Scripsit Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
leave the guy alone. he's told you what he's willing and not willing to do,
Yes... eventually. But it took a lot of asking.
--
Henning Makholm Al lykken er i ét ord: Overvægtig!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:16:36PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I believe Anthony Towns has said that he now believes his earlier release
policy to be in error.
No. It was an error to try to set the release policy myself, rather than
tangling it up in the bureaucracy of getting a tech ctte ruling
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:30:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:23:03PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
You have been asked whether (and which) one of the proposed GR's will
make the decision sufficiently clear to you that
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:25:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Three quarters of the developers interested enough to vote on the issue
told me (and the rest of the project) what to do once; when I followed
their instructions to the best of my ability, they told me -- fairly
unanimously -- it
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:53:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It has been said (repeatedly, over and over) that the effects ought to
be that the release of sarge can proceed according to the timeline and
practices that were current before
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway. Language has no effect on release timing. Release policies have
an effect on release timing. The following release policies are possible:
* All programs in main must be DFSG-free
* All GPLed firmware in main must comply with the GPL
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:30:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The decision's delegated to the technical ctte; if you want to know
which GRs will ensure they will make the decision you want you'll need
to
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
There is at least one more, and it seems to me this is what many people
have expressed:
* All data (everything) in main should be DFSG-free, and must be
post-sarge. But we want an exception for sarge.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
There is at least one more, and it seems to me this is what many people
have expressed:
* All data (everything) in main should be DFSG-free, and must be
post-sarge. But we
Dear developers,
To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more
or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates
the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the
developers could settle the issue by a GR.
Unfortunately, none of the
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, none of the proposals so far address this issue directly,
but instead propose to modify again the SC, which is not something I
feel comfortable with.
Manoj's proposal does not propose to do this, but instead enacts
comprehensive
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:46:27AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Hypocrisy would be if I professed one set of values and then acted on
another, and I don't do that.
That is *EXACTLY* what you are doing.
you are saying that non-dfsg docs/fonts/firmware/etc must not be permitted
in
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:54:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
and Choice 4 (revert to old wording), will have no effect on release policy.
The Release Manager erroneously concluded that nonfree material could be
included in a release [1].
actually, he didn't. he was perfectly correct that
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you are saying that non-dfsg docs/fonts/firmware/etc must not be permitted
in debian, while at the same time insisting on an exception for mere
convenience.
Except you have misunderstood my belief in the former. I'm saying
that our ultimate goal should
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:44:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
leave the guy alone. he's told you what he's willing and not willing to
do,
Yes... eventually. But it took a lot of asking.
no, he said right from day 1 that he had delegated the decision to the tech
ctte.
you (and some
On 2004-05-22 02:38:20 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually, he didn't. he was perfectly correct that software did
not include
documentation, fonts, device firmware or other *DATA*.
Not at all. The inclusive one is the original and proper meaning, as
far as I can tell. It
16 matches
Mail list logo
