On Wed, 5 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:47:57PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Gord" == Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava writes:
> MS> I formally ask for seconds to this objection to this
> MS> proposal.
>
> Gord> If you get seconders, then I will withdraw
> shaleh writes:
s> What if as discussed previously, deb packages had some extra info
s> that apps like dselect/apt/foo can key off of.
[...]
s> No stigma need fall on packages.
Beautiful.
I also like Marcus' name `strict'... `non-strict' doesn't have the
same stigma as `non-pure'.
Seei
What if as discussed previously, deb packages had some extra info that apps
like dselect/apt/foo can key off of.
User in the settings of said app chooses 'hide non-free, non-strict, contrib'
and ends up with only packages which RMS would use (-:
Default would be access to all. And even later, sa
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:04:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Anthony> Yes, we're urging them to make the server free too. But
> Anthony> we're not forcing them, and they can *certainly* resist our
> Anthony> demands.
>
> The person who wrote the client may have nothing to do w
Bug: 37233
Title: FORMAL structure for DEBIAN-POLICY debate
Posted: 07 May 1999
Proposer: Gordon Matzigkeit
Seconders:
Status: unknown
Description:
Lays out a set of legalistic guidlines to be used when discussing
changes to policy. Spurred by recent flamefest on debian-policy.
Notes:
Manoj Sriv
Hi,
>>"Gord" == Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
MS> I formally ask for seconds to this objection to this
MS> proposal.
Gord> If you get seconders, then I will withdraw my proposal. However, I
Gord> myself will honour it (i.e. I will formally struc
Your message dated 07 May 1999 14:01:29 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Withdrawn
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
Gord> ``The freedom to use the best features of the program, while
Gord> boycotting all non-free software. (freedom 4)''
MS> And, I think, would take the Free software foundation
MS> furhter away from the Linux community in general. So be it. It is
MS>
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
MS> I wish Alex were around.
Who's Alex?
--
Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
> shaleh writes:
s> So is Debian to choose what to boycott? or the user?
The user. Debian simply would give them the tools to do so, by
distinguishing `pure' software from the rest.
What we'd have to vote on is whether we want `main' to be `pure', or
to make `pure' separate.
s> It seems
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:27:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Why are we putting his code out of Debian? Cause he did not
>> also go and write up the server. "Sure, yuo wrote GPL'd code, which
>> does not link with any non-free libs, bu
Hi,
>>"Gord" == Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gord> I keep forgetting that not everybody thinks the same way I do.
Quite so.
Gord> I think that the FSF definition of free software
Gord> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) will soon include a fifth
Gord> leve
Hi,
>>"Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> Great! That's two seconders (Marcus and Marcelo). Do we have a
Ossama> general consensus to make an ammendment to the Policy?
Please retitle this bug as [AMENDMENT] ..., and mention in the
proposal the wording you w
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:27:10 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
packaging-manual_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been de
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:27:10 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
packaging-manual_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been de
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:27:10 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
packaging-manual_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been de
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 07 May 1999 13:26:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 11:02:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I wish Alex were around.
I bet for the first time *grin*
Marcus
ducks, rans really fast, hits a wall, drops down.
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann
Hello.
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 11:58:08PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> Let me suggest one possibly large cost that you did not mention: loss of
> focus. Right now Debian has a clear message that unifies developers. A
> kind of mission statement. It is also a message that Debian effectively
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 12:36:00AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I formally ask for seconds to this objection to this
> proposal. (If it helps, I shall formally call this proposal a troll).
I second that. =>
Otherwise if we can't object to it strongly enough, I propose we add the
de
>
> ``The freedom to use the best features of the program, while
> boycotting all non-free software. (freedom 4)''
>
> [1] ACCEPT freedom to boycott, and change the DFSG accordingly
> [2] ACCEPT freedom to boycott, but only change the definition of `main'
> [3] ACCEPT freedom to boycott, but only
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
MS> I asked a few mails ago about what changing the mirors,
MS> procedures and other miscellaneous tasks involved in creating a
MS> new distribution buys us, and I have yet to hear any answer, let
MS> alone a compelling one.
I keep forgetting that not ev
Hi,
On 7 May, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:34:46PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
>
> > As such, installing the `.la' files in `-dev' packages seems like a good
> > idea, especially for static linking issues. Many developers do not
> > include the `.la' files in the
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I hereby formally object to this proposal, as I think this is
> something that merely add bureaucracy to the list, and shall fdo
> little to actually increase throughtput.
>
> The Debian policy list has so far been a fairly
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:34:46PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
> As such, installing the `.la' files in `-dev' packages seems like a good
> idea, especially for static linking issues. Many developers do not
> include the `.la' files in the `-dev' packages. My proposal is to make
> packages that
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
MS> I formally ask for seconds to this objection to this
MS> proposal.
If you get seconders, then I will withdraw my proposal. However, I
myself will honour it (i.e. I will formally structure all my own
proposals, to try to facilitate their clarity).
MS
I packaged up dpkg-question and adapted qvwm (from the jp debian dist)
to use it a bit. Please have a look at it and the proposal. Both are
available at:
ftp://mirjam.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/pub/debian/
Some more sample packages and a nice looking configuration frontend
will follow.
May the
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:27:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why are we putting his code out of Debian? Cause he did not
> also go and write up the server. "Sure, yuo wrote GPL'd code, which
> does not link with any non-free libs, but that ain't good enough. Now
> go back and writ
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I formally ask for seconds to this objection to this
> proposal. (If it helps, I shall formally call this proposal a troll).
Seconded.
The troll was amusing, vaguely, but speaking as someone who's trying to
summarize policy proposals weekly, it was a waste of m
HI,
I am going to reply to this posting in parts.
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 02:27:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> We have lost the opportunity to get a foothold in yet another
>> area. I think it would be arroga
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I hereby formally object to this proposal, as I think this is
> something that merely add bureaucracy to the list, and shall fdo
> little to actually increase throughtput.
>
>The Debian policy list has so far been a fairly informa group
Hi,
I hereby formally object to this proposal, as I think this is
something that merely add bureaucracy to the list, and shall fdo
little to actually increase throughtput.
The Debian policy list has so far been a fairly informa group,
and yes, we are fractious, and often enthu
Hi,
>>"Gord" == Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gord> All in all, I think my words achieved exactly the desired effect, so
Gord> I'm not going to apologize for them. Sorry (for not apologizing).
Gord> I bet that you (dear reader) will never forget to be extra polite,
Gord> unde
Hi,
>>"Gord" == Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gord> [1] TOSS THINGS INTO CONTRIB
Gord> [2] NEW PURE DISTRIBUTION
Gord> [ ] STATUS QUO
And mine:
[ ] TOSS THINGS INTO CONTRIB
[2] NEW PURE DISTRIBUTION
[1] STATUS QUO
BC> My opinion, get back to the roots of our goa
On 6 May 1999, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> HP> 1. Decide what it is you are trying to achieve.
>
> Total independence from non-free software.
>
...
> Benefits: `pure' will make it easy for Debian users to participate in
> a boycott of all non-free software. This will help channel support
> towa
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:42:45PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:01:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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.
> None that I
Hi,
On 6 May, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Waters wrote:
> > I would like to know more about the pros and cons of the proposal
> > before participating in any sort of "consensus". My impression has
> > been that libtool is mostly not needed on Linux-based systems. So,
> > I'm a little dubious
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 07:36:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I'm opening a bug against the policy and I propose that those words in
> 2.1.3:
>
> "non-free", or "non-US"
>
> be replaced by the words:
>
> or "non-free"
I'll second this as soon as it's proposed. This should have been done
alre
Chris Waters wrote:
> I would like to know more about the pros and cons of the proposal
> before participating in any sort of "consensus". My impression has
> been that libtool is mostly not needed on Linux-based systems. So,
> I'm a little dubious about the idea of requiring it in -dev packages.
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ossama Othman wrote:
> > Where do we stand on my proposal to include `.la' files in `-dev'
> > packages?
[...]
> Currently your proposal has only one seconder, it needs another. At that
> point it can become an amentment to policy if the group is in consensu
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 07:04:33PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Do you have a URL please?
Not immediately handy.
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:01:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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.
None that I know of. Correcting this would be good though, anybody else
intereste
Oops, forgot to amswer this:
On 06-May-99 Joey Hess wrote:
> As far as I can see linux's shared library format allows specification of
> inter-library dependancies. So I hope an example is forthcoming..
Linux elf libraries do not (reliably) allow interlibrary dependencies between
shared and stati
Ok, I think I've heard enough concrete evidence of how .la files can be
beneficial. I'm no longer objecting to making this policy, although I don't
strongly feel we should.
--
see shy jo
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 09:30:53AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> RW> You are talking about separating out main because of moral
> RW> reasons, not technical reasons like the one behind contrib's
> RW> creation in the first place, and I don't see a need for it.
>
> Some software in main is t
56 matches
Mail list logo
