Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
>> the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
>> reluc
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
> 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers, but even so,
> my guess (based on at least some empirical observation of packages I'm
> familiar with) is that many
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
> agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
> derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
> this subject.
Your strat
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for the sake of changing
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
>> >
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You quite obviously haven't read
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I
> wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward
> for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages". I
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
> rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
> than Ubuntu.
How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter?
As a rule, those other
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
> costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
> I'm quickly losing int
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
> is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any
> such tool for modifying them.
It's really a very short perl script, or a simple modification in C to
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't m
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
>>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
>> cooperates fully with Debian.
>
> Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
I wasn't aware
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
>> Debian.
>>
>> Do you have information on their plans with respect to the issues
>> discussed in this thread?
>
> The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have they modified these packages?
>
> Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
What happens to the maintainer field in these cases?
Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same
there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: t
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the field 'Orig
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
>>
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
>>
>> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
>> dialogues I have initiated and participated
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
> interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
> And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
> with Ubuntu, then you can
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> >
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
>> > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodif
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
>> > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
>> > packages in the wild that
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can't stop that; you can't say "here's the package, but nobody
>> should use it".
>
> Fortunately, no one attempted to do that. What we did do was discuss our
> plan with Python upstream and ensure that our treatment of the package
> satisfied the
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
>> >
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the bin
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to
>> >> change the maintainer field with that.
>> >
>> > Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that
>> > context.
>>
>> Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do!
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).
That's correct. These are bugs, and should be r
Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to
> me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what
> Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer
> field is a perfectly reasonable thing to do now that I
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
>> > Depend
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
> issue.
You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
> arguing on abstract philosophical grounds r
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed,
>> > though? This is only an issue when mixing packages between different
>> > derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very
>> > much inclined to try to u
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
>> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
>> contr
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem also isn't our machines but some mirror in
> low-diskspace-land.
The amount of disk it takes to carry a complete Debian copy is simply
going to be increasing. We have to tradeoff dropping a mirror or two
against the costs of weakenin
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
>> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
>> install
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
>>> of being impartia
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in
Ubuntu or merely a potential issue.
Granted if
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
>> scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
>> bindings for debconf, and what e
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey, "without any warranty" is at least a step up from "ABSOLUTELY NO
> WARRANTY", and the latter is even yelling at you.
Unfortunately, there are apparently genuine legal reasons for the all
caps. :(
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian,
>> the binaries can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in
>> Debian, because they are essentially the same package.
>
>> I
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific
> motive to change the pack
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a
> user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
> MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
> basis, across the entire
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
>> > t
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to
>>> writing any such scripts.
>
>
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's nothing that prevents us saying "we aren't going to support
> every high-level language" and stick to more than one (we already stick
> to two -- sh and Perl). It just means "I'd like to write scripts in X"
> alone isn't a good enough reason.
Ye
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
>> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
>> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
>> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone mi
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
>> >> p
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We can burn those bridges when we come to them. Right now there's only
> one such distribution, with one such language, which has already done
> all the work to strip it down to a small size.
Scalability problems do not happen because someone failed to
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
> agreed with it. In which case those asse
Anthony Towns writes:
> In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
> suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
> felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
> DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on
> such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who
> should be trusted?
So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless?
--
To
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
>> > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
Anthony Towns writes:
> Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no]
> If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no]
> Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no]
>
> As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances
> we
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two
> votes were not about the GFDL.
Why did we take the second vote?
Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
required the removal of GFDL docs fr
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their
> DFSG interpretations wi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
>> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
>> time we are bei
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Christopher Martin]
>> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
>> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
>> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
>> agree with the
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to
> draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the
> viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not.
> Our fellow readers ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
>> old wording that can lead us to accept non-fr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide po
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> with the scripting needs for at l
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
>> an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
>
> Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot unders
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >>
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prior to GFDL, GNU Manuals used to have the same kinds of restrictions
> like invariant sections but noone has ever battled for moving them
> to non-free. Then came GFDL and people suddenly decided to change
> the "de facto" rules. This is the kind of
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> convinced they have been deceived.
Who, please?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
>> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
>> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
>> changes?"
> I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either.
Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
to take elementary steps to avoid deception" h
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> right.
Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secret
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
>> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
>> dec
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
>> > right.
>&g
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If only 200 out of 1000 care enough to vote, then those are the people
> who get to make the decisions. We can't force developers to vote, so
> we can't be paralyzed into inaction by saying we can't do something
> because not enough people sent in a vote.
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, it *did* pass a simple majority. It doesn't benefit us as a
> project at all to have people making overly-broad claims about the
> significance of the previous votes. When I look at the relatively low
> turnout of 2004-03, the complaints sinc
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> Josselin Mouette <[EM
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
>> required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
>> was not worth delaying the releas
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a person
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
>> > set or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret
>> > the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily
>> > decide to make the pa
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he
must make a determination as best as h
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard
> resolution procedure are inappropriate.
Perhaps you have misunderstood me because I was unclear.
I am not trying to suppress anything. I am concerned that the
procedure is
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote
> by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the
> very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation).
Having a majority vote amou
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
>> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
>> another GR with the effect
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
>> >
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the
>> > silly
>> > fraud t
Anthony Towns writes:
> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.
Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't
include supervisory elements.
However, Debian is different
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to
> determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there
> isn't, then the "if" in the first part of your sentence is never
> satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical.
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the
> GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make
> Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological.
Actually, I'd rather we could keep them.
And we do have
Henning Glawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a 'patch' in the first run is also an extension to the original source;
> only an interpreter (in most cases, /usr/bin/patch) makes a 'change' from it.
Right, but the point is that the binary does not include the relevant
bits at all. By contrast, the
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Debian was mostly unaware of the existence of these invariant
>> sections, and the problem had not been greatly discussed.
>
> Do you mean people never read licenses before?
I do not know of any evidence that people were aware of the invariant
section
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
>>> counts almost 1000 devel
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For instance, how does shipping Emacs with verbatim essays from RMS, the GNU
> Manifesto, and any other stuffs like that makes it non-free? Will removing
> them make Debian more free? I doubt anyone is going to convince me of this,
> despite the interp
Henning Glawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:52:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > a 'patch' in the first run is also an extension to the original source;
>> > only an interpreter (in most cases, /usr/bin/patch) makes a
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> No, because I thought that they (and the GFDL) passed the DFSG. Why
>> would I "speak up" about a license that, at the time, I thought passed
>&
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not to day that Python is bad - It has better OO, which Perl
> unfortunately negletted fromt he very starts. Now, talk about Perl OO
> and that's hairy!.
Actually, Python *also* ignored OO at the beginning.
It has grafted it on, but since real OO
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 19, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
>> fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main.
> Because it's good for Debian and is good for our users.
Regardless, we a
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You definitely didn't get the point! It's about the target architecture, not
> the system. Even if you actually _have_ the source, you could not compile
> with _any_ compiler you have at hand.
This is not what the DFSG says. The DSFG says that all
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure. The unfortunate side effect is that some reasonable fraction of
> people who would use those drivers cannot install from install media
> that contain only Debian. They require bits of non-free. As is often
> pointed out, Debian has chosen (twice
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Exactly what is the "technical solution" for installing drivers for
> firmware-requiring hardware if you only have Debian proper (i.e. main)
> available? That is the situation I described, and I really do not see
> any technical solution for it, no matt
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In other words, exactly as I said: if the user only has Debian, the
> hardware will not be usable.
Right. Debian does not support any hardware for which we don't have a
free driver. Is this news?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Me just doesn't get the rationale behind differing between firmware
> in a PROM and firmware that the driver loads into the
> hardware. There is none.
If the firmware is non-free, then we shouldn't distribute either.
Exactly right: we should treat bot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 20, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Come on. The farce is that, two years later, people are _still_
>> complaining because they didn't read the thing they voted on, or that
>> they didn't bother to vote at all. Can you all please
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as the second statement being the reason that most of us want
> ndiswrapper in main, that may be true, but it is no excuse to ignore rules
> that are very clearly laid out in the SC and DFSG.
I'm a little confused here. How does putting ndiswrapp
301 - 400 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
