On Friday 25 March 2005 02:51 pm, Adam McKenna wrote:
> No matter how you feel about the term "editorial changes", it seems to me
> that if these changes were really so bad, and the majority of the project
> is now against them, they should be easy enough to roll back.
>
> All we need is another GR
On Mar 25, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No matter how you feel about the term "editorial changes", it seems to me
> that if these changes were really so bad, and the majority of the project is
> now against them, they should be easy enough to roll back.
Adam, meet Apathy.
Apathy, meet
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:48:14PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > Actually, I believe the Debian project as whole _wants_ to getting
> >
> >software released. That was at least the decision in all GRs where
> >people didn't hide the intents ("editorial changes").
>
> Indeed.
On Mar 24, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That may be true for documentation but certainly not for firmware, which
> has been discussed to death. (Not with a satisfactory outcome, imho.)
And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
been discussed is that most p
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:28:36AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
> > non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what
> > isn't for all types of pa
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Actually, I believe the Debian project as whole _wants_ to getting
>
>software released. That was at least the decision in all GRs where
>people didn't hide the intents ("editorial changes").
>
>
Indeed. These types of changes are akin to changing a country's
constitution
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
> non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what
> isn't for all types of packages.
Actually, nobody from the "more lenient" side has given a description
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:59:37AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 22:39]:
> > I'm also not satisfied with the non-productiveness of the removal of
> > useful documentation. I'm also ashamed that some hardware doesn't work
> > out of the box on Debian
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 22:39]:
> I'm also not satisfied with the non-productiveness of the removal of
> useful documentation. I'm also ashamed that some hardware doesn't work
> out of the box on Debian because we decided that firmware are software
> and thus should meet DFSG.
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050324 00:35]:
> On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:40, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being
> > supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no
> > longer available, I'd
On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:40, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being
> supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no
> longer available, I'd probably end up agreeing with you and probably
> would do wh
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:24:41PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The Vancouver meeting summary upset me, not because of the proposals
> to drop architectures, but because it contained a reminder of the
> Social Contract changes. The project is moving to what I believe to
> be a ridiculously extre
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:36:50PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le mardi 22 mars 2005 à 17:46 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> > * Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 16:51]:
> > > Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by giving in to the
> > > crackpots who insist that ever
Le mardi 22 mars 2005 à 17:46 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> * Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 16:51]:
> > Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by giving in to the
> > crackpots who insist that everything is software.
>
> You mean some people failed to destroy Debian th
* Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 16:51]:
> Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by giving in to the
> crackpots who insist that everything is software.
You mean some people failed to destroy Debian though loudly and very
often repeating the claim that some types of software
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:06:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> And I believe that the Vancouver proposal, if implemented as intended up
> to now, will not only affect what Debian really *is*, but in some ways
> will *destroy* what Debian is.
Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by g
Sven Luther wrote:
>Still i believe i have made some constructive proposals, and even if my
>first posts may have been a bit too aggressive, for which i apologize,
>or too many, i think it is also a prove of the passion which lies on
>this issue. Something which has the potential to affect many of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Matthew,
> I didn't realise how emotionally attached I was until I came to write
> this mail. I really wish things could have worked out better.
Although I am quite puzzled by the way you treated Sven a
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:34:00PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
> > who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
>
>
> I can't agree more. What I have seen up to now is make me very
> sad. Seein
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:10:12PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Wilcox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 17:05]:
> > I'm not going to volunteer for them as I intend to leave Debian
> > shortly after sarge releases.
>
> Why do you intend to leave Debian?
The Vancouver meeting summary upset me
> I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
> who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
I can't agree more. What I have seen up to now is make me very
sad. Seeing Sven considering to resign is sad news for me.
I won't play the "others star
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Thanks. Maybe i should resign from my debian duties then since i am not
> wanted. Do you volunteer to take over my packages ? Please handle parted for
> which i am searching a co-maintainer since > 6 month, and take over the
> powerpc k
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Anyway, regarding kernels: I can imagine sometimes, especially with the
> > backlog we have currently, a swift processing of some kernel package
> > might be warranted and help Sarge. If there is such a case, it would
> > help if some
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Maybe, if one would reply to all mails you send out, one wouldn't have
> time for ANY other Debian work. For example, you contributed 75 mails[1]
> within 24 hours to the Vancouver thread, consisting (excluding quoted
> text)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:45:10PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Thanks. Maybe i should resign from my debian duties then since i am not
> > wanted. Do you volunteer to take over my packages ? Please handle parted for
> > which i am
* Matthew Wilcox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 17:05]:
> I'm not going to volunteer for them as I intend to leave Debian
> shortly after sarge releases.
Why do you intend to leave Debian?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F
Dear, all,
> [...]
I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
I think we all are happy that ftp-masters and -assistents are currently
working on reducing the NEW queue to a reasonable size. This wi
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:10:34PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Anyway, regarding kernels: I can imagine sometimes, especially with the
> > > backlog we have currently, a swift processing of some kernel package
> > > might be warr
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> [ Please followup to the right list depending on the contents of your
> reply. Be aware I'm not subscribed to -kernel, so Cc me if needed ]
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:14:37AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > [huge rant about
[ Please followup to the right list depending on the contents of your
reply. Be aware I'm not subscribed to -kernel, so Cc me if needed ]
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:14:37AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> [huge rant about NEW and hurting kernel stuff etc etc]
Three remarks:
> Rejecting those would l
30 matches
Mail list logo
