On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 08:06:58AM -0700, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> You'll also find most people are against another section for any reason (see
> debian-devel archives last year regarding the 'cd-ok' section flame war).
The arguments against that were general CUA and technical implementation.
It'
Hello again.
Some more food for thought:
On 06-May-99 Joey Hess wrote:
> Ossama Othman wrote:
>> Certainly libtool is fully capable of linking against shared libraries which
>> don't have .la files, but being a mere shell script it can add considerably
>> to the build time of a libtool using pack
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
---
Please forgive this repeat post. This is just a post so that I can get
my proposal into the BTS.
---
The latest GNU libtools (>= 1.3a) can take advantage of installed
libtool archive files (`*.la'). According to Thomas Tanner (one of t
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 01:09:10AM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>
> I guess `contrib' or `non-free' is no big deal to a student or
> hobbyist, but to a professional, it is, since that means you might
> have to pay someone for a licence if you base your product on that
> `non-free' library or wha
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> BC> My two little pennies worth. I'm sort of against the "pure"
> BC> concept, but only because main is _supposed_ to be pure, by it's
> BC> own definition.
>
> I would be happy with either way. Here's my current vote:
>
> [
This should be of interest:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/05/06/2122239&mode=nested
Of course, the DOJ is appealing, but we can hope that things will go well.
Then there would be no need for non-US.
--
Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - whois JKK12
NoDomainNa
Ossama Othman wrote:
> Certainly libtool is fully capable of linking against shared libraries which
> don't have .la files, but being a mere shell script it can add considerably
> to the build time of a libtool using package if that shellscript has to derive
> all this infomation from first princip
Ossama Othman wrote:
> Where do we stand on my proposal to include `.la' files in `-dev'
> packages?
>
> This is my first proposal on debian-policy. Is there a "procedure" I
> need to follow to make the proposal official (I noticed some people
> filing wishlist bug-reports) or is just posting a p
> Joey Hess writes:
JH> Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>> Some software in main is totally useless to me because my
>> computers don't send/receive *any* information to/from non-free
>> software, and they run all the software in main.
>>
>> `main' is big enough as it is. If we gut it, I'll h
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> Some software in main is totally useless to me because my computers
> don't send/receive *any* information to/from non-free software, and
> they run all the software in main.
>
> `main' is big enough as it is. If we gut it, I'll have more room on
> my tiny hard disk. M
> Marco d'Itri writes:
>> No. Contrib gets two types of packages: Those packages that
>> require linking with non-free software and those packages that
>> cannot be built from the source package without installing
>> non-free software. In theory
Md> It also gets 100% free software depe
> Ian Lynagh writes:
IL> Something I've never understood is why an "ICQ shaped" IRC client
IL> could not be made. We have away messages, we have private
IL> messages, we have channels, we have notify lists - AFAICT the
IL> only difference is in the UI of the clients and the number of
IL>
> Jon Marler writes:
JM> Would someone please drop me a line when the flamewar in
JM> debian-policy is over.
I'm done flaming now. If James, Branden, Manoj, and Joseph are also
done, or would rather continue in private, then we'll be back to normal.
JM> I'm going to unsubscribe until the
[Anybody who wants to discuss this matter further with me can take it
up in private e-mail. I've wasted enough of the list's time as it
is.]
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
>> BTW, I find it somewhat laughable for you to righteously claim
>> that you didn't want to see what I wrote.
PSG> rig
Package: debian-policy
On May 06, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No. Contrib gets two types of packages: Those packages that require
>linking with non-free software and those packages that cannot be built
>from the source package without installing non-free software. In theory
I
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph Carter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> >ICQ is a _DOCUMENTED_ protocol.
>>
>> By Mirabilis or still by the guy who worked it out by sniffing packets?
>
>IIRC, the answer is at this point "both"... Mi
Hi,
Where do we stand on my proposal to include `.la' files in `-dev'
packages?
This is my first proposal on debian-policy. Is there a "procedure" I
need to follow to make the proposal official (I noticed some people
filing wishlist bug-reports) or is just posting a proposal to this
mailing list
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 06:31:43AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
It is a shame to think that -policy might even have to resort to something
like this because some people can't keep their discussions focused on
issues or even know when a discussion has
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> PSG> How about apologising for subjecting the test of us to them?
>
> Nope. Sorry (for not apologizing for ``subjecting'' you to them).
>
> BTW, I find it somewhat laughable for you to righteously claim that
> you didn't want to see what I wrote.
righteously claim
Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find this quite some piece of work and since I would like Debian
> support non-interactive installation I will take a deeper look at your
> proposal, and suggest changes, but I find it quite thorough.
>
> Regards
>
> Jav
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 08:06:58AM -0700, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> You are talking about separating out main because of moral reasons, not
> technical reasons like the one behind contrib's creation in the first
> place, and I don't see a need for it.
The reason contrib exists is a moral one -- it'
Would someone please drop me a line when the flamewar in debian-policy is
over.
I'm a brand spanking new maintainer, and it's hard enough to keep up with
everthing else than to read pages upon pages upon pages of a flamewar.
I'm going to unsubscribe until the dust settles and everybody is friends
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
>> All in all, I think my words achieved exactly the desired effect,
>> so I'm not going to apologize for them. Sorry (for not
>> apologizing).
PSG> How about apologising for subjecting the test of us to them?
Nope. Sorry (for not apologizing for ``subjecti
> Robert Woodcock writes:
RW> Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>> [Note: I'm not advocating tossing packages out of `main', I'm
>> arguing that we should make a symlinked-to-`main' distro called
>> `pure'. See my proposal.]
RW> You are talking about separating out main because of moral
RW> rea
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>[Note: I'm not advocating tossing packages out of `main', I'm arguing
>that we should make a symlinked-to-`main' distro called `pure'. See
>my proposal.]
You are talking about separating out main because of moral reasons, not
technical reasons like the one behind contrib
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> PSG> I hope you apologise to the list. I don't subscribe to it to
> PSG> read this kind of language or treatment of people.
>
> All in all, I think my words achieved exactly the desired effect, so
> I'm not going to apologize for them. Sorry (for not apologizing).
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
>> I find it revolting that you think your own irresponsibility when
>> it comes to Debian's quality translates into *me* as a naive
>> end-user ``needing a psychiatrist.''
PSG> Huh? "That's Not My Problem" != You need a psychiatrist.
Yeah, I did drop a littl
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
PSG> So word2x could add a pager for plain ASCII and comply with
PSG> pure, because it doesn't *require* a non-free document to be
PSG> useful. i.e. add unrelated functionality that complies with
PSG> `pure'.
Yes.
I'd be surprised if the author actually accep
> Collins M Ben writes:
JC> I object to what I feel would be a policy which narrows the
JC> definition of "truly free" software beyond that which the social
JC> contract and DFSG currently provide.
BC> My two little pennies worth. I'm sort of against the "pure"
BC> concept, but only beca
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> [Note: I'm not advocating tossing packages out of `main', I'm arguing
> that we should make a symlinked-to-`main' distro called `pure'. See
> my proposal.]
>
> > Karl M Hegbloom writes:
>
> KMH> We've accepted that the Linux kernel itself can go into [pure],
>
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> [Note that I'm only taking an inflammatory tone because you've adopted
> one towards me,
> Continue acting like an ignorant asshole...
> That doesn't make the rest of
> your ideas any less stupid and irrational, or any more mer
> JC> I object to what I feel would be a policy which narrows the
> JC> definition of "truly free" software beyond that which the social
> JC> contract and DFSG currently provide.
>
> Then you've proven yourself to be a legalist, and not somebody who is
> capable of actually *writing* policy.
I find this quite some piece of work and since I would like Debian
support non-interactive installation I will take a deeper look at your
proposal, and suggest changes, but I find it quite thorough.
Regards
Javi
> Santiago Vila writes:
SV> Need a little clarification to understand this:
SV> Currently: Debian == main. After this, how things would be,
SV> Debian == pure + main or Debian == pure?
After my proposal:
Debian == main
Pure Debian == pure
So, `Pure Debian' is just a proper subset of `D
> Karl M Hegbloom writes:
KMH> I apologize to the harumpfers who can't tolerate my ocasional
KMH> flippant episodes...
I quite like 'em. Keep it up.
--
Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www
[Note: I'm not advocating tossing packages out of `main', I'm arguing
that we should make a symlinked-to-`main' distro called `pure'. See
my proposal.]
> Karl M Hegbloom writes:
KMH> We've accepted that the Linux kernel itself can go into [pure],
KMH> even though it's got support for non-
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
1 TERMINOLOGY
MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MAY, and MAY NOT are taken to have
their IETF RFC meanings.
A FLAMEWAR is a debate that increases in energy without reaching any
conclusion.
A PROPOSAL is a proposed change to the Debian Policy document.
On 4 May 1999, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> Proprietary protocols are a problem. Let's create a new distribution
> to set apart the packages that can work 100% when connected to a
> network that uses only free software (say an intranet that runs only
> Debian GNU `main').
>
> Free ICQ clients fail
[Thanks, Havoc. You've got a great sense of direction.]
> Havoc Pennington writes:
HP> 1. Decide what it is you are trying to achieve.
Total independence from non-free software.
HP> What *actual practical benefit* can be shown to exist *in a
HP> predictable, relatively short timeframe*,
[Note that I'm only taking an inflammatory tone because you've adopted
one towards me, simply because my idea reminds you of James', and you
don't like the way James acted in the past. Drop it, start acting
like a human being towards me, and I'll treat you nicely again.
I'm running a little exper
I apologize to the harumpfers who can't tolerate my ocasional flippant
episodes...
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> "Joel" == Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Joel> I suggest not using the term versioning to refer to sonames,
>Joel> it is too easy to confuse it with symbol versioning.
>
> Where may we read about symbol versioning and things of t
> "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> The question is if we can continue to get stronger
Marcus> indefinitely by embracing the proprietary world, or if it
Marcus> is time at one point to actively go against proprietary
Marcus> protocols and software
I guess `contrib' or `non-free' is no big deal to a student or
hobbyist, but to a professional, it is, since that means you might
have to pay someone for a licence if you base your product on that
`non-free' library or whatever.
> "Joel" == Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joel> I suggest not using the term versioning to refer to sonames,
Joel> it is too easy to confuse it with symbol versioning.
Where may we read about symbol versioning and things of that nature,
please?
I propose that we say that software that can read a proprietary file
format or network protocol is Ok for main, as long as it's linked
(ln) to libraries that can go in main, and the company or person who
wrote the original protocol or file format doesn't object to our
using it (or the a
> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> [...] people who run Debian who want a functional system,
Anthony> in spite of some alleged impurities?
^^
What?! Cruft in Debian? No way; I'll never believe it.
Anthony> [...] people
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> [...], so someday we may have all free systems
Hmmm... `freed systems'?
> "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Remco> Now, I ask the same question again but with a little
Remco> difference: Since Policy defines which packages can go into
Remco> 'main' and which can't, can somebody please point out which
Remco> part of Policy these
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 08:33:40PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
First note: There aren't any free TrueType editors? That's not good. There
don't even seem to be any projects to create one. That's not good either.
It's nice to see that this sort of discussion points out areas where free
software is
Luis> I've been snooping on this list and thread for quite some
Luis> time, but this one finally made me need to respond.
Welcome, Luis.
Luis> On 4 May 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all software is
>> free. Neither are
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all software
Manoj> is free. Neither are all protocols. Sometimes, some
Manoj> communication protocols gain popularity with the masses
Manoj> that have no free imple
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 09:50:48PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> > Joseph Carter writes:
>
> [...]
>
> JC> I came up with a list of packages affected:
>
> JC> afterstep, aview, cgoban, cjk-latex, dox, enlightenment,
> JC> enlightenment-docs, enlightenment-nosound,
> JC> enlighte
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 08:58:19PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> JC> ICQ is a _DOCUMENTED_ protocol. The clients couldn't have been
> JC> written freely without that documentation could they? There are
> JC> also at least two projects working to create free ICQ servers,
> JC> one of them
Hi,
Third party perspective: the reason this is a neverending unproductive
conversation is because there is no focus. Let's drop all the grandiose
speculation and philosophizing (a quick web search would turn up countless
examples of my own guilt; so no fingers pointed).
Here are the steps to ma
> Joseph Carter writes:
[...]
JC> I came up with a list of packages affected:
JC> afterstep, aview, cgoban, cjk-latex, dox, enlightenment,
JC> enlightenment-docs, enlightenment-nosound,
JC> enlightenment-theme-brushedmetal, enlightenment-theme-clean,
JC> enlightenment-theme-cleanbi
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
MS> e) Explain to me how having a [free] client implementation is any
MS> dofferent from the early days of GNU, when everyhing needed an
MS> non-free OS to run on.
You aren't going far back enough. The two situations would only be
comparable if nearly every Inte
Interesting to note are TTFs...
There are free TrueType font files, but I cannot find a free TTF editor
or converter. So the only way to have a TTF is if you created it with
non-free software that I can find... Based on james' reasoning above as
I understand it, this means that TrueType stuff ca
> Joseph Carter writes:
>> Free ICQ clients fail this requirement, because on such a network,
>> there wouldn't be any servers, so it would be silly to claim that
>> they work ``just as well''.
JC> ICQ is a _DOCUMENTED_ protocol. The clients couldn't have been
JC> written freely without
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
MS> a) This is a lot of work, creating a new distribution,
Seeing as James Troup is one of the people who can do the work, I
don't see why this should bother you. Nobody's asking *you* to do any
work, Manoj, we're just discussing an idea.
MS> moving all but a f
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 03:39:02AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> Yes, I'm sorry to have missed that. Both of you are obviously right.
>
> Now, I ask the same question again but with a little difference: Since
> Policy defines which packages can go into 'main' and which can't, can
> somebody plea
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You're mistaken.
>
> The DFSG tells us whether software goes into non-free or not.
>
> All software in contrib is DFSG-free.
On 5 May 1999, James Troup wrote:
> No it does not. Please read the DFSG. Policy defines what can and
> can't go in main.
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >ICQ is a _DOCUMENTED_ protocol.
>
> By Mirabilis or still by the guy who worked it out by sniffing packets?
IIRC, the answer is at this point "both"... Mirabilis did release
documentation on the protocol. That's what led to discover
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:59:31PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > Since the DFSG defines which packages can go into 'main' and which
> > can't,
>
> No it does not. Please read the DFSG. Policy defines what can and
> can't go in main.
This isn't a simple matter of modifying the policy document!
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 12:13:45AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> Some people have been arguing that probrams that are only useful if you
> use them to talk to a non-free server should not be in main.
>
> Since the DFSG defines which packages can go into 'main' and which can't,
> can somebody ple
65 matches
Mail list logo
