Hi,
as recent discussions have shown, many do not know what our current git
hosting thingie is actually doing for us, here a few numbers, so you all
get a feel for the size:
Salsa, it being a Gitlab instance, currently
* hosts 76323 projects,
* has 14583 users,
* within 726 groups.
Those have
On 17050 March 1977, Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
That "likely" is better worded as "for a great number of people
anonymity will not exist for anyone seeing the real answers".
Also, that aggregate form would need to somehow mangle the following 3
questions up pretty good, I think.
A03 formal status
On 17049 March 1977, Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
• Survey responses are anonymous, IP and HTTP information are not
logged, and all questions are optional. As it is still likely possible
to determine who a respondent is based on their answers, results will
only be distributed in aggregate form, in a wa
On 16670 March 1977, Luna Jernberg wrote:
i think i use Gmail on my Salsa account, is it advised to change the
email to another provider if you already have an account?
Well. No, you have your account. That is, your registration did not
appear like one of the trillion spam ones we get.
You do
On 16670 March 1977, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
It looks to me that nobody knows a thing. Very good 🧀
Who is in charge?
You may want to start reading answers you are getting.
We won't allow gmail.com addresses free accounts, ever. It is one of the
worst spam sources out there. Before that,
On 16446 March 1977, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Can we delete him from planet?
Any DD can do that... oh wait that includes me... done!
I went bold and reverted this removal; the detailed reason why and the
Planet rules I believe Jonathan has breached are in the commit
message.
And you are wrong
On 16425 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
you may have noticed that we had a bit of a downtime with Salsa
recently. What follows is a short summary on how it came to be, why it
took so long, and a bit about the future of Salsa.
As I got a *huge* flamewar out of this with exactly 0 responses
Hello everyone,
you may have noticed that we had a bit of a downtime with Salsa
recently. What follows is a short summary on how it came to be, why it
took so long, and a bit about the future of Salsa.
But before we start on that, we want to thank Bastian Blank for his long
work on Salsa and it'
Hello everyone,
you may have noticed that we had a bit of a downtime with Salsa
recently. What follows is a short summary on how it came to be, why it
took so long, and a bit about the future of Salsa.
But before we start on that, we want to thank Bastian Blank for his long
work on Salsa and it'
On 16159 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
I was wondering if this alternative address was intended for a
purpose,
or just an accident. I ask on this list and not directly to DSA in
case
everybody who filled first and last name information also has this
alias.
This is not so important on my
ut to your close circle of friends, and the Community Team.
--
For the DAMs,
Joerg Jaspert
Enrico Zini
Jonathan Wiltshire
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 16087 March 1977, Martin Meredith wrote:
Nominally, I was put in charge a while back, as whoever was in charge
of it at the time didn’t want to be involved any more, and there was a
need for something to be done related to the software/server (I can’t
quite remember) - which is where Joerg wa
On 15615 March 1977, Martina Ferrari wrote:
Good to know that you prefer to include bigots in Debian in exchange for
marginalised people, I am sure the other trans and nonbinary folk in
Debian must feel very welcome around you. At least you are being open
about it.
Are you misreading him on pu
On 15614 March 1977, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
Anyway, thank you for clarifying that using people's preferred
pronouns is a requisite for being welcome in Debian. As I read them,
neither the CoC nor the Diversity Statement are explicit on that.
Maybe it would be useful to make it explicit?
They
On 15563 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[ TL;DR: the "default mail handling" option in LDAP now actually does
something by default :) and additional optional checks are available. ]
[...]
Adam
wrangling exim on behalf of DSA
Thank you!
--
bye, Joerg
On 15523 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:
Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools
I think the subject does not fit the content. Its more like "Forbid DDs
to use certain services".
No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working to
improve Debian, to use non-free tool
On 15472 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
I reply to you in private to make sure that my comments are not seen as
uttered within the Debian project, which could bring me into just
another difficult situation.
No it would not. Repeating the above as you recently love to do does not
make it a
On 15451 March 1977, Alexander Wirt wrote:
The tone is absolutely civilized.
And yet, the cost to people who have to do this education again and
again is really high.
Thats possible, but imho not a reason to kill the thread.
It is a very good reason to do so, and its sad that our listmasters
On 15409 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:
Imagine that I get a note from a random developer saying they have
removed my blog from planet. I understand what they are saying enough
to believe it is not vandalism; they honestly believe I did something
wrong. I can't understand from their message ho
On 15337 March 1977, Zlatan Todorić wrote:
So, funny, maybe we will live to our long history of community
fostering (which is the thing I most enjoy from Debian, besides that
we produce kickass OS) and be leaderless as we in all nature of
project actually are.
While the idea of going leaderles
On 15337 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote:
In fairness, I'd recommend that the nominations period be extended for
some explicit time. I think that we want to have a known window for new
nominations rather than say starting the campaigning as soon as someone
nominates themselves.
§5.2.4 to the re
On 15326 March 1977, npd...@zoho.com wrote:
I am posting an excerpt from the 'Data privacy' page
(https://www.debian.org/legal/privacy):
Service related logging
In addition to the explicitly listed services above the Debian
infrastructure logs details about system accesses for the purposes
On 15324 March 1977, npd...@zoho.com wrote:
I have gone through the link: (Exploring Cryptographic Software in
Debian's Main Archive) https://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain
I would like to clarify what I have understood: one is not allowed to
use Debian's main archive for commercial use (
On 15277 March 1977, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Thank you very much, Joerg (and DAM team) for coming up with this
proposal. I have just returned to work after a month off, and my brain
isn't yet 100% wired to be productive again (WAY off 100%, I'd say),
but this really looks like a good (although perfec
On 15277 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:
Very regrettably, it may become necessary to produce a fuller list of
incidents, including responses, to justify the recent DAM decision.
Please search your communications archives. If you have had an
adverse experience of any kind with Norbert Preining, i
On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
4. NM Committee review
--
The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the matter
in
private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not an
inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision.
I'm n
On 15276 March 1977, Thomas Lange wrote:
Do you plan an official announcement of this new procedure?
It will end up on d-d-a in a few days, provided someone doesn't find a big
flaw in it.
JFTR: Thanks Enrico for pointing me how to see the list of members
that will vote. Keep in mind that thi
On 15276 March 1977, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
we waive the time limit defined in §1 for the cases
from the last 6 months.
Would it make sense to have them 1 week from publishing this
instead?
Thanks for that. Yeah, that offer is not valid forever, but as we normally say
30 days, lets make it 14 day
Hello everyone,
One of the things that emerged from the recent discussions around DAM actions
is that we are missing a way to review or appeal DAM's decision. Currently
the only way to do this is running a full-featured GR, with all the negative
side effects such a process has.
While a GR i
On 15273 March 1977, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Appeals to the DPL wouldn't be compatible with the current
version of our constitution.
That is sort-of orthogonal to whether they'd be a good idea or
not :) Yes, I see that the constitution specifically prohibits
the DPL from withdrawing the delegat
On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit
msg is fine.
I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in
that case. I have had parts of my site stop functioning and
known of it for some time. An email from someon
On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed,
the committer should send a direct email message to the author
of the removed content explaining the reason for the removal."
Ah please not.
That keeps potentially loaded statement
On 15270 March 1977, Jonathan Carter wrote:
Dear Planet administrators and debian-project
Based on the very short amount of discussion we've had so far,
I'd like to make the following changes to
https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian
Yah, followed that, didn't see reason to add more to it. :)
On 15011 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:
> * Where appropriate, recommend action to: DAM, TC, listmaster, IRC
>operators, DPL. Information about the situation would be provided
>by the disputes team to the gatekeeper team; but the gatekeeper
>team would not be expected to make its own
On 14907 March 1977, Ximin Luo wrote:
> The current team names are a bit of a mess [1], and forcing everyone
> to use a suffix "-team" isn't helping because everyone is picking
> inconsistent prefixes instead.
> Glancing through the current list of public groups, I suggest the
> following prefixe
On 14635 March 1977, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Thank you for your fine words. The same goes for everybody else as
> well. This is going to be a bit long-winded so please excuse.
Is anything you ever wrote short? I have yet to see the day where you
produce output thats less than a dozen paragraphs. An
On 14634 March 1977, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> While Laura had shared with me that she is the only one who is behind
> the antiharassm...@debian.org, I was under the mis-guided
> understanding that pla...@debian.org was a team and not just Benjamin
> alone.
You can find out who is behind which team
On 14634 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The content should be such that it is suitable for people over 12
> years of age.
> now in the PlanetDebian wiki page added with the above revision is, if
> true, quite significant. If that is Planet Debian policy, I'll switch my
> aggregation fe
On 14263 March 1977, Paul Slootman wrote:
> As I have no idea who to contact about this, I'm sending this message to
> debian-project. I would like to transfer debian.nl to the project so
> that it's in safe hands.
And for the list, as the rest (transfer&co) is going off-list: The right
contact fo
On 13502 March 1977, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
>> /msg chanserv access #debian-WHATEVERCHANNEL @debian-chanop CHANOP
>> /msg chanserv access #debian-WHATEVERCHANNEL @debian-master MASTER
>> -> Add the group to the access list of the channel
> These two should probably be (missing "add"):
> /msg c
On 13501 March 1977, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Each channel that has the group @debian-ops in it's access list receives
> a "/mode +b *!*@*.tor-irc.oftc.net". Those who are registered can ask
> nickserv to provide them with a unique cloak tied to their account, with
> "/msg nickserv set cloak on".
On 13447 March 1977, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>> 3. to provide a place to experiment with new services
>>+ create a "Debian cloud" with virtual machines to develop new services
>> (maybe providing manually-created VMs would be enough -- I'm not sure
>> we
>> need a complex infra such
On 13446 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Q1. How much should we push for Debian services (services useful to
> Debian) to be hosted on Debian infrastructure?
A lot.
> Should I authorize the use of Debian money to fund infrastructure not
> managed by DSA, in the case of a useful service that
>> Now, I have no idea how that private discussion looks like, so I can
>> only base my observation on what I see of DSAs works and the old
>> delegation text. Which doesn't look like the role really changed? May
>> I ask what I miss?
> Over the last months, I was contacted by DDs about several i
Hi
I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez
to a
full member of the team.
Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators
accordingly.
I'd rather wait until we see where our current (private) conversation
is
going, as the job description could be u
Am 03.09.2013 12:04, schrieb Steffen Möller:
It is not just the description but the subscription policy that is
changed. But
my goal is to get some feedback about the idea in general as it
hasn't got much
traction so far. If there is no interest from companies we can
simply close the
list. Bu
On 13210 March 1977, razvi asder wrote:
> of using Asterisk in Linux distribution. I chose Debian as a Linux
> distribution and first I have to give some arguments for which I have
> chosen this type of distribution. Can you help me to give some
> advantages in using Debian and not to use other ty
> Finally, if someone wants an option to disable avatars in the
> bugreport view, I'd certainly add a patch which did that, or consider
> implementing it myself if an appropriate wishlist bug was filed with
> enough support against the debbugs package.
Not just that, I want an option to disable a
On 13102 March 1977, Christoph Egger wrote:
>>> When I encounter a work under CC BY 2.0, I have a hard time explaining
>>> Upstream
>>> why it is strictly necessary to upgrade it to 2.5 or more for their work to
>>> be
>>> distributed in Debian. What are the crucial changes that made CC BY 2.5
On 13085 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> The whole of ftp* agrees that it would be nice to have a place
>> documenting this. So much so that we started something for it in 2009,
>> see http://ftp-master.debian.org/licenses/ for it.
> Oo, that's awesome! I had no idea something lik
On 13083 March 1977, Bart Martens wrote:
> How would you organize setting up an authoritative and maintained list of
> verified DFSG-free licenses ? Which formal steps would need to be completed
> before an additional license or license version would be added to the list ?
> How to deal with mista
On 13083 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Unfortunately, we are not doing a particularly good job at documenting
> our choices --- in particular: which licenses do we consider free ---
> and at explaining the rationales behind them.
One thing first: The question if we change DFSG and docum
On 13054 March 1977, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> That's making another assumption and isn't provable or disprovable.
> Even it is somehow true now, future adopters may start making use of
> it, and they should be aware of past issues to make sure they check
> out a new enough release.
Right. So agai
On 13054 March 1977, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>> All our commits are open and get to the -dak list too.
>> The basic summary is "really old code that needs to be replaced,
>> really". In this case - a possible attack using the help of shell
>> metacharacters by a specially prepared filename due to
On 13053 March 1977, Arno Töll wrote:
>> Thanks for securing it quickly :) Is there any danger of the vulnerable
>> code being in use on other systems, e.g. as part of a dak install?
> Indeed, thanks for fixing the issue so fast.
> But full disclosure FTW. Now, that the problem is fixed please sha
>> And while the main archive got it turned back on around noon UTC, the
>> other archives just got it back. So all back to normal, nothing to
>> see, go on fixing RC bugs please. :)
> Thanks.
> Do we know if anyone tried exploiting this bug in the past?
I don't think so.
Also, most other arch
> as we have found a bug in a part of our archive software that might lead
> to remote code execution, we have stopped processing uploads until this
> bug is fixed. We expect that to happen pretty soon, though Thursday is
> more likely to see a fix than the rest of this Wednesday.
And while the m
On 13051 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:
>> maybe as a mail thread during a quieter period.
> Anyone like to suggest when that quieter period might be?
About a month after a DebConf ended.
--
bye, Joerg
Ubuntu: An ancient african word meaning "I can't configure Debian"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d
On 13016 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> My reviews are pretty long -- I could probably modify the hand-rolled
> software that generates the RSS feed to simulate a cut tag or
> something.
Oh yuck, please don't. Such things are something like the worlds second
most stupid thing ever invented. :)
On 13015 March 1977, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> AFAIK Matthew Garrett hasn't been "active and directly involved
> participant in the Debian development community" for years. What is the
> reason for keeping his blog on planet.d.o?
Lots of interesting articles, which (more or less directly) touch
Debian.
On 13015 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> So I would suggest instead that material "unrelated to Debian", but from
>> people within the broad community, is actually by far the best use for
>> Planet Debian, and that the more relevant posts are to Debian, the less
>> appropriate they are for Plan
>> >Thanks for your good intention, but please *read* what I write.
>> >I am aware of how to add myself to Planet Debian.
>> >I am unaware of how I purge the broken cache of Planet Debian.
You can't.
The stuff had been in files for 3 categories planet thinks you
ha(ve|d). theater, friends, webca
On 12873 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Do you plan to switch all *.commands to structured syntax as part of
> this change, or do you rather plan to have both structured and oneliner
> syntaxes coexist?
We plan on having it a new extension and let debianqueued ignore it
entirely, as it w
On 12803 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think some of this has since gotten simpler and I heard some rumors that
> the US was giving up on even the notification requirement for export of
> open source software, but I haven't been following the details closely.
We don't send the notices to th
On 12794 March 1977, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> a recent discussion [1] on Debian Women mailing list made me realize that
> the Debian Project, the *Universal* Operating System, doesn't have a
> diversity statement [2].
Why do we need such a statement? Are we doing something better or worse
with/w
Heyho,
this weekend I added two more lintian rejects:
udeb-uses-non-gzip-data-tarball
This is fatal, not overridable. A udeb shouldn't use anything else than
gzip currently.
bad-perm-for-file-in-etc-sudoers.d
This one can be overriden if need be, but as a wrong permission of a
sudoers file can e
Hello world,
[ We got asked how the Debian project (and especially us as delegates
handling the archive) has handled trademarks in the past, and our
opinion on how restrictive Trademark licenses can (or not) lead to DFSG
freeness issues. This topic cooked up with the special example of the
curren
> I saw you included most points raised but nothing about XZ support (even
> though it's a relatively small item in term of work compared to the rest).
> I had raised it here:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/02/msg00072.html
> Did you miss it or was this a deliberate omission?
Missed.
Heyho,
just a short reminder, next week is the FTPMaster meeting. That means,
limited service from the archive during that week, something along one
install run a day only (except we break too much, then none, but we try
not to :) ).
I'll keep you people updated during the meeting, most probably
Hey world,
as you might know from past mails there had been a short meeting today
where last questions around DebConf12 bids could be dealt with.
The major goal to sort out questions the bid teams might have did not
need to be kicked as they simply do not have any open question
currently. Instead
> I have been made aware that people use Debian resources for personal
> financial gain using the planet.d.o syndication platform, by for
> instance including 'flattr' links and images in the text present on
> planet.
> Furthermore there are reports of webbugs in some feeds syndicated on
> planet
>> > I even encourage users to use flattr to support free software with one
>> > blog post per month. Is this spam according to you?
>> Do it once in a while for whatever other project and there is not much reason
>> to complain.
> I don't understand. I have recommended 5 projects using Flattr ever
> Can you be more precise? Since I use flattr I wonder if I'm concerned.
You should be. *IMO* your posts are VERY annoying with the "support my
work, give me money money money" below them, sometimes very much looking
to be written just to spread another round of flattr links.
Might not be the int
On 12293 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I think we as a project should not tolerate such, agree so, and provide
> simple
> filter mechanisms, so that people can continue to have these links in _their_
> blog posts, while they are filtered out on http://planet.debian.org
No. I would want it
> Nowadays, It seems that planet.debian.org became an important news media
> and has a fairly large number of readers. I think that a large number of
> mails sent to d-d-a (or debian-announce) may take advantage of this media
> to gain more visibility (e.g. various RFH sent to d-d-a by various team
> Would it be a lot of work for the DM team to ask non uploading DD to
> wait some time (perhaps 6 month) as non uploading DM.
This makes no sense.
A DM is defined as someone who can upload a specially marked packaged.
WTF is a non-uploading DM? So a non-uploading uploader of a package? What?
--
Heyho,
as we have many tasks on our plate but not nearly enough time nor people
to do them all, let me try something and ask you, the project members,
to help out. No, I don't want money, though I wouldn't say no to it, of
course. Better yet. I have work to give away... And this task has the
nicet
>> Alexander helped our removal tool to gain a new option. From now on
>> we can close bugs associated to a package when doing a sourceful
>> removal. Obviously this is not enabled by default, but an option we
>> have to select whenever appropriate (not all removals mean all bugs
>>
On 12248 March 1977, Hector Oron wrote:
>> 11. debian-ports
>> [...]
>> that FTPMaster does the technic while someone else is actually
>> responsible for it. So 2 or more DDs need to sign up for the work
>> per arch, if they drop out and noone replaces, it gets removed, etc.
> I wou
On 12248 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> 15. control-suite sanity
>> Right now there is no sane version checking done when we import new
>> data into a suite using c-s. This means that in theory the release
>> managers could put packages/versions from any suite into testing
>>
>> 2. Call for volunteers
> I volunteer to help the processing the NEW queue. I have a some experience in
> inspecting packages, through working on a team that maintains more than a
> hundred of them, and through my proposal for a chain reaction of copyright
> file
> peer reviews (http://wiki.de
Hello world,
as you probably read on debian-project[1] there was a meeting of the
FTPTeam in Fulda last weekend. Mark, Alexander and myself met from
Friday til Sunday to discuss various topics we had on agenda - and to
discover multiple new restaurants all around my place. :)
And while I still mis
Hello,
in the past the policy for Debian account names was "once selected,
never changed". Considering the mass of things attached to an account,
like
- the amount of machines Debian runs,
- the (possible) mass of cronjobs,
- file ownerships, including in team directories,
- sudo rights,
- g
>> - dak policy
>>That is, a command so $whoever_DD can do "policy work" on a suite,
>>which is otherwise run by ftpmaster. Examples: backports.org,
>>volatile, possibly p-u. The teams of that define which packages go
>>in those suites, while ftpmaster runs the suite (and has the u
> | the FTPTeam will have a meeting at the weekend of 18/19th September.
> | Our preliminary agenda for this meeting is attached below, if you think
> | we should take something on it, reply, but keep in mind that the meeting
> | time is limited. :)
> If you have the time, getting some input on 3.0
Hello world,
the FTPTeam will have a meeting at the weekend of 18/19th September.
Our preliminary agenda for this meeting is attached below, if you think
we should take something on it, reply, but keep in mind that the meeting
time is limited. :)
The meeting will be held in Fulda, at my place, an
> Because of this I would like to have some means to suggest using
> #debian-ro in OFTC rather than Freenode. Currently I'm running a bot
> telling people joining that they should switch to OFTC, but I don't like
> to spam people. I also tried using to bot to redirect, but it's very
> annoying
> We would like to do move the wanna-build databases (and all logs for
> these builds) soon, so I would like to know if anyone is unhappy about
> it?
For non-free I guess/assume you keep the "needs manual approval before
package is build automagically" style? Then it should even be ok to
build on
> I hope we can agree that maintainers should be able to receive mail from
> any legitimate sender.
Yes.
> However, some maintainer addresses point to mailing lists that
> automatically reject mail from non-subscribers (without the intervention
> of a moderator). The case I am painfully aware o
Heyho,
If you are one of the majority of people that have no access to Debians
ftp-master host, but still do want to know in which state our main
archive update, the dinstall run, is:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/dinstall.status to the rescue.
This file is now updated during dinstall. It is not t
> Note that Ubuntu has a planet-like service called the Fridge which
> aggregates several non-personal blogs (AIUI), maybe Debian could do the
> same (under a different title), and aggregate the non-personal blogs
> currently on Planet Debian (AFAIK, loldebian, Debconf, DSA, now Debian
> News) and
> I have been recently wondering [2] why that feed is not on Planet. Ana
> would be glad to be there, but she has the impression that Planet policy
> forbids non-individual feds to be there. I've been checking the current
> guidelines which in fact _implicitly_ refers to individual blogs.
> Given
> In terms of rationale, I think it's clear that we do *not* have to
> package every piece of Free Software that is available to us. If we
> can't have a sensible relationship with the upstream developers, then
> I believe it would be better not to expose Debian and our users to the
> problems tha
>> Thoughts?
> I'm very much in favour of something like this. Debian is better off
> without schilyware imo.
This isnt special to that. We had/have other people as upstreams we
might not like. (How about the one that purposely added broken code in a
way that it will run on every users system bu
>> There has been some discussion in the last couple of years about
>> whether or not Debian should distribute software that was written by
>> developers that we consider to be "hostile".
> In my opinion, the current recommendation in the developer references
> is enough for now:
Different thing.
On 11858 March 1977, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> The following changes to the debian-maintainers keyring have just been
> activated:
> Usage: dak import-keyring [OPTION]... [KEYRING]
> -h, --help show this help and exit.
> -L, --import-ldap-users generate uid entries for
On 11837 March 1977, Bernd Brentrup wrote:
> ATM my standard response to requests for help is: nag DAM, I won't
> do any substantial work for Debian without having a vote.
This is surely the wrong attitude.
> What's your decision? I'd really like to contribute to Debian again,
> but there are ot
>> I think that's just you. There has been no decision by the project to
>> change the license requirements for non-free, and if the ftp masters have
>> decided this, they haven't disclosed it anywhere appropriate.
> Indeed, last time I checked, the requirement was that Debian is allowed
> to red
>> No, the project DID NOT decide it, the release team did, and the
>> project has to accept it; there's a lot of difference.
> No, the Release Team proposed a plan. The project is free to accept or
> refuse the plan. Of course refusing the plan will have its consequences
> within the Release Team
>> Disappointing to see such an announcement without any prior discussion on=20
> I'm disappointed by the decision, the timing and the process.
> I'm especially dissapointed about the "we freeze after less than a year
> of open unstable".
I agree. For myself it would mean i can stop nearly any pr
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
