On 06/05/2017, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> I would recommend the second of the following options:
>
> 1. Install using the non-free media with "Advanced options" -> "Expert
> install"
> 2. Install using the non-free media, then cleanup [...]
>
> It's faster than an "Advanced
> options" -> "Expert
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 861934 + patch
Bug #861934 [tasksel] tasksel: Please update default Chinese font dependency
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
861934: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport
Package: tasksel
Version: 3.39
Severity: wishlist
Tags: l10n
According to the dicision made by the Chinese Team [1],
we are seeking the switch of default Chinese fonts.
The first (and the most important) change would be the switch
from fonts-wqy-* to Noto CJK fonts (or Source Han Sans) for Sans
f
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 861932 + patch
Bug #861932 [tasksel] tasksel: Please update Vcs-* fields in debian/control
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
861932: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.
Package: tasksel
Version: 3.39
Severity: minor
According to https://lintian.debian.org/tags/vcs-field-not-canonical.html,
A patch is provided here to update Vcs-Git and Vcs-Browser fields in
debian/control.
>From 4c30cefb9f2b186d1ecee102385b66b7266596d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Boyuan Yang
On 5 May 2017 at 15:27, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>
>>> 2. Add ZFS to a Debian Installer that is not the *default* Debian
>>> Installer. Does Debian distribute such an installer, to which the
>>> facility to compil
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I shall not share my opinion of Eben Moglen, because I don't want to
> get sued. But I would say that "Eben Moglen says X" is not going to
> convince me of X.
>
> And, the FTP team has made its decision.
>
> I'm not going to argue this further.
Apologies if
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 22:52 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 21:40 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > > I am not sure why you say that ZFSonLinux binaries are non-free.
> > > Please could you explain?
> >
> > I was referring specifically to the bina
P.S. Ben, thank you again for taking the time on this. It is providing
a great deal of clarity to me, and I hope that other people who also
desire a ZFS-capable Debian Installer will also find it helpful.
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 21:40 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> I am not sure why you say that ZFSonLinux binaries are non-free.
>> Please could you explain?
>
> I was referring specifically to the binary kernel modules, which have a
> mixture of CDDL and GPLv2 code.
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 21:40 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
[...]
> So, I am not sure why you say that ZFSonLinux binaries are non-free.
> Please could you explain?
I was referring specifically to the binary kernel modules, which have a
mixture of CDDL and GPLv2 code. These licences are incompatible so t
On 05/05/2017, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> The legal status of ZFSonLinux was discussed by the FTP team and DPL
>> over a long period, with input from legal counsel, resulting in a
>> decision to put it in the 'contrib' section. That decision is unlikely
>> to be re
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 20:27 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> > > 1. Move ZFS *source* into "main". Would this be possible without
>> > > compromising Debian's "obviously
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 20:27 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > > 1. Move ZFS *source* into "main". Would this be possible without
> > > compromising Debian's "obviously prudent" arrangement?[1] Should I CC
> > >
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> 1. Move ZFS *source* into "main". Would this be possible without
>> compromising Debian's "obviously prudent" arrangement?[1] Should I CC
>> debian-legal?
>
> This will not happen.
Forgive my ignorance, bu
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 14:26 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
> > > > > do you plan to
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 14:26 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
>> > > do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer?
>> >
>> > ZFS bina
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 14:26 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
> > > Dear Maintainer,
> > >
> > > do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer?
> >
> > ZFS binaries are not
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
>> Dear Maintainer,
>>
>> do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer?
>
> ZFS binaries are not distributable due to the licence conflict, so this
> is unlikely to hap
19 matches
Mail list logo
