Hi Zach,
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 03:44:21 Zachary Palmer wrote:
> Hey, all. I *think* I have a working submission for the contrib section
> of Debian mainline; this is the [EMAIL PROTECTED] download-and-install
> wrapper that I was discussing a couple days ago. I'm rather new at
> this, so I do
Zachary Palmer wrote:
Hey, all. I *think* I have a working submission for the contrib
section of Debian mainline; this is the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
download-and-install wrapper that I was discussing a couple days ago.
I'm rather new at this, so I don't know exactly how I should proceed.
What is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zachary Palmer wrote:
> I'm rather new at this, so I don't know exactly how I should proceed.
> What is the process for screening my package?
> Is this the appropriate mailing list to discuss the matter?
The debian-mentors list is probably a better
Hey, all. I *think* I have a working submission for the contrib section
of Debian mainline; this is the [EMAIL PROTECTED] download-and-install
wrapper that I was discussing a couple days ago. I'm rather new at
this, so I don't know exactly how I should proceed. What is the process
for screen
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 05:51:29PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> As I understood it, the idea was more to keep information *comparable*,
> which wouldn't be the case if someone "improved" the script by using a
> faster minimizer, linking against an improved libfoo or whatever. You
> simply cannot
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le vendredi 22 juin 2007 à 14:20 -0400, Zachary Palmer a écrit :
>> This software package has pretty much the best reason for
>> being closed source that I've encountered; they want to prevent
>> falsified results from damaging the research.
>
> This
Le vendredi 22 juin 2007 à 14:20 -0400, Zachary Palmer a écrit :
> This software package has pretty much the best reason for
> being closed source that I've encountered; they want to prevent
> falsified results from damaging the research.
This is probably one of the worst excuses I could find. T
Em Sáb, 2007-06-23 às 12:59 +0100, Chris Lamb escreveu:
> Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > as said in another mail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is definitely non-free. Hovever,
> > if Debian would become an "authorized distributor", the licence would be
> > suitable for non-free.
>
> What about Debian derivativ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> Has there been any talk about moving to the BOINC infrastructure?
There used to be work on a BOINC [EMAIL PROTECTED] client, but this work has
stopped
due to personnel turnover.
See:
http://fah
Charles Plessy wrote:
> as said in another mail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is definitely non-free. Hovever,
> if Debian would become an "authorized distributor", the licence would be
> suitable for non-free.
What about Debian derivatives?
/Lamby
--
Chris Lamb, Leamington Spa, UK
Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't update its client regularly. The release cycle is
> possibly
> slower than Debian Stable. There has been talk of v6 for several years
> now, and I think that version just recently went into alpha testing if
> it made it that far (I'm no long
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Distribution of this software is prohibited. It may only be
> obtained by downloading from Stanford's web site
> (http://folding.stanford.edu and pages linked therein).
>
> I guess that in that case, there would be a lin
Le Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:20:33PM -0400, Zachary Palmer a écrit :
> Hello, all. It has been my understanding that the reason that the
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] distributed computing software has not been made a Debian
> package is that the license under which it is released does not allow it
> to be
Alle venerdì 22 giugno 2007, Zachary Palmer ha scritto:
> Hello, all. It has been my understanding that the reason that the
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] distributed computing software has not been made a Debian
> package is that the license under which it is released does not allow it
> to be free.
No, it
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:20:33PM -0400, Zachary Palmer wrote:
> Hello, all. It has been my understanding that the reason that the
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] distributed computing software has not been made a Debian
> package is that the license under which it is released does not allow it
> to be fr
Hello, all. It has been my understanding that the reason that the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] distributed computing software has not been made a Debian
package is that the license under which it is released does not allow it
to be free. This software package has pretty much the best reason for
being cl
16 matches
Mail list logo
