On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please see: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:27:47AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> The holes in that page are so large you could drive fleets of roadtrains
> through them.
I'm disregarding this as a troll.
> I refer specif
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
> Please see: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
The holes in that page are so large you could drive fleets of roadtrains
through them. I refer specifically to "you own that copy of the software",
which implies that you own that copy, and are free to do what
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> \begin{sophistry}
Chris> Since non-free isn't part of Debian-the-distribution, is it really
Chris> subject to policy? Sure, it'd be nice if the stuff in there followed
Chris> policy, but since it's not Debian who cares.
Chris> \e
Are we talking djbdns? Then there's also the security issue to deal with.
Bind's full of holes, and we can't reliably state that Debian will be "in
the loop" on Vixie's 'leet fix0rs list. Right now, dismissing out of hand
ANY bind alternative cannot be done in good conscience. Historically, it
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
> > code or 100% FHS compliance?
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:44:52AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> The latter. But note that non-free is not part of Debian.
Ok.
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
> code or 100% FHS compliance?
The latter. But note that non-free is not part of Debian.
Also, see http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq#djb
--
Chris Waters |
On Feb 06, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
> > code or 100% FHS compliance?
>
> A further comment (from Paul Jarc):
>
> The FHS says: "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
> code or 100% FHS compliance?
A further comment (from Paul Jarc):
The FHS says: "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system
administrator when installi
Please see: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
code or 100% FHS compliance?
Thanks,
--
Raul
9 matches
Mail list logo
