On Monday 22 March 2004 16:24, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Martin Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-22 15:51]:
> > There is this list of QA maintained packages, however. I don't use
>
> Half of this stuff doesn't exist in unstable anymore.
Oops, sorry, i always forget about the stable Debian mac
* Martin Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-22 15:51]:
> There is this list of QA maintained packages, however. I don't use
> any of them and currently can't put more into my 'queue of
> promises'.
Half of this stuff doesn't exist in unstable anymore.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 20 March 2004 11:36, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:47:52AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > "not changing things" is effectively a removal of non-free:
> > >
> > > Some bug-free contrib and non-free packa
> > PS. Dict'ing the subject line confuses me even more. While i
> > certainly have fun with the software, i hope that the originator of
> > this subject did not mean to 'defeat expectation through trickery'
> > or 'oppress'?
> no
> "Screw" is a synonym for "fuck", and as it is not a 4-letter wor
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:16:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:55:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:39:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > A package was built by the maintainer for one architecture.
> > > Can I be sure, that the licence
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:55:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:39:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > A package was built by the maintainer for one architecture.
> > Can I be sure, that the licence allows rebuilding it on another
> > architecture?
>
> Not without readi
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:47:52AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > "not changing things" is effectively a removal of non-free:
> >
> > Some bug-free contrib and non-free packages are waiting for more than
> > one year to enter testing s
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> "not changing things" is effectively a removal of non-free:
>
> Some bug-free contrib and non-free packages are waiting for more than
> one year to enter testing since they were not rebuilt on all
> architectures.
File ftp.debian.org
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:55:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:39:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > A package was built by the maintainer for one architecture.
> > Can I be sure, that the licence allows rebuilding it on another
> > architecture?
>
> Not without readi
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:36:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 11:55:56AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > The buildds currently ignore non-free packages.
> > > How do you propose to rectify or work around that? Will passing Anthony
> > > Towns's proposed amendment autom
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:39:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> A package was built by the maintainer for one architecture.
> Can I be sure, that the licence allows rebuilding it on another
> architecture?
Not without reading the license, no. Apparently there've been packages
like this in the past
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 11:55:56AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > The buildds currently ignore non-free packages.
> > How do you propose to rectify or work around that? Will passing Anthony
> > Towns's proposed amendment automatically rectify it?
> > If not, shouldn't we have a plan in place for
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:51:28PM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:28:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> >>I've started occasionally building powerpc non-free packages with a
> >>private sbuild installation (I should set up buildd too, but ha
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:28:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I've started occasionally building powerpc non-free packages with a
private sbuild installation (I should set up buildd too, but haven't got
round to it). It's relatively slow work since I need to check the
copyrig
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:28:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> I've started occasionally building powerpc non-free packages with a
> private sbuild installation (I should set up buildd too, but haven't got
> round to it). It's relatively slow work since I need to check the
> copyright files fir
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> Out of date in non-free by arch
> ---
> alpha 72
> arm78
> hppa 72
> i3866
> ia64 67
> m68k 59
> mips 101
> mipsel103
> powerpc53
> s390 81
> sparc 80
>
> Many packages in
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:11:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:45:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > > To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
> > > > maintainers even if the s
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:45:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
> > > maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
> >
> > Out of date in n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "JR" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> Supporting non-free and contrib also complicates all our tools
Me> and confuses people as to what "Debian" is.
JR> Neither of which is as tangible as the amount of effort
JR> n
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 01:02:54PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Supporting non-free and contrib also complicates all our tools and
> confuses people as to what "Debian" is.
Neither of which is as tangible as the amount of effort necessary to switch,
so you have to understand that there are peopl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "HM" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HM> I don't think the removal of non-free from debian.org can be
HM> justified on the basis of time & effort alone.
Of course not. Supporting non-free and contrib also complicates all o
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:32:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I'm undecided as to whether I would bother to contribute to non-free.org
> if Suffield's GR passes. I couldn't care less about a couple of my
> non-free packages, but I know that a few of them are quite important to
> our CJK users.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
> > maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
>
> Out of date in non-free by arch
> ---
> alpha 72
> arm
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:15:02PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > "HM" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> HM> Perhaps it is, but is that important? Anyone who works on
> HM> non-free is volunteering their time to do so. Nobody is being
> HM> forced or coerced. So
(No need to CC me.)
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
> > maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
>
> Out of date in non-free by arch
> ---
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:15:02PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > "HM" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> HM> To our users who were used to quality packages from
> HM> accountable maintainers even if the software wasn't 100%
> HM> DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
>
> The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "HM" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> Having Debian-the-project put time or effort into anything
Me> that isn't Debian-the-OS is wasteful.
HM> Perhaps it is, but is that important? Anyone who works on
HM> non-fr
> To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable
> maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man.
Out of date in non-free by arch
---
alpha72
arm 78
hppa 72
i386 6
ia64 67
m68k 59
mips101
mipsel
28 matches
Mail list logo
