EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: software depending on non-US (was: Re: Hey! Why does everybody
love flaming so much? [was: `pure'])
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> &l
ceived: by wonderland.linux.it (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id B7A5398BD; Thu, 6 May 1999 19:36:52 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 19:36:52 +0200
Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: software depending on non-US (was: Re: Hey! Why does everybody love
flaming s
01:39 +0200
From: William Brioschi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: software depending on non-US (was: Re: Hey! Why does everybody
love flaming so much? [was: `pure'])
Message-
At 14:51 -0700 1999-05-09, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 05:30:26PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
>Very few stayed in main, but you can check the exact numbers yourself.
Mostly due to SSLeay/OpenSSL being compiled with IDEA support, IIRC.
I am not entirely convinced that it is corr
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 11:31:14AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >Do we consider things like libgif3g candidates for non-us/main? That's
> >currently sitting on NON-FREE because of the stupid patent on lzw! IMO
> >that's just like wrong or something. =>
> We should. If your country has silly p
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 05:30:26PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> >Very few stayed in main, but you can check the exact numbers yourself.
>
> Mostly due to SSLeay/OpenSSL being compiled with IDEA support, IIRC.
>
> I am not entirely convinced that it is correct to knock
> SSLeay/OpenSSL to non-fre
On May 08, William Brioschi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition, the packages in "main"
> * must not require a package outside of "main" for compilation or
> execution (thus, the package may not declare a "Depends" or
> "Recommends" relationship on a non-main package),
On May 09, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do we consider things like libgif3g candidates for non-us/main? That's
>currently sitting on NON-FREE because of the stupid patent on lzw! IMO
>that's just like wrong or something. =>
We should. If your country has silly patent laws it's
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 16:01:39 +0200, William Brioschi wrote:
> Excluding THE solution (eliminating non-US),
Not feasible yet.
> the correct solution IMO would be making US/non-US an orthogonal
> classification to main/contrib/non-free. I.e. a main/US, main/non-US,
> contrib/US, etc.
This is b
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 07:36:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri 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
> It also
At 22:05 +0200 1999-05-08, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
How many packages in non-US can be moved to non-US/main? How
many go to non-US/contrib and non-US/non-free?
Very few stayed in main, but you can check the exact numbers yourself.
Mostly due to SSLe
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 02:26:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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. C
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
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
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
[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 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
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
> 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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
