On Thu, Sep 17 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:47:10AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, what happens if somebody wants to maintain software where there
>>> is a strong set of opinion that we don't want it? In this ca
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:24:15PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >Still, I fail to see exactly how Steve was proposing to solve the
> >issue. He mentioned a vote, but to me the proposal was too vague to even
> >understand what we can vote about.
> Oh, absolutely. :-) I don't have a concrete propos
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:47:10AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> Well, what happens if somebody wants to maintain software where there
>> is a strong set of opinion that we don't want it? In this case, I'd
>> like to delegate the power to the ftpma
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:16:38PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 00:12:18 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>I'm very much in favour of something like this. Debian is better off
>without schilyware imo.
That's an obvious example, but (as others have pointed o
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:11:54AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:42:45PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > In my opinion, the current recommendation in the developer
>> > references is enough for now:
>
>I concur.
>
>> Different thing. This encourages the maintainer to
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 06:42:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>On Thu Sep 10 12:53, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Well, what happens if somebody wants to maintain software where there
>> is a strong set of opinion that we don't want it? In this case, I'd
>> like to delegate the power to the ftpmaster
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:16:38PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 00:12:18 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> > Thoughts?
> >
> I'm very much in favour of something like this. Debian is better off
> without schilyware imo.
it's sadly not only about shilly. Some tuomoware i
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:07:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu Sep 10 12:53, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > Well, what happens if somebody wants to maintain software where there
> > > is a strong set of opinion that we don't want it? In this cas
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Thu Sep 10 12:53, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Well, what happens if somebody wants to maintain software where there
> > is a strong set of opinion that we don't want it? In this case, I'd
> > like to delegate the power to the ftpmasters to say so and r
On Thu Sep 10 12:53, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Well, what happens if somebody wants to maintain software where there
> is a strong set of opinion that we don't want it? In this case, I'd
> like to delegate the power to the ftpmasters to say so and reject from
> NEW etc. If we have a clear consensus t
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:42:45PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > In my opinion, the current recommendation in the developer
> > references is enough for now:
I concur.
> Different thing. This encourages the maintainer to think if he wants
> it. Now, what if the maintainer wants it (hey, some pe
> 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 Thu, Sep 10 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:00:53AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>>If someone really want to maintain such package, we should not
>>prohibit it, but we should make it clear that it is strongly
>>recommended to not maintain such package, and that th
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:00:53AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>[Steve McIntyre]
>> 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 cu
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 00:12:18 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Thoughts?
>
I'm very much in favour of something like this. Debian is better off
without schilyware imo.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
[Steve McIntyre]
> 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:
If
The developers reference now contains a paragraph concerning hostile upstreams:
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/developer-duties.html#upstream-coordination
http://bugs.debian.org/523985
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-req
Hi folks,
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". I also ended up talking
to multiple people at DebConf about this issue and it was suggested
that we should ha
20 matches
Mail list logo
