Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:36:12PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 19:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > > Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size, > > quantity is always quality ;-) [...] > Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:06:39 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement some >> functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you may >> think, policy is not dpkg doc

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement > some functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you > may think, policy is not dpkg documentation). Policy is also not something that should document something tha

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Burton schrieb: > The difference is probably that men have somewhat less of a history of > being evaluated this way when people aren't joking. Not sure. Perhaps, men just recently found out that they are evaluated. *g* Ciao, Eike (m)

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

> > I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but > > regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact, the > > ability to counter my sexist jokes with other jokes would be something > > that I'd really appreciate in a woman :-) > > The difference is pr

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

> > Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a > > way. This occurs much less often than its opposite. > > I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but > regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact, the > ability to counter

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov/13, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if some spoke of men in such a > way. This occurs much less often than its opposite. I would laugh a lot if some woman made a comment similar to mine, but regarding the size of other part of the masculine body :-) In fact

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:36:56 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> But our users should not be expected to look at control files in >> order to know what to install, should they? >> >> Following this reasoning, we might suggest that policy

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:38:25PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote: > As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid in Europe and Japan > until mid 2004. Shouldn't this matter for an international project? What makes you think sarge will have been released by then? 8-) -- G. Branden Robinson

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:32:21AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > >> I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version > >> has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package. > > > >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:19:54AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order > to know what to install, should they? Users do this all the time, with tools like aptitude, apt-cache and dpkg which display [information from] the control file.

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order > to know what to install, should they? > > Following this reasoning, we might suggest that policy only states the > mandatory fields in control, and any field not covered by policy > s

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Adam Heath dijo [Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:45:38AM -0600]: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Chris Cheney wrote: > > > Except for the fact that no tool supports Enhances... (or has that > > changed?) > > Well, if we follow Manoj's advice, humans are tools, and they understand > enhances, which means policy i

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Chris Cheney wrote: > Except for the fact that no tool supports Enhances... (or has that > changed?) Well, if we follow Manoj's advice, humans are tools, and they understand enhances, which means policy is allowed to talk about it. If you don't agree with that, talk about i

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > >> 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being > >>a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling > >>out of th

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:36, Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and > > > quantity, do you? ;) > > > > Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size, > > quantity is always quality ;-) > > I simply disagree

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 19:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > On Nov/12, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I don't see how making more packages available to our users is > > > "lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom". > > Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and > > qua

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:31:21AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > >> 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being > >>a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feel

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Anyway, on the given topic, are "reverse-suggests" possible? > > Quoth debian-policy, section 7.2: > > |Enhances > | This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > Regarding options available to choose and women breasts' size, > quantity is always quality ;-) And people wonder why linux doesn't encourage many women ;-) Corrin > > -- > Roberto Suarez Soto Alfa21

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov/12, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I don't see how making more packages available to our users is > > "lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom". > Oh, you think there's a positive correlation between quality and > quantity, do you? ;) Regarding options available to choos

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > >> I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version >> has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package. > > Patented software isn't really non-free. That's why I wrote "patent emcumbere

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > >> 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being >>a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling >>out of this mailing-list, I do not give a toss about it and I t

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:28:15AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:41:10PM +0100, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > > > Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom, > > > there's no matter discussing that. > > I don't see how making more packages availabl

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Scripsit Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anyway, on the given topic, are "reverse-suggests" possible? Quoth debian-policy, section 7.2: |Enhances | This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite | direction. It is used to declare that a package can enhance the | fu

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:02:55PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > A liar? You have a very slant view on life. > > It's much better to say "you are mistaken" or "you are misinformed" then to > call someone a liar. Because you have said it this way, it looks badly on > you, no matter what the other pe

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:28:20PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that > > a package in mail suggests packages in non-free, which ARE NOT PART OF > > DEBIAN? > > Pa

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version > has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package. Patented software isn't really non-free. Search the list archives.

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > 2) Do you have any valid proof of what you claim? Please, avoid being >a liar, this is a very bad attitude. Keep your personal feeling >out of this mailing-list, I do not give a toss about it and I think >that noone else does. A liar? You hav

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:37:58PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > 4) Patch apt-listchanges so that id doesn't mail about suggestions >on packages that are not available. apt-listchanges neither knows nor cares about suggests or recommends. -- - mdz

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield schrieb: > good question. How do we deal with this situation for other source > projects that contain things like encryption that are outlawed in > countries X, Y, and Z but OK in the US? Establish non-non-US? ;o) Ciao, Eike

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy schrieb: > As far I know, there are still no patent for software in Europe, > whatever an European institution know to fail to comply to European > rules may do. Neither GIF nor LZW is software, though. The patent is about the LZW compression algorithm. Ciao, Eike

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that > a package in mail suggests packages in non-free, which ARE NOT PART OF > DEBIAN? Packages are free to suggest whatever the maintainer wishes; I wouldn't even con

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:27:10 +0100, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : >> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote: >>> > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >>> > >>> > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -pol

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:10:02PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract. > (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...) I have a creepy feeling that you are not wearing a user hat but rather a hat of an organisation with a specific a

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:41:10PM +0100, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote: > > Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom, > > there's no matter discussing that. > I don't see how making more packages available to our users is > "lowering the quality of Debian in matter of fre

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Eike Sauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Ben Gertzfield schrieb: >> As I mentioned in a response to the bug report, this is mostly a >> nonissue, since the LZW patent has expired in the US and I've merged >> the -nonfree package back into the main package in the unstable Debian >> distribution.

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 12, 2003, at 7:38 AM, Eike Sauer wrote: As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid in Europe and Japan until mid 2004. Shouldn't this matter for an international project? This is true, I believe. Whether or not the main GIMP source (distributed in main) is even allowed in Europe and Ja

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield schrieb: > As I mentioned in a response to the bug report, this is mostly a > nonissue, since the LZW patent has expired in the US and I've merged > the -nonfree package back into the main package in the unstable Debian > distribution. As far as I know(*), the patent is still valid

Re: Bug#220363: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Nov 11, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote: > >> Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> gimp1.2-nonfree > > Discussion aside, this is a nonissue, since the gimp1.2-nonfree > package is gone in unstable. > > I would very

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 12, 2003, at 1:27 AM, Mathieu Roy wrote: So you confirm what I thought (yes, I checked this page before): - the support for GIF creation inside the main gimp package, in main, has been removed in favor of a package in non-free, that provide the same functionality (plus patented

Re: Bug#220363: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov 11, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote: Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install gimp1.2-nonfree Discussion aside, this is a nonissue, since the gimp1.2-nonfree package is gone in unstable. I would very much like to close this bug. Does this solve this issue to you

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

* Mathieu Roy wrote: > Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : [...] >> Note, no mention of "Suggests". > > No mention is not necessarily approval. It may be just something > forgot. That's why Tollef suggests to discuss this on -policy. -- - nobse

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Nov/12, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > As you're not a member of the Debian project, you don't get any say > > in what's to be accepted or not > Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract. > (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...) Note that "Users" goes befo

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Anthony Towns a tapoté : > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: >> reopen 220363 >> thanks > > Please do not abuse the BTS. If you want to discuss it, feel free to do > so, but this is not a bug in the gimp package. If you consider that not being a bug, please never claim

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:54:29AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > It is also possible to create GIFs using a patent-free run > length encoding but this doesn't achieve the compression that > one normally expects in a GIF. > >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > reopen 220363 > thanks Please do not abuse the BTS. If you want to discuss it, feel free to do so, but this is not a bug in the gimp package. > Are you kidding? > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > If not, why incitating people to get non-free stuff while you just > can provide a Gimp that can save GIF without LZW? Because no such non-LZW plugin exists for the GIMP. [And since people may wonder why they can't save GIFs, it is appropriate for the pack

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Le mer 12/11/2003 à 10:31, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > If you have anything on topic to do, you are welcome to reply to this > mail. The whole thread is off-topic on this list. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PRO

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If not, why incitating people to get non-free stuff while you just can > provide a Gimp that can save GIF without LZW? If it isnt already there - write a patch for it if you want that. -- bye Joerg A.D. 1492: Christopher Columbus arrives in what he beli

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or >> > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", >> > "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main >> > package), ..." >> >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : >> * Mathieu Roy >> | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> | gimp1.2-nonfree >> Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> If you disagree with this, please discuss it

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > >> 2) Why the gimp cannot any longer save gif files without installing >> non-free software? > > The software itself is free, but the algorithm necessary to save GIF > files (LZW) is patent encumbered in certain parts of the planet, and > the patent i

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:27, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main > > > > "...the packages in main > > > > * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or > > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", >

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> * Mathieu Roy >> >> | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> | gimp1.2-nonfree >> >> Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> >> If you dis

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote: >> > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. >> > >> > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a >> > technical discussion. >> >> 1) Do you have a pointer that g

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > 1) Do you have a pointer that give that information in the debian > policy? Policy 2.2.1: Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). In addition, the packages in main * must not require a

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 10:53, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. > > > > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a > > technical discussion. > > 1) Do you have a pointer that give that information in the debian policy? http://www.d

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Mathieu Roy > > | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install > | gimp1.2-nonfree > > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. > > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > * Mathieu Roy > > | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install > | gimp1.2-nonfree > > Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. > > If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a > technical discuss

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

* Mathieu Roy | Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install | gimp1.2-nonfree Suggests are ok, Recommends and Depends are not ok. If you disagree with this, please discuss it on -policy, it's not a technical discussion. -- Tollef Fog Heen

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

reopen 220363 thanks Anthony Towns a tapoté : > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:00:44AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: >> Package: gimp1.2 >> Version: 1.2.3-2.4 >> Severity: normal >> >> Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install >> gimp1.2-nonfree > > If you don't want to install it,

gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

Package: gimp1.2 Version: 1.2.3-2.4 Severity: normal Hi, Installed the gimp, I got a message suggesting me to install gimp1.2-nonfree I find non-appropriate for a package in main to advertise for non-free packages in non-free, which is theoretically not part of Debian -- a package part of Debia