On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:46:08PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I see no reason why this has to be a problem. We do not have
> namespace conflicts now, even between non-us and the other archives.
Because they're supported by our archive maintainers. You're
proposing a non-free which is not.
Ha
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > We could manage non-free separately but quality control would suffer.
> > >
> > > People keep claiming this but nobody has yet shown why.
> >
> > Namespace conflicts for one.
>
> I see no reason why th
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > > > > We could manage non-free separately but quality control would suffer.
> > > >
> > > > People keep claiming this but nobody has yet shown why.
> > >
> > > Namespace conflicts for one.
> > - version c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > > > We could manage non-free separately but quality control would suffer.
> > >
> > > People keep claiming this but nobody has yet shown why.
> >
> > Namespace conflicts for one.
> - version conflicts
What do you mean?
> - compliance with the
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > We could manage non-free separately but quality control would suffer.
> >
> > People keep claiming this but nobody has yet shown why.
>
> Namespace conflicts for one.
I see no reason why this has to be a problem. We do not have
namespace confli
** On Jun 13, Hamish Moffatt scribbled:
> > Actually, some of these areas are dumping grounds for software that
> > specifically cannot meat that policy.
>
> _That_ is a bug in policy, IMHO. contrib should not be a dumping
> ground for poor quality packages. I have argued that on debian-devel
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:35:51AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So why do we need to manage it and distribute it from our servers?
> > Because that's the best way to maintain quality control. Add-on packages
> > from the Debian project must meet th
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So why do we need to manage it and distribute it from our servers?
> Because that's the best way to maintain quality control. Add-on packages
> from the Debian project must meet the Debian project's policy, which
Actually, some of these areas are dump
> "Chris" == Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> I would say alot of stuff is the OS - the kernel, glibc,
Chris> bash, X, my window manager - but to say every application
Chris> is part of the OS is silly.
I agree.
Chris> Therefore, in my eyes, to say Debian is
On 11 Jun 2000, Colin Walters wrote:
> > "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> "What is Debian?
> >>
> >> Debian is a mostly free operating system (OS) for your
> >> computer."
>
> Hamish> Not at all. The distribution contains only 'main' right
>
> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> Let's create the add-ons directory and move contrib and
Hamish> non-free in there, as Anthony proposed. (I already
Hamish> seconded that.) That's good enough to show it's not part
Hamish> of the distribution, but
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 10:54:46PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> If Debian is truly a "free operating system for my computer", then I
> see no contradiction in ceasing to distribute non-free software from
> the Debian FTP sites.
>
> Perhaps this is not what Debian really is though? Many Debian
>
> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "What is Debian?
>>
>> Debian is a mostly free operating system (OS) for your
>> computer."
Hamish> Not at all. The distribution contains only 'main' right
Hamish> now, and that's not going to change. non-fr
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 11:54:19AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> The 'free' is a hyperlink to the DFSG, so there is no ambiguity there.
> And there is certainly no ambiguity with respect to the word 'is'.
>
> If it is true that a majority of developers feel this way, then
> perhaps it should be c
> "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> Certainly the majority of vocal participants in this debate
Jules> (although whether they represent an actual majority of
Jules> developers would need a vote) have agreed that debian's
Jules> goal to create a (very) go
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > I had thought that the purpose of the `DFSG-free' discriminant was to
> > establish which packages could be distributed without onerous
> > restrictions. It now appears that this pragmatic distinction is
> > retrospectively being reimposed onto the histo
[Moved to -project, follow-ups set, I hope]
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 11:08:16AM +0100, Martin Keegan wrote:
>
> I had thought that the purpose of the `DFSG-free' discriminant was to
> establish which packages could be distributed without onerous
> restrictions. It now appears that this pragmatic
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:42:53PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Martin Keegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Crosspost & followup to -project]
> > Debian's apt-get is complicit in making software a LOT easier to discover
> > and install. That is also makes non-free software a lot easier to install
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, dare I ask, when was non-free created, and why? What were
> the reasons and who agreed to put non-free into the Social Contract and
> was Ian Murdock aware/involved?
Ian had left the project before the Social Contract was discussed
and a
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:16:27 -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
>In the Debian Manifesto Ian Murdock said that Debian would be distributed
>by The Free Software Foundation. This would effectively prevent a non-free
>section.
Why? It prevented the distribution of non-free packages as part of th
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8 Jun 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> > The creators apparently did _not_ feel there was reason for
> > non-free to exist. In the Debian Manifesto Ian Murdock said that
> > Debian would be distributed by The Free Software Foundation. This
> >
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, dare I ask, when was non-free created, and why? What were
> the reasons and who agreed to put non-free into the Social Contract and
> was Ian Murdock aware/involved?
I believe the reasons are those articulated in Paragraph Five of the
Social
On 8 Jun 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 8 Jun 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> >
> > > The creators apparently did _not_ feel there was reason for
> > > non-free to exist. In the Debian Manifesto Ian Murdock said that
> > > Debian would
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8 Jun 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
>
> > The creators apparently did _not_ feel there was reason for
> > non-free to exist. In the Debian Manifesto Ian Murdock said that
> > Debian would be distributed by The Free Software Foundation. This
>
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I disagree. It will have effect on the CD distribution. It will
> > have an effect on the http/ftp/rsync distribution.
>
> Gah, okay, this is a stupid reply but I felt the mistake warrented
> it. I intended to say 'It will NOT have effect
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My
> > proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution.
> > This bears repeating. This GR will have NO EFFECT on the distribution.
>
> I disagree. It will have e
On 8 Jun 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The reason seems to be completely political. There are no
> > technical merits to it. Letting outselves be driven by politics may
> > not be beneficial. As a change there needs to be some justificati
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The reason seems to be completely political. There are no
> technical merits to it. Letting outselves be driven by politics may
> not be beneficial. As a change there needs to be some justification and
> a solid reason to make such a change. Th
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now. Let me
> > clarify a few points:
> >
> > 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My
> > proposed General Resolution will have n
On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now. Let me
> clarify a few points:
>
> 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My
> proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution.
> This bears repeating. Thi
30 matches
Mail list logo
