> _that_ hard to revert.
Except when anything in the pre/postinst/rm scripts went wrong.
Those changes are often not revertable at all as it might require
to keep workarounds.
Hoc
nd this is a limitation we have to
make clear to people and not lock them into by claiming all is good
and well and it could be part of our free operating system.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] having no software at all increases the pain and makes it more
likely someone writes somethin
r a argument how this is in any way different
from any other driver for hardware. The only advantage of firmware is
that it does not hurt people with minority arches (But given Vancouver
that can not be a difference, because we do not care about arches not
used by everyone, do we) more than other peop
eeprom where
> it's a pain to replace with free firmware.
As I said. As long as noone cares for free firmwares, what difference
does it make? I the vendor opens the specs, there should be a free one
and not problems. If it does not open the specs the eeprom version has
the advant
s" and "fallacy" can easily be
treated like swear words are treated elsewhere. When they are used they are
almost always just escalating the situation, I've never seen them help...)
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think
> we should avoid.
That's why I dislike the term "ad hominem". Where is appears the
discussion is already at the meta level. And usually at the calling
names type of discussion, too. I thus think avoiding that catch
phrase can only help.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nal to copyright does not make those
documents non-free. Logos are quite extreme in that regard, but that
similarity at least gives a little gray touch to it.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thing. It sometimes need a bit between an FTBS and the bugs
being sent.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
h that.
I do not think anyone suggested mere aggregation would be a problem.
> When their practices involve rejecting packages that it's perfectly
> legitimate to distribute in main, I strongly disagree.
I do think Debian should have a higher goal than just shipping
everything that i
much more complicated[1]. And having a binary and
it's source in different directories really streches the meaning of
"accompany" noticeably.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] Though I fear there support for this "feature" is doomed to stay,
as Debian switc
cracy introduced by
it. (Too many options might be bad, but better having too many but to
less, as the first suggestor throw out the water tank as he suggested
everyone should drink salt water and there is enough of it...)
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
hdot and other sides).
Not sure if this makes the situation much better. But it was not
actually totally surprising.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
how I understand
it:
"Silly" is mostly about missing intellectual skills, so applying it
to actions, ideas or questions is mostly pars pro toto meaning the
human it originates from.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@list
"ad-hominem"
or "strawman" on the other lists.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
* Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>
> > Perhaps there is a way to [???] discourage all meta-discussion or
> > mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
> > lists.
>
> Perhaps y
* Manoj Srivastava [090818 22:42]:
> On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
> >> Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
> >> those logical fallacies?
> >
> > I think succinct term
pic
and it is you deciding the discussion no longer has any chance to lead
anywhere. This means that if you were wrong, then you are escalating the
discussion to an pure flame war and you are reguesting all on-topic
discussion to stop my pulling it into a off-topic discussion.
Hochachtungsvoll,
t (One gives no facts[1] when one just call
something "bikeshadding", so one cannot be contradicted) makes me
only wish someone had the power to ban the one pulling the thread
off-topic by such behaviour.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] And as you gave no facts and just called names,
"winning"
a discussion, I'd put "Accuse the other side of fallacies." in there.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] Which usually makes those threads even longer, as noone is
content with having persuaded a majority.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
plant
if planed, someone suggests to place it elsewhere. Many people start
shouting "bikeshadding, bikeshadding, bikeshadding" and the discussion
is closed before someone can mention that the place where the plant is
currently planed there is no way to cool it.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bern
t out the order
to unpack/configure stuff. And if some dependencies are missing a single
apt-get install -f after it will usually get those from your CD/other
offline medium you have.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian
I never
considered it to have any effect without volunteers willing to do so.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20100625114435.ga8...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
ger say I am the
Debian maintainer of X, just because someone thought "Debian maintainer"
was a nice term to give some new special meaning inside Debian.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "
gt; my
> conclusion is that it would be harmless for the ports to ignore the package
> completely.
We had this discussion already: show me a port that want to ignore packages.
If you as package maintainer want to ignore bugs in your package by
ignoring architectures showing them, then say it th
* Russ Allbery [100714 19:00]:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> > * Charles Plessy [100714 02:15]:
>
> >> In situations where nobody volunteers to do the work of porting leaf
> >> packages for scientific computation on embedded arches where nobody
> &g
ssive license, and US government owned
stuff is not necessarily public domain outside the US).
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
Niklaus Wirth
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-re
mation so that people can evaluate the copyright state.
In my eyes having only a "Copyright: PD" or "License: PD" without any
additional information is likely to be as error prone as having no
License: but only a "FreeSoftware: true" field for copyrighted stuff.
an/copyright to
> document copyright information of files that are not part of the source
> package.
As I think debian/copyright is the right place to document that the
source was repacked[1], I think it makes also sense to say there how
and perhaps why it was repacked.
Bernhard R.
* Gunnar Wolf [100914 19:25]:
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days,
Actually, AFAIK since lenny we no longer use major.minor but
release.andhalf.point.
There just has not been any 5.1.0 (aka lenny-and-half).
Bernhard R
l is to tell DAM that we do not oppose
second-class Debian Developers with less privileges, so that they may add
second-class DDs in the hope that this will encourage more non-packagers to
become DDs (albeit then second class ones).
Did I guess that approximately right?
If not I'd like gett
ough for
Debian to treat it like an free license. So if that is not applicable,
then having a keyword "public domain" does not make much sense.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
#x27;t list "public in the USA", thus it would be granted
to everybody.
I'd suggest to ask a lawyer about statements like that. From what I
understand it might be possible that one day the US goverment decides
it wants to sue someone copying things like that outside the US and
might win i
ngs mentioned in some
README file?
I doubt any lawyer can really answer this, but it's still something we
should seek an answer for.
Bernhard R. Link
[1] note I used "how" and not "if" or "whether".
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@l
ian-legal. It's still the only place to get
a license reviewed. And unless you are (reasonably) sure a license is free, you
should get someone else look at first, which in Debian is done in
debian-legal.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.deb
ession that is still only to be used for Debian proper so isn't the
use of the official logo in themes quite problematic for derivatives
that do not derivate enough to change the themes?
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
wit
er with less information? It's much easier to
decide which mail includes parts from "to be kept private forever" mails
as long as one still has all of them to be sure.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of &quo
ests.
And there are feature requests for the packaging.
If a package is big enough to have problems with so many things, there
should be enough people to look at them manually...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
you are known to read? Look a bit around, they do it
nowhere else.
Of corse, in both situations:
- Morons, trolls and people liking to discuss for the purpose to
discuss will not stop but continue to bash you.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ing to CC people not setting that header but
requesting it manually it also impolite. But it easily happens
unintentionally, so better set that little header.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
those files, makes it much easier, too)
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e seriously sponsoring is almost as much work
as packaging a package on your own, but that is true for every
teaching by letting do and looking over it.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
mozilla-thunderbird: It cannot read mail, it cannot send mail. It is the
victory of dialup over the
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060412 08:39]:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Isn't this almost equivalent of giving them their Account directly
> > and ask them to get any new package reviewed by someone else?
> > (As there is nothi
when you have a new upstream version where you should download the
> upstream tarball and check that it's the same that has been submitted by
> the applicant... who does that every time ?
Huh? That is a matter of seconds.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
eve we have a problem finding people
willing to package something to itch their scratch, but finding people
doing more than that.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
mozilla-thunderbird: It cannot read mail, it cannot send mail. It is the
victory of dialup over the internet.
--
To UN
my question: Is there anything in NM that a applicant has to
show that is not needed to make sure he can be trusted to package
that packages?
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
mozilla-thunderbird: It cannot read mail, it cannot send mail. It is the
victory of dialup over the internet.
should
not need to be able to a answer?
> And yes people who are volunteering to "simply maintain one package" are
> contributors that we shouldn't reject.
I'm not suggest to reject them. Unless "simly" means "without having to
go through NM".
Hocha
his might
be temporary, but in the last month it was extreme.
- nickserv/chanserv services differ. I'm receiving the expression
freenodes are more sophisticated, but that might just be usage.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060501 23:12]:
> On 10641 March 1977, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>
> > - network stability: oftc annoys with many netsplits lately. This might
> > be temporary, but in the last month it was extreme.
>
> No, some were there, but n
wyers about the consequences this whole change
may have?
Currently SPI is like an anchor tieing Debian into the legal world.
Losening that tie might[1] result in vanishing too much causing some
practical problems.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
P.S: I still do not understand why this whole chan
ng
has more time to walk through several hops to report it. (Or he will
switch away totaly). But someone abe to diagnose the problem can
just work around it normaly and not help others improving their code
when they do not want his contribution.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
A GR should wait - within reasonable time - until developers can have
the information they need for a informed decision. Changing something
important like this without some statement from the people directly
involved in this would otherwise look so rushed that at least my
caution would default me
he creation of a Debian Foundation, more sensitive to our eeds, with
> a constitution that precludes it interfering with our modus operandi
> or else it feels offended.
Thanks for making clear the GR is not about some issue or topic but
to drive some of your personal rants.
Bernhard
54 matches
Mail list logo
