I thought the netbase breakup was because of a old-BSD/GPL license
incompatibility...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
> > The big package breakups have historically been related to licensing
> > issues
>
> Not as far as I can remember. The X breakup and the netbase brea
John Galt wrote:
> The big package breakups have historically been related to licensing
> issues
Not as far as I can remember. The X breakup and the netbase breakup, for
instance, had nothing to do with licenses that I know of.
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
> Purpose of Rant: Stir up the coals ...
Have you already put some meat?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The big package breakups have historically been related to licensing
issues (either a license incompatibility that's been pointed out or a
change in licensing that broke compatibility), so the bug pointing out the
license issue might be seen as forcing the breakup...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David St
> Yes, I am sure most people would. However, I have noticed that normal posts
> on topics of this nature are handily dispatched with singular consistancy,
> usually with reference to historical discussion buried somewhere deep in the
> list archives. Or just ignored.
Been lurking here for 2 years
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 03:40:26PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > Please read: http://nm.debian.org
> >
> > Oh well, at least nobody can say, "Well, nobody ever said anything ... ".
> > I tried.
>
> Well, what, exactly? Would you mind actually telling us what you
> mean? I thought Raul's emai
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> [2] New Maintainer is a tough job, with a lot of work to be done
> (especially because we weren't processing applications at all, last
> year, because things had gotten so out of hand and the people dealing
> with it had gotten so stressed out). In spite
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 10:01:11PM -0700, Debian Linux User wrote:
[snip]
> > Please read: http://nm.debian.org
> >
> > --
> > Raul
> >
>
> Oh well, at least nobody can say, "Well, nobody ever said anything ... ".
> I tried.
Well, what, exactly? Would you mind actually telling us what you
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:05:26AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
...sigh.
Exhibit A:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:
> [lots of stuff deleted -- basically a bitch about new maintainer]
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:57:41AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > Good point :-)
>
> Not really
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 01:52:36PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:39:33PM -0700, erik wrote:
> > I realize I stirred up a hornets nest; I did it intentionally because
> > otherwise nobody seems to notice and I think that at least some of what I
> > originally wrote (goading
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:
[lots of stuff deleted -- basically a bitch about new maintainer]
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:57:41AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Good point :-)
Not really:
[1] This point (if it really erik's point -- hard to tell) is
not well expressed by erik's subj
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 10:47:22AM -0700, erik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just can't keep my mouth shut about this any longer and the
> unnecassary divisions (read demolitions) of KDE packages are the last
> straw: I've been tracking the development of KDE2 for months and running
* darkewolf listens to
Aach, no sleep for the wicked this darkling eve ... at least not for me.
or morning, whatever.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:57:41AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> Good point :-) I hope NM can be improved as well. I've got someone that
> I know will help the Alpha port that's still in
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:
> Thank you for a cool response - I was really hoping that would eventually
> happen. I realize I stirred up a hornets nest; I did it intentionally
> because otherwise nobody seems to notice and I think that at least some of
> what I originally wrote (goading asi
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:39:33PM -0700, erik wrote:
> I realize I stirred up a hornets nest; I did it intentionally because
> otherwise nobody seems to notice and I think that at least some of what I
> originally wrote (goading aside) is important.
Personally, I would like a normal post better.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, you wrote:
Thank you for a cool response - I was really hoping that would eventually
happen. I realize I stirred up a hornets nest; I did it intentionally
because otherwise nobody seems to notice and I think that at least some of
what I originally wrote (goading aside) is imp
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:23:12AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > > I just can't keep my mouth shut about this any longer and the
> > > unnecassary divisions (read demolitions) of KDE packages are the last
> > > straw
>
> BTW, what would it take for someone to be forced to break up a package
> o
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:05:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
> >From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
>
> Rant \Rant\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. {Ranted}; p. pr. & vb. n.
> {Ranting}.] [OD. rant
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:
> > Yep, I do -and it worked great before he had to repackage it. You could
> > have simply copied them from tdyc and had done with it.
Ok, this is where I have to voice my opinion as well...
First off, the packages WILL NOT build on Alpha (and possibly other
a
>>"erik" == erik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
erik> Yes, it does - I still think the points were worth bringing up. Sorry if
erik> they aren't important to you; if you're not interested don't
erik> waste your time.
And wahat points were these again? (Given that there was no
growing bu
>>"erik" == erik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
erik> BTW, the rant has been a long time coming - this just keyed it.
The rant has been a long time coming. And then it comes forth,
and the one lone specific amidst all the confused vituperative
outpouring happens to be patently false. A
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, you wrote:
>
> FYI and to anyone else reading. The direction I have gone with the
> packaging of KDE for Debian has not changed since day 1. I have focused
> on conforming to Debian policy (which I have mostly done already) and
> making the user base happy (breaking down o
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Seth Cohn wrote:
> > BTW, the rant has been a long time coming - this just keyed it.
> >
> > Purpose of Rant: Stir up the coals ...
>
> Hey erik, grow up. Debian has enough flamewars without you stirring the
> coals intentionally.
Yes, it does - I still think the point
> Ivan, I want to apologize to you personally - I fully realize that you
> are doing the work on KDE and ( as I mentioned before) I think you are
> doing a great job. I have been running KDE from the other site and believe
> me this was not targeted at you - if anything quite the opposite. The
> p
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:32:54PM -0700, erik wrote:
> Purpose of Rant: Stir up the coals ...
You don't backpedal nearly as well as you bitch.
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux|It tastes good.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-
> BTW, the rant has been a long time coming - this just keyed it.
>
> Purpose of Rant: Stir up the coals ...
Hey erik, grow up. Debian has enough flamewars without you stirring the
coals intentionally. 'The broken update happened 20 minutes before the
rant' HUH?
Geez.
Seth
--
To UNSU
> > > You _do_ realize that the same guy who packaged it for kde.tdyc _is_ the
> > > same guy who is packaging it for Debian proper?
> >
> > Yep, I do -and it worked great before he had to repackage it. You could
> > have simply copied them from tdyc and had done with it.
had??? I didn't have t
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> uhh, FYI...the same person who did the package on kde.tdyc.com is the
> same and only person doing the packaging for Debian. The fact that
> I finally had time to work on the *MANY* requests to break down the
> packages and the fact that KDE *IS* beta shouldn't c
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 10:47:22AM -0700, erik wrote:
*snip*
> I just can't keep my mouth shut
Clearly.
> all it took was a week or so in the hands of a ridiculously complicated
> and politically petty beuracracy like this
Yes, a bureaucracy of one man, Ivan E. Moore II, who, I think has done
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, you wrote:
>
> > You _do_ realize that the same guy who packaged it for kde.tdyc _is_ the
> > same guy who is packaging it for Debian proper?
>
> Yep, I do -and it worked great before he had to repackage it. You could
> have simply copied t
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:12:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 10:47:22AM -0700, erik wrote:
> > I just can't keep my mouth shut about this any longer and the
> > unnecassary divisions (read demolitions) of KDE packages are the last
> > straw
BTW, what would it take for
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 10:47:22AM -0700, erik wrote:
> I just can't keep my mouth shut about this any longer and the
> unnecassary divisions (read demolitions) of KDE packages are the last
> straw
It's the same developer making them that made the ones at kde.tdyc.
There's no evil empire, there's
uhh, FYI...the same person who did the package on kde.tdyc.com is the
same and only person doing the packaging for Debian. The fact that
I finally had time to work on the *MANY* requests to break down the
packages and the fact that KDE *IS* beta shouldn't cause anyone to
start pointing fingers at
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:
> I just can't keep my mouth shut about this any longer and the
> unnecassary divisions (read demolitions) of KDE packages are the last
> straw: I've been tracking the development of KDE2 for months and running
> it quite successfully using "unofficial" debs (chee
Hi,
I just can't keep my mouth shut about this any longer and the
unnecassary divisions (read demolitions) of KDE packages are the last
straw: I've been tracking the development of KDE2 for months and running
it quite successfully using "unofficial" debs (cheers to the folks at
kde.tdyc for bucki
35 matches
Mail list logo
