On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 07:41:17PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
The argument, or at least the one I made, was not about certain arches
having priority over others. My point was that since i386 is the most
common arch in use, the i386 packages are the most heavily tested and
are therefore ready
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 16:17, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
What!? PPC takes priority!? I thought you didn't want to support
obscure architectures!
I think this whole which architecture takes priority is silly.
As a correction only, I'd like to point out that 10-15% of desktop
computers sold
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:54:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
| On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 16:17, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
|
| What!? PPC takes priority!? I thought you didn't want to support
| obscure architectures!
|
| I think this whole which architecture takes priority is silly.
It
On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 22:16, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
It is.
Glad we agree.
I don't know a whole lot about PPC, but M68K is much better designed
that x86.
Yes, it is. Very much better designed. The i386 is what, 32-bit
extensions to a 16-bit version of an 8-bit core? Or did it start
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 16:17, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
What!? PPC takes priority!? I thought you didn't want to support
obscure architectures!
I think this whole which architecture takes priority is silly.
The argument, or at least the one
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 22:16, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
It is.
Glad we agree.
I don't know a whole lot about PPC, but M68K is much better designed
that x86.
Yes, it is. Very much better designed. The i386 is what, 32-bit
extensions to a
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, ben wrote:
btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to
me was routed via hungary?
I believe that that's due to somebody on the list with an extremely
stupid
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:02:11 +0100
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I believe that that's due to somebody on the list with an extremely
stupid mail configuration that takes it upon itself to deliver to all
the addresses in
On Thursday 06 June 2002 06:02 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, ben wrote:
btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to
me was routed via hungary?
I believe that
Em Qua, 2002-06-05 às 08:43, Ivo Wever escreveu:
you wrote:
Ivo Wever wrote:
What happens when the amount of developers falls below the critical
level?
That's certainly not the direction in which things are going. A few
people have left loudly, that's true, but there's also lots of new
Em Ter, 2002-06-04 às 19:18, Colin Watson escreveu:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
How much are those of us who have been using woody and constantly
updating and upgrading all this time actually missing? What will the
move to stable actually get us that we
Em Seg, 2002-06-03 às 17:25, David Wright escreveu:
s/not\s+//;
I appreciate the good-natured jibe. I didn't think the analogy to the
Debian release process was so far-fetched, but it appears that it is.
I never understood people who claim that to relase Woody for mainstream
Em Ter, 2002-06-04 às 11:05, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
David I guess you're confident that the second option would only get
David 2 votes.
And what purpose would
synthespian == synthespian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
synthespian For one thing, it would be good to know what the users
synthespian think. Sure,
If you say so. I am not sure I personally have much interest
in the matter.
synthespian Those who are able, like you seem to claim
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 22:51, Oleg wrote:
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:31 pm, Jeremy Turner wrote:
snip
YOU'RE WELCOME.
Wow! I'm surprised at how much patience some people have! I didn't
know people this nice and polite existed. My first reaction was to
subscribe the jerk to [even more]
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:15:45AM -0300, synthespian wrote:
Em Ter, 2002-06-04 ?s 19:18, Colin Watson escreveu:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
How much are those of us who have been using woody and constantly
updating and upgrading all this time actually
Manoj wrote:
What the non free world does, or does not do, does not
affect release decisions for Debian. We release when we are ready. We
are not yet ready. Period.
I think what some people fear is that this implementation of the Debian
philosophy
might prove self-destructive. A
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 09:57:07AM +0200, Ivo Wever wrote:
What happens when the amount of developers falls below the critical
level?
That's certainly not the direction in which things are going. A few
people have left loudly, that's true, but there's also lots of new
blood, and plenty of
you wrote:
Ivo Wever wrote:
What happens when the amount of developers falls below the critical
level?
That's certainly not the direction in which things are going. A few
people have left loudly, that's true, but there's also lots of new
blood, and plenty of experienced developers are
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:43:46PM +0200, Ivo Wever wrote:
On a related matter: if a number of developers were at odds with part
of the current policy, how would they be able to try and change the
policy regarding that issue (supposing that if the majority of
developers, including those with
Ivo == Ivo Wever [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ivo On a related matter: if a number of developers were at odds with
Ivo part of the current policy, how would they be able to try and
Ivo change the policy regarding that issue (supposing that if the
Ivo majority of developers, including those with
Ivo == Ivo Wever [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ivo Manoj wrote:
What the non free world does, or does not do, does not
affect release decisions for Debian. We release when we are ready. We
are not yet ready. Period.
Ivo I think what some people fear is that this implementation of the
Ivo
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:15:45AM -0300, synthespian wrote:
You can't use Potato for a desktop (to outdated) and you remain in this
security limbo...
rant
Why does everyone keep repeating this potato is too old to be a
desktop line? I heartily disagree and I have somewhere in the
Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:43:46PM +0200, Ivo Wever wrote:
On a related matter: if a number of developers were at odds with part
of the current policy, how would they be able to try and change the
policy regarding that issue (supposing that if the majority of
developers,
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:02:06PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
| On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:16:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
|
| Who the hell cares about sheer numbers of users out there in
| the wild? I sure as hell don't. If numbers had been important to me,
| I would not have been
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:49:02AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
| There are two justifications for supporting many architectures on
| the table:
| (1) We wanna.
Isn't this how all of OSS works?
| (2) It's for the good of the users.
| (2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:43:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
|
| I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
|
| ( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
| forward together.
|
| ( ) i386 and PPC should take priority; other architectures
| can follow
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 09:08:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
| David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| David Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches to potato's
| David 6. One could drop the 5 new arches without encountering this
| David problem. Would dropping these
Ivo Wever wrote:
Manoj wrote:
What the non free world does, or does not do, does not
affect release decisions for Debian. We release when we are ready. We
are not yet ready. Period.
I think what some people fear is that this implementation of the
Debian philosophy
might prove
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 11:23:02AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
| On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:15:45AM -0300, synthespian wrote:
| You can't use Potato for a desktop (to outdated) and you remain in this
| security limbo...
|
| rant
|
| Why does everyone keep repeating this potato is too old
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 09:22:53 -0500 Jamin W. Collins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:08:09 -0500
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd actually be in favour of dropping i386, most bugs and
complaints seem to come from there; dropping i386 shall make the
work
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 04:39:06PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
Your audience is not me. For *me*, potato is too old for desktop use.
...
Your audience isn't a computer geek like me (who is also a developer)
Thanks for the reply! You've got some great reasons for wanting something
synthespian For one thing, it would be good to know what the users
synthespian think. Sure,
If you say so. I am not sure I personally have much interest
in the matter.
For someone who claims to not have much interest in what the users
think, you sure spend a lot of
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
synthespian For one thing, it would be good to know what the users
synthespian think. Sure,
If you say so. I am not sure I personally have much interest
in the matter.
David For someone who claims to not have much interest in what the
I'm not really concerned with how much geeks and developers like potato
for the simple reason that they (we) are capable of dealing with the
uncertainties of woody/sid and might even be willing to do the occasional
`./configure ; make ; make install` to get things that our distro(s)
of choice
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I was hoping someone who takes this position would either
David explain why my ananlogy fails or explain why we really should
David spend on all 11 diseases equally, even though this does not
David help the most people that we can.
Maoj,
Nice of you to respond. Although your response seems rather overheated, I
think it contains the core of a argument to which I can respond, so I'm
going to try...
We have decided to release for 11 architectures, because that
pleases our muse.
Point 4. of
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have decided to release for 11 architectures, because that
pleases our muse.
David Point 4. of http://www.debian.org/social_contract says Our
David Priorities are Our Users and Free Software. I think even you
David will agree that, prima
Our users. Not our users of the most popular
architectures. _all_ our users.
Please! Your last justification we do it because it floats our boat, not
for the users was at least honest. One of your $250 hours would do more
for _all_ our users if spent on a i386 than on 68k. This simple,
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 12:16 am, David Wright wrote:
Maoj,
Nice of you to respond. Although your response seems rather overheated, I
think it contains the core of a argument to which I can respond, so I'm
going to try...
We have decided to release for 11 architectures, because that
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Our users. Not our users of the most popular
architectures. _all_ our users.
David Please! Your last justification we do it because it floats
David our boat, not for the users was at least honest.
I see that you can't maintain a
I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
forward together.
( ) i386 and PPC should take priority; other architectures
can follow when they're ready.
I guess you're confident that the second option would
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:16:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Who the hell cares about sheer numbers of users out there in
the wild? I sure as hell don't. If numbers had been important to me,
I would not have been wasting my time on Linux.
While I enjoyed the way this topic entered
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 03:02 am, Johann Spies wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:16:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Who the hell cares about sheer numbers of users out there in
the wild? I sure as hell don't. If numbers had been important to me,
I would not have been wasting my time
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:43:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
Because those have always had the power to command what developers do,
right?
( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
forward together.
( )
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:43 am, David Wright wrote:
I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
forward together.
( ) i386 and PPC should take priority; other architectures
can follow when they're ready.
Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I honestly
believe that I am making a valid point that reflects the opinion of a
significant fraction of the Debian community. And you just might someday
see my name on the NM list. So I'll try this one more time with as much
dry,
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 03:49 am, David Wright wrote:
Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I honestly
believe that I am making a valid point that reflects the opinion of a
significant fraction of the Debian community. And you just might someday
see my name on the NM
Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
Ah, yes. So the security team will have to support both potato and
woody, because both will be stable on different architectures. Package
maintainers will have to support wildly different versions of their
packages in stable. All this until the other
your logic is flawed. you assume that a majority of users is equivalent to
the totality of users. it's that simple.
That's less flawed than assuming that a minority of users is equivalent to
the totality of users.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 04:01 am, David Wright wrote:
your logic is flawed. you assume that a majority of users is equivalent
to the totality of users. it's that simple.
That's less flawed than assuming that a minority of users is equivalent to
the totality of users.
yes, that would be
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:00:18AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
Ah, yes. So the security team will have to support both potato and
woody, because both will be stable on different architectures. Package
maintainers will have to support wildly different versions
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, ben wrote:
btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to
me was routed via hungary?
I believe that that's due to somebody on the list with an extremely
stupid mail configuration that takes it upon itself to deliver to all
the
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
David I guess you're confident that the second option would only get
David 2 votes.
And what purpose would such a poll serve? I sure am not going
to make a major change
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches to potato's
David 6. One could drop the 5 new arches without encountering this
David problem. Would dropping these 5 not help?
I'd actually be in favour of dropping i386, most bugs
On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:08:09 -0500
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches to potato's
David 6. One could drop the 5 new arches without encountering this
David problem. Would dropping
Johann == Johann Spies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Johann On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:16:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Who the hell cares about sheer numbers of users out there in
the wild? I sure as hell don't. If numbers had been important to me,
I would not have been wasting my time
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I certainly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that
this statement of mine is dishonest;
David I didn't mean that perjoratively, but I did mean it
How can an accusation of dishonesty be anything _but_ pejorative?
-Original Message-
From: Manoj Srivastava [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd actually be in favour of dropping i386, most bugs and
complaints seem to come from there; dropping i386 shall make the work
small enough that we can manage it.
Managing the work would be easier, but for
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 01:36:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
Please! Your last justification we do it because it floats our boat, not
for the users was at least honest. One of your $250 hours would do more
for _all_ our users if spent on a i386 than on 68k. This simple,
irrefutable fact does
: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I was hoping someone who takes this position would either
David explain why my ananlogy fails
: David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
Maoj,
Nice of you to respond. Although your response seems rather overheated, I
think it contains the core
: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have decided to release for 11 architectures, because that
pleases our muse.
David Point 4
: David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
Our users. Not our users of the most popular
architectures. _all_ our users.
Please! Your last justification we
: David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ben [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
: ben [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 12:16 am, David Wright wrote:
Maoj,
Nice of you to respond. Although your response seems rather overheated,
I
think it contains
: ben [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: his post is not off-topic
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 03:02 am, Johann Spies wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:16:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Who the hell cares about sheer numbers
: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Our users. Not our users of the most popular
architectures. _all_ our users.
David Please! Your
: Johann Spies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: his post is not off-topic
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:16:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Who the hell cares about sheer numbers of users out there in
the wild? I sure as hell
: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:43:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
Because those have always had
: ben [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 03:49 am, David Wright wrote:
Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I
honestly
believe that I am making a valid
: ben [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 04:01 am, David Wright wrote:
your logic is flawed. you assume that a majority of users is
equivalent
to the totality of users. it's
: David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
Ah, yes. So the security team will have to support both potato and
woody, because both
: David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I honestly
believe that I am making a valid point
: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:00:18AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
Ah, yes. So the security team will have to support both
: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, ben wrote:
btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to
me was routed via hungary?
I
: ben [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:43 am, David Wright wrote:
I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
( ) No architecture should move forward
: David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ben [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
your logic is flawed. you assume that a majority of users is equivalent
to
the totality of users. it's that simple.
That's
: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
David I guess you're confident
: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches to potato's
David 6. One could drop the 5 new
: Jamin W.Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:08:09 -0500
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Woody, however
: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: his post is not off-topic
Johann == Johann Spies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Johann On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:16:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Who the hell cares about
: Jeremy Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: this post is not off-topic
-Original Message-
From: Manoj Srivastava [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd actually be in favour of dropping
: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I certainly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that
this statement of mine
: Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 01:36:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
Please! Your last justification we do it because it floats our boat,
not
for the users
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:43:13AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
Because those have always had the power to command what developers do,
right?
( ) No architecture should move forward untill
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: this post is not off-topic
-Original Message-
From: Manoj Srivastava [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd actually be in favour of dropping i386, most bugs and
complaints seem to come from there; dropping i386 shall
make
Jeremy == Jeremy Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Managing the work would be easier, but for whom? Alienating
For people doing the work, of course. Those are the ones who
matter, right? People not doing the work have no work to ease.
Jeremy Hmm ... justkiddingMaybe
David:
(2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had sufficient resources
to
support obscure arches without hurting mainstream arch support. But
experiment has proved that isn't the case.
Well, I for one am friggin' glad that there are people out there willing
to support Alpha and get down
On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:31 pm, Jeremy Turner wrote:
snip
YOU'RE WELCOME.
Wow! I'm surprised at how much patience some people have! I didn't know
people this nice and polite existed. My first reaction was to subscribe the
jerk to [even more] spam, but I resisted.
Oleg
--
To
Jeffrey Chimene wrote:
David:
(2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had sufficient resources
to
support obscure arches without hurting mainstream arch support. But
experiment has proved that isn't the case.
Well, I for one am friggin' glad that there are people out there willing
to
On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 13:10:24 -0700
Jeffrey Chimene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it's frustrating waiting for Woody to move to Stable. Help or Cope.
It's that simple.
Well it's not so much a matter of frustration. Some of us need to plan
work. And, unless I've missed it, there isn't a great
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
How much are those of us who have been using woody and constantly
updating and upgrading all this time actually missing? What will the
move to stable actually get us that we don't already have?
Security updates (and advisories,
Paul Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeffrey Chimene wrote:
David:
(2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had sufficient resources
to
support obscure arches without hurting mainstream arch support. But
experiment has proved that isn't the case.
Well, I for one am friggin' glad that
You are in charge of funding medical research for an imaginary country.
There are 11 diseases in this country. Of disease sufferers, 80%
suffer from disease A, 11% from disease B, and 1% each suffer from each of
the remainin 8 diseases C-K. Every $1 billion you spend on researching a
disease
s/not\s+//;
--
Andrew J Perrin - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * andrew_perrin (at) unc.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Makes me think of http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990807
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s/not\s+//;
I appreciate the good-natured jibe. I didn't think the analogy to the
Debian release process was so far-fetched, but it appears that it is.
I never understood people who claim that to relase Woody for mainstream
architectures (essentially i386 and PPC) before releasing it for
Well, I can't make the claim that I understood the analogy, so my
apologies for not grasping the connection.
I have no interest in commenting on decisions about release dates, since
that is very much in others' areas of expertise. The question of the value
of social equality, though, is in my
of your original post and decided that this post *is*
off-topic, having mysteriously landed here after being misdirected
from an epidemiology list.
David I never understood people who claim that to relase Woody for
David mainstream architectures (essentially i386 and PPC) before
David releasing
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
