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: 305 (new: 10)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 74 (new: 2)
Total number of packages request
[Ron Johnson]
> If I decided that I wanted to "build a better mousetrap", the first
> thing I'd do is go read the relevant RFCs.
Right, and the second thing you'd do is start hammering out a spec for
your improved protocol. Doing this by cutting and pasting bits from
the existing RFC just might
Hi,
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 15:37, Robert Millan wrote:
> > There isn't any patch that should be required here. There is already a
> > script in the kernel team repo to be used for pruning non-free firmware
> > from the tarball, and it appears that whoever produced the initial
> > uploads
All over campus, Stanford has eagerly embraced the "grand challenges" of
nanotechnology. Just this April, the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility (SNF) hosted an
open house to celebrate its selection to be part of the National Science
Foundation-sponsored National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Ne
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:50:40PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
> >
> >> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> >> benefit of users, then why not let user
On 13/09/2007, Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes. It is appears to be an excellent way to decide to ship broken
> software:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2007/09/12/ubuntu-technical-board-votes-on-compiz-for-ubuntu-7-10
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?s
On September 14, 2007 at 12:50AM +0200,
lucas (at lucas-nussbaum.net) wrote:
> On 14/09/07 at 06:49 +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lucas, thanks for mass bug filing for FTBFS in sid.
> >
> > However, currently, bugs #441870 and #441959 exist which cause
> > FTBFS of other packages
On 14/09/07 at 06:49 +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lucas, thanks for mass bug filing for FTBFS in sid.
>
> However, currently, bugs #441870 and #441959 exist which cause
> FTBFS of other packages. Could you please check again after these
> bugs are closed?
Erm, is #441959 really cau
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:47:16PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> If I may ad a rider to this: consider what kinds of things we
> vote upon: we try not to vote on technical issues, since voting is a
> poor means of making technical decisions.
Yes. It is appears to be an excellent w
Hi,
Lucas, thanks for mass bug filing for FTBFS in sid.
However, currently, bugs #441870 and #441959 exist which cause
FTBFS of other packages. Could you please check again after these
bugs are closed?
Thanks,
--
Tatsuya Kinoshita
pgpS047fByF6n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
>>>
>>> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd
John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:56:20 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>2007/9/12, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>>> > 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> > > An obsession with "freedo
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote this capability almost a year ago. It's languished in bugs
> #405886, #405888, #389450.
>
> This is the ability to load from a second source of udebs (non-free, for
> instance, or vendor supplied).
Non-free already works just fine and is al
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:27:15 +0100, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:36:28 +0930
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> - i
>> dont expect you to leave the ground when a user says 'jump'. but if
>> the only user whos allowed to say jump is a DD,
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:36:28 +0930
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not only packagers can go though NM. It is a
> > measure of
> > commitment to the ideals and foundation documents of the
> > project, as much as it is a test of skills and patience.
>
> So this means N
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:03:00 +0930, Karl Goetz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
>
> >>
> >> How do we know the difference? The criterion is known
> as the NM >> process. It's open to all.
>
> > NM. Does this mean only packaging counts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> Which we have always allowed in software, even. It falls under the
>> "publish it with another name".
> the requirement to publish in a specific manner is an additional
> restriction. Gra
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Great. We agree.
> In that case, what's with Luk's desire for the "freedom" to hack RFC
> 1725 yet still call it RFC 1725?
Why is this a relevant question? You can't hack RFC 1725 if you rename it
or not.
If you could modify RFCs as long as you rename
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/07 10:01, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:57 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>
>> On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 20
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/07 10:46, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Ron Johnson]
>> If O'Reilly wants to write a book on implementing smtp or dns they
>> must get permission from the IETF?
>
> Not if they either (1) do not quote the RFCs at all, beyond what is
> permitted b
[Ron Johnson]
> If O'Reilly wants to write a book on implementing smtp or dns they
> must get permission from the IETF?
Not if they either (1) do not quote the RFCs at all, beyond what is
permitted by fair use, or (2) reprint the RFC verbatim. Those things
are permitted, and those are what O'Rei
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:03:00 +0930, Karl Goetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
>>
>> How do we know the difference? The criterion is known as the NM
>> process. It's open to all.
> NM. Does this mean only packaging counts as "concrete action
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:57 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
> On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
>>> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:50:40 +, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
>>
>>> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
>>> benefit of users, then why n
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, John Kelly wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> "Distribution of this memo
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > RFC 1725 is (quoting the text) "primarily a minor revision to RFC
> > 1460", which in turn is (again quoting the text) "primarily a minor
> > revision to [RFC1225]", which itself in turn is based on ideas from
> > RFCs 918, 937, and 1081.
>
> You ca
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
> >>
> >> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: libbio-asn1-entrezgene-perl
Version : 1.091
Upstream Author : Dr. Mingyi Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/
Hi,
John Kelly wrote:
> If only maintainers qualify as "users" then your social contract is a
> farce.
The social contract is a voluntary agreement. You are free to accept it,
but don't expect to get counted (as in being a DD) in votes if you
don't. DDs are bound to the Social Contract. If they d
Hi John,
John Kelly wrote:
> [...] For all practical intents and purposes, "mirrored everywhere"
> equals free.
No. I strongly disagree.
Or would you consider music and/or videos available in uncounted P2P
nodes (thus "mirrored everywhere") free too? I don't.
Micha
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
" Everyone is permitted to copy and distri
On Sep 13, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Karl Goetz wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
We do, actually. Those users who do sho
Message from SAP's mail system: Warning to debian-devel@lists.debian.org;:
Sorry, but the mail you sent contained one or more attachments that are blocked
inside SAP's mail system. Due to this, your mail didn't reach the intended
recipient(s). For details on which attachment types are blocked in
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: libxml-dom-xpath-perl
Version : 0.13
Upstream Author : Michel Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~mirod/XML
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:50 +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
> >
> >> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> >> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
>
> > Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> > benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
>
> We do, actually. Those users who do show interest in influencing the
> course
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
>> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
>> " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim c
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: libxml-xpathengine-perl
Version : 0.08
Upstream Author : Michel Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~mirod/X
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 18:59 +, John Kelly a écrit :
> If you stop removing RFCs from Debian, you'll still be a crowd of
> wackos, but at least it won't be so immediately obvious to the casual
> passerby.
If you know of an occasional passerby who takes the time to extract the
contents
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
> " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
>
> Shouldn't we garantee
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 22:03 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> You may be aware that some people believe that the changes of
> GR-2004-003 were just editorial...
I wonder where you learned English, but the wording "Debian Will Remain
100% Free Software" doesn't leave any ambiguity to me. Ma
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:45 +, John Kelly a écrit :
> Your sentence is self contradictory. For all practical intents and
> purposes, "mirrored everywhere" equals free.
May I suggest you go back to basics?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Free software is a matter
42 matches
Mail list logo
