Le Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:06:53PM +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:03:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > Since such GR would go through the usual procedure, I don't think asserting
> > that there will be a second GR needs to be part of this GR. In fact, it may
>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:50:23PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> In the kernel itself, yes. Provided that:
>
> * the kernel framework for loading firmware is used for drivers
> depending on non-free firmware, and
> * that firmware is available in non-free via firmware-nonfree
What if the fi
Manoj Srivastava wrote the following on 23.10.2008 19:06
<- *snip* ->
> Look, I am not proposing we have a GR for every upload. I am
> saying that non-free bits in main are a bug. A serious bug. A RC
> bug. It is a big fucking deal. It comes to the core of what Debian is.
>
>
On 24/10/08 at 01:34 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear all,
>
> as others I am concerned that pushing for changes on the procedures for
> becoming a member of Debian, using a top-down approach and no time
> frame, will result in suboptimal rul
- "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
>
> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
> >
> > - 100% freeness
> > - cater best to the inter
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:17:56PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> your proposal suggests to move a package to non-free, but you don't specify
> in
> which distributions... (experimental, ..., old stable, archived since day 1)
The default is all I guess. But having an exception fo
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:13 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Perhaps I'm mis-reading the above. Which bit of the foundation documents
> do you think would need overriding for the tech-ctte to rule on which
> fix to take?
One might think that this is the situation: two alternative fixes for
the DFSG p
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
>
> - 100% freeness
> - cater best to the interests of our users
Frankly, this mindset infuriates me. It
On Wed, Oct 22 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> At some point, someone has to decide. Doing a vote for each is
> impractical. As our choice is _not_ silent, if someones (like usually
> the reporter who _sees_ such tags happen) disagree, he can raise a
> discussion. AFAICT it's what is happening cur
Hi Robert,
your proposal suggests to move a package to non-free, but you don't specify in
which distributions... (experimental, ..., old stable, archived since day 1)
regards,
Holger
pgpAP8DeheUAz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't seen any reply requesting specific adjustments to the draft; some
> of the replies objecting to the proposal as a whole hinted at specific
> improvements, but nobody wanted to followup on these:
>
> - Change the exceptions so that it
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:06:14PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:41:05PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:03:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:34:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > 2) After the next stable release, a general resolution will be used to
> > decide on the procedures for becoming a member of the Debian project.
> >
> > -
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:41:05PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
> > > > But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. The
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:34:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> 2) After the next stable release, a general resolution will be used to
> decide on the procedures for becoming a member of the Debian project.
>
> - ---
Since such GR would go thr
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:40:57PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> [...] think the proposal should [...]
>
> [...] resend it as a proposal [...]
Erm, these two sentences sounded a bit silly, but I think what I meant is
clear. Please bear with me :-)
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy:
also sprach Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.21.1747 +0200]:
> Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
> with
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
> > > But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
> > > major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
as others I am concerned that pushing for changes on the procedures for
becoming a member of Debian, using a top-down approach and no time
frame, will result in suboptimal rules that will dissatisfy many. I
therefore propose the following re
Dear all,
as others I am concerned that pushing for changes on the procedures for
becoming a member of Debian, using a top-down approach and no time
frame, will result in suboptimal rules that will dissatisfy many. I
therefore propose the following resolution.
Hi,
I haven't seen any reply requesting specific adjustments to the draft; some
of the replies objecting to the proposal as a whole hinted at specific
improvements, but nobody wanted to followup on these:
- Change the exceptions so that it also covers Glibc and possibly other
components,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:36:24AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Every kernel upload changing the ABI goes through NEW.
>
> Your lack of knowledge of Debian processes sucks (that means: you
> annoy us (at least me) with your stance and the fanatic way you defend it
> in public, please stop th
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
> > But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
> > major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
> > work, and rejecting anything simpler.
>
> Ev
23 matches
Mail list logo
