> On 10/5/19 1:10 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > I make this comment as the person who some years ago took the initiative
> > to take over the "Debian" Github group, that was more or less abandonned
> > and apparently not controlled by somebody related to Debian. It was a
> > definitely a
> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
Thomas> Not discussing the issue itself, just (respectfully)
Thomas> commenting on your reply.
Thomas> If there's no valid reason to prefer Github, then it would
Thomas> be very easy to just enforce the use only Salsa. Therefore,
On 10/9/19 4:16 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>
> On 10/5/19 11:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
>>> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
>>> preferred by the maintainer.
>>
>> So, if someone is not
On 10/5/19 11:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
>> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
>> preferred by the maintainer.
>
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
>
Hi,
On 10/5/19 1:10 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I make this comment as the person who some years ago took the initiative
> to take over the "Debian" Github group, that was more or less abandonned
> and apparently not controlled by somebody related to Debian. It was a
> definitely a bitter
Hi,
út 8. 10. 2019 v 10:06 odesílatel Michael Lustfield
napsal:
> + I can create branches that won't let me force push (git push -f)
> + I can create projects that let me push to anything except master
>
https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/protected_branches.html
--
Best regards
Hi Michael
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > - GitHub takes efforts to provide root cause analysis & lessons learned
We are all volunteers, which is not the case for GitHub employees. So
thank you for volunteering to help the Salsa admins with communication
in
Hi Michael
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:49:32AM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> - It's significantly more stable
> + I've seen "GitLab is not responding" more times than I can keep track of
> + I've also seen a large number of 500 and 504 errors (at least 1x/wk)
We have around 0,1% failure
On 10/8/19 9:49 AM, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
>> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
>> than using Salsa?
>>
>>> You may guess
Le Mardi, Octobre 08, 2019 09:49 CEST, Michael Lustfield
a écrit:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> > requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> > than using
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> than using Salsa?
>
> > You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
>
On 10/5/19 17:42, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> than using Salsa?
Because the person already has an account in GitHub, and has code there.
And when asked to
Thomas Goirand writes:
>> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
>> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
>> preferred by the maintainer.
>
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why
Hi Ole,
Thanks for your reply.
On 10/4/19 8:18 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Thomas Goirand writes:
>> On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to
>>> maintain Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send
>>> a
Le Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:40:15PM +0200, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
>
> And a side note: please accept that others in the project have opinions
> that object to yours. Not agreeing with your point of view doesn't mean
> that you're silenced or censored, despite you behaving like this. Quite
> on the
* Ole Streicher:
> You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you
> even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons
> why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason
> for the repository.
And you can't disable this Github
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to
>> maintain Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send
>> a patch to the BTS.
>
> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL,
Norbert Preining:
>>> It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain
>>> Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the
>>> BTS.
>>
>> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
>> wishes to have pull/merge
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
> > wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point?
>
> Wrong. I don't care for PR, and accept them as well as patches to BTS,
> whatever comes. This is
> > It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain
> > Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the
> > BTS.
>
> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
> wishes to have pull/merge requests from.
On 9/13/19 12:51 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> Just because you, and I, believe that "No Debian contributor should be
> expected or encouraged... ...to use any non-free tools" does not mean
> that we should *prevent* them from doing so.
Though advertising for a non-free service through the VCS
On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain
> Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the
> BTS.
If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he
wishes to have
On 9/13/19 8:14 AM, Ansgar wrote:
> So assume I want to avoid using non-free DNS and CDN services, but still
> contribute to Debian. How should that work as long as Debian uses these
> services?
If you have in mind the CDN used for security updates, well it'd be a
nice idea if DSAs were thinking
❦ 4 octobre 2019 16:57 +02, Thomas Goirand :
>>> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
>>> Vcs-* fields... There are some valid reasons to host packages on
>>> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
>>> part of the upstream
On 9/16/19 6:53 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 9/12/19 7:49 PM, Ansgar wrote:
>
>> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
>> Vcs-* fields... There are some valid reasons to host packages on
>> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as
A General Resolution might be necessary concerning potential
misinterpretation of Debian Social Contract in the project.
1. "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component."
Are webservices for example gitlab.com, cloudflare.com or dns.google a
required component in
On 9/13/19 5:29 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray writes:
>> MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org"
>> MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join
>>
ote_002
> >>
> >> Yao Wei
> >
> > I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email.
> >
> > Can you develop your point ?
> >
>
> That was my random thought:
>
> If we cannot use non-free software for Debian packaging, we canno
my email.
>
> Can you develop your point ?
>
That was my random thought:
If we cannot use non-free software for Debian packaging, we cannot naturally
install what we pack to examine the package. Therefore I thought the existence
of non-free section is probably doomed.
But since non-free
s.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
> [3]:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>
> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
> No Debian contributor should be expected or encourag
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:37:58PM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > I would not like to make cooperation with upstream more complicated.
>
> I agree with that. However, I'm not sure if it would make it harder. How does
> this cooperation work, where you need your packaging to be on the same host
Le 13 septembre 2019 00:54:47 GMT+02:00, Yao Wei a écrit :
>On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on
>> supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits
>for
>> the project.
>
Sam Hartman writes ("Debian and Non-Free Services"):
> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel.
>
> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git
> recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use
> of non-free services like
gt;> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> [2]:
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
>> [3]:
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
On September 14, 2019 12:29:19 AM GMT+09:00, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>Is anyone actually doing that? I think this entire thread is nothing
>more
>than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and
>we
>should just move on.
+100
Best comment till now. "Crusade" is the
On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "MJ" == MJ Ray writes:
> MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org"
> MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join
> MJ> github to use its private version of pull
> "MJ" == MJ Ray writes:
MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org"
MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join
MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I
MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't
Fri Sep 13 12:06:35 GMT+01:00 2019 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov :
> чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman :
> > For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
> > proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are
> > acceptable here so long as they are
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> note that the proposal is not to say "our users must not be allowed to use
> github". It's "our developers must not be allowed to force contributors to
> use github".
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain Debian packages. If you don't
> want
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
ZOMG.
IMO one of the less good ideas brought to this list. I will refrain from
further comments for everyones benefit, Ansgar brought up the most
relevant objections already.
--
cheers,
чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman :
> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
> No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. This includes proprietary
> web services. We will ensur
On 12/09/2019 18:30, Sam Hartman wrote:
Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. I don't believe that anyone within Debian will have a problem with this
statement
On 15523 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:
Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
I think the subject does not fit the content. Its more like "Forbid DDs
to use certain services".
No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working to
improve Debian, to us
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>> >
>> > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>> > to improve Debian
but…
> >He proposed the following text for such a GR.
> > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
> >
> > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. This includes proprietary
> > web service
.fsf...@suchdamage.org
> [3]:
>https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>
> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
> No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> to improve Debian, to
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Ansgar wrote:
> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the
> Vcs-* fields... There are some valid reasons to host packages on
Indeed, that will happen.
Best
Norbert
--
PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on
> supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits for
> the project.
Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
> >
> > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.
>
> Does this include:
>
> -
-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org
> [3]:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>
> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
> No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> He proposed the following text for such a GR.
>
> I think such a discussion is better on -project.
>
> [1]:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [2]:
> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
>
> No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
> to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.
Does this include:
- non-free firmware on Debian hardware,
- non-free software for interacting with hardware,
- non
Software Needs Free Tools
No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. This includes proprietary
web services. We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
collective control.
For example, Vcs-Git fields in source
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:13:23AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
documentation under a free license.
main
non-free
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all*
public forums. Generally, only a state has that power.
Not in the Collins English Dictionary. Wildly OT and doesn't matter
for this subject, though. Should I update my svenl FAQ?
On Saturday 2008-09-20, Ben Finney wrote:
cobaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Censorship is nothing more or less then banning/prohibiting certain
speach in a certain forum
No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all*
public forums. Generally, only a state has that
Filipus Klutiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
infrastructure to handle the machines.
I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the domain
name hosting
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] the rule that the FSF has about not linking to
any non-free software from their sites, [...]
That rule is a myth.
It most certainly is not. I can attest to that
On Thursday 2008-09-18, Joey Schulze wrote:
David Paleino wrote:
However, I still believe that censorship is a BadThing©, and everyone
should be given the chance to speak. But, well, I don't know what
happened with Sven and I don't even want to touch the topic.
It's not censorship
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It most certainly is not. I can attest to that personally, having been
involved in and followed multiple FSF projects for many years. It is
an expectation for all GNU projects.
Expectation and advice, but not a rule
cobaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Censorship is nothing more or less then banning/prohibiting certain
speach in a certain forum
No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all*
public forums. Generally, only a state has that power.
The crucial difference is that, in this
I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your
message but one of Sven… please don't forward messages that you don't
endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims).
debian-multimedia.org is not maintained by debian, it is for patent
encumbered stuff, liable of a
David Paleino wrote:
I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your
message but one of Sven??? please don't forward messages that you don't
endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims).
Ok, sorry for that :)
However, I still believe that censorship is a
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 03:10:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
non-free
programs
documents
firmware
art-work
games
I like it, except for the hyphen.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:21:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:53:48 +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:21:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
How about Debtags?
You can't include/exclude things from your sources.list based on
debtags.
That could be a margin of improvement to apt-get (and aptitude, and
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:59:54 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The listmaster said, when i asked them to lift the ban on debian-vote
for the DPL electoral campaign, arguing that the electoral campaign is
an exercice in democracy, and thus anyone should be allowed to ask the
candidates questions. To
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
documentation under a free license.
main
non-free
programs
documents
firmware
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this idea, but without mentioning FSF directly. More entities than
just the FSF use the GNU FDL for licensing.
I agree. The FSF also have no free document definition or similar
and I believe their position on documents is a convenience
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to follow
something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to any non-free
software from their sites, [...]
That rule is a myth. Their campaign sites like
On 11512 March 1977, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
documentation under a free license.
main
non-free
programs
documents
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to
follow something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to
any non-free software from their sites, [...]
That rule is a myth.
It most
counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
We already have had this discussion and even a GR about the removal of
non-free, and debian voted not to remove non-free.
I hope in a free world, someday.
The free software has progressed
of removing non-free, I'd support the idea of non-free.org, and if
that
will make the FSF endorse us again, why not? :)
I wonder if the FSF will ignore the fact that Debian has removed non-free
documentation from its distribution that the FSF considers free, i.e. their
own documentation distributed under
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote:
Thus, the debian.org site and the software in it should not refer to the
existence of non-free.org in such a way as to suggest getting non-free
software from there.
I tried for years to convince Debian to do this,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:40:17PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
In another 10 years (less, I hope!), the world will be more conscious about
Free Software, and its principles. And everyone will be suspicious over
closed-source. Am I a dreamer?
Yes.
The closed-source software word is
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
The separation between debian.org and non-free.org is IMHO auspicable. And,
regarding the concern of RMS about publicizing this location... well, we do
*NOT* mention debian-multimedia.org anywhere, do we? Still, lots of people use
that.
If we create
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
infrastructure to handle the machines.
I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the
domain name hosting non-free. Richard
В Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:16:57 +0200, Daniel Baumann написа:
were unaware that they also have to leave the 'Copyright (C) Daniel
Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]' lines aka author information, and they
never fixed it.
Are you talking about
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday
these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
Non-free is for GNU documentation.
I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up
Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Non-free is for GNU documentation.
I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
couple of sub-categories. Personally, I'd prefer fsf-free, but
non-free-docs would be just as good,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Non-free is for GNU documentation.
I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
couple of
Inizio messsaggio inviato:
Data: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:42:08 +0200
Da: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A: David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-project@lists.debian.org
Oggetto: Re: Debian and non-free
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:15:34AM +0200, David Paleino
On Wed, Sep 17 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Non-free is for GNU documentation.
I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up
Em Qua, 2008-09-17 às 08:15 +0200, David Paleino escreveu:
If we create non-free.org, who needs non-free, will find it. Google is their
friend :)
Google is non-free.
Greetings.
--
marcot
Página: http://marcotmarcot.iaaeee.org/
Blog: http://marcotmarcot.blogspot.com/
Correio: [EMAIL
Le Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 07:17:45PM +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal.
Someday
these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :)
Non-free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it really worth it? Are we really losing developers or users by not
being endorsed by the FSF?
I am happy to not have as users and especially as fellow developers
the kind of people who use gNewSense.
I believe that gNewSense is a great idea, since it tends to keep
ti, 2008-09-16 kello 18:14 +0200, Marco d'Itri kirjoitti:
I am happy to not have as users and especially as fellow developers
the kind of people who use gNewSense.
I believe that gNewSense is a great idea, since it tends to keep far
from Debian the worst nutcases.
And the Diplomat of the
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it would have helped if :
1) we didn't vote a GR worded in such a way as to fully discourage the
existing kernel team to work on the non-free firmware problems.
[..]
But this not being the way which was chosen, what do you expect ? In
france we say qui seme le
* David Paleino:
Does RMS know all this? I don't think he'd support such kind of
behaviour :)
Stallman tends to ignore moral rights/droit d'auteur concepts.
The GPL requires does not require preservation of the original copyright
notices. It requires appropriate copyright notices, but the
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:16:48 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
Please don't take this as a provoking mail, I'm in NM, and God knows how
many times I've read the Social Contract (and DFSG, and DMUP, and $policy)
before applying :)...
, necessary (I'd
happily --purge flashplugin-nonfree, but I can't -- I need it [work,
university, $foo]).
Well, of course removing non-free from Debian and moving non-free to
non-free.org are pretty much the same thing, are they not?
The question is whether Debian as an institution supports
need it [work,
university, $foo]).
Well, of course removing non-free from Debian and moving non-free to
non-free.org are pretty much the same thing, are they not?
The question is whether Debian as an institution supports it, not
whether humans that happen to be Debian developers do so.
Non-free
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
Please don't take this as a provoking mail, I'm in NM, and God knows how many
times I've read the Social Contract (and DFSG, and DMUP, and $policy) before
applying :)...
Did I miss something?
No. I agree with you, and actually
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:16:48 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
No. I agree with you, and actually proposed a General Resolution 8
years ago to get rid of non-free
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR to
*completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd
You'd better. If the GR only has two choices (remove non-free to the
bitbucket and the default), the
I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
infrastructure to handle the machines.
I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the
domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote:
Thus, the
Filipus Klutiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according
to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the
non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from
there.
My understanding of RMS's
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:45:01 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Essentially, this has gone backwards and forwards for years. Although
David's wording is good, now is not the time - we need to get Lenny out.
Mine is a general discussion, Lenny is not concerned, and probably neither
Squeeze, nor
98 matches
Mail list logo
