On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:53 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
DFSG is a guideline and a target: we must no go far as the nearest point
we reached, but it still a guideline.
Consider:
- we never had a full DFSG Debian (also when DFSG was written)
- we have RC also on stable releases. What
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
practical consensus between the needs of our users and the needs of
the free software community.
I
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
say,
this would be a good time.
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as soon as
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
desire by the voters that we release Lenny.
Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release
Lenny. However, I don't want a bad release, I want a
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 07:59 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Also, is it really interesting to the average DD where this queue is?
People should be able to upload and expect their packages to end up in
the archive. It really *absolutely* does not matter if that upload goes
straight to ftp-master or
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 21:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 04:59:58PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Please always only use the symbolic names for the places to upload to
(ie ftp.upload.debian.org and ssh.upload.debian.org), do not use any
machine name directly. Queues
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
exchange, and assume that the sponsors are
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
It seems to me as if what happened was:
You thought the preamble was rationale and not part of the
resolution proper; but the proposer said no, that was an important
part of the resolution
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have
mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors
are clear about their intent.
Right, so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second this proposal.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about
what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it
currently stands. The proposal is only the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it's the latter, I maintain that this is precisely the subject matter of
the proposed GR; we obviously *don't* have agreement in Debian over what
should or should not be considered a program, so I think that's begging
the question.
However, your
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership. Make it 100%
mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first.
There are many ways of working together with people, and
co-maintainership works well for some
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific
motive to change the package
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a
user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
basis, across the entire set
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
dialogues I have initiated and participated in with
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
with Ubuntu, then you can be
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to
change the maintainer field with that.
Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that
context.
Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do!
Please show me
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
for the sake of changing a
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You quite obviously haven't read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I
wrote (among other important things), it would be fairly straightforward
for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages. I
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
than Ubuntu.
How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter?
As a rule, those other
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
I'm quickly losing interest
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
result. And even to take action based on that assumption. Or do you
always wait for perfect information before
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:25:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
So, Helen is kind enough to summarise her views on why she doesn't
participate in the project as fully as she might, and she's
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quite. But you too are ignoring one detail: that behavioral
trait is expressed preferentially in one gender; perhaps due to
cultural indoctrination, perhaps due to inherent biology.
I have no idea if this is true. Moreover, I don't think it
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
complete with
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) That debian contains bullying or aggressive elements. She is *not*
inventing this, she did *not* come into the discussion with this as a
stereotype that she's trying to fit debian into. It's quite clearly
observable.
This part I agree about.
2)
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem Helen refers to in the most part is not *overt* sexism. The
problem is *subliminal/covert* sexism, where everyone is treated the
same way but women in general (through social training, upbringing,
whatever) are less well adapted to such
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question to which Helen was initially responding was not why should
we change the environment?. It was why are there so few women in
debian?.
Fair enough.
If there are grander reasons for changing the environment then that's
wonderful, but I
Mike Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're a previously persecuted minority, dammit, treat us special, we
deserve the land you have worked hard for. even though we sit on our asses.
New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States all have some
similarity vis-a-vis native populations.
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
dark hysterical is actually an interesting word, it basically
means having a womb. Psychologists once thought it was something
women did naturally.
Sort of. They thought it was something that happened to women, and
not men, and was
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 12:44:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
As I said, if there is any truth to the notion that men are better at
being bullied. I suspect there is not really much truth to that.
Either men are better at being bullied
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:10:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Helen said women are likely to be not so confident that their skills
will allow them to survive in an environment like debian, compared to
their male counterparts. And then, her
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
people will bully her because she's female. She simply fears that
people will bully her (as they bully others, male or female), and her
claim is that males (by social training or otherwise) are better suited to
such environments than females are.
I think
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:23:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Accordingly, because I believe in the concept of causality, I am
closing this report. (Present tense;
Present perfect
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whether everyone on the planet sees a reason to mention
anything is not really a concern. The fact remain it is mentioned,
and reading news on debian machines is prohibited.
Sure, I don't know who would have thought it wasn't. Still, it's a
Adam Jacob Muller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the term free software implies that you are not paying anything. while
that is true of open source software that is not the primary concern, in
my opinion, it is that it is open for you to look at the source code and
that implies that it is free.
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's wrong with, say, attaching a patch, or a script log? Especially on
the list like debian-user and debian-testing, where these things are often
necessary to be able to diagnose a problem.
You can include them in email without using bletcherous
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They're not bletcherous... they more clearly indicate if something is an
external part of a message, and it's easier to save them to a local file,
and you don't have to edit the file afterwards to remove the rest of the
e-mail.
Actually, it's easier for
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But better ask why Debian should be a GNU project? I't wouldn't get us
anything, but that copyright for programs (scripts and the like)
probally should be handed over to FSF. Which means a lot of beucracy
with little gain.
There is some gain to be had,
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By law, what is not explicitly permitted is prohibited. You are permitted
ONLY to make verbatim copies, you are not allowed to use it as a basis for
your own license because there is no explicit permission for it. In fact
there is an explicit denial of
Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rando Christensen) writes:
Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depending on a
package called 'license-gpl' ?
Nothing is wrong with this idea, except that it is unnecessary. All
packages implicitly depend on the
Christian Surchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was thinking about it, and personally I like it as description for the
situation.
I think it would be clearer, and not *that* much of a problem, if we
added a dependency on base-files.
Christian Surchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 04:29:18PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think it would be clearer, and not *that* much of a problem, if we
added a dependency on base-files.
bash-2.03$ apt-cache show base-files
Package: base-files
Essential
I take it back.
Binaries do not need to have the GPL with them, according to the GPL,
at least not directly.
Rather, a binary can only be distributed if you also distribute
source. Source can only be distributed if you put a copy of the
license in with it, according to the terms of the
Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Therefore, having every GPLed package depend on base-files is
pointless.
Does alien ignore dependencies?
Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
So I'm pretty sure, despite my immediately previous messages, that we
must distribute the GPL in the actual .deb of the relevant package.
However, nothing compels us to *install* that in any way
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actively monitoring "delayed" applicants (to recheck their status etc.)
does take time, no matter how you engineer the process.
That's true, but I think the appropriate thing to do is say to the
potential volunteer "you seem to be too busy right now to
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 05:48:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
And WHAT makes you think that a delay is a sign of "limited interest"?
How else can a lack of reply be interpreted?
In my case, my office was being moved, email was very backed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
Then explain that to the new maintainer team and ask for an extension.
Incidentally, the notion of an "extension" is fine, but only if there
is communication of the need to ask for one.
In my case, nobody ever informed me that a three-week deadline, or
Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Surely you do not believe this, do you? There will ALWAYS be useful
software (at least, useful to someone) with licenses that fail our
somewhat arbitrary criteria for what we consider to be free.
Does the phrase "somewhat arbitrary" denote your respect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) writes:
"Some non-free software has been made to work on Debian. Though this
software is not at all a part of debian, apt can be used to install
it. This software has varying licenses which may prevent you from
using, modifying, or sharing it. Do you
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not just the location of the archive that provides convenience to
users. It's also the integration with the actual Debian distribution -
things like the BTS and the quality control that goes with it matter
too.
Unfortunately, it also leads to
I happen to support the General Resolution which is the subject of
this week's flame war. But leaving that aside, the question of this
General Resolution is less important than the question of Debian
itself.
Debian is a great thing, a wonderful thing. All of us who work on it
may have
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?
I believe the reasons are those articulated in Paragraph Five of the
Social
Frank da Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's no point arguing about the license -- we have to pay our bills
here, and selling a few large licenses to companies that can easily afford
them is how we do it -- but I don't want people to misunderstand the
license. Again, for those who are
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wichert hasn't failed for that and this is not Wicherts fault. Don't
make it one. Wichert, Dwarf and myself were discussing things recently.
OK. Whose fault is it? What were the result of the discussions?
Thomas
Robert Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 07:07:54PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
OK. Whose fault is it?
With all due respect, I don't believe it matters.
The only thing that matters of itself is that new developers get added
promptly.
In a democratic
I'm interested in this question for several reasons. Basically, I'd
like to be a new maintainer, but the process is 1) not clear and 2)
officially closed. So I'm sitting here, waiting, wondering what
possible motivations there could be for ever having it officially
closed, and bemusedly
65 matches
Mail list logo
