[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
This is an old canard.
It *was* an editorial change: we'd already worked out that it *made no
differen
Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
>
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
>
> There were exactly 909 developers including active, MIA and inactive ones at
> the time of the 2004-04 GR, as stated in t
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 192 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 94 (new: 1)
Total number of packages requeste
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:03:29AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> >>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:58:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> > files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> > are GPLed, the co
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
>> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
>> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote
> by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the
> very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation).
Having a majority vote amou
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
>
> The only
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
> long.
What a
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
> > set or not?
>
> The constitution says:
>
> "... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secret
On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The phrase you used was "personal whim."
>
> Whose judgment should he use instead?
No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote
by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the
On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:27, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment
> > concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for
> > that power, it follows that to arbitrarily i
Hi,
I want to build a glibc 2.3.2-95.27 but I don't
know what to do Could you tell me to build it?
Many thanks
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
> long.
Before
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: glxcompmgr
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Author : X.Org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.freedesktop.org
* License : MIT/X
Description : OpenGL compositing manager
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: xephyr
Version : 1.0.1
Upstream Author : X.Org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.freedesktop.org
* License : MIT/X
Description : X server that outputs to a windo
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:36:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> It is only goodwill that restrains me from introducing "remove
> non-free" every year.
OTOH, you certainly don't restrain yourself from following up to every
possible message on these topics you can.
I note the non-free issu
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: xserver-xgl
Version : 1.0.1
Upstream Author : X.Org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.freedesktop.org
* License : MIT/X
Description : OpenGL Backed X Server
Thi
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard
> resolution procedure are inappropriate.
Perhaps you have misunderstood me because I was unclear.
I am not trying to suppress anything. I am concerned that the
procedure is
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he
must make a determination as best as h
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
>> > set or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret
>> > the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily
>> > decide to make the pa
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: compiz
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Author : David Reveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.freedesktop.org
* License : GPL or MIT/X11
Description : OpenGL window a
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:24:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> > On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
> >> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now tha
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a person
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in
> the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is
> tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1
> majority to pass.
> If
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:18, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have tha
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:19, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part
> of the DFSG. So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation
> being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis
> for your implicit claim that the secretar
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
>> required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
>> was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.
>
>
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
> required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
> was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.
Actually, it was mostly about f
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 f?vrier 2006 ? 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a ?crit :
> > On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> > > to be non-editorial. I c
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
> > When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
>
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
> or not?
The constitution says:
"... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4)."
I think that's pretty clea
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Le samedi 28 j
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, it *did* pass a simple majority. It doesn't benefit us as a
> project at all to have people making overly-broad claims about the
> significance of the previous votes. When I look at the relatively low
> turnout of 2004-03, the complaints sinc
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
> deadlock DOES NOT m
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:49:48PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > >> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> > Well, maybe
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If only 200 out of 1000 care enough to vote, then those are the people
> who get to make the decisions. We can't force developers to vote, so
> we can't be paralyzed into inaction by saying we can't do something
> because not enough people sent in a vote.
* Norbert Preining [Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:57:20 +0100]:
> HI all!
Hi,
> When I go to
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=info
> it tells me
> ... to the source package texinfo's bug page ...
> But when I go to
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=t
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
>> > right.
>>
>> Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écr
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Option D (rescind the 2004-03 GR) didn't even reach the 3:1 quorum.
Sorry, I meat 3:1 majority requirement.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land o
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Eric Dorland wrote:
> If only 200 out of 1000 care enough to vote, then those are the people
396 people voted.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> >> > as an "editorial cha
Thomas,
how does responding to a flamey thread that had already died a week and
a half earlier make anything better? (It doesn't even matter that the
point had already been made.)
Debian has a tendency to have many or most of its mailing list
discussion turn into flame wars, and this is bad, beca
On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> > right.
>
> Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
> that must be exercised by a 3:1 v
* J?r?me Marant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> >> > as an "editorial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
>> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
>> deceived.
> Well, at least now you agree that the GR
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> right.
Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secret
On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
> deceived.
Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful.
> Were you "deceived" by the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
>> changes?"
> I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either.
Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
to take elementary steps to avoid deception" h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
>> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
>> > accept non-free documentation into main.
>> How i
On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict
> > majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be
> > allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their
> > prerogative
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> convinced they have been deceived.
Who, please?
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prior to GFDL, GNU Manuals used to have the same kinds of restrictions
> like invariant sections but noone has ever battled for moving them
> to non-free. Then came GFDL and people suddenly decided to change
> the "de facto" rules. This is the kind of
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
> > Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
> Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
Sure, look at the flame which followed aj's message.
> What did they say in
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> > accept non-free documentation into main.
> How is this relevant?
It shows that there was a widely
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
A search in the debian-devel@ archive of the past years would be enough
to expose this as a lie, but maybe you were not a developer at the time
and so I suppose you cou
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussi
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:02:55PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> As it looks like my laptop is permanently dead, and it was the only system
>> where I could ever test EVMS properly, it looks like I'll have to orphan
>> EVMS.
> May it an option to integrate evms into the pkg-lvm group which
> maint
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
> >> an exercise in jejune mud slinging
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Consistency?
>
> There is nothing like consistency in someone asserting that "Debian Will
> Remain 100% Free Software" means "98% free software and 2% non-free
> other things".
Prior to GFDL, GNU Manuals used to have the same kinds of restrictions
l
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
>> an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
>
> Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot unders
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> with the scripting needs for at l
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
>> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 23:50 +0100, Jérôme Marant a écrit :
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> >
> >> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed t
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> > to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> > old wording that can
As it looks like my laptop is permanently dead, and it was the only system
where I could ever test EVMS properly, it looks like I'll have to orphan
EVMS. (I could theoretically maintain it for quite a while still, so this
isn't a formal orphaning, but my testing options are quite limited, and there
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:32:20PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> As it looks like my laptop is permanently dead, and it was the only system
> where I could ever test EVMS properly, it looks like I'll have to orphan
> EVMS.
May it an option to integrate evms into the pkg-lvm group which
main
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
>> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
> > between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
> > the foundation documents".
>
> First of all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
What did they say in response to qu
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
>> old wording that can lead us to accept non-fr
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to
> draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the
> viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not.
> Our fellow readers ca
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Christopher Martin]
>> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
>> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
>> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
>> agree with the
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> It seems the headers Katie included when closing bugs of an uploaded
> .changes file have been removed, they used to be:
>X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 348721
>X-Debian-PR-Package: xen-tools
>X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
>
> These messages include
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Feb 09, Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Definition 1. is precise, definition 2. is not (PostScript, pseudocode,
> > Unfortunately, definition #2 is the one which almost everybody agreed to
> How so? Is there any document in Debian, stating that "software" follows
> definition 2?
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
This may be annoying
On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> > subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> > incapable of grasping the possibil
* Loïc Minier [Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:02:35 +0100]:
> Hi,
Hi,
> It seems the headers Katie included when closing bugs of an uploaded
> .changes file have been removed, they used to be:
> X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 348721
> X-Debian-PR-Package: xen-tools
> X-Debian-PR-Key
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
> relicensing to happe
Hi,
It seems the headers Katie included when closing bugs of an uploaded
.changes file have been removed, they used to be:
X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 348721
X-Debian-PR-Package: xen-tools
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
These messages included a copy of the original report ver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
>> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
>> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the
[Christopher Martin]
> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
> agree with them.
And yet in this very thread we *still* have pe
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their
> DFSG interpretations wi
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 12:12 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a
écrit :
> > Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't
> > editorial !
>
> A lot of us thought it was far and beyond "editorial", which is why GR
> 2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke*
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote
> > on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders,
> > then who should be trusted?
>
> S
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The
> > last two votes were not about the GFDL.
>
> Why did we take the second vote?
>
> Hint: because the Release Mana
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two
> votes were not about the GFDL.
Why did we take the second vote?
Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
required the removal of GFDL docs fr
Anthony Towns writes:
> Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no]
> If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no]
> Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no]
>
> As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances
> we
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on
> such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who
> should be trusted?
So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless?
--
To
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
>> > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
>> > felt that the proposed re
> > It seems the headers Katie included when closing bugs of an uploaded
> > .changes file have been removed, they used to be:
To clarify, I meant the message the submitter receives.
> [1]
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=352047;msg=24;mbox=yes
I can't find any x-debia
Hi folks
raptor.debian.org, the s390 developer machine, is down because of
disabled storage. I'll try to fix that tomorrow.
Bastian
--
There are certain things men must do to remain men.
-- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4929.4
signature.asc
Description: Digital signa
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> > it would therefore seem to be the
Fernando Ike de Oliveira wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Fernando Ike de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: gerwin
> Version : 0.6
> Upstream Author : Jose E. Marchesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.nongnu.org/gerwin/proje
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fernando Ike de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gerwin
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Jose E. Marchesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.nongnu.org/gerwin/project/what.html
* License : GPL
Description
Re: Luca Capello in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, simple question: why not re-open the ancient ITP, instead of a new
> one? ;-)
You cannot reopen archived bugs.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hello!
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:39:29 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Previous versions of Wormux depended on a development version of clanlib,
> that's why a previous ITP never made it into a real package and was later
> closed due to inactivity.
So, simple question: why not re-open the ancient
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
