Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Speaking for no-one other than myself, I _am_ very unhappy that given
> how long the discussion has been rumbling on for, and how much
> opportunity there has been, that anyone thought that two weeks before
> the freeze (which has had a fixed date for nearly a year now) was
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Note (and this is not splitting hairs) that "serious bug" is not a direct
> analogue for "release-critical bug".
This GR is not amending Debian policy, it's setting a technical
requirement at a more fundamental level, which has never been used to set
technical requirements
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
> would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
> make it difficult to disentangle things in jessie + 1.
Can you please point to one thing in jessie that is currently entangled
in a wa
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joey Hess writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
> > > would be a continued opportunity to create `
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joey Hess writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > So if there is no backsliding, this GR will not delay the jessie
> > > release at all.
> >
> > But, t
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
> should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
> not something that would be achieved if "Further Discussion" were to
> win.
>
> I am therefore bringing forward an alternati
Charles Plessy wrote:
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
> the vote.
>
> Regarding the subjec
Luca Falavigna wrote:
> The Technical Committee
> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
> other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
For the record, the TC expects ma
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The technical committee
> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
> other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
What, then was #746715?
> This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day
> (Constitution 4.1.5
Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Joey" == Joey Hess writes:
>
> Joey> Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
> Joey> of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
> Joey> currently stands, from the packa
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Either it's a position statement, or we're making position
> statement (4.1.5), or using the TC's power (4.1.4).
>
> In #727708 it says that a position statement will replace
> "this TC resolution".
>
> In #746715 there is no such text.
>
> So the question is going to be if
Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Does this GR imply that such a decision may not be made without a new
> GR to override this one?
I was originally worried about this too, and it's one reason out of many
why I strongly dislike using GRs to decide technical matters.
My understanding though, is that this GR wou
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is how I undesrtanfd the Shall/Will distinction:
>
> Shall is used to express the simple future for first person I
> and we, as in "Shall we meet by the river?" Will would be used
> in the simple future for all other persons. Using will in the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> of anthropomorphism.
"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?
> In any case, this is
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
> popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
Markus wrote:
> Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most
> user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why:
> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
> source.list looks. The main answer will be:
> deb ftp:... main contrib non-f
Roland Stigge wrote:
> Since the sarge release is near, I fully understand the reasoning that
> leads to a deferral of the 2004.003 GR. But considering that the
> official roadmap of the next Debian release is already deferred by
> nearly 5 months now and considering the RC bug count and the d-i st
"Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Organization:srivasta"@debian.org wrote:
> There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
> implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:
I think that this document needs some serious editing before
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Comments, suggestions and seconds appreciated.
I'm very happy to second this proposal, since it saves me the bother of
finishing the rough draft of the same thing I've been sitting on for a
year, and is much more thought out to boot. Clearly an idea whose time
has come. :-)
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> I change my position as it seems that's needed to take it to the vote.
> I consider the whole proposal more important than the differences
> between them
Me too, but I suspect Manoj will be happy with Aj's new proposal, so I
will limit myself to seconding it.
--
see shy jo
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> a) The post contained sensitive material.
>
> In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
> material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
> teams accepted, then the material should be redacted from the
> post, a
Here are the urls I didn't find for my other post:
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/nb/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/03/13/0
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec2000/full_papers/rao/rao.pdf
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/NewsBruiser-2.6.1/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/04/06/0
http://en.w
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Enrico Zini wrote:
> I just went back to the mail archive of that time and stopped reading
> after a while because of anger rising: lots of good efforts have been
> done, and the instant reaction to those was in various case absolutely
> disappointing. It's all stuff you can't put in a report: you
(Please treat this question as if it were asked on debian-devel not
here.)
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I do think it would be interesting for the project to embrace the d-i beta
> releases and the testing-security support and turn those into regular
> "mini-releases", without many of the standards we e
Anthony Towns wrote:
> (a) branching the archive or doing other necessary changes to ensure
> netinst CDs etc work reliably
Netinsts are relatively robust (though can be broken), businesscard,
netboot, and floppy would really benefit from that.
> (b) security.d.o support against the las
Ted Walther wrote:
> If menu is a legacy program written by someone else
It would be documented in debian/changelog.
menu (0.0) unstable; urgency=low
* initial release
-- joost witteveen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 5 Nov 1996 22:42:09 +0100
Said changelog also documents pretty well how it gre
Ted Walther wrote:
> Why did you choose to implement it in C++ instead of re-using an
> already existing language like bourne shell, tcl, or python?
What language is apt written in anyway, and did Jason reimplement C++
too, or did he reuse menu's implementation?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Des
Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, by the looks of things, we get the same result with either
> American-style voting (only the first ranked candidate counts)
Actually, by American-style voting, several of the candidates would have
needed to band together to geta bigger share of the votes, with the ones
p
Anthony Towns wrote:
> If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever
> that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be
> addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and convenient
> for both people who need/want non-free things, and th
Joey Hess wrote:
> . Ship a separate non-free CD.
iv
> 5. Implementing anything in 5 is a lot of work. Implementing it all
4
>will be pretty atrocious. My guess is still 6 months of solid work to
>implent a credible subset of 5,
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Not also that I found sad that the DPL try to kill this GR with his
> latest mail to debian-announce. The problem is known for a long time.
How does posting straw polls of our users and developers to d-d-a manage
to look to you like an attempt to stop this GR?
> If he wa
Joey Hess wrote:
> 1. The archive did not support a non-free section for udebs until today.
Done.
> 2. libd-i and anna do not support multiple udeb sources, but can only
>pull from one at a time; noone has yet fixed this
mrvn pointed out that true multiple source support isn
MJ Ray wrote:
> 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
> without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
> images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
> the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian Free Sof
MJ Ray wrote:
> Apart from maybe possibly getting the wrong section, I think all of those
> so-called 'serious flaws' are based on misreading the proposal.
It certianly seems to be based on us having different defintions of
terms including "the Debian system" and "drivers".
AIUI, I would word you
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Right. And the problem is that the d-i team seems to say to
> themselves, "as long as we never do the work, we can badger the rest
> of Debian into sacrificing the Project's principles, and the work will
> never be necessary."
Um, no.
a) I told people at DebConf tha
MJ Ray wrote:
> Which brings me to a related point: some participants in this discussion
> have been poor at mentioning vital roles they hold, or making it clear
> what hat(s) they are wearing. Sorry to break it to people, but 'see
> shy jo' is not that famous yet that it makes everyone remember '
Debian Oroject Secretary wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
> [ ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
> pending a vote
> [ ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation sta
Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Flamewars are good if the discussions are based on facts. Lately most
> flamewars in Debian were on opinions, not on facts.
I think it would be useful if we only used the term "flamewar" for
threads that contain actual flaming. The current alternate usage of
"flamewar" for
ich begs the question of what to do about this:
> * the Jetring developers (Joey Hess, Anthony Towns, Christoph Berg)
Basically, I think this comes down to the set of people who have worked
on jetring being the people who are interested in making this work as
well as possible on the technica
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That's precisely why it's written "initially" twice in that sentence.
"initially" is ambiguous.
Also, I don't want a precident of voting on what tools developers must
use. We already have enough bad GR precidents. :-P
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Err, it doesn't seem ambiguous to me: it'll start this way and may change
> later... If you'd like to suggest other wording, you're welcome to...
If it's unambiguous, then the specification of what tools to use is
pointless, since it can change at any time, and so again, I a
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Anthony Towns:
>
> > 5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
> >Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring
> >provided:
> >
> > * none of the uploaded packages are NEW
> >
> > * the Maintaine
Joey Schulze wrote:
> The NM process after all is meant to help new maintainers become
> skilled maintainers of packages. If we want to get them maintain
> packages without going through NM we should not create a new stage
> but drop or restructure the NM process. IMHO
The same argument could be
Christoph Berg wrote:
> Particularly I don't like the fact that the "initial policy for an
> individual to be included in the keyring" does not include any check
> of any technical or non-technical skills besides having a gpg key and
> be able to tick 3 checkboxes.
Being on the keyring is intentia
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems like
> a win to me. YMMV.
Well, you could get to 5.5% then by only electing the DPL once every 2
years.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
> short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
> can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
> fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving o
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The causes seem to include:
Isn't the main cause that the Technical Committee is well, a committee?
(Recall the old saying about many heads and no brain.)
That seems to be the core reason for all the problems you listed.
> I think we could fix these by
>
> * Increasing the
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The main symptom of the TC's brokenness is that it is not making
> decisions, or not making them fast enough.
Agreed.
> I haven't heard anyone suggest that the TC is actually making wrong
> decisions.
Well..
#104101: The TCs resolution that kernel sould have VESA fb compi
Ian Jackson wrote:
> So these two don't seem necessarily to indicate that the decisions
> were wrong, just that they were ignored. There has indeed been a
> problem with TC decisions being ignored.
The TC is the decision-maker of last resort. So if such an issue is
brought to the TC, a decision i
esolved, or something similarly not ideal.
--
see shy jo
[1] Hi, I'm Joey Hess and I decided that Debian's default desktop is
gnome. How was I able to make this decision? DamnifIknow.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This does somewhat resonate. But the experiment where we
> decided to hand over an issue to one member who took ownership of the
> issue did not seem to have resulted in a very different outcome --
> perhaps because we ultimately did come back to a vote.
Whic
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:37:29 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> Hi, I'm Joey Hess and I decided that Debian's default desktop is
> >>gnome. How was I able to make this decision? DamnifIknow.
>
>
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Well, just to pick an example, if the TC had chosen you to deal with
> > the wordpress-in-stable issue, and you had personally decided it
> > needed to be in stable, and had done whatever work was initially
>
Ian Jackson wrote:
> That's a nice idea but if a problem with the TC is that the decisions
> are too poor, reducing the number of people who review those decisions
> seems like a bad idea.
One thing that I'm feeling is that if a technical decision comes down to
a vote by a committe, there's often
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I, too, think that the quoted sentence above from Manoj is just plain
> inappropriate in a message sent with the Secreatary hat on.
I personally, don't belive in this "hat" concept that seems to have
infested the project. When I write a mail, *I* am writing the mail, it
does
Luk Claes wrote:
> Everything that is sent as [EMAIL PROTECTED] is seen as official posts from
> the project just like things sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] only in different
> capacities...
Some DPLs have found it useful to use the DPL email alias to lend more
importance to what they're saying, or a
aj wrote:
> ---- Joey Hess
Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
for this one.
Anyway, it's always intere
Marc Haber wrote:
> - dpkg still uses normal console prompting for dpkg-conffile
> handling, while debconf has been mandatory for regular packages for
> years now.
Dpkg has more active development now than it has for much of the
past fifteen years. And they've even talked some about impl
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> A very good example of that is debhelper; nobody ever told anyone to use
> it, yet most of our packages do, directly or otherwise.
Parts of Debian encourage experimentation, innovation, and evolution of
better solutions: parts don't. That debian/rules is a flexible,
standa
Nico Golde wrote:
> when it comes to our users. I have no numbers to prove that but I doubt that
> a
> lot of users are reading planet (why should they..).
Because:
j...@gnu:~/tmp/xscreensaver-5.10>grep planet.debian.org -r .
./debian/patches/53_XScreenSaver.ad.in.patch:+*textURL:
http
Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> I consider blogs as non-free, proprietary material (a very few have a
> proper license, the "distribution" media s*cks anyway).
I didn't notice a license on your email either. But every time I recall
licenses of email being discussed, the conclusion has been that it
doesn't
Joey Hess wrote:
> Because:
>
> j...@gnu:~/tmp/xscreensaver-5.10>grep planet.debian.org -r .
> ./debian/patches/53_XScreenSaver.ad.in.patch:+*textURL:
> http://planet.debian.org/rss20.xml
> ./debian/changelog:+ Now use planet.debian.org instead of .
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Abillity to understand fairly simple shell script is not a
> matter of tenure. It is a matter of competence. I am dismayed that a
> fairly bland invocation of find seems opaque, in your opinion, to
> people coming into the project today. I hope that is not inde
| 2010 | 886 | 44.648 | 459 |436 | 88 | 49.210 | 9.76513 |
If I count right, there are 112 Debian Maintainers not able to be represented
in the above.
I wonder if conducting a parallel vote of the DMs, for information only,
would be worth doing next year? It would be interesting to
Paul Wise wrote:
> Stefano you seem to be 5 years too late with this GR, fjp's AM report
> looks like he was accepted primarily for his work on documentation and
> translations:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2005/02/msg00017.html
Not really. From my original advocation of Frans:
| B
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> How about reversing the action: By default, there is an election, unless
> a reasonable, well-defined number of DD publicly state that they see no
> need for a re-election.
A variant on this that would not be susceptable to this:
> I think this works well unless we have
I second this amendment.
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
>
> The text of the resolution
Craig Sanders wrote:
> the facts do support what i say. the debian constitution states what
> documents may be created or modified by vote, yet fails to mention that
> either the social contract or the DFSG may be so modified.
>
> what this means is that you can't call for a vote to change either
Adam Heath wrote:
> Issue, but doesn't say a thing about modifying preexisting documents and
> statements.
So we issue DFSG v2, a new document that just happens to include the
text of DFSG v1 verbatim, except for oner paragraph.
> This is the same as the old "Who does Debian Admin answer to?" th
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joey> So we issue DFSG v2, a new document that just happens to include the
> Joey> text of DFSG v1 verbatim, except for oner paragraph.
>
> I think that
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite a
John Galt wrote:
> > However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
> > everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
> > java and javascript, and good page layout.
>
> What was the version number of that in Potato again?
Um, the contents of potato
Seth Arnold wrote:
> But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
> without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
> is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works fine.
> So, while I love free software, I don't think killing no
Ben Collins wrote:
> Let's get the ball rolling with nominations...I, of course, am running
> again this year. I'm very sorry to hear that Wichert is not running for
> a third term, since he is a worthy candidate for DPL (as he has proven
> over the last 2+ years). Hopefully we'll see some new blo
Raul Miller wrote:
> Oops, you're right -- I was thinking that last year was 1999.
Actually, I seem to have been thinking this year was 2000 when I came up
with these dates, so I think most of the dates in the paragraph below
are off by one. :-)
> > So the next DPL should enter office on March 1
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I coul
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is how I undesrtanfd the Shall/Will distinction:
>
> Shall is used to express the simple future for first person I
> and we, as in "Shall we meet by the river?" Will would be used
> in the simple future for all other persons. Using will in the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> of anthropomorphism.
"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?
> In any case, this is
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
> popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
Markus wrote:
> Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most
> user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why:
> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
> source.list looks. The main answer will be:
> deb ftp:... main contrib non-f
Roland Stigge wrote:
> Since the sarge release is near, I fully understand the reasoning that
> leads to a deferral of the 2004.003 GR. But considering that the
> official roadmap of the next Debian release is already deferred by
> nearly 5 months now and considering the RC bug count and the d-i st
"Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Organization:srivasta"@debian.org wrote:
> There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
> implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:
I think that this document needs some serious editing before
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I'm looking for seconds for this proposal, and I hope this can be
> discussed quickly so that it doesn't delay the release for too long.
I won't even consider this proposal until you or someone else explains
to me why we should use the voting system to decide an issue li
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Seconded.
>
> Since in the last thread initiated by me I asked for a similar action
> (read: an answer) and nothing happened, I think this is a clear answer
> from FTP masters, saying: WE ARE TO LAZY TO WORK AND TO LEET TO
> COMMUNICATE WITH SECOND-CLASS DDs. WE WANNA BE REMO
Frank Pennycook wrote:
> Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue? Since
> different opinions are being expressed, then in a democracy it would
> seem valid to decide it by voting.
We don't vote to decide Debian policy, where different opinions are
expressed regularly, we don't
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:03:31 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe a better GR would be one removing the ftpmasters from their
> > position then. This would at least avoid trying to use a GR to make a
> > technical decis
Sven Luther wrote:
> I personally trust the ftp-masters, and believe they are working for the
> best of the project, but it is hard when one has questions only they can
> answer or act to solve, to wait apparently forever in the dark. And in
> some cases, it is even harmfull for the project, as it
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> IMHO having a GR for this is wrong -- what goes into a release is the
> business of the Release Manager. However, as there is already a proposal on
> this, there should also be a counter-proposal for those who disagree.
I understand what you're trying to do, but I thi
MJ Ray wrote:
> The debian-installer developers are working on probably the
> single biggest improvement to debian access for years, making
> it easier to install, but some languages that were in the old
> installer are not in the new one and the list has been closed
> for the next release with ver
MJ Ray wrote:
> the "Debian Women Weekly News" (and do we need yet another
> publication modelled on the US tabloid "Weekly World News"?).
I'll leave the rest of your bile to someone else, but for the record, as
the founder of DWN, I resent the implication that the newsleatter is
modeled on a US t
For what it's worth, and to the limited extent I may hold any position
in Debian that Konstantinos might think should be voted for: If any
position I held in Debian came up for a vote, I would not stand for
re-election. I'm more interested in getting things done, and if I need
to be political to do
Bill Allombert wrote:
> The Vancouver plan has several mention of the security team which lead
> to believe it was accomodated to address the concern of this team.
> However <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> shows that
> the security team was not consulted and the most active security officer
> does not endorse
This is the question I tend to ask every time, with a twist..
I see many of good ideas for ways to improve the project in several of
your platforms. If you are not elected DPL, which of those ideas do you
still expect to be able to work on? How will you be able to do it
without the power of being
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> --
> Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software
> that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the
> DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian
> web pages and miscellaneous other software wil
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> (IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
> be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract. Wichert's is a mere technical change.
--
see
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I am not much in favor of such things since there are a certain number of
> non-free software that are open source and that have only litlle problems
> in their license.
A great deal of stuff is in non-free because of a "little licence problem".
In fact, that's the only r
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[contrib]
> You can't modify everything it does.
How so?
--
see shy jo
Will Lowe wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
> >
> > > 1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
> >
> > I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the "debian.org" part
> > makes it somehow official again. Personally, I would prefer
> > "unofficial.debi
> The ballot will contain the options:
>
> 1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I would like to amend this to make it say "non-free.debian.org". That is
consitent with non-us.debian.org and with the current section name,
"non-free".
--
see shy jo
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
