Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Could some one please have a look at the non-US licences, and
> determine which should be non-US/main and which should be
> non-US/non-free?
If you look at /org/non-us.debian.org/ on pandora.debian.org (same
account/password as on master) you can see that this
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
I just wanted to add my proposal to the BTS. Discussion started on
Wed, 28 Apr 1999, and there have been 4 seconders:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suggested wording to replace section 4.8.
4
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I think I tend to agree. Could some one please have a look at
> > the non-US licences, and determine which should be non-US/main and
> > which should be non-US/non-free?
>
> I understand that this is going to happen or
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.1.0
Seconders: Marcus Brinkmann, Marcelo E. Magallon
Description (from Joey Hess):
.la files aren't useless, libtool can use them and they are essential
to programs that use libltdl. Proposal is to include .la files in -dev
packages if they are produced by
Your message dated Sat, 8 May 1999 16:40:11 -0500 (CDT)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line reopening as AMENDMENT
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 respon
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think I tend to agree. Could some one please have a look at
> the non-US licences, and determine which should be non-US/main and
> which should be non-US/non-free?
I understand that this is going to happen or is in the process of happening,
as we move to the n
Hi,
>>"Marco" == Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marco> I'm opening a bug against the policy and I propose that those words in
Marco> 2.1.3:
Marco> "non-free", or "non-US"
Marco> be replaced by the words
Marco> or "non-free"
I think I tend to agree. Could some one please ha
Hi,
I think we have descended to a level of nit picking that is at
odds with reaching a common ground. I am sorry, I am not interested
in debate for the sake of debate. If you think we can indeed reach a
commn ground, we should continue. Or else we should let the people on
the list de
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Depends on the people who are involved in this work, not on
Marcus> me or you (sorry if I didn't realize that you are involved,
Marcus> but I can'r recall right now).
I tend to be cautious about being over eager to
Hi,
>>"Georg" == Georg Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do we have the right to deprive users of choices just because
>> we see no reason to do stuff? Sounds a trifle draconian.
Georg> Uhm - putting TIK
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 02:49:18PM +, Georg Bauer wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph Carter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I ask you again, is a perl script which reads freshmeat only good enough
> >for contrib because scoop hasn't published sources to his CGIs?
>
> Hu? You d
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do we have the right to deprive users of choices just because
> we see no reason to do stuff? Sounds a trifle draconian.
Uhm - putting TIK into contrib doesn't "deprive users of choices", it only
slims down main
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph Carter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I ask you again, is a perl script which reads freshmeat only good enough
>for contrib because scoop hasn't published sources to his CGIs?
Hu? You don't access Freshmeat over the free protocol HTTP? Funny.
To be specific: a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
- --J6FFpFs/nX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> We just would need a setup where those interests don't collide. There is the
> real problem: People who feel strong about Free Software (mora
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 10:46:42PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Marcus> Obviously, the work should be done by the people who propose
> Marcus> or people willing to help them, so this is a non-issue, IMHO.
>
> Is this possible? You need the help of the archive
> maintainers, the m
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 37298 boot-floppies
Bug#37298: problems with cfdisk and fdisk
Bug assigned to package `boot-floppies'.
> reassign 37277 nonus.debian.org
Bug#37277: non-us.debian.org: powerpc packages files not uptodate for unstable
Bug reassigned from package
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> 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"
Seconded (if there aren't already a sufficiency of seconds).
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 12:58:32AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Tell me if I'm wrong... but if the `logrotate' process runs out of
> > time, a process switch happens, (or just happens at the same time, on
> > an SMP box), then `syslogd' runs and writes to the file, right after
> > the copy, but befo
Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>
> What I get for trying to read C before the man page
>
> Never mind. The copytruncate option does what it's supposed to.
Whew.
(It looks like prerotate and postrotate commands can be used to stop and
start daemons that you'd otherwise need to use copytruncate fo
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 12:58:32AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Any comments or ideas?
>
> There's a proposal in debian-policy that logrotate be made our preferred log
> rotation method. It's pretty close to becomeing an amendment. I don't think
> that should happen while logrotate remains so obvio
Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> I'm looking at the source to `logrotate'. It opens the log file, and
> then creates a new file, and does a read/write loop to copy the log
> file over to the new one, then uses `ftrunctate' to truncate the log
> file.
Pardon me while I gag.
> Tell me if I'm wrong... but
[
For those looking for just a summary, scroll down about a screen
]
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:04:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> Since when is code in contrib not free software?
>
> If it were really fee, it would be in Debian. Debian is seen
> as a bastion of free so
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> What I find distracting in these lines of argumentation is
Marcus> that it implies that we ban and throw out such
Marcus> non-free-server dependant code out of Debian.
That is the alternative I find most objectiona
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:04:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 01:59:44PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> As a note, RMS just wrote me back:
[..]
Would you mind posting the whole email? I am VERY curious as to RMS'
stand on this whole issue, especially if it includes thoughts on the
software in contrib, which if I recall correctly h
(Welcome to yet another cc-o-rama)
Previously Oliver Elphick wrote:
> 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).
>
> second
Seconded as well
Wichert.
--
===
26 matches
Mail list logo
