On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> >We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> >community. We will place their interests firs
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 10:42:50PM +, Pablo Baena wrote:
> I tested Xfree86 4.0 days ago. It works (for me) but there are quite a lot
> packages that won't work anymore with it (or quite work). So, Xfree86 4.0
> definitively wont't enter potato, and it will be hard to release it
> even in wood
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:23PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If not, then I ask how much sense it makes for Debian Developers 20
> years from now to be bound by a document which says we make available
> an FTP archive of non-free software. What do we do when FTP goes the
> way of UUCP?
i
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
> >
> > Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
> >
> >
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
>
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
>
> I see an amende
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> distribution.
Given this very point, why the GR?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAI
I tested Xfree86 4.0 days ago. It works (for me) but there are quite a lot
packages that won't work anymore with it (or quite work). So, Xfree86 4.0
definitively wont't enter potato, and it will be hard to release it
even in woody since all the problems it will generate with anything else.
So leave
On 16 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-fre
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 03:43:06PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > And, lastly, Debian providing all this makes non-free software easier to
> > maintain and easier to obtain, and, IMO, making life easier is a moral
> > good too.
> apt can pull from anywhere.
And dinstall? The BTS? The mirror netwo
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
> >
> > Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
> >
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
>
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
>
> I see an amend
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> distribution.
Given this very point, why the GR?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMA
I tested Xfree86 4.0 days ago. It works (for me) but there are quite a lot
packages that won't work anymore with it (or quite work). So, Xfree86 4.0
definitively wont't enter potato, and it will be hard to release it
even in woody since all the problems it will generate with anything else.
So leav
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 10:24:04AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> And branden, i thought you were so overworked that you had no time to look at
> the Xfree 4.0 package, apparently it seems not to be like that, since you have
> time for futile flamewars, ... :)))
You presume to schedule my time for me
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 10:24:04AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> And branden, i thought you were so overworked that you had no time to look at
> the Xfree 4.0 package, apparently it seems not to be like that, since you have
> time for futile flamewars, ... :)))
You presume to schedule my time for m
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> > software "good, valuable principles." There is no logical or
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> > software "good, valuable principles." Th
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd
> > > > that's
> > >
> > > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the
Liberally snipping here, and I've only caught that portion of the discussion
that's crossed over to -vote, as I'm not subscribed to -devel. Also IANADD,
just a user for the past 4 years or so.
John, I have one question on the paragraph below:
- Original Message -
From: "John Goerzen" <[EM
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> > >
> > > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free
Liberally snipping here, and I've only caught that portion of the discussion
that's crossed over to -vote, as I'm not subscribed to -devel. Also IANADD,
just a user for the past 4 years or so.
John, I have one question on the paragraph below:
- Original Message -
From: "John Goerzen" <[E
Hello, ...
First i confess that i did not read all the thousands of messages about this
thread, since i have other more serious things to do, and it seems to me that
we had this exact same conversation some month ago.
Also i think the schedule of this discution is baddly off, why could you not
wa
Darren O. Benham wrote:
>>
>> Except that Chris Lawrence is mistaken as to how Condorcet's method is
>> implemented within the Debian Project. Yesterday he wrote:
>>
>Chris is not mistaken.
That's strange... in my post I gave an example from one of Debian's previous
elections proving (I think) t
Hello, ...
First i confess that i did not read all the thousands of messages about this
thread, since i have other more serious things to do, and it seems to me that
we had this exact same conversation some month ago.
Also i think the schedule of this discution is baddly off, why could you not
w
Darren O. Benham wrote:
>>
>> Except that Chris Lawrence is mistaken as to how Condorcet's method is
>> implemented within the Debian Project. Yesterday he wrote:
>>
>Chris is not mistaken.
That's strange... in my post I gave an example from one of Debian's previous
elections proving (I think)
25 matches
Mail list logo
