On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 06:49:32AM +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> >
> > > On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> We Do Not Distribute
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
> >> Users.
>
> > Now think about why we
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:26:45PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > untruth in what i said above, or in the other mail ?
>
> Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
> devices in question.
Yeah, well, sure there is,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Now think about why we do not do it.
>> It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
>> reasons. We have all agreed to work together on the basis of the
>> Social Contrac
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now think about why we do not do it.
> It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
> reasons. We have all agreed to work together on the basis of the
> Social Contract, which says that We Do Not Distribute Non-Free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
>> Users.
> Now think about why we do not do it.
It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
reason
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
> Users.
Now think about why we do not do it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
>> devices in question.
> i.e. screwing our users.
We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps O
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
> devices in question.
i.e. screwing our users.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> untruth in what i said above, or in the other mail ?
Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
devices in question.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you make an announcement to all oot-module maintainers, telling them
> that they should put their packages together into linux-modules-extra
> (for main) or a similar one for contrib, and if they're not doing it,
> they will end up in an unsupported
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 06:24:12PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are
> > > > a mere
> > > > aggregation of works inside the same media, i
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
> > > mere
> > > aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
> >
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> >>
> >> > On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:52:34PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > Can you make an announcement to all oot-module maintainers, telling them
> > that they should put their packages together into linux-modules-extra
> > (for main) or a similar one for contrib, and if they're
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
> > mere
> > aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
> > non-free firmware will never run inside the same memory space as the ker
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>>
>> > On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, th
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:26:42 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:58:11AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:42:42 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > > Sven, can you please finally STOP flaming against the
> > > > debian-installer team, thank you.
> > >
> >
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:58:11AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:42:42 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > Sven, can you please finally STOP flaming against the
> > > debian-installer team, thank you.
> >
> > Well, its a simple statement of facts, is it not ? I mean, did you
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:42:42 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> > Sven, can you please finally STOP flaming against the
> > debian-installer team, thank you.
>
> Well, its a simple statement of facts, is it not ? I mean, did you
> find any untruth in what i said above,
Flames may be true and real. It is
Hello Andi,
On Tue, 18.07.2006 at 22:22:19 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Toni Mueller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 00:26]:
> > would this qualify for inclusion in a point release (ref.
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-upload-stable)?
> >
>
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > These are fine words, but how do you think they can translate into reality ?
> > We don't currently have the ressources to do it the way it should be don
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> These are fine words, but how do you think they can translate into reality ?
> We don't currently have the ressources to do it the way it should be done, and
> evne if we did, the deficiencies of d-i will make the work we do use
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 04:50:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So, i don't believe there is much choice left to the kernel team in
> > this issue but to ask for a waiver of the DFSG compliance for the
> > kernel for etch, and hope the d-i folk
May I remind you all that debian-release is NOT a discussion list?
I think the respective positions are clear. Now can the release team
please step in and say what their view on the matter is, which AFAICS is
the only reason why this thread should belong to this list?
Gerardo
26 matches
Mail list logo